Do you need to believe Jesus is God to be saved?

[Free]

Greetings again Free,

I have already given much support to this view. In general, a number of factors. The context, the language, the tense and my personal involvement in this subject. I encountered this subject in a systematic way at a Young People's weekend when I was 19 over 60 years ago and have been interested in this subject ever since.

Our fellowship calls this subject "God Manifestation" and it was expounded by a major pioneer of our fellowship in 1858 when a Trinitarian Jew invited him to address a large audience of Jews who were not responding to his own Trinitarain views. The Trinitarian Jew was very disappointed with his exposition and the pioneer was not allowed to speak again, but the outcome was that the audience was invited to a separate meeting. The detail of his talks was given in his magazine and now in a small book. The pioneer also gave a more thorough exposition in 1868. There has been much more exposition since then.

When I first joined a forum over 20 years ago, there was a long running thread on the subject "I will be" and the member's exposition was very thorough and convincing. Two of the Trinitarians at first disagreed, and in the end agreed with him. One of these Trinitarians was still active as a Hebrew scholar on that forum a few years ago, and he confirmed to me that he still agreed with "I will be".

I find no real meaning in the Trinitarian view of Exodus 3:14 and John 8:58 and the Trinitarians ignore a proper understanding of the contexts.

Kind regards
Trevor

Okay. On that basis, I can say the Trinitarian view is correct. Of course you find no real meaning in the translation being “I am,” because otherwise Jesus would be making a clear claim to be deity, to be Yahweh.

The Septuagint has ego eimi in Exo 3:14, which is what Jesus says in John 8:58. The use of “I am” in John 8:58 certainly fits, so why should it be translated differently in Exo 3:14, where it fits as well? Why translate the same two words completely differently when the contexts are similar?

 

[TrevorL]

Greetings again Free,

The Septuagint has ego eimi in Exo 3:14, which is what Jesus says in John 8:58.

The LXX has "I am the Being", which is different to the KJV of Exodus 3:14. As such the LXX is a very poor translation of the Hebrew.

Kind regards
Trevor

 

[Free]

Greetings again Free,

The LXX has "I am the Being", which is different to the KJV of Exodus 3:14. As such the LXX is a very poor translation of the Hebrew.

Kind regards
Trevor

What does the KJV have to do with making the LXX "a very poor translation of the Hebrew"? Ego eimi is Greek, so we should look to its use in the LXX to see how it is translated. This is important since the NT writers do quote from the LXX at times.

 

[TrevorL]

Greetings again Free,

Okay. On that basis, I can say the Trinitarian view is correct.

They say that one of the greatest impediments for Jews to accept Christianity today is because of the "Christian" doctrine of the Trinity. The Jews are too well versed in the Schema to accept three Gods in One. I cannot accept that the Scribe who conversed with Jesus about the Schema would have accepted that Jesus was God the Son, the second person of the Trinity. Nor do I accept that the 3000 Jews who were converted on the Day of Pentecost considered that there was some hidden code of the Trinity in Peter's statement:
Acts 2:22–24 (KJV): 22 Ye men of Israel, hear these words; Jesus of Nazareth, a man approved of God among you by miracles and wonders and signs, which God did by him in the midst of you, as ye yourselves also know: 23 Him, being delivered by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God, ye have taken, and by wicked hands have crucified and slain: 24 Whom God hath raised up, having loosed the pains of death: because it was not possible that he should be holden of it.

What does the KJV have to do with making the LXX "a very poor translation of the Hebrew"? Ego eimi is Greek, so we should look to its use in the LXX to see how it is translated. This is important since the NT writers do quote from the LXX at times.

The KJV translation of the Hebrew is:
Exodus 3:14 (KJV): And God said unto Moses, I AM THAT I AM: and he said, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, I AM hath sent me unto you.
And most English translations from the Hebrew give much the same, but there is no English translation from the Hebrew that gives the same as the LXX:
Exodus 3:14 (LXX Brenton's translation): And God spoke to Moses, saying, I am THE BEING; and he said, Thus shall ye say to the children of Israel, THE BEING has sent me to you.

John 8:58 does not reproduce the LXX of Exodus 3:14 as it does not have "I AM" as the Name of God, but has "THE BEING". The LXX is a poor translation of Exodus 3:14 and their translation does not make much sense and ignores the true context.

