Christendom's Trinity: Where Did It Come From?

[Peterlag]

Jesus did not share in the glory of being God...

Why do I post this again? Because Trinitarians continue to say Jesus received worship and so he must be God. Jesus did not receive worship as God. He received worship as the son of God.

He shares the glory of being the son of God, the Messiah to Israel, and the now resurrected Lord Christ to the Christian who sits at the right hand of God as second in command and is the head of the Church that is called the body of Christ.

 

[Doug Brents]

Jesus did not share in the glory of being God...

Why do I post this again? Because Trinitarians continue to say Jesus received worship and so he must be God. Jesus did not receive worship as God. He received worship as the son of God.

It is blasphemy to receive worship of any kind if you ARE NOT GOD!!!

He shares the glory of being the son of God, the Messiah to Israel, and the now resurrected Lord Christ to the Christian who sits at the right hand of God as second in command and is the head of the Church that is called the body of Christ.

John 17:5 says you are wrong.

 

[Runningman]

It is blasphemy to receive worship of any kind if you ARE NOT GOD!!!

John 17:5 says you are wrong.

You're confusing bowing down in reverence to a king or master with God worship. Not the same things. That's why there are no commandments for believers to worship Jesus in all of Scripture. It's neither required nor something anyone was teaching because they didn't believe Jesus was God back in the day.

For example, if your false accusation were true, then you have just accused Jesus of blasphemy, you have just called him a sinner, if you don't rescind your bad talking point.

Revelation 3:9
Behold, I give those from the synagogue of Satan--those declaring themselves to be Jews, and are not, but they lie--behold, I will cause them that they will come and will worship before your feet, and they shall know that I have loved you.

 

[Peterlag]

It is blasphemy to receive worship of any kind if you ARE NOT GOD!!!

John 17:5 says you are wrong.

John 17:5 does not say the son of God cannot be worshipped.

 

[amazing grace]

John 8:58 ("Before Abraham was, I AM"): Jesus uses the divine name revealed to Moses in Exodus 3:14.

Jesus was not claiming the name Yahweh --- Yahweh is the ONE God's personal name AND Yahweh is the Father and I can clearly say that Jesus was NOT claiming to be the Father. Neither is Jesus saying he preexisted Abraham....

Your father Abraham rejoiced that he would see my day. He saw it and was glad.” So the Jews said to him, “You are not yet fifty years old, and have you seen Abraham?” Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I am.” [John 8: 54-57] Jesus didn't say that he 'had SEEN Abraham' or that Abraham had SEEN him --- he said Abraham rejoiced that he would see my day' and he saw it by faith ---- Hebrews 11:8a, 9,10 By faith Abraham obeyed ...... By faith he went to live in the land of promise, as in a foreign land, living in tents with Isaac and Jacob, heirs with him of the same promise. For he was looking forward to the city that has foundations, whose designer and builder is God. .... By faith Abraham saw Jesus' day when he would come into his kingdom.

John 10:30 ("I and the Father are one"): Jesus asserts his essential unity and equality with God.

Yes, Jesus is one in unity and purpose with God his Father. They have a very unique intimate Father/Son relationship and Jesus prayed that we would be one with them share in that relationship with him and his Father.

John 14:9 ("Whoever has seen me has seen the Father"): Jesus claims to be the visible representation of God.

Yes, Jesus did say that whoever has been me has seen the Father and yes, he was the perfect representation of his Father - after all he did come to make known the Father.

John 10:33 (Claim to divinity recognized by others): While not a direct quote from Jesus, this verse shows the audience understood he was "claiming to be God".

Jesus didn't claim to be God. He claimed to be the Messiah, the Son of God (BOTH MESSIANIC TITLES) - they just didn't believe he was the Messiah. So the Jews gathered around him and said to him, “How long will you keep us in suspense? If you are the Christ, tell us plainly.” Jesus answered them, “I told you, and you do not believe."

Mark 14:62 ("I am" - Response to high priest): Jesus affirms he is the Son of God, identifying with the divine power in Daniel 7.

But he remained silent and made no answer. Again the high priest asked him, “Are you the Christ, the Son of the Blessed?” And Jesus said, “I am, and you will see the Son of Man seated at the right hand of Power, and coming with the clouds of heaven.”
Jesus was just answering the question the high priest asked him in the affirmative -- he was the Christ the Son of the Blessed. Jesus' enemies charged him with indirectly claiming to be equal with God a claim Jesus NEVER MADE. And the reference to Daniel 7 - any power or position was not innate but give to him by the 'Ancient of Days', i.e God.......

John 20:28-29 (Accepting Thomas's confession): Jesus accepts Thomas calling him "My Lord and my God".

