Christian Forums
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
-
Are you 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/
-
-
-
-
Wearing the right shoes, and properly clothed spiritually?
Join Elected By Him for a devotional on Ephesians 6:14-15
https://christianforums.net/threads/devotional-selecting-the-proper-shoes.109094/
THE GREAT I AM
- Thread starter GodsGrace
- Start date
Consecrated Life
Member
The "Glory Of God" is God's alone, and God says He will share His Glory with no one.
Thus my Lord Jesus Christ the Son who has no beginning and no end has the Glory of God co-equally with God the Father before the world began.
John 17:5
And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was.
Based upon God's claim that He shares His Glory with no other, If you assert that Jesus Christ is not co-equal with the Father then based upon Jesus's specific claim of sharing God's Glory " before the world began" then one of them is a liar .
So who is the liar , God or Jesus Christ ?
Thus my Lord Jesus Christ the Son who has no beginning and no end has the Glory of God co-equally with God the Father before the world began.
John 17:5
And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was.
Based upon God's claim that He shares His Glory with no other, If you assert that Jesus Christ is not co-equal with the Father then based upon Jesus's specific claim of sharing God's Glory " before the world began" then one of them is a liar .
So who is the liar , God or Jesus Christ ?
Great post GodsGrace. Love. Walter
Greetings Walter,
Kind regards
Trevor
The major problem with the OP and your endorsement of this is that the title of the Thread and the OP incorrectly uses John 8:58 to support the erroneous doctrine of the Trinity. John 8:58 should be translated "I am he"", the same as John 8:24,28. Refer to Posts #7,16,23,30 and 44 and my thread "The Yahweh Name".
Kind regards
Trevor
Greetings TrevorL, We Understand what you are saying, GOD will judge all of us, Ecclesiastes 12:13-14 KJV, Matthew 4:4 KJV
Love, Walter
Last edited:
Why? "He" isn't in the Greek and grammatically makes no sense; it would make Jesus say nonsense.
Jesus is addressing the question: “You are not yet fifty years old, and have you seen Abraham?” His response is, “Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I am.”
First, if Jesus was to say "before Abraham was, I am he," would that mean he is claiming to be Abraham? But, that wouldn't be true and it would be nonsense to claim that before Abraham was, he was Abraham. Or, would it mean he is claiming to be someone else, such as the Messiah? But, that doesn't make sense either, since the question posed wasn't about who he was. So, in both cases, he would neither answer the question nor would his answer make sense grammatically.
Second, if Jesus meant "before Abraham was, I am he," then why did the Jews pick up stones to stone him? What blasphemy did he seemingly commit that demanded his death?
What we can plainly see is that the question is one of chronology and age. So, Jesus answers that with chronology and age, or better, with the nature of being. Jesus contrasts the limited existence of Abraham in time, with his own eternal preexistence. That actually answers the question and makes sense grammatically. It also makes sense of why the Jews wanted to stone him--they (falsely) saw his claim to be I Am as blasphemy.
Greetings again Walter and Free,
Kind regards
Trevor
I was gently objecting to your Post as it gave the impression that the claim concerning John 8:58 was correct and that the many Posts in this thread have proved this. It ignores the many Posts that rejected this claim and I suggest that the claim of the title of this thread and the OP have been adequately disproved.
My aim is not to go over the same arguments that have already been discussed. I answered the above in Post #7 and much of the rest of your Post in other answers. I suggest that you ignore the overall and immediate contexts in your attempt to inject the Trinity into John 8:58. When and in what way did Abraham rejoice to see the day of Jesus?
Kind regards
Trevor
Except that post #7 doesn’t address my arguments, it doesn’t even address John 8:58, and seems to purposefully ignore some context, such as John 8:23.
On the contrary, my argument is based on the immediate and overall contexts. From the very beginning of John’s gospel to the very end, there are numerous implicit and explicit claims to the deity of Jesus, by Jesus and others. Then there is the rest of the NT.
Good Morning TrevorL, And how are you all? Well, I understand what you are saying here, My mind goes back to what you were saying yesterday, and this morning my mind goes to what you are saying now.
From the scriptures, you revealed yesterday and the scriptures, I revealed to you yesterday, But what I have received this morning is https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2 Corinthians 5&version=NIV;KJV.
2 Corinthians 5:19 KJV is my point.
Just to let you know Jesus Is "The Great I am" to us.
