• CFN has a new look and a new theme

    "I bore you on eagle's wings, and brought you to Myself" (Exodus 19:4)

    More new themes will be coming in the future!

  • Desire to be a vessel of honor unto the Lord Jesus Christ?

    Join For His Glory for a discussion on how

    https://christianforums.net/threads/a-vessel-of-honor.110278/

  • CFN welcomes new contributing members!

    Please welcome Roberto and Julia to our family

    Blessings in Christ, and hope you stay awhile!

  • Have questions about the Christian faith?

    Come ask us what's on your mind in Questions and Answers

    https://christianforums.net/forums/questions-and-answers/

  • Read the Gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ?

    Read through this brief blog, and receive eternal salvation as the free gift of God

    /blog/the-gospel

  • Taking the time to pray? Christ is the answer in times of need

    https://christianforums.net/threads/psalm-70-1-save-me-o-god-lord-help-me-now.108509/

  • Focus on the Family

    Strengthening families through biblical principles.

    Focus on the Family addresses the use of biblical principles in parenting and marriage to strengthen the family.

Data on John 1:1

The idea of Jesus being called “one Lord” would most certainly be a problem if the Father alone is Lord.
As you suggest, “it necessarily follows that “one Lord, Jesus Christ" precludes the Father from being Lord.”

But thanks to the scripture and the great wisdom and knowledge they contain, they answer this “problem” for us.
All that is needed is that one search the scripture for truth rather than have committed themselves to the doctrines of men.

When we refer to Jesus as Lord, it means that he has come in the name of his God and Father. This he said so himself right there in the scripture.
The scripture also declares that his God has made him to be Lord. Again, right there in the scripture.

So, when we refer to Jesus as Lord, we recognize that he comes in the name of his God, was made Lord by his God, and has all power and authority his God has given him. No other man can this be said of.

So, for us who rely on the scripture for truth rather than false teaching of men, we find just what we need right there in the scripture to defend the truth against all false doctrines of men.
Philippians 2:11
And that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.


The title "Lord" (Greek, Kurious) as Kittel's observes, means "one who has full authority." In the Old Testament, God alone had "full authority" and filled both functions of Creator (Elohim) and Lord (Jehovah). Jehovah is used in connection with men with whom He has entered into some kind of covenant, starting with Adam in Genesis 2:7, and including Israel. Several redemptive characteristics and divine functions are associated with the sacred name Jehovah (Yahweh), including giving righteousness (Jeremiah 23:6), healing (Exodus 15:26), sanctification (Exodus 31:13), providing (Genesis 22:14), protection from enemies (Exodus 17:15), giving peace (Judges 6:24), and being continually present (Ezekiel 48:35). These functions can be assumed and/or delegated by persons having the authority. God has delegated many, if not all of these divine functions to Jesus Christ to share in as "Lord."
Stephen full of Faith and Power (2000), p. 38 {https://walking-by-the-spirit.com}
 
The title "Lord" (Greek, Kurious) as Kittel's observes, means "one who has full authority." In the Old Testament, God alone had "full authority" and filled both functions of Creator (Elohim) and Lord (Jehovah). Jehovah is used in connection with men with whom He has entered into some kind of covenant, starting with Adam in Genesis 2:7, and including Israel.
We get your thesis, that you claim Jesus Christ was a man endowed by God to many divine functions and so then became Lord by divine appointment.

It's strange Peterlag7, for you have faith that scriptures are breathed out of God and yet make bold statements like above that are simply not true. Let me show you:

From John 6:38 "For I have come down from heaven, not to do my own will but the will of him who sent me." Also from John 8:58 "Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I am.”".

John 6:38 and John 8:58 plainly state that Jesus was not a mortal man. That is He had existence prior to Abraham and came down from heaven. So what was Jesus then?

From John 10:38 "but if I do them, even though you do not believe me, believe the works, that you may know and understand that the Father is in me and I am in the Father.”

From simple math if set A is in set B and set B is in set A, then A and B are equal. Hence Christ is saying he is equal to the Father, that is Christ is also God.

I am just amazed Peterlag7 at this point. Many do not believe scriptures are breathed out of God, yet you do and make false claims like the one I replied to.

From 2 Timothy 4:3-4 "For the time is coming when people will not endure sound teaching, but having itching ears they will accumulate for themselves teachers to suit their own passions, and will turn away from listening to the truth and wander off into myths."

The truth is that about 2000 years ago when The Lord walked the Earth, He was both mortal and divine. Prior to that during and after He was, is and will always be God, equal to the Father with no beginning nor end. The rest is myths spawned by men.
 
Last edited:
We get your thesis, that you claim Jesus Christ was a man endowed by God to many divine functions and so then became Lord by divine appointment.

It's strange Peterlag7, for you have faith that scriptures are breathed out of God and yet make bold statements like above that are simply not true. Let me show you:

From John 6:38 "For I have come down from heaven, not to do my own will but the will of him who sent me." Also from John 8:58 "Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I am.”".

John 6:38 and John 8:58 plainly state that Jesus was not a mortal man. That is He had existence prior to Abraham and came down from heaven. So what was Jesus then?

From John 10:38 "but if I do them, even though you do not believe me, believe the works, that you may know and understand that the Father is in me and I am in the Father.”

From simple math if set A is in set B and set B is in set A, then A and B are equal. Hence Christ is saying he is equal to the Father, that is Christ is also God.

