"Christian "....forum

[Vinny37]

Jesus said to them, “Most assuredly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I AM.”

Um, you seem to me to be asking me why I believe as you do in the deificity of Jesus. I certainly use Jhn.8:58 (NIV: “‘Very truly I tell you,’ Jesus answered, ‘before Abraham was born, I am!’”), as you do. Jesus was/is deific.

I would flag up though that in this absolute use of εγω ειμι, he was not of course denying the persons of the father and the spirit (there is more to the trinity than Jesus), let alone denying his noncarnate self beyond time, nor was he saying that he was incarnate in any omni-form (eg omni-present; omni-sapient, etc).

In Greek Is.40‑55 uses ‌egō eimi for the Hebrew ’anî hû’ (lit. “I am he”). Eg 41:4; 43:10,13,25; 46:4; 48:12—see Dt.32:39. Note that a common use of the term existed, as in Jhn.9:9, and that there are predicated sayings—eg Jhn.8:12/9:5; 10:7/9; 10:11/4.

 

[JLB]

Um, you seem to me to be asking me why I believe as you do in the deificity of Jesus. I certainly use Jhn.8:58 (NIV: “‘Very truly I tell you,’ Jesus answered, ‘before Abraham was born, I am!’”), as you do. Jesus was/is deific.

I would flag up though that in this absolute use of εγω ειμι, he was not of course denying the persons of the father and the spirit (there is more to the trinity than Jesus), let alone denying his noncarnate self beyond time, nor was he saying that he was incarnate in any omni-form (eg omni-present; omni-sapient, etc).

In Greek Is.40‑55 uses ‌egō eimi for the Hebrew ’anî hû’ (lit. “I am he”). Eg 41:4; 43:10,13,25; 46:4; 48:12—see Dt.32:39. Note that a common use of the term existed, as in Jhn.9:9, and that there are predicated sayings—eg Jhn.8:12/9:5; 10:7/9; 10:11/4.

I asked you a simple question.

Here it is again -


Why did the Jews pick up stones to stone Him when He said ... "before Abraham was, I AM."

 

[Vinny37]

I asked you a simple question.

Here it is again -

Why did the Jews pick up stones to stone Him when He said ... "before Abraham was, I AM."

[I asked you a simple question], says you, having highlighted [I’d rather question whether a forum should be said to be Christian if people assert that Jesus is God. I am a trinitarian and affirm the deificity of Jesus who began life c.6 BC] from me.]

Ah, and to think that I took it as a challenge. I guess I simply thought it strange otherwise, that you should specifically ask me and no one else to A that Q, especially as IMO the A is obvious, namely, that Jesus claimed deificity, which in their opinion was blasphemy (similarly Jhn.10:33). I am relieved to now know that it wasn’t a challenge over my dismissal of Jesus-is-God parlance, which embraces a number of heresies. Please consider that simple Q answered.

 

[JLB]

[I asked you a simple question], says you, having highlighted [I’d rather question whether a forum should be said to be Christian if people assert that Jesus is God. I am a trinitarian and affirm the deificity of Jesus who began life c.6 BC] from me.]

Ah, and to think that I took it as a challenge. I guess I simply thought it strange otherwise, that you should specifically ask me and no one else to A that Q, especially as IMO the A is obvious, namely, that Jesus claimed deificity, which in their opinion was blasphemy (similarly Jhn.10:33). I am relieved to now know that it wasn’t a challenge over my dismissal of Jesus-is-God parlance, which embraces a number of heresies. Please consider that simple Q answered.

Why did the Jews pick up stones to stone Him when He said ... "before Abraham was, I AM."


If you don’t know then just say so and I will answer the question for you.

 

[Free]

Jesus claimed deificity, which in their opinion was blasphemy (similarly Jhn.10:33).

What do you mean by “deificity”? There is no such word, so do you mean “deification” or “deity” or something else?

I am relieved to now know that it wasn’t a challenge over my dismissal of Jesus-is-God parlance, which embraces a number of heresies.