Kind regards
Trevor

 

[Free]

Greetings again Free,

They say that one of the greatest impediments for Jews to accept Christianity today is because of the "Christian" doctrine of the Trinity. The Jews are too well versed in the Schema to accept three Gods in One. I cannot accept that the Scribe who conversed with Jesus about the Schema would have accepted that Jesus was God the Son, the second person of the Trinity.

Exactly, which is likely why Jesus never explicitly stated that he was. However, the Shema neither proves God is unitarian nor precludes God from being trinitarian. It is a statement of monotheism only, which is a different concept.

Nor do I accept that the 3000 Jews who were converted on the Day of Pentecost considered that there was some hidden code of the Trinity in Peter's statement:
Acts 2:22–24 (KJV): 22 Ye men of Israel, hear these words; Jesus of Nazareth, a man approved of God among you by miracles and wonders and signs, which God did by him in the midst of you, as ye yourselves also know: 23 Him, being delivered by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God, ye have taken, and by wicked hands have crucified and slain: 24 Whom God hath raised up, having loosed the pains of death: because it was not possible that he should be holden of it.

They likely didn't, yet Peter said they had to be baptized in the name of Jesus, not Yahweh.

The KJV translation of the Hebrew is:
Exodus 3:14 (KJV): And God said unto Moses, I AM THAT I AM: and he said, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, I AM hath sent me unto you.
And most English translations from the Hebrew give much the same, but there is no English translation from the Hebrew that gives the same as the LXX:
Exodus 3:14 (LXX Brenton's translation): And God spoke to Moses, saying, I am THE BEING; and he said, Thus shall ye say to the children of Israel, THE BEING has sent me to you.

John 8:58 does not reproduce the LXX of Exodus 3:14 as it does not have "I AM" as the Name of God, but has "THE BEING". The LXX is a poor translation of Exodus 3:14 and their translation does not make much sense and ignores the true context.

I'm not quite sure what you think you're proving, other than the English translation of Ex 3:14 should be "I Am," which I agree with. None of this matters though, as the Greek ego eimi, requires deeper study of the of its use in the LXX:

'There seems to be a direct connection between the Septuagint and Jesus’ usage of ego eimi. In Isaiah 43:10 we read, “that you may know, and believe, and understand, that I am He” (personal translation). In the LXX this is rendered thus: hina gnote kai pisteusete kai sunete hoti ego eimi. In John 13:19, Jesus says to the disciples, “from now on I tell you before it comes to pass in order that when it does happen, you may believe that I am.” (personal translation). In Greek the last phrase is hina pisteusete hotan genetai hoti ego eimi. When one removes the extraneous words (such as hotan genetai which connects the last clause to the first) and compares these two passages, this is the result:

• Is. 43:10: hina pisteusete … hoti ego eimi
• Jn. 13:19: hina pisteusete … hoti ego eimi

Even if one were to theorize that Jesus Himself did not attempt to make such an obvious connection between Himself and Yahweh (which would be difficult enough to do!) one must answer the question of why John, being obviously familiar with the LXX, would so intentionally insert this kind of parallelism.'

https://www.aomin.org/aoblog/genera...nd-meaning-of-ego-eimi-in-the-gospel-of-john/

The context of both Ex 3:14 and John 8:58 are similar and Jesus is claiming to be "I Am." John is very consistent from the very first verse of his gospel, in showing that the Word is God in nature, right through to the end with Thomas's declaration that Jesus was his Lord and his God. There are numerous verses in between that strongly imply the deity of Jesus.

 

[TrevorL]

Greetings again Free,

Exactly, which is likely why Jesus never explicitly stated that he was. However, the Shema neither proves God is unitarian nor precludes God from being trinitarian. It is a statement of monotheism only, which is a different concept.

Despite the theatrics, Trinitarianism believes in three gods.

They likely didn't, yet Peter said they had to be baptized in the name of Jesus, not Yahweh.

It is part of the One Name Yahweh. Jesus is the development of the One Name Yahweh, "I will be" not "I AM". "Yahweh" and "Yah's Salvation". There are not two different Gods, one angry and retributive, and one loving ad yielding. Yahweh is ONE and his character and purpose is ONE.

The context of both Ex 3:14 and John 8:58 are similar and Jesus is claiming to be "I Am."