I am just amazed Peterlag7 at this point. Many do not believe scriptures are breathed out of God, yet you do and make false claims like the one I replied to.

From 2 Timothy 4:3-4 "For the time is coming when people will not endure sound teaching, but having itching ears they will accumulate for themselves teachers to suit their own passions, and will turn away from listening to the truth and wander off into myths."

The truth is that about 2000 years ago when The Lord walked the Earth, He was both mortal and divine. Prior to that during and after He was, is and will always be God, equal to the Father with no beginning nor end. The rest is myths spawned by men.
In order for the Trinitarian argument that Jesus' "I am" statement in John 8:58 makes him God, his statement must be equivalent with God's "I am" statement in Exodus 3:14. The two statements are very different. The Greek phrase in John does mean "I am." The Hebrew phrase in Exodus means "to be" or "to become." God was saying "I will be what I will be." At the last super, the disciples were trying to find out who would deny the Christ. They said literally, "Not I am, Lord" Matthew 26:22, 25. No one would say the disciples were trying to deny they were God because they were using the phrase "Not I am." "I am" was a common way of designating oneself and it did not mean you were claiming to be God. The argument is made that because Jesus was "before" Abraham, Jesus must be God. Jesus figuratively existed in Abraham's time. He did not actually physically exist as a person, but rather he existed in the mind of God as God's plan for the redemption of man.
 
In order for the Trinitarian argument that Jesus' "I am" statement in John 8:58 makes him God, his statement must be equivalent with God's "I am" statement in Exodus 3:14. The two statements are very different. The Greek phrase in John does mean "I am." The Hebrew phrase in Exodus means "to be" or "to become." God was saying "I will be what I will be." At the last super, the disciples were trying to find out who would deny the Christ. They said literally, "Not I am, Lord" Matthew 26:22, 25. No one would say the disciples were trying to deny they were God because they were using the phrase "Not I am." "I am" was a common way of designating oneself and it did not mean you were claiming to be God. The argument is made that because Jesus was "before" Abraham, Jesus must be God. Jesus figuratively existed in Abraham's time. He did not actually physically exist as a person, but rather he existed in the mind of God as God's plan for the redemption of man.
I understand your viewpoint Peterlag7 but I had a logical sequence in my argument that you did not acknowledge in your rebuttal. First, I showed through some verses in the scripture that Jesus was not a mere mortal but something more. That was John 6:38 and John 8:58. And to that I add John 17:5 " And now, Father, glorify me in your own presence with the glory that I had with you before the world existed."

All you have done in your rebuttal is dispute John 8:58. Yet to truly dismantle my argument you have to successfully dispute also John 6:38 and now John 17:5. By the way you have not successfully disputed 8:58 either. For example, The Orthodox Jewish Bible reads Exodus 3:14 as "And Elohim said unto Moshe, Eh-heh-yeh ashair Ehheh- yeh (I AM WHO I AM); and He said, Thus shalt thou say unto the Bnei Yisroel, EHHEH-YEH (I AM) hath sent me unto you."

I have noticed a trend in your reasoning where when facing an argument from me or someone else you do not consider the whole chain of reasoning but focus on a singular piece of the chain (cherrypicking) and try to dispute that, thinking that if you break that specific link the whole reasoning becomes invalid. Or you just ignore the argument altogether.

Yet as I said above the chain of reasoning I offered has 2 stages. The second stage is immune from dispute and first stage has several concurrent links.

Stage 1: Proof that Jesus was not a mere mortal but something more than that with existence prior to Him being born of Mary.

Step 2: He is actually equal to God The Father in terms of Divinity.

Step 1 has three links (John 6:38, John 8:58 and now John 17:5) and you must break all of them to stop the logical process from moving to step 2.

You know I have given you lots of leeway in your reasoning about Christ by myself jumping from scripture verses to other scripture verses to help you see better. But now I am not going to allow that to happen anymore.

So, now we are stuck with your rebuttal and let me know how you are going to dispute John 6:38 and John 17:5 for starters. You also have to give 8:58 another try.

There are plenty of people in this forum that use faulty reasoning say to claim that Jesus is not Divine and dispute his equality to God The Father.

As a faithful in Christ, it is my duty to dissect from now on every step of the logical sequence pursued in making those claims. So let's stick with John 6:38, John 8:58, John 17:5.
 
Last edited:
In order for the Trinitarian argument that Jesus' "I am" statement in John 8:58 makes him God, his statement must be equivalent with God's "I am" statement in Exodus 3:14. The two statements are very different. The Greek phrase in John does mean "I am." The Hebrew phrase in Exodus means "to be" or "to become." God was saying "I will be what I will be." At the last super, the disciples were trying to find out who would deny the Christ. They said literally, "Not I am, Lord" Matthew 26:22, 25. No one would say the disciples were trying to deny they were God because they were using the phrase "Not I am." "I am" was a common way of designating oneself and it did not mean you were claiming to be God. The argument is made that because Jesus was "before" Abraham, Jesus must be God. Jesus figuratively existed in Abraham's time. He did not actually physically exist as a person, but rather he existed in the mind of God as God's plan for the redemption of man.
The Greek verb translated as “was” in John 8:58 is an incorrect translation of that verb.
The verb form used there means “to become”.

That form of the verb is found in 38 passages in the N.T.

It is used to describe a change in condition from one condition to another.