Which heresies?

 

[Vinny37]

Why did the Jews pick up stones to stone Him when He said ... "before Abraham was, I AM."


If you don’t know then just say so and I will answer the question for you.

Sorry, but if you are able to read #23 supra, you will see the answer is already on the plate, simples. But please don't repeat asking a What's 2+2? unless you can understand the answer 4. It's a little tedious, not to say insulting. If you wish to say θεος, fine, yet the translation of deificity covers that well.

 

[Vinny37]

What do you mean by “deificity”? There is no such word, so do you mean “deification” or “deity” or something else?

Which heresies?

[What do you mean by “deificity”? There is no such word, so do you mean “deification” or “deity” or something else?]

The base word is in a few books. Deification denotes a non-deity become deific—not my meaning; deity denotes a substance, ουσια, that is noncarnate—not my meaning. Jesus is the permanent temporal mode of the uncreated eternal second person of the uncreated society. He was not adopted into deity-ness, nor was/is he noncarnate eternality. He was therefore deific, linked as a mode to deity, as God the son carnate. Therefore he was/is deific, and we may speak of both his humanity and his deificity.

[Which heresies?] Heresies such as in Hillsong’s “You alone are God, Jesus” (Reuban Morgan). Firstly Morgan formally dismissed the father & spirit as being ‘God’. Second, he limited deity to the carnate Christ, dismissing the noncarnate son. I think that Hillsong have pumped out many a Sabellian song, as if the father, son, and spirit, are three modes, one person, so effectively saying that the father died on the cross (patripassianism), since Jesus is apparently the father (!). No, that’s confusing the persons.

And how many fall for Apollinarianism, saying such as Jesus having worked miracles by his own deity (Jesus-is-God fullstop), contra Mt.12:28? No, Jesus is a pattern. To avoid such heresies, we need to differentiate members of the triunity (one name, three persons: Mt.28:19). The one name is based on the one substance/‌essence/‌ousia (Athanasius). And we are wise IMO to stick with Paul’s highlight of the term θεος to the father (eg 1 Cor.8:6), so translate otherwise for God’s son: even θεος has a semantic range.

Factoring systematic theology into John, in Jhn.1 we would read that the noncarnate Logos was with God [the father], and was deity [in substance] (v1), and became carnate, human, Jesus (v14).

There is more to deity (θεος) than God’s noncarnate son, and more to God’s noncarnate son than carnate Jesus, but Jesus has a one-of-a-kind deific link/connection, deificity.

 

[JLB]

Sorry, but if you are able to read #23 supra, you will see the answer is already on the plate, simples. But please don't repeat asking a What's 2+2? unless you can understand the answer 4. It's a little tedious, not to say insulting. If you wish to say θεος, fine, yet the translation of deificity covers that well.

I dont see any answer to a simple question, sir.

This is a discussion and you are free to express your beliefs.

Since you don't seem to know the answer to the question, I will answer it for you.

Jesus said to them, “Most assuredly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I AM.”
Then they took up stones to throw at Him; but Jesus hid Himself and went out of the temple, going through the midst of them, and so passed by. John 8:58-59

The Jews were picking up stones to stone Him for blasphemy, which was claiming He was I Am; The Lord God who appeared to Moses in the burning bush.

Do you believe Jesus was commenting blasphemy by invoking this Name for Himself?




JLB

 

[tigger 2]

I dont see any answer to a simple question, sir.

This is a discussion and you are free to express your beliefs.

Since you don't seem to know the answer to the question, I will answer it for you.

Jesus said to them, “Most assuredly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I AM.”
Then they took up stones to throw at Him; but Jesus hid Himself and went out of the temple, going through the midst of them, and so passed by. John 8:58-59

The Jews were picking up stones to stone Him for blasphemy, which was claiming He was I Am; The Lord God who appeared to Moses in the burning bush.

Do you believe Jesus was commenting blasphemy by invoking this Name for Himself?