Love, Walter
Last edited:
Greetings again Free and Walter,
John 20:31 (AV): But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name.
You have not answered my question:
Kind regards
Trevor
Why did the KJV and most other translators add "he" in both John 8:24 and John 8:28?
If saying "I AM" was considered blasphemy, why did they not pick up stones immediately after he said "I AM" in John 8:24, a verse often used to support the Trinity? But most expositors avoid John 8:24 where Jesus speaks of his absolute dependence upon God, his Father.
John states the purpose of his writing in the following:
John 20:31 (AV): But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name.
You have not answered my question:
I suggest that a correct answer is an important key to understanding John 8:58.
You quote this in support of your cause but I fully agree with this verse. Refer my thread the Yahweh Name.
You remind me of a particular type of political rally "Tr... - Make America Great Again", except your banner has "Trinity - The Great I AM". Such rallies do not impress me.
Kind regards
Trevor
Good morning TrevorL, https://www.bing.com/search?pglt=43...A0gEJODExNDlqMGoxqAIAsAIA&FORM=ANNTA1&PC=U531
Love, Walter
But more in the context of John 8, verses 28 and 40 describe Jesus as a man who was taught by God, the same one he calls Father. So Jesus was actually taught by the I AM.
We can get a more definitive idea about this because Acts 3:13 says that Jesus is actually the Son of the God of Abraham, etc. Exodus 3:14,15 says that the God of Abraham, etc is the I AM, YHWH. Psalm 2:5, 110:1 show distinction in persons between YHWH and Jesus. That means Jesus isn't the I AM.
This is often misunderstood by Trinitarians because, of course, you believe Jesus is God so you're going to automatically see any clue as an affirmation of such. There are no verses about Jesus saying or doing anything before Abraham, let alone the entire Old Testament. When Jesus said "before Abraham was, I am," he was saying he was in God's plan and foreknowledge even before Abraham, not that he is God the I AM. For example, Jesus didn't say "I am God" or something similar to that so any way we look at it, what you have presented is called a theological argument. Same issue with John 1:1, it actually doesn't come right out and say "Jesus is God" even though you may try to deduce it from that.
Because it does work grammatically in those two instances. In John 8:24, Jesus could be saying "I am the one from above" (v 23), "I am the Messiah" (John 7:26-28, 41), "I am the one sent from the Father" (John 7:28-29; 8:18), "I am the light of the world" (John 8:12), etc., or he could also be saying "I Am," which has significant implications. Any one of those fit grammatically and contextually; it could even be all of them.
There does seem to be some (perhaps purposeful) ambiguity on the part of Jesus in his reply in verse 24, hence the question "Who are you?" in verse 25.
As I showed, there is ambiguity as to precisely what was meant. The Jews certainly didn't seem to understand who Jesus was saying he was. In verse 58, though, it is clear.
Exactly. And at least twice the Jews understood Jesus's claim to be the Son of God as a claim to be equal to God:
Joh 5:16 And this was why the Jews were persecuting Jesus, because he was doing these things on the Sabbath.
Joh 5:17 But Jesus answered them, “My Father is working until now, and I am working.”
Joh 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)
Notice that those are John's words--he is the one saying that Jesus is claiming equality with God by stating God was his own Father.
Joh 10:30 I and the Father are one.”
Joh 10:31 The Jews picked up stones again to stone him.
Joh 10:32 Jesus answered them, “I have shown you many good works from the Father; for which of them are you going to stone me?”
Joh 10:33 The Jews answered him, “It is not for a good work that we are going to stone you but for blasphemy, because you, being a man, make yourself God.”
...
Joh 10:36 do you say of him whom the Father consecrated and sent into the world, ‘You are blaspheming,’ because I said, ‘I am the Son of God’? (ESV)
I have also argued elsewhere that we are the analogues to God and that God speaks to us in terms that we understand. So, when God uses the terms "Father" and "Son," we know what that entails. We know that it is impossible for a son to be of a different nature than his father. Human fathers always have human sons; it simply cannot be otherwise. Therefore, when Jesus calls himself the Son of God or claims that God is his Father, it communicates to us that they are of the same nature.
If not, then the use of Father and Son becomes completely meaningless to us and communicates nothing. It would then throw much of the NT, particularly the gospels, into confusion. For instance, what would John even mean by "Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name"? If we are to believe that Jesus is the Son of God in order to "have life in his name," but we don't even know what it means that he is the Son of God, then just what is it that we are to believe in order to have life?