In view of the whole context of Jesus teaching the disciples "whoever has seen me has seen the Father.....Do you not believe that I am in the Father and the Father is in me." ..... Thomas now saw the Father in Christ in a way he had never done before - therefore he exclaimed "My Lord and My God". Then you have John's purpose statement just a couple of verses later in v31 -- but these are written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name. -- So, Thomas wasn't confessing Jesus was God or else John's purpose statement/conclusion would read:
and these are written so that you may believe that Jesus is God, God the Son and by believing you may have life in his name.
Is John deliberately contradicting the statement of Thomas? I don't think so.

John 5:18 (Making himself equal with God): Jesus equates himself with the Father in working and authority.

Jesus refuted their accusation concerning working on the Sabbath in John 7:

Moses gave you circumcision (not that it is from Moses, but from the fathers), and you circumcise a man on the Sabbath.
If on the Sabbath a man receives circumcision, so that the law of Moses may not be broken, are you angry with me because on the Sabbath I made a man's whole body well?

It seemed Jesus was doing both - working on the Sabbath and by claiming God was his Father - in their eyes, he was making himself equal with God. Something Jesus NEVER claimed.

John 17:5 (Glory before the world existed): Jesus claims eternal, pre-existent glory with the Father.

yea, the glory that God had God promised him he would receive when he accomplished the work that God gave him to do. And the glory God has given him --- that same glory, Jesus has given us, although we have not yet received it ---- it is promised that we will share in that glory. Jesus preexisted in prophet and in Gods's foreknowledge.

Mark 2:5-7 (Forgiving Sins): Jesus forgives sins, which the scribes rightly understood only God could do.

Why do the Trinitarians choose to believe what the unbelieving Jews claimed concerning Christ more than what Jesus said of himself? Should have kept reading: But that you may know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins”—he said to the paralytic—“I say to you, rise, pick up your bed, and go home.” [v10]

Mark 2:23-28 (Lord of the Sabbath): Jesus claims authority over the Sabbath, a divine prerogative .

Jesus is allowing his disciples to eat from the grainfields which was apparently breaking a Sabbath law and Jesus reminded them what David did when he got hungry and ate 'the bread of the Presence, which was not lawful for any but the priests to eat and David also gave to those who were with him...... Then Jesus said: the Sabbath was made for man NOT man for the Sabbath ---so since the Sabbath was made for man -- the Son of Man, the human being, is lord of the Sabbath.

Revelation 1:8, 22:13: Jesus takes the titles "Alpha and Omega" and "the Almighty".

God has the prerogative to share His titles with His Son......Jesus has the prerogative to accept those titles.

As the verses cited above clearly state, Jesus did claim to be God. So, if you accept that Jesus is who He claimed to be, God almighty who created all that was made, who can forgive sin, who is before all things, the Alpha and Omega, then you are choosing option A. If you reject option A, then you are saying that Jesus lied, blasphemed, claimed to be God when He was nothing more than a man, and so must believe in option B. There is no option C.

There are no verses above which clearly state, Jesus claimed to be God.
I accept that Jesus is who he said he was - the Son of God, the Messiah.

 

[FreeInChrist]

The first two commandments were written long before Jesus was born.

The first two commandments were written when the Word was active and well, before he became flesh... see John 1:14. The Word is Jesus. Period

 

[synergy]

The "beginning" in John 1 can be reduced down to Jesus' ministry. For one, we know that there was no pre-existent being in the beginning with God who God created through. Genesis 1 is explicit that God spoke literal audible words from His mouth and created alone. So your forced rendering of John 1:1 doesn't match remote context and isn't a narrative that exists in Scripture.

Elsewhere, the Genesis 1 narrative states in Genesis 1:3 “And God said, ‘Let there be light,’ and there was light.” Do you see how there is no description of God tag-teaming creation together as a group? Continued...“God said… and it was so” (vv. 6, 9, 11, 14, 20, 24, etc.)

Psalm 33:9 “For he spoke, and it came to be; he commanded, and it stood firm.” again another reference to "God opening His mouth and talking" rather than any sort of indicator God was in a group. As you can see, God is a He, not a they or them.

So it wouldn't make sense to abruptly, out of the blue, without any precedent, nor a repeat of John 1:1 ever popping again in Scripture, to to be about John 1:1 referring to the beginning of creation or really anything else you're saying. Exegesis demands consistency, something you don't have on this point. So John 1:1 is a reference to the beginning of Jesus ministry and the creation of Jesus.

Your argument explodes in a big ball of fire the moment you read John 1:2–3, because the text explicitly says that “He was in the beginning with God” and that “all things were made through Him, and without Him was not anything made that was made,” which directly contradicts the claim that the “beginning” is merely Jesus’ earthly ministry—since His ministry did not precede all created things. If everything that came into existence came through the Word, then the Word Himself cannot be part of the created order, or John’s statement becomes self-refuting. Rather than opposing Genesis or Psalm 33:9, John actually explains them: God “speaks” creation into existence through His Word, and John identifies that very Word as a personal, preexistent agent. So instead of “God working alone” excluding the Word, John reveals how God worked—through His Word—making the attempt to reduce John 1:1 to the start of Jesus’ ministry not just strained, but impossible in light of the immediate context.