JLB

..................................................
Some trinitarians say, the Jews understood perfectly that Jesus was claiming to be Jehovah when he used those two words because they immediately took up stones to kill him.
But these Jews of Judea had already decided beforehand to kill Jesus! (John 7:1, 25) They needed no further incentives. Nothing that Jesus said or did at this point would have made any difference to them.

Mk 14:61-64 shows Jesus declaring he is the Christ and that the Jews will see him (the son of man) at the right hand of God. This "blasphemy" of claiming to be the Messiah (whom the Jews never considered to be God) caused the Jews to condemn Jesus to death - see footnotes for Mk 14:61, 63 in The NIV Study Bible.

The words ego eimi formed a phrase that was in very common use by first century Christians and Jews and in New Testament scriptures. It was certainly not understood (by Jews or Christians) as declaring one's Godhood! If it could have been understood that way, we can be sure the Jews would have never applied it to themselves (as they did so frequently)!

Notice, for example, how the former blind man (John 9:9) actually identifies himself by saying "ego eimi," but none of the other Jews present, even for a moment, understood him to be claiming to be Jehovah!

And Jesus earlier ( in John 6:20 mentioned above) clearly identified himself by saying to his frightened disciples: ego eimi. None of his disciples considered that to mean that Jesus was claiming to be God. In fact, most trinitarian-translated Bibles render Jesus’ words identifying himself here as “It is I.” E.g., ASV; AMP; CJB; DARBY; DRA; ESV; GNT; GNV; HCSB; ISV; JB; KJV; KJ21; TLB; MEV; MLB; MOUNCE; NAB; NASB; NCV; NEB; NET; NIV; NKJV; NLV; NRSV; REB; RSV; WEB; and WE.

Furthermore, Jesus was replying to the question of how he could know Jesus because he was a young man. In answer Jesus does not say "before Abraham was, I God." as trinitarians wish. Instead he was answering the actual question of of his age:

These translations (most by trinitarians) render ego eimi at John 8:58 as:

(1) “I HAVE BEEN” - alternate reading in 1960 thru 1973 reference editions of NASB
(2) “I HAVE BEEN” - The New Testament, G. R. Noyes
(3) “I HAVE BEEN” - “The Four Gospels” According to the Sinaitic Palimpsest, A. S. Lewis
(4) “I HAVE ALREADY BEEN” - The Unvarnished New Testament
(5) “I HAVE EXISTED” - The Bible, A New Translation, Dr. James Moffatt
(6) “I EXISTED” - The New Testament in the Language of Today, 1964 ed., Beck
(7) “I EXISTED” - An American Translation, Goodspeed
(8) “I EXISTED” - The New Testament in the Language of the People, Williams
(9) “I EXISTED” - New Simplified Bible
(10) “I WAS IN EXISTENCE” - Living Bible
(11) “I WAS ALIVE” - The Simple English Bible
(12)“I WAS” - Holy Bible - From the Ancient Eastern Text, Lamsa
(13)“I WAS” - Young’s Literal Translation of the Holy Bible, 1st ed. (Also see Young’s Concise Critical Commentary, p. 61 of “The New Covenant.”).
(14) “I WAS” - The Syriac New Testament, Jas. Murdock
(15) “I WAS” - H. T. Anderson
(16) “I WAS” - Twentieth Century New Testament
(17) "I EXISTED" - New Living Translation (NLT)

 

[JLB]

..................................................
Some trinitarians say, the Jews understood perfectly that Jesus was claiming to be Jehovah when he used those two words because they immediately took up stones to kill him.
But these Jews of Judea had already decided beforehand to kill Jesus! (John 7:1, 25) They needed no further incentives. Nothing that Jesus said or did at this point would have made any difference to them.

Jesus said to them, “Most assuredly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I AM.”
Then they took up stones to throw at Him; but Jesus hid Himself and went out of the temple, going through the midst of them, and so passed by. John 8:58-59

The scripture plainly says when Jesus said to them ... before Abraham was, I AM, THEN they picked up the stones to stone Him.
Regardless of their intentions to want to kill Him in the past, it was THEN, when He said before Abraham was, I AM,
that they actually picked up the stones to stone Him to death for what the believed was blasphemy.