For example:

Jhn 1:12
But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name:

The above example is the proper use of that verb. The verb does not mean “was” or “was born”. That is an incorrect use of the verb.
That verb correctly describes a change in condition from NOT being sons of God to becoming sons of God.

If you look at all 38 occurrences of that specific verb you will see what I’m saying.

A literal translation of John 8:58 would be:

“Before Abraham to become I am”

Jesus is speaking of a change in condition of Abraham from being dead to being alive. And that before this change in condition takes place, Jesus must first exist.

That is the proper use and meaning of that verb. And all you need to do is examine how it is used in the other 37 places it is found.
 
Last edited:
The Greek verb translated as “was” in John 8:58 is an incorrect translation of that verb.
The verb form used there means “to become”.

That form of the verb is found in 38 passages in the N.T.

It is used to describe a change in condition from one condition to another.

For example:

Jhn 1:12
But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name:

The above example is the proper use of that verb. The verb does not mean “was” or “was born”. That is an incorrect use of the verb.
That verb correctly describes a change in condition from NOT being sons of God to becoming sons of God.

If you look at all 38 occurrences of that specific verb you will see what I’m saying.

A literal translation of John 8:58 would be:

“Before Abraham to become I am”

Jesus is speaking of a change in condition of Abraham from being dead to being alive. And that before this change in condition takes place, Jesus must first exist.

That is the proper use and meaning of that verb. And all you need to do is examine how it is used in the other 37 places it is found.
In the next verse, John 8:59 "So they picked up stones to throw at him, but Jesus hid himself and went out of the temple." Why do you think they wanted to stone Jesus given what He stated on John 8:58?
 
In the next verse, John 8:59 "So they picked up stones to throw at him, but Jesus hid himself and went out of the temple." Why do you think they wanted to stone Jesus given what He stated on John 8:58?
They wanted to stone him no matter what he said.
When he said he was the son of God they wanted to stone him.
It’s not blasphemy to say he was the son of God.

1Ch 22:10
He shall build an house for my name; and he shall be my son, and I will be his father; and I will establish the throne of his kingdom over Israel for ever.

This prophecy had/has fulfillment in both Solomon and Jesus
 
In the next verse, John 8:59 "So they picked up stones to throw at him, but Jesus hid himself and went out of the temple." Why do you think they wanted to stone Jesus given what He stated on John 8:58?
If John 8:58 be translated correctly (before Abraham to become, I am) and the Jews had understood Jesus to say he had to first come before Abraham to live again, then they would have wanted to stone him for that.
They may have assumed Jesus was saying that he had the power to raise Abraham from the dead.
Which he does, but Jesus would first have to be raised from the dead himself for that to happen.
 
Last edited:
We know that Jesus has a God. And we know that Jesus is only one person. So, we say that the one person who is Jesus has a God. And he calls his God his Father.
Therefore, it becomes obvious to anyone that the Son of God has a God.
It also becomes obvious that if the Son of God has a God then he cannot be the God whom he has for his God.

So, we recognize Jesus’ God as the only true God.
That’s why even Jesus himself declares that the Father alone is the only true God.

The way in which we recognize Jesus as both Lord and God is the same way the Angel of the LORD was recognized as such.
The Angel himself has a God. And that Angel was sent by the one true God to represent God to man. The Angel spoke the words of God and did the works of God and was sent in the name of God. God had told Moses to obey His voice because “My name is in Him”.
Therefore, what the Angel said was what God said. And what the Angel did was what God did. And that is why the Angel was called both LORD and God.

When Jesus came, he came in the name of his Father, he spoke the words of his Father, taught the doctrines of his Father, and did the works of his Father.
Therefore, Jesus is recognized as the Father.
None of this precludes Jesus from being also truly the one God, just not the Father.

So, he says things like, “if you have seen me you have seen my Father”.
Of course he does, because he is God in the flesh (John 1:1, 14; Phil. 2:6-8), "the image of the invisible God," (Col. 1:15), and "the radiance of the glory of God and the exact imprint of his nature" (Heb. 1:3).

When Thomas realized this he said, “My Lord and my God”.
Clearly not what Thomas meant. Jesus had just told Thomas things that Thomas had said when he wasn't around. It is a stretch to go from understanding that the Father is in Jesus and to speak to the Father when looking at and speaking to Jesus. Thomas's statement was a direct exclamation as he recognized and acknowledged the true deity of Jesus.

Usually the Trinitarians will argue that I’m creating another God. Which is really nonsense because I’ve already stated that Jesus himself has a God and his God is his Father, he says, is the only true God.
Technically, you would be creating a another god by denying the Trinity, as that wouldn't be the biblical God. Jesus says a lot of things, a lot of which you don't account for or otherwise want to overrule with other passages without any basis for doing so.

We simply recognize that all power and authority has been given to Jesus by his God. This power and authority is given to him above all things. All of God’s creation, including all the angels. Even over the Angel who had previously carried the name of God.
Trinitarians recognize that as well.

All of creation is given over to him to the extent that he can be said to have created it all.
All creation is given over to him because he was obedient to the point of death, securing redemption for all of creation. That is very much apart from him having created it all in the first place. You seem to continually forget the incarnation and Phil. 2:6-11, particularly verses 6-8.

But there is one exception. The God who put all things into his hand is excepted from it.
Of course. How could the Father be subject to the Son?
 
The Jews asked Jesus if he was the Messiah... the son of God. They did not ask him if he was God.
Yes, I know; I didn't say otherwise. What I was clearly pointing to was just what the title "Son of God" meant to the Jews, and it seems to have implied true deity and equality with God. And I gave scripture to support that.
 