"I am he" is a common expression and has nothing to do with Exodus 3:14. In John's Gospel, John is reporting the theme of whether or not Jesus is the Christ as per John 4:25-26, John 8:24 and John 8:28. These are not connected with Exodus 3:14, which is correctly rendered "I will be" and speaks of Yahweh's future activity of salvation, firstly with delivering Israel out of Egypt and bringing them into the Land, and then the principal focus of the Yahweh Name is the salvation from sin and death accomplished in and through Jesus, "Yah's salvation".

Kind regards
Trevor

 

[JLB]

I understand what you're saying, but I am saying it is not scripture.

And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness:
God was manifested in the flesh,
Justified in the Spirit,
Seen by angels,
Preached among the Gentiles,
Believed on in the world,
Received up in glory. 1 Timothy 3:16

• God was manifested in the flesh is what the scriptures teach.

Does God here refer to the Father or the Son?

The scriptures answer this question for us -

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God... And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth.
John 1:1,14

• God was manifested in the flesh
• the Word became flesh

The scriptures teach the truth.

You either believe what the truth is or you don't.




JLB

 

[JLB]

Those aren't the words of Christ. Most versions do not put this verse in red because in the context it isn't Jesus talking. Let's look at it in your KJV or NKJV.

“And behold, I am coming quickly, and My reward is with Me, to give to every one according to his work. I am the Alpha and the Omega, the Beginning and the End, the First and the Last.” Revelation 22:12-13

• Do you believe Jesus is coming quickly?
• Do you believe that Jesus is the Alpha and Omega?
• Do you believe Jesus is the Beginning and the End?
• Do you believe Jesus is the First and the Last?

JLB

 

[Runningman]

And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness:
God was manifested in the flesh,
Justified in the Spirit,
Seen by angels,
Preached among the Gentiles,
Believed on in the world,
Received up in glory. 1 Timothy 3:16

• God was manifested in the flesh is what the scriptures teach.

That isn't scripture because your version of 1 Timothy 3:16 was proven to be false. Not only is it problematic that God needed to be justified, but the original Greek doesn't contain "God was manifested in the flesh." It has been well-debated for a long time, but the jury has been out of this a long time as well. Below is the correct version that all modern Bibles I've seen use:

1 Timothy 3​

16By common confession, the mystery of godliness is great:​

He appeared in the flesh,​

was vindicated by the Spirit,​

was seen by angels,​

was proclaimed among the nations,​

was believed in throughout the world,​

was taken up in glory.​

This is about Jesus' life as a man, begotten of the Father, and taken up into glory.

Does God here refer to the Father or the Son?

The only Lord God Almighty in the Bible is the Father also known as YHWH.

The scriptures answer this question for us -

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God... And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth.
John 1:1,14

• God was manifested in the flesh
• the Word became flesh

The scriptures teach the truth.

You either believe what the truth is or you don't.

JLB

Your presentation of what you believe the truth is in Scripture is itself not Scripture.

There are too many exceptions in John's writings for Jesus to be a literal pre-existent being known as the Word.

For starters, beginning in John 1:1, there are two uses of the word for god present in the Greek. Most English translations I've seen, for some reason, do not capture this accurately; I suspect for dogmatic purposes because a literal translation of John 1:1 is an argument against the Trinity.

The first usage of God in John 1:1 is ton Theon which literally means the God. The second usage of god is theos which means god. The reason John wrote it this way, using two different usages of god in John 1:1, is because he is showing awareness that the God and god are distinct and are not the same person.

A literal translation of John 1:1, assuming that Jesus was a pre-existent being in some form or fashion, would be that the Word was a god. If we assume Jesus is not a pre-existent being then the Word becomes a quality of God and is, therefore, godly, but nevertheless a non-person thing. Using theos to describe something or someone that is godly is a valid usage of the word theos. You can check this in 2 Cor. 1:12, 7:9-11 for some examples.

With that being said, a literal translation of John 1:1 doesn't support the idea that the definitive God is the Word, but rather a god or something godly.

So did Jesus pre-exist? Arguably, no. There are no clear examples of Jesus saying or doing anything in the Old Testament. There are no stories about what he was doing exactly before the world existed. Even under different names, there are no examples of a being called the Word who was with God in Genesis or any of the other statements about God creating. There are no stories about a "God the Son" sitting at God's right hand in the Old Testament. Jesus didn't sit down at God's right hand until after he was born, died, resurrected, and was taken to heaven as a man in Mark 16:19.