Now Moses was tending the flock of Jethro his father-in-law, the priest of Midian. And he led the flock to the back of the desert, and came to Horeb, the mountain of God. And the Angel of the LORD appeared to him in a flame of fire from the midst of a bush. So he looked, and behold, the bush was burning with fire, but the bush was not consumed. 3 Then Moses said, “I will now turn aside and see this great sight, why the bush does not burn.”
So when the LORD saw that he turned aside to look, God called to him from the midst of the bush and said, “Moses, Moses!” And he said, “Here I am.”
Then He said, “Do not draw near this place. Take your sandals off your feet, for the place where you stand is holy ground.” Moreover He said, “I am the God of your father—the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob.” And Moses hid his face, for he was afraid to look upon God. And God said to Moses, “I AM WHO I AM.” And He said, “Thus you shall say to the children of Israel, I AM has sent me to you.’ ” Exodus 3:14Exodus 3:1-6,14





JLB

 

[Free]

[What do you mean by “deificity”? There is no such word, so do you mean “deification” or “deity” or something else?]

The base word is in a few books. Deification denotes a non-deity become deific—not my meaning; deity denotes a substance, ουσια, that is noncarnate—not my meaning. Jesus is the permanent temporal mode of the uncreated eternal second person of the uncreated society. He was not adopted into deity-ness, nor was/is he noncarnate eternality. He was therefore deific, linked as a mode to deity, as God the son carnate. Therefore he was/is deific, and we may speak of both his humanity and his deificity.

[Which heresies?] Heresies such as in Hillsong’s “You alone are God, Jesus” (Reuban Morgan). Firstly Morgan formally dismissed the father & spirit as being ‘God’. Second, he limited deity to the carnate Christ, dismissing the noncarnate son. I think that Hillsong have pumped out many a Sabellian song, as if the father, son, and spirit, are three modes, one person, so effectively saying that the father died on the cross (patripassianism), since Jesus is apparently the father (!). No, that’s confusing the persons.

And how many fall for Apollinarianism, saying such as Jesus having worked miracles by his own deity (Jesus-is-God fullstop), contra Mt.12:28? No, Jesus is a pattern. To avoid such heresies, we need to differentiate members of the triunity (one name, three persons: Mt.28:19). The one name is based on the one substance/‌essence/‌ousia (Athanasius).

Okay. So, you haven’t supported your claim that “Jesus is God . . . embraces a number of heresies.” All you’ve shown is that there are those who embrace certain heresies, and that happens regardless of whether or not one believes Jesus is God.

And we are wise IMO to stick with Paul’s highlight of the term θεος to the father (eg 1 Cor.8:6), so translate otherwise for God’s son: even θεος has a semantic range.

As long as you then stick with Paul also saying that Jesus is Lord, which means that we should never say the Father is Lord. Paul ascribes incommunicable attributes of God to Jesus (1 Cor 8:6; Phil 2:5-7; Col 1:16-17), which can only mean that the Son is also truly God. There is only one who can have the incommunicable attributes of God and that would be God. Wouldn’t you agree?

Factoring systematic theology into John, in Jhn.1 we would read that the noncarnate Logos was with God [the father], and was deity [in substance] (v1), and became carnate, human, Jesus (v14).

The Word is the pre-incarnate Son. Being that he is God in nature, he does not and cannot cease to also be God when taking on human flesh.

There is more to deity (θεος) than God’s noncarnate son, and more to God’s noncarnate son than carnate Jesus, but Jesus has a one-of-a-kind deific link/connection, deificity.

I really don’t understand what you’re saying here. It would be helpful if you used the language common to discussions of the Trinity and deity of Jesus.

 

[Free]

..................................................
Some trinitarians say, the Jews understood perfectly that Jesus was claiming to be Jehovah when he used those two words because they immediately took up stones to kill him.
But these Jews of Judea had already decided beforehand to kill Jesus! (John 7:1, 25) They needed no further incentives. Nothing that Jesus said or did at this point would have made any difference to them.