If John 8:58 be translated correctly (before Abraham to become, I am) and the Jews had understood Jesus to say he had to first come before Abraham to live again, then they would have wanted to stone him for that.
They may have assumed Jesus was saying that he had the power to raise Abraham from the dead.
Which he does, but Jesus would first have to be raised from the dead himself for that to happen.
There is a lot I disagree with in your posts in this thread. Anyway, I am willing to let it go and not pursue this thread any further. For me, sometimes silence is the best option to pursue further down the road.
 
Last edited:
The Greek verb translated as “was” in John 8:58 is an incorrect translation of that verb.
The verb form used there means “to become”.

That form of the verb is found in 38 passages in the N.T.

It is used to describe a change in condition from one condition to another.

For example:

Jhn 1:12
But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name:

The above example is the proper use of that verb. The verb does not mean “was” or “was born”. That is an incorrect use of the verb.
That verb correctly describes a change in condition from NOT being sons of God to becoming sons of God.

If you look at all 38 occurrences of that specific verb you will see what I’m saying.

A literal translation of John 8:58 would be:

“Before Abraham to become I am”

Jesus is speaking of a change in condition of Abraham from being dead to being alive. And that before this change in condition takes place, Jesus must first exist.

That is the proper use and meaning of that verb. And all you need to do is examine how it is used in the other 37 places it is found.
You looked a little at the Greek, but not enough. Be careful in making claims about the Greek when you don't know it. Not to mention it is poor exegesis to assume that all occurrences must have the same meaning when context is what dictates meaning.

https://biblehub.com/greek/genesthai_1096.htm

Here are it's meanings according to Thayer's:

1) to become, i.e. to come into existence, begin to be, receive being
2) to become, i.e. to come to pass, happen
2a) of events
3) to arise, appear in history, come upon the stage
3a) of men appearing in public
4) to be made, finished
4a) of miracles, to be performed, wrought
5) to become, be made

In looking at the context, we can see that if we adopt your understanding, it has Jesus speaking nonsense. The Jews asked him, "You are not yet fifty years old, and have you seen Abraham?". That is past tense. If Jesus was to then reply that before Abraham was to be resurrected, he must exist, he is answering them by speaking of the future. Not to mention that "I am" speaks of absolute existence.

Clearly, in answering the question regarding having seen Abraham when Abraham was alive, Jesus's response was that "before Abraham was [came into existence], I am [absolute, eternal existence]." Jesus answers the question directly, by comparing Abraham's temporary existence with his own timeless existence, for which they wanted to stone him for blasphemy, since only God has timeless existence.
 
Yes, I know; I didn't say otherwise. What I was clearly pointing to was just what the title "Son of God" meant to the Jews, and it seems to have implied true deity and equality with God. And I gave scripture to support that.
God gave the Scriptures to the Jewish people, and the Jewish religion and worship that comes from that revelation does not contain any reference to or teachings about a triune God. Surely the Jewish people were qualified to read and understand it, but they never saw the doctrine of the Trinity, but rather just the opposite as all throughout their history they fiercely defended the fact that there was only one God. Jesus himself tied the greatest commandment in the Law together with there being only one God when an expert in Old Testament law asked him which of the commandments was the most important. Jesus said to him “The first of all the commandments is, Hear, O Israel; The Lord our God is one Lord: And thou shalt love the Lord thy God….” (Mark 12:29-30).
 
The Greek verb translated as “was” in John 8:58 is an incorrect translation of that verb.
The verb form used there means “to become”.

That form of the verb is found in 38 passages in the N.T.

It is used to describe a change in condition from one condition to another.

For example:

Jhn 1:12
But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name:

The above example is the proper use of that verb. The verb does not mean “was” or “was born”. That is an incorrect use of the verb.
That verb correctly describes a change in condition from NOT being sons of God to becoming sons of God.

If you look at all 38 occurrences of that specific verb you will see what I’m saying.

A literal translation of John 8:58 would be:

“Before Abraham to become I am”

Jesus is speaking of a change in condition of Abraham from being dead to being alive. And that before this change in condition takes place, Jesus must first exist.

That is the proper use and meaning of that verb. And all you need to do is examine how it is used in the other 37 places it is found.
“I am the one.” Many Trinitarians argue that this verse states that when Jesus said “I am,” he was claiming to be God, (i.e., Yahweh, the God who revealed Himself to Moses in the Old Testament). But saying “I am” does not mean a person is claiming to be God. The Greek that is translated as “I am” is egō eime (ἐγὼ εἰμί), and it was a common Greek way for a person to identify themself. For example, only ten verses after Jesus said, egō eime (“I am”) in John 8:58, the man who had been born blind identified himself by saying exactly what Jesus said; egō eime (“I am;” John 9:9). Thus, Jesus and the man born blind both identified themselves by saying egō eime (“I am”), only ten verses apart.

Sadly, unless a person looks at the Greek text, he will never see that “I am” was a common Greek way for a man or woman to identify themselves. In what seems to be a clear case of Trinitarian bias in translating the Greek text, when Jesus says, egō eime (“I am”) in John 8:58, the English Bibles read, “I am.” But when Jesus says egō eime in other places in the New Testament, or other people say egō eime (“I am”), the Greek phrase gets translated differently. So, for example, some English translations of what the man born blind said are: “I am the one” (CJB, HCSB, NASB, NET); “I am he” (BBE, ERV, KJV, YLT); “It is I” (DBY); and, “I am the man” (ESV, NIV). The only commonly used English Bible that has “I am” in John 9:9 is the New American Bible.