With that being said, there isn't any evidence that John's narrative, beginning in John 1:1, is literal. However, there are many examples of God using words, in creation or otherwise, as a thing that personification was applied to. Here are some examples of poetry in Psalms and one from Isaiah that calls God's word an it:

Psalm 33:6
By the word of the LORD the heavens were made, and all the stars by the breath of His mouth.

Psalm 107:20
He sent forth His word and healed them; He rescued them from the Pit.

Psalm 147:15
He sends forth His command to the earth; His word runs swiftly.

Isaiah 55:11
so My word that proceeds from My mouth
will not return to Me empty,
but it will accomplish what I please,
and it will prosper where I send it.

In addition to all of that, we can't even use the Greek definition of the Word to make a direct link to Jesus because logos in the Greek means a word, speech, divine utterance, analogy.

That's just verse 1. When the foundation is properly understood then we can look at the rest of John's story. John's story keeps in step with what John said in 1 John 1:1-3, which, in summary, says that in the beginning of Jesus' ministry the Word of Life was an it, a thing, that was revealed or manifested in a man with whom the disciples had fellowship.

 

[Runningman]

“And behold, I am coming quickly, and My reward is with Me, to give to every one according to his work. I am the Alpha and the Omega, the Beginning and the End, the First and the Last.” Revelation 22:12-13

• Do you believe Jesus is coming quickly?
• Do you believe that Jesus is the Alpha and Omega?
• Do you believe Jesus is the Beginning and the End?
• Do you believe Jesus is the First and the Last?

JLB

Yes I am a Christian so of course I believe what Jesus said, but the theme of this conversation has been your assertion that Jesus is God according to the Bible. So can you explain why you believe that?

 

[JLB]

That isn't scripture because your version of 1 Timothy 3:16 was proven to be false.

 

[JLB]

Yes I am a Christian so of course I believe what Jesus said, but the theme of this conversation has been your assertion that Jesus is God according to the Bible. So can you explain why you believe that?

I believe Jesus is God; YHWH the LORD God, because that is what the scriptures teach.

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. John 1:1

And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness:
God was manifested in the flesh,
Justified in the Spirit,
Seen by angels,
Preached among the Gentiles,
Believed on in the world,
Received up in glory. 1 Timothy 3:16

Then the Jews said to Him, “You are not yet fifty years old, and have You seen Abraham?”
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 8:57-59

“And behold, I am coming quickly, and My reward is with Me, to give to every one according to his work. I am the Alpha and the Omega, the Beginning and the End, the First and the Last.” Revelation 22:12-13


“Thus says the LORD, the King of Israel,
And his Redeemer, the LORD of hosts:
I am the First and I am the Last;
Besides Me there is no God. Isaiah 44:6


looking for the blessed hope and glorious appearing of our great God and Savior Jesus Christ Titus 2:13






JLB

 

[Runningman]

I believe Jesus is God; YHWH the LORD God, because that is what the scriptures teach.

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. John 1:1

And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness:
God was manifested in the flesh,
Justified in the Spirit,
Seen by angels,
Preached among the Gentiles,
Believed on in the world,
Received up in glory. 1 Timothy 3:16

Refuted both points in comment #329.

Then the Jews said to Him, “You are not yet fifty years old, and have You seen Abraham?”
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 8:57-59

Exodus 3:14,15 says that the I AM is the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob but Acts 3:13 says that Jesus is not the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.

That means your interpretation of John 8:58 is not Scripture. Saying "I am" to refer to oneself happens all over the Bible. Many people have said it and nothing happened. It doesn't mean someone is God especially when they are demonstrably not God based on Exodus 3:14,15 and Acts 3:13.

“And behold, I am coming quickly, and My reward is with Me, to give to every one according to his work. I am the Alpha and the Omega, the Beginning and the End, the First and the Last.” Revelation 22:12-13


“Thus says the LORD, the King of Israel,
And his Redeemer, the LORD of hosts:
I am the First and I am the Last;
Besides Me there is no God. Isaiah 44:6

These titles aren't about being God. There are over a dozen titles and descriptions that Jesus does not share with God. Therefore, finding similar titles isn't a shoe-in especially where Jesus and God are demonstrably not the same person.

Take Revelation 1:4-8 for example where clear distinction between Lord God Almighty and Jesus Christ is made.

looking for the blessed hope and glorious appearing of our great God and Savior Jesus Christ Titus 2:13


JLB

Great God and Savior Jesus are two different persons.