And before that:

Jhn 5:16 And this was why the Jews were persecuting Jesus, because he was doing these things on the Sabbath.
Jhn 5:17 But Jesus answered them, “My Father is working until now, and I am working.”
Jhn 5:18 This was why the Jews were seeking all the more to kill him, because not only was he breaking the Sabbath, but he was even calling God his own Father, making himself equal with God. (ESV)

Not to mention that everything John records about Jesus is predicated on the Son of God being the eternal, preexisting Word that was God in nature. The Jewish leaders were right for believing that Jesus was claiming equality with the Father.

 

[tigger 2]

"Not to mention that everything John records about Jesus is predicated on the Son of God being the eternal, preexisting Word that was God in nature." - Free.​

................................................................​

John 20:31 - John sums up his Gospel​

The conclusion of John was not the blockbuster news that Jesus was God. It wasn't that Jesus was equal to God in any sense. In spite of mistranslations and misinterpretations by many Bible translators, John clearly stated what Jesus believed at John 17:3. But even more clearly is John's personal statement concerning the conclusion of his Gospel.

John 20:30: "Jesus did many other miraculous signs which are not recorded in this book. 31: But these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name. - New International Version Study Bible (NIVSB), Zondervan, 1985.

And the footnote for John 20:31 in the NIVSB says: “…. This whole Gospel is written to show the truth of Jesus’ Messiahship and to present him as the Son of God”.

But ‘Messiah’ and ‘son of God’ were never understood to mean God Himself!

In the language of the OT ... rulers and judges, as deputies of the heavenly King, could “be given the honorific title ‘god’ ... or be called ‘son of God’.” - footnote for Ps. 82:1, NIVSB.

Today’s Dictionary of the Bible (trinitarian), p. 591, Bethany House, 1982: “In Job 1:6; 38:7 this name [‘sons of God’] is applied to the angels.”

An Encyclopedia of Religion, Ferm, 1945 ed., p. 726, “Son of God: Hebrew religion was strictly monotheistic, and the term ‘Son of God’, as found in the OT, must not be understood in any literal sense. It has its origin in the Semitic idiom which expresses any intimate relation as one of sonship. As royal ministers are sons of the king, so the angels are sons of God, and this name is likewise given to judges and sovereigns, ruling in God’s name.”

So we see that John’s whole Gospel was to show who was the Messiah! If he had believed in the trinity (or ‘Jesus is God’), he would certainly have made a great, unmistakably clear declaration of it!! But he did not!

This is of great importance since none of the earlier Gospels made any clear statement showing Jesus to be God! If any such thing were believed by the Apostles and Bible writers, it would have to be found here in John’s conclusion!

 

[Free]

"Not to mention that everything John records about Jesus is predicated on the Son of God being the eternal, preexisting Word that was God in nature." - Free.​

................................................................​

John 20:31 - John sums up his Gospel​

The conclusion of John was not the blockbuster news that Jesus was God. It wasn't that Jesus was equal to God in any sense. In spite of mistranslations and misinterpretations by many Bible translators, John clearly stated what Jesus believed at John 17:3. But even more clearly is John's personal statement concerning the conclusion of his Gospel.

John 20:30: "Jesus did many other miraculous signs which are not recorded in this book. 31: But these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name. - New International Version Study Bible (NIVSB), Zondervan, 1985.

And the footnote for John 20:31 in the NIVSB says: “…. This whole Gospel is written to show the truth of Jesus’ Messiahship and to present him as the Son of God”.

But ‘Messiah’ and ‘son of God’ were never understood to mean God Himself!

In the language of the OT ... rulers and judges, as deputies of the heavenly King, could “be given the honorific title ‘god’ ... or be called ‘son of God’.” - footnote for Ps. 82:1, NIVSB.

Today’s Dictionary of the Bible (trinitarian), p. 591, Bethany House, 1982: “In Job 1:6; 38:7 this name [‘sons of God’] is applied to the angels.”