There are many other examples of the phrase egō eime not being translated as “I am,” but being translated as “I am he” or some other similar phrase. For example, Jesus taught that people would come in his name, saying egō eime (“I am he”) and will deceive many (Mark 13:6; Luke 21:8 (HCSB, ESV, NAB, NET, NIV).

Jesus said egō eime (“I am”), in a large number of places, but it is usually translated “I am he,” “It is I,” or “I am the one,” which are good translations because, as was stated above, egō eime was commonly used by people to identify themselves. Examples of Jesus using egō eime include: John 13:19; 18:5, 6, and 18:8; Jesus identifying himself to the apostles on the boat: Matthew 14:27; Mark 6:50; and John 6:20; and Jesus identifying himself to the Jews, saying egō eime, translated “I am the one I claim to be” (John 8:24 and 8:28 NIV84). All these places where Jesus says egō eime but it is not translated “I am” shows that the translators understand that just saying egō eime does not mean the person is claiming to be God.

At the Last Supper, the disciples were trying to find out who would deny Christ. They used egō eime as the standard Greek identifier. Jesus had said one of them would betray him, and one after another they said to him, mētiegō eime, Kurie (literally, “not I am, Lord;” Matt. 26:22 and 26:25.) The apostles were not trying to deny that they were God by saying, “Not I am.” They were simply using as the common personal identifier egō eime and saying, “Surely not I, Lord.”

In Acts 26:29, when Paul was defending himself in court, he said, “I pray to God that…all who hear me this day would become the same as I am [egō eime].” Obviously, Paul was not claiming to be God. There are more uses of the phrase “I am,” and especially so if we realize that what has been covered above is only the nominative singular pronoun and the first-person singular verb that we have just covered. The point is this: “I am” was a common way of designating oneself, and it did not mean you were claiming to be God. C. K. Barrett writes:


Egō eimi [“I am”] does not identify Jesus with God, but it does draw attention to him in the strongest possible terms. “I am the one—the one you must look at, and listen to, if you would know God.”a
A major problem that occurs when we misunderstand a verse is that the correct meaning goes unnoticed, and that certainly is the case with John 8:58. If the phrase egō eime in John 8:58 were translated “I am he” or “I am the one,” like all the other places where Jesus says it, instead of coming to the erroneous conclusion that Jesus is God, we would more easily see that Jesus was speaking of himself as the Messiah of God who was foretold throughout the Old Testament.

Trinitarians assert that because Jesus was “before” Abraham, Jesus must have been God. But Jesus did not literally exist before his conception in Mary, but he “existed” in the plan of God, and was foretold in prophecy. Prophecies of the coming redeemer start as early as Genesis 3:15, which was before Abraham. Jesus was “the one,” the Savior, long before Abraham. The Church did not have to literally exist as people for God to choose us before the foundation of the world (Eph. 1:4), we existed in the mind of God. Similarly, Jesus did not exist as an actual physical person during the time of Abraham, but he “existed” in the mind of God as God’s plan for the redemption of man.

It is also important to notice that many people misread John 8:58 and think it says Jesus saw Abraham. We must read the Bible carefully because it says no such thing. It does not say Jesus saw Abraham, it says Abraham saw the Day of Christ. A careful reading of the context of the verse shows that Jesus was speaking of “existing” in God’s foreknowledge. John 8:56 says, “Your father Abraham rejoiced to see my day, and he saw it, and was glad.” This verse says that Abraham “saw” the day of Christ (the day of Christ is usually considered by theologians to be the day when Christ conquers the earth and sets up his kingdom—and it is still future). That would fit with what the book of Hebrews says about Abraham: “for he was looking forward to the city that has the lasting foundations, whose builder and maker is God” (Heb. 11:10). The Bible says Abraham “saw” a city that is still future. In what sense could Abraham have seen something that was future? Abraham “saw” the day of Christ because God told him it was coming, and Abraham “saw” it by faith. Although Abraham saw the day of Christ by faith, that day existed in the mind of God long before Abraham Gen. 3:15). Thus, in the context of God’s plan existing from the beginning, Christ certainly was “before” Abraham. Christ was the plan of God for man’s redemption long before Abraham lived.

Jesus did not claim to be God in John 8:58. In very strong terms, however, he claimed to be the Messiah, the one whose day Abraham saw by faith. Jesus said that before Abraham was, “I am the one,” meaning, even before Abraham existed, Jesus was foretold to be the promised Messiah. Jesus gave the Jews many opportunities to see and believe that he was in fact the Messiah of God, but they were blind to that fact, and crucified him.

We see a good example of “I am” being used as a way to identify oneself but without any claim of being God when we compare Mark 13:6 with Matthew 24:5. In these parallel records, Jesus is in the last week of his life, and he is on the Mount of Olives teaching disciples. According to Mark, Jesus said, “Many will come in my name, saying, ‘I am,’ and will lead many astray.” However, Matthew records the same incident as Jesus saying, “many will come in my name, saying, ‘I am the Messiah,’ and will mislead many.” In the context of the End Times, false Messiahs could identify themselves simply as “I am,” but the meaning is clarified in Matthew, “I am the Messiah.” In this case, we can see that “I am” means “I am the Messiah.”
 