 

[Free]

Greetings again Free,

Despite the theatrics, Trinitarianism believes in three gods.

No, it does not. Do not misrepresent what Trinitarianism teaches. It is strictly monotheistic; that is rather the whole point. It is attempting to make sense of all that God reveals of himself.

It is part of the One Name Yahweh. Jesus is the development of the One Name Yahweh, "I will be" not "I AM".

Where is your evidence?

There are not two different Gods, one angry and retributive, and one loving ad yielding.

Of course there isn’t. I don’t see what this has to do with the discussion.

Yahweh is ONE and his character and purpose is ONE.

Of course. I have never said any differently.

"I am he" is a common expression and has nothing to do with Exodus 3:14.

Except that the Greek expression Jesus uses isn’t “I am he,” as you know; it’s “I am.” You know that “he” is italicized because it doesn’t appear in the Greek. It very much ties back to Ex 3:14. That is precisely why Jesus said those words.

In John's Gospel, John is reporting the theme of whether or not Jesus is the Christ as per John 4:25-26, John 8:24 and John 8:28.

John introduces us to who Jesus is in his prologue—the preincarnate Word, the Son, who is God in nature and becomes flesh to live among us as one of us. That is the whole point of the first 18 verses. There are also numerous things throughout John’s gospel that strongly imply the deity of Jesus, culminating in Thomas’s declaration that Jesus is his Lord and his God.

All of that forms part of the context for Jesus’s “I am” statements (including John 18:5-6). The more immediate context of John 8 is important. The whole passage is about Jesus’s origin and identity, beginning in verse 12, and how that forms the basis for him being the Saviour and Messiah.

Jhn 8:21 So he said to them again, “I am going away, and you will seek me, and you will die in your sin. Where I am going, you cannot come.”
Jhn 8:22 So the Jews said, “Will he kill himself, since he says, ‘Where I am going, you cannot come’?”
Jhn 8:23 He said to them, “You are from below; I am from above. You are of this world; I am not of this world.
Jhn 8:24 I told you that you would die in your sins, for unless you believe that I am he you will die in your sins.” (ESV)

Of course, the “he” in verse 24 isn’t in the Greek—“for unless you believe that I am you will die sins.” And that is predicated on his claim that he is “from above” and “not of this world.” That speaks of his preexistence, . He claims that in several other places as well, and it is perfectly consistent with what John says in 1:1-18.

Then we get down to verses 57 and 58, where the question of who Jesus is arises for the third time. It is the same question Moses asks of God in Ex 3:13. Jesus’s response is significant in that he contrasts the coming into existence of Abraham (genesthai) with his own timeless existence (eimi). This is exactly what John did in the prologue, where “was” (en, the imperfect of eimi) in verse 1 speaks of timeless existence, and “became” (egeneto) in verse 14 speaks of entering into time.

For Jesus to say, “Before Abraham was, I am he,” makes no sense at all grammatically, if, as the Son, he did not actually exist prior to Abraham. Of course, the response of the Jews strongly suggests they understood full well that Jesus was claiming deity with “I am,” as they wanted to stone him for his response.

These are not connected with Exodus 3:14, which is correctly rendered "I will be" and speaks of Yahweh's future activity of salvation, firstly with delivering Israel out of Egypt and bringing them into the Land, and then the principal focus of the Yahweh Name is the salvation from sin and death accomplished in and through Jesus, "Yah's salvation".

While “I will be” may be a legitimate translation, “I Am” is also a legitimate translation that speaks of God’s timelessness, absoluteness, and changelessness. It could very well be both, but since God is identifying who he is, I think that “I Am” is the better, stronger understanding if there is to be only one meaning.

 

[JLB]

Refuted both points in comment #329.

You refuted nothing.

You can't refute what they scriptures say.

You can only try to "explain away" what the scriptures say, however we all know... the truth of the LORD endures forever.


Praise the LORD, all you Gentiles! Laud Him, all you peoples!
For His merciful kindness is great toward us, and the truth of the LORD endures forever.
Praise the LORD! Psalms 117

 

[JLB]

That isn't scripture because your version of 1 Timothy 3:16 was proven to be false. Not only is it problematic that God needed to be justified, but the original Greek doesn't contain "God was manifested in the flesh." It has been well-debated for a long time, but the jury has been out of this a long time as well. Below is the correct version that all modern Bibles I've seen use:

1 Timothy 316By common confession, the mystery of godliness is great:He appeared in the flesh,was vindicated by the Spirit,was seen by angels,was proclaimed among the nations,was believed in throughout the world,was taken up in glory.