We don't know exactly what it means--there are many possibilities, with no certainty--but it doesn't matter. The Jews twist Jesus's words into the question in verse 57: 'You are not yet fifty years old, and have you seen Abraham?”.' And it is that question that Jesus addresses, where adding "he" and understanding it as such makes no grammatical sense.
This is fallaciously begging the question.
That argument cuts both ways.
Which is relevant, how, exactly? How many times does it need to be pointed out to anti-Trinitarians that Jesus was born around 4 B.C., and is the whole reason for the NT?
Not at all. That doesn't fit the context or the plain meaning. Jesus said "I am" not "I was." The use of "I am" is speaking of absolute, continuous existence outside of time, which Jesus contrasts with Abraham's temporary existence within time.
It also doesn't explain why the Jews picked up stones to kill him. They all believed the Messiah was prophesied, so they would have agreed with Jesus that the Messiah "was in God's plan and foreknowledge even before Abraham." What they wouldn't have agreed with was the (seeming) blasphemy of Jesus applying the name I Am to himself, and the penalty for blasphemy was death by stoning.
You need to consider your arguments more deeply and see how they apply to your position. Why didn't Jesus say "I was in God's plan and foreknowledge even before Abraham"? Also, Jesus didn't need to say "I am God;" the implication is clear.
But, it does. It says that the Word was God in nature and since only God has the nature of God, it is correct to say "the Word was God."
Let's start with John 1:1 then. Your premise is that the Word is God and is still God. What does the verse actually say? This verse says the Word "was" God using the past tense because it's in the Imperfect Indicative Active tense, mood, and voice. That means at some point after the beginning that the Word ceased being God. God doesn't cease being God, but the Word ceased being God. No way to argue around this based on the Greek grammar. It's because the Word in John 1:1 is being personified.
1 John 1:1-4 helps clarify this; the Word of Life was something that belongs to God and it was revealed by Jesus. The Word isn't God in 1 John 1:1-4.
Going forward throughout the entire New Testament, it doesn't ever say the Word became God again. It says the Word became flesh, therefore the one who is flesh still isn't God.
1In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
GodsGrace
CF Ambassador
Hi RM,
Regarding your post no. 132 I was asking you what John 1:1 means but I see that you replied above to another member.
The Word WAS GOD.
And then the word ceased being God....if I've understood you correctly.
So, in your opinion, since the past tense word WAS is being used by John....then....
God ceased being God?
You want to tie in John 1 with 1 John 1 ??
OK
1 John 1-4
Here John refers to God as light.
The communion of God the Father and His Son Jesus Christ.
Son. The Word. The Logos. The 2nd Person of the Tiinity.
Who became flesh.....in the person of Jesus Christ.
1 John 1:5 states that GOD IS LIGHT.
5This is the message we have heard from Him and announce to you, that God is Light,
Now read what John says about JESUS.
John 1:4
4In Him was life, and the life was the Light of men.
In Him, JESUS, is the light of men.
So, to me, it looks like GOD IS LIGHT.
Also, seems like JESUS IS THE LIGHT.
Now, here's what I think RM.
I don't particularly enjoy debating whether or not water is wet.
If YOU can't accept that Jesus is God, this is a problem you must grapple with.
I leave you in the capable hands of Free who is very learned in this topic.
I understand the past tense to mean that what God spoke was God.
John 1:1 says the Word was God and you're right God doesn't stop being God which is my point. Yet the Word was God in the past tense. So how do we deal with the fact the Word "was" God in the past tense when it follows the Word wouldn't be God now? It's because the Word isn't literally God.
It's personification of the Word of God. Logos literally means something said; by implication, a topic, also reasoning or motive; by extension, a computation; specially, the Divine Expression. This isn't talking about an actual person. 1 John 1:1-4 refers to the Word of Life as a thing that was revealed through Jesus.
John 1:9 also refers to the true Light coming into the world in the present tense and it says the true Life gives light to all men. John the baptist was testifying about this. That would place the age of Jesus of about 30 years old (John 3:23) when the true Light was coming into the world. That also means Jesus isn't the true light.
I also might add, the disciples are also the light of the world (Matthew 5:14) and so is Jesus (John 8:12) but they aren't the true Light. Only the true Light gives light to men.
Nothing in John 1 says Jesus is God.
The personification becomes a person called the Word. To be a person is to have a face. Personification doesn’t have a face.