I understand your viewpoint Peterlag7 but I had a logical sequence in my argument that you did not acknowledge in your rebuttal. First, I showed through some verses in the scripture that Jesus was not a mere mortal but something more. That was John 6:38 and John 8:58. And to that I add John 17:5 " And now, Father, glorify me in your own presence with the glory that I had with you before the world existed."

All you have done in your rebuttal is dispute John 8:58. Yet to truly dismantle my argument you have to successfully dispute also John 6:38 and now John 17:5. By the way you have not successfully disputed 8:58 either. For example, The Orthodox Jewish Bible reads Exodus 3:14 as "And Elohim said unto Moshe, Eh-heh-yeh ashair Ehheh- yeh (I AM WHO I AM); and He said, Thus shalt thou say unto the Bnei Yisroel, EHHEH-YEH (I AM) hath sent me unto you."

I have noticed a trend in your reasoning where when facing an argument from me or someone else you do not consider the whole chain of reasoning but focus on a singular piece of the chain (cherrypicking) and try to dispute that, thinking that if you break that specific link the whole reasoning becomes invalid. Or you just ignore the argument altogether.

Yet as I said above the chain of reasoning I offered has 2 stages. The second stage is immune from dispute and first stage has several concurrent links.

Stage 1: Proof that Jesus was not a mere mortal but something more than that with existence prior to Him being born of Mary.

Step 2: He is actually equal to God The Father in terms of Divinity.

Step 1 has three links (John 6:38, John 8:58 and now John 17:5) and you must break all of them to stop the logical process from moving to step 2.

You know I have given you lots of leeway in your reasoning about Christ by myself jumping from scripture verses to other scripture verses to help you see better. But now I am not going to allow that to happen anymore.

So, now we are stuck with your rebuttal and let me know how you are going to dispute John 6:38 and John 17:5 for starters. You also have to give 8:58 another try.

There are plenty of people in this forum that use faulty reasoning say to claim that Jesus is not Divine and dispute his equality to God The Father.

As a faithful in Christ, it is my duty to dissect from now on every step of the logical sequence pursued in making those claims. So let's stick with John 6:38, John 8:58, John 17:5.
“I am the one.” Many Trinitarians argue that this verse states that when Jesus said “I am,” he was claiming to be God, (i.e., Yahweh, the God who revealed Himself to Moses in the Old Testament). But saying “I am” does not mean a person is claiming to be God. The Greek that is translated as “I am” is egō eime (ἐγὼ εἰμί), and it was a common Greek way for a person to identify themself. For example, only ten verses after Jesus said, egō eime (“I am”) in John 8:58, the man who had been born blind identified himself by saying exactly what Jesus said; egō eime (“I am;” John 9:9). Thus, Jesus and the man born blind both identified themselves by saying egō eime (“I am”), only ten verses apart.

Sadly, unless a person looks at the Greek text, he will never see that “I am” was a common Greek way for a man or woman to identify themselves. In what seems to be a clear case of Trinitarian bias in translating the Greek text, when Jesus says, egō eime (“I am”) in John 8:58, the English Bibles read, “I am.” But when Jesus says egō eime in other places in the New Testament, or other people say egō eime (“I am”), the Greek phrase gets translated differently. So, for example, some English translations of what the man born blind said are: “I am the one” (CJB, HCSB, NASB, NET); “I am he” (BBE, ERV, KJV, YLT); “It is I” (DBY); and, “I am the man” (ESV, NIV). The only commonly used English Bible that has “I am” in John 9:9 is the New American Bible.

There are many other examples of the phrase egō eime not being translated as “I am,” but being translated as “I am he” or some other similar phrase. For example, Jesus taught that people would come in his name, saying egō eime (“I am he”) and will deceive many (Mark 13:6; Luke 21:8 (HCSB, ESV, NAB, NET, NIV).

Jesus said egō eime (“I am”), in a large number of places, but it is usually translated “I am he,” “It is I,” or “I am the one,” which are good translations because, as was stated above, egō eime was commonly used by people to identify themselves. Examples of Jesus using egō eime include: John 13:19; 18:5, 6, and 18:8; Jesus identifying himself to the apostles on the boat: Matthew 14:27; Mark 6:50; and John 6:20; and Jesus identifying himself to the Jews, saying egō eime, translated “I am the one I claim to be” (John 8:24 and 8:28 NIV84). All these places where Jesus says egō eime but it is not translated “I am” shows that the translators understand that just saying egō eime does not mean the person is claiming to be God.

At the Last Supper, the disciples were trying to find out who would deny Christ. They used egō eime as the standard Greek identifier. Jesus had said one of them would betray him, and one after another they said to him, mētiegō eime, Kurie (literally, “not I am, Lord;” Matt. 26:22 and 26:25.) The apostles were not trying to deny that they were God by saying, “Not I am.” They were simply using as the common personal identifier egō eime and saying, “Surely not I, Lord.”