You think "refuting" something is denying and changing a word meaning of scripture.

Theos, the word you changed and therefore denied the truth, in 1 Timothy 3:16 means God.

And G2532 without controversy G3672 great G3173 is G2076 the mystery G3466 of godliness: G2150 God G2316 was manifest G5319 in G1722 the flesh, G4561 justified G1344 in G1722 the Spirit, G4151 seen G3700 of angels, G32 preached G2784 unto G1722 the Gentiles, G1484 believed on G4100 in G1722 the world, G2889 received up G353 into G1722 glory. G1391

Strong's G2316 - theos

1. a god or goddess, a general name of deities or divinities
2. the Godhead, trinity
   1. God the Father, the first person in the trinity
   2. Christ, the second person of the trinity
   3. Holy Spirit, the third person in the trinity
3. spoken of the only and true God
   1. refers to the things of God
   2. his counsels, interests, things due to him
4. whatever can in any respect be likened unto God, or resemble him in any way
   1. God's representative or viceregent
      1. of magistrates and judges

G2316 - theos - Strong's Greek Lexicon (kjv)

G2316 - θεός theós, theh'-os; of uncertain affinity; a deity, especially (with ) the supreme Divinity; figuratively, a magistrate; by Hebraism, very:—X exceeding, God, god(-ly, -ward).

www.blueletterbible.org

Is Theology the study of God or man?

 

[Runningman]

You think "refuting" something is denying and changing a word meaning of scripture.

Theos, the word you changed and therefore denied the truth, in 1 Timothy 3:16 means God.

And G2532 without controversy G3672 great G3173 is G2076 the mystery G3466 of godliness: G2150 God G2316 was manifest G5319 in G1722 the flesh, G4561 justified G1344 in G1722 the Spirit, G4151 seen G3700 of angels, G32 preached G2784 unto G1722 the Gentiles, G1484 believed on G4100 in G1722 the world, G2889 received up G353 into G1722 glory. G1391

Strong's G2316 - theos

1. a god or goddess, a general name of deities or divinities
2. the Godhead, trinity
   1. God the Father, the first person in the trinity
   2. Christ, the second person of the trinity
   3. Holy Spirit, the third person in the trinity
3. spoken of the only and true God
   1. refers to the things of God
   2. his counsels, interests, things due to him
4. whatever can in any respect be likened unto God, or resemble him in any way
   1. God's representative or viceregent
      1. of magistrates and judges

G2316 - theos - Strong's Greek Lexicon (kjv)

G2316 - θεός theós, theh'-os; of uncertain affinity; a deity, especially (with ) the supreme Divinity; figuratively, a magistrate; by Hebraism, very:—X exceeding, God, god(-ly, -ward).

www.blueletterbible.org

Is Theology the study of God or man?

The Greek text analysis on Bible Hub doesn't say that. It uses a different, earlier, manuscript that say . You're using the KJV which is based based on the Textus Receptus. It came later. You can read all of the Trinitarian commentaries about this who admit 1 Timothy 3:16 with either accidentally or deliberately altered. I am not aware of any modern Bible's that say otherwise. We are focused on truth, not dogma, and/or tradition.

https://biblehub.com/text/1_timothy/3-16.htm

 

[Runningman]

You refuted nothing.

If I didn't refute it then please respond proving otherwise.

 

[follower]

You can only try to "explain away" what the scriptures say, however we all know... the truth of the LORD endures forever.

Amen.

 

[TrevorL]

Greetings again Free,

Except that the Greek expression Jesus uses isn’t “I am he,” as you know; it’s “I am.”

There is much repetition in our posts, so I would like to briefly reaffirm my position and leave it at that. I accept "I am he" as the correct translation, part of the theme of whether Jesus is the Christ.

While “I will be” may be a legitimate translation, “I Am” is also a legitimate translation

As one Hebrew scholar stated, that when the RV margin gives an alternative to the "I Am" of Exodus 3:14 it states "or, I will be", it is not allowing both "I Am" AND "I will be", it is actually only allowing one or the other. I accept "I will be" and this speaks of God's impending deliverance of Israel out of Egypt.

Kind regards
Trevor