An Encyclopedia of Religion, Ferm, 1945 ed., p. 726, “Son of God: Hebrew religion was strictly monotheistic, and the term ‘Son of God’, as found in the OT, must not be understood in any literal sense. It has its origin in the Semitic idiom which expresses any intimate relation as one of sonship. As royal ministers are sons of the king, so the angels are sons of God, and this name is likewise given to judges and sovereigns, ruling in God’s name.”

So we see that John’s whole Gospel was to show who was the Messiah! If he had believed in the trinity (or ‘Jesus is God’), he would certainly have made a great, unmistakably clear declaration of it!! But he did not!

This is of great importance since none of the earlier Gospels made any clear statement showing Jesus to be God! If any such thing were believed by the Apostles and Bible writers, it would have to be found here in John’s conclusion!

This all just begs the question though, right? You are presuming that “Son of God” means Jesus isn’t also truly God; you are presuming that “Messiah” means he isn’t also truly God; and you’re presuming that if Jesus was God, John would have said so at the end of his gospel.

What you’re leaving out is that John 1:1-18 informs us of who Jesus is—God in human flesh, but not the Father—and just what it means for him to be the Son of God. Everything else about Jesus begins there.

John records Jesus claiming to be the I Am, claiming to have preexisted, claiming to have come down from heaven, claiming to have been loved by the Father prior to creation, claiming to have shared in the Father’s glory, and claiming to be one with the Father. The Jews understood Jesus’s claim that by calling God his Father, he was claiming equality with God. As they did when he claimed the name I Am and then claimed to be the Son of God (John 10:30-38). John also records Thomas’s clear confession of Jesus being his Lord and his God, as well as several times his followers worshipped him.

Does John really need to repeat himself at the end of his gospel? Is it any surprise that John says these things and no other gospel writer when John’s gospel was among the last books written (all of his books were the last to be written)? Is it any surprise that John continues is Revelation by applying titles of God to Jesus and says his name is The Word of God?

Should we then be surprised when Paul twice (1 Cor 8:6; Col 1:16-17) repeats what John stated in John 1:3, when he repeats John 1:1, 14 (Phil 2:5-8), calls Jesus God (Rom 9:5), and applies an OT verse about YHWH to Jesus, even linking it to salvation (Rom 10:9-13)?

Should we be surprised when the writer of Hebrews repeats John 1:1, 3 (Heb 1:2, 3) and applies two OT passages to the Son, with the Father calling the Son God and YHWH?

That is just scratching the surface; there is much more that can de shown which is evidence that the Apostles believed Jesus, as the Son, was equal to the Father.

 

[GodsGrace]

Well John, let me ask you, How do we know they are "deceivers". Are you just being judgmental???


They deny that Jesus is God, come in the flesh. Is that important?
Is not every persons opinion valid? Who are you to judge!

Oh John, hold on now! Are you being unloving? You cannot comment like that even if people openly deny the biblical Christ! You should just explain to them...I'm okay/ Your Okay.

John, are you suggesting that denying this openly, is open sin???
I notice that you suggest that such a person HATH NOT GOD! Horror of horrors. You are commenting on such a persons "salvation". I know you are an Apostle, but you are in danger of violating a TOS rule, by suggesting this is to be committing transgression by their open denial of Christ's deity!
They can make such denials, we allow them to do so, but we will censor you for saying they are in danger of the second death!


That might be okay for you John, but do not suggest you alone have truth on this.

That does not sound very nice. Not quite seeker sensitive enough. Throttle it back John.

So... we sin if we allow this to go on ,unopposed? Not very inclusive John!

Icon,
Please note that in two posts you're replying to yourself but addressing another member.
Please use the REPLY button to respond to a member.

 

[Iconoclast]

Icon,
Please note that in two posts you're replying to yourself but addressing another member.
Please use the REPLY button to respond to a member.

I know. I could not edit my post, so I quoted myself so I could clarify it .