In Acts 26:29, when Paul was defending himself in court, he said, “I pray to God that…all who hear me this day would become the same as I am [egō eime].” Obviously, Paul was not claiming to be God. There are more uses of the phrase “I am,” and especially so if we realize that what has been covered above is only the nominative singular pronoun and the first-person singular verb that we have just covered. The point is this: “I am” was a common way of designating oneself, and it did not mean you were claiming to be God. C. K. Barrett writes:


Egō eimi [“I am”] does not identify Jesus with God, but it does draw attention to him in the strongest possible terms. “I am the one—the one you must look at, and listen to, if you would know God.”a

A major problem that occurs when we misunderstand a verse is that the correct meaning goes unnoticed, and that certainly is the case with John 8:58. If the phrase egō eime in John 8:58 were translated “I am he” or “I am the one,” like all the other places where Jesus says it, instead of coming to the erroneous conclusion that Jesus is God, we would more easily see that Jesus was speaking of himself as the Messiah of God who was foretold throughout the Old Testament.

Trinitarians assert that because Jesus was “before” Abraham, Jesus must have been God. But Jesus did not literally exist before his conception in Mary, but he “existed” in the plan of God, and was foretold in prophecy. Prophecies of the coming redeemer start as early as Genesis 3:15, which was before Abraham. Jesus was “the one,” the Savior, long before Abraham. The Church did not have to literally exist as people for God to choose us before the foundation of the world (Eph. 1:4), we existed in the mind of God. Similarly, Jesus did not exist as an actual physical person during the time of Abraham, but he “existed” in the mind of God as God’s plan for the redemption of man.

It is also important to notice that many people misread John 8:58 and think it says Jesus saw Abraham. We must read the Bible carefully because it says no such thing. It does not say Jesus saw Abraham, it says Abraham saw the Day of Christ. A careful reading of the context of the verse shows that Jesus was speaking of “existing” in God’s foreknowledge. John 8:56 says, “Your father Abraham rejoiced to see my day, and he saw it, and was glad.” This verse says that Abraham “saw” the day of Christ (the day of Christ is usually considered by theologians to be the day when Christ conquers the earth and sets up his kingdom—and it is still future). That would fit with what the book of Hebrews says about Abraham: “for he was looking forward to the city that has the lasting foundations, whose builder and maker is God” (Heb. 11:10). The Bible says Abraham “saw” a city that is still future. In what sense could Abraham have seen something that was future? Abraham “saw” the day of Christ because God told him it was coming, and Abraham “saw” it by faith. Although Abraham saw the day of Christ by faith, that day existed in the mind of God long before Abraham Gen. 3:15). Thus, in the context of God’s plan existing from the beginning, Christ certainly was “before” Abraham. Christ was the plan of God for man’s redemption long before Abraham lived.

Jesus did not claim to be God in John 8:58. In very strong terms, however, he claimed to be the Messiah, the one whose day Abraham saw by faith. Jesus said that before Abraham was, “I am the one,” meaning, even before Abraham existed, Jesus was foretold to be the promised Messiah. Jesus gave the Jews many opportunities to see and believe that he was in fact the Messiah of God, but they were blind to that fact, and crucified him.
 
“I am the one.” Many Trinitarians argue that this verse states that when Jesus said “I am,” he was claiming to be God, (i.e., Yahweh, the God who revealed Himself to Moses in the Old Testament). But saying “I am” does not mean a person is claiming to be God. The Greek that is translated as “I am” is egō eime (ἐγὼ εἰμί), and it was a common Greek way for a person to identify themself. For example, only ten verses after Jesus said, egō eime (“I am”) in John 8:58, the man who had been born blind identified himself by saying exactly what Jesus said; egō eime (“I am;” John 9:9). Thus, Jesus and the man born blind both identified themselves by saying egō eime (“I am”), only ten verses apart.

Sadly, unless a person looks at the Greek text, he will never see that “I am” was a common Greek way for a man or woman to identify themselves. In what seems to be a clear case of Trinitarian bias in translating the Greek text, when Jesus says, egō eime (“I am”) in John 8:58, the English Bibles read, “I am.” But when Jesus says egō eime in other places in the New Testament, or other people say egō eime (“I am”), the Greek phrase gets translated differently. So, for example, some English translations of what the man born blind said are: “I am the one” (CJB, HCSB, NASB, NET); “I am he” (BBE, ERV, KJV, YLT); “It is I” (DBY); and, “I am the man” (ESV, NIV). The only commonly used English Bible that has “I am” in John 9:9 is the New American Bible.

There are many other examples of the phrase egō eime not being translated as “I am,” but being translated as “I am he” or some other similar phrase. For example, Jesus taught that people would come in his name, saying egō eime (“I am he”) and will deceive many (Mark 13:6; Luke 21:8 (HCSB, ESV, NAB, NET, NIV).

Jesus said egō eime (“I am”), in a large number of places, but it is usually translated “I am he,” “It is I,” or “I am the one,” which are good translations because, as was stated above, egō eime was commonly used by people to identify themselves. Examples of Jesus using egō eime include: John 13:19; 18:5, 6, and 18:8; Jesus identifying himself to the apostles on the boat: Matthew 14:27; Mark 6:50; and John 6:20; and Jesus identifying himself to the Jews, saying egō eime, translated “I am the one I claim to be” (John 8:24 and 8:28 NIV84). All these places where Jesus says egō eime but it is not translated “I am” shows that the translators understand that just saying egō eime does not mean the person is claiming to be God.

At the Last Supper, the disciples were trying to find out who would deny Christ. They used egō eime as the standard Greek identifier. Jesus had said one of them would betray him, and one after another they said to him, mētiegō eime, Kurie (literally, “not I am, Lord;” Matt. 26:22 and 26:25.) The apostles were not trying to deny that they were God by saying, “Not I am.” They were simply using as the common personal identifier egō eime and saying, “Surely not I, Lord.”


In Acts 26:29, when Paul was defending himself in court, he said, “I pray to God that…all who hear me this day would become the same as I am [egō eime].” Obviously, Paul was not claiming to be God. There are more uses of the phrase “I am,” and especially so if we realize that what has been covered above is only the nominative singular pronoun and the first-person singular verb that we have just covered. The point is this: “I am” was a common way of designating oneself, and it did not mean you were claiming to be God. C. K. Barrett writes:



A major problem that occurs when we misunderstand a verse is that the correct meaning goes unnoticed, and that certainly is the case with John 8:58. If the phrase egō eime in John 8:58 were translated “I am he” or “I am the one,” like all the other places where Jesus says it, instead of coming to the erroneous conclusion that Jesus is God, we would more easily see that Jesus was speaking of himself as the Messiah of God who was foretold throughout the Old Testament.

Trinitarians assert that because Jesus was “before” Abraham, Jesus must have been God. But Jesus did not literally exist before his conception in Mary, but he “existed” in the plan of God, and was foretold in prophecy. Prophecies of the coming redeemer start as early as Genesis 3:15, which was before Abraham. Jesus was “the one,” the Savior, long before Abraham. The Church did not have to literally exist as people for God to choose us before the foundation of the world (Eph. 1:4), we existed in the mind of God. Similarly, Jesus did not exist as an actual physical person during the time of Abraham, but he “existed” in the mind of God as God’s plan for the redemption of man.

It is also important to notice that many people misread John 8:58 and think it says Jesus saw Abraham. We must read the Bible carefully because it says no such thing. It does not say Jesus saw Abraham, it says Abraham saw the Day of Christ. A careful reading of the context of the verse shows that Jesus was speaking of “existing” in God’s foreknowledge. John 8:56 says, “Your father Abraham rejoiced to see my day, and he saw it, and was glad.” This verse says that Abraham “saw” the day of Christ (the day of Christ is usually considered by theologians to be the day when Christ conquers the earth and sets up his kingdom—and it is still future). That would fit with what the book of Hebrews says about Abraham: “for he was looking forward to the city that has the lasting foundations, whose builder and maker is God” (Heb. 11:10). The Bible says Abraham “saw” a city that is still future. In what sense could Abraham have seen something that was future? Abraham “saw” the day of Christ because God told him it was coming, and Abraham “saw” it by faith. Although Abraham saw the day of Christ by faith, that day existed in the mind of God long before Abraham Gen. 3:15). Thus, in the context of God’s plan existing from the beginning, Christ certainly was “before” Abraham. Christ was the plan of God for man’s redemption long before Abraham lived.


Jesus did not claim to be God in John 8:58. In very strong terms, however, he claimed to be the Messiah, the one whose day Abraham saw by faith. Jesus said that before Abraham was, “I am the one,” meaning, even before Abraham existed, Jesus was foretold to be the promised Messiah. Jesus gave the Jews many opportunities to see and believe that he was in fact the Messiah of God, but they were blind to that fact, and crucified him.
Peterlag7, the Spirit urges me to cease interacting with you. Do and think as you please.
 
Peterlag7, the Spirit urges me to cease interacting with you. Do and think as you please.
If the spirit is telling you that Jesus is God. That spirit is not from God. The spirit from God will say that Jesus came in the flesh. The false spirit will say God came in the flesh. There's your test of the spirits.
 
God gave the Scriptures to the Jewish people, and the Jewish religion and worship that comes from that revelation does not contain any reference to or teachings about a triune God.
What do you mean? Do you deny that God also gave Scripture to the Greeks? If by "the Scriptures" you simply mean the OT, there are hints, such as Gen. 1:26-27 and Dan. 7:13. The NT makes it more explicit with numerous references without fully expounding and developing it.

Surely the Jewish people were qualified to read and understand it, but they never saw the doctrine of the Trinity, but rather just the opposite as all throughout their history they fiercely defended the fact that there was only one God.
This suggests that you may not understand the doctrine of the Trinity, which fully affirms monotheism. Monotheism does not preclude Trinitarianism. Also, you would think that they would have understood something that was more clearly written--that the Messiah would die for sin and be raised again, but they only expected militancy. So, if they got something wrong that was much clearer in scripture and easier to comprehend, why should it be any surprise that they didn't understand the true nature of God until he more fully revealed it?

Jesus himself tied the greatest commandment in the Law together with there being only one God when an expert in Old Testament law asked him which of the commandments was the most important. Jesus said to him “The first of all the commandments is, Hear, O Israel; The Lord our God is one Lord: And thou shalt love the Lord thy God….” (Mark 12:29-30).
Again, monotheism is a foundation of the doctrine of the Trinity. The Shema, as quoted by Jesus, is a statement of monotheism only and not a statement of the ontological nature or essence of God. That is, it says nothing of whether God is one "person" or three, unitarian or trinitarian, but simply that there is only one God.
 
If the spirit is telling you that Jesus is God. That spirit is not from God. The spirit from God will say that Jesus came in the flesh. The false spirit will say God came in the flesh. There's your test of the spirits.
A spirit that denies the deity of Jesus, that he is God incarnate, is that which is not from God.
 
A spirit that denies the deity of Jesus, that he is God incarnate, is that which is not from God.
1 John 4:1-3
Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world.

Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God:

And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world.
 
Back
Top