 

[synergy]

I didn't go ACROSS THE ENTIRE BIBLE - What I did was reference verses the Pharisees would have been familiar with in regard to the usage of 'son' of God and made reference of Jesus's trial.....but regardless, I do not stand with the false accusations of the Pharisees, the unbelieving Jews. This is what Jesus thought of them:

I am the one who bears witness about myself, and the Father who sent me bears witness about me.” They said to him therefore, “Where is your Father?” Jesus answered, “You know neither me nor my Father. If you knew me, you would know my Father also.”
[John 8:18,19] .....They answered him, “Abraham is our father.” Jesus said to them, “If you were Abraham's children, you would be doing the works Abraham did, but now you seek to kill me, a man who has told you the truth that I heard from God. This is not what Abraham did. You are doing the works your father did.” They said to him, “We were not born of sexual immorality. We have one Father—even God.” Jesus said to them, “If God were your Father, you would love me, for I came from God and I am here. I came not of my own accord, but he sent me. Why do you not understand what I say? It is because you cannot bear to hear my word. You are of your father the devil, and your will is to do your father's desires. He was a murderer from the beginning, and does not stand in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks out of his own character, for he is a liar and the father of lies. But because I tell the truth, you do not believe me. Which one of you convicts me of sin? If I tell the truth, why do you not believe me? Whoever is of God hears the words of God. The reason why you do not hear them is that you are not of God.”[John 8:39-47]

Jesus didn't claim literal preexistence either. Abraham did not see Jesus as the Pharisees understood him to say....

Jesus answered, “If I glorify myself, my glory is nothing. It is my Father who glorifies me, of whom you say, ‘He is our God.’ But you have not known him. I know him. If I were to say that I do not know him, I would be a liar like you, but I do know him and I keep his word. Your father Abraham rejoiced that he would see my day. He saw it and was glad.” So the Jews said to him, “You are not yet fifty years old, and have you seen Abraham?” Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I am.” [John 8: 54-57]
Jesus didn't say that he 'had SEEN Abraham' or that Abraham had SEEN him --- he said Abraham rejoiced that he would see my day' and he saw it by faith ----
Hebrews 11:8a, 9,10 By faith Abraham obeyed ...... By faith he went to live in the land of promise, as in a foreign land, living in tents with Isaac and Jacob, heirs with him of the same promise. For he was looking forward to the city that has foundations, whose designer and builder is God. .... By faith Abraham saw Jesus' day when he would come into his kingdom.

If you look throughout John 8 --- you can see the constant referral to the Father, the only true God and how Jesus keeps putting God before himself throughout this conversation and if they could SEE referencing God as his Father, Jesus is saying that He is the Son of God, the Messiah.

You insist that Jesus didn’t claim preexistence, yet His statement “before Abraham was, I AM” does not even allude to Abraham’s faith but is a direct contrast between Abraham coming into being and Jesus’ continuous existence, which is exactly why His audience reacted the way they did. Appealing to Hebrews 11 to reinterpret Jesus’ words doesn’t solve the problem—it imposes a later theological reflection onto a passage where Jesus is competently communicating properly. You're portraying Jesus as being ok with any Pharisee "misunderstanding" by his reluctance to "correct" them. So your argument doesn’t actually deal with the force of the text—it tries to soften it by altering Jesus’ words and it portrays Jesus as an incompetent communicator.

 

[amazing grace]

You insist that Jesus didn’t claim preexistence, yet His statement “before Abraham was, I AM” does not even allude to Abraham’s faith but is a direct contrast between Abraham coming into being and Jesus’ continuous existence, which is exactly why His audience reacted the way they did.

Correct, it doesn't exactly spell out Abraham's faith but it is NOT saying Abraham saw Jesus nor that Jesus saw Abraham. It doens't spell out a literal preexistence either. Again, if you want to agree with the unbelieving Pharisees --- go ahead.

My bible doesn't say that Jesus had a continuous existence - My bible tells of his conception, his birth and his death ..... he was a mortal human being.

The text doesn't say that Abraham SAW Jesus nor does it say that Jesus saw Abraham.......the text says "Your father Abraham rejoiced that he would see my day. He saw it and was glad.”

Appealing to Hebrews 11 to reinterpret Jesus’ words doesn’t solve the problem—it imposes a later theological reflection onto a passage where Jesus is competently communicating properly. You're portraying Jesus as being ok with any Pharisee "misunderstanding" by his reluctance to "correct" them. So your argument doesn’t actually deal with the force of the text—it tries to soften it by altering Jesus’ words and it portrays Jesus as an incompetent communicator.

Now how did Abraham SEE Jesus' day? Hebrews 11 tells us how --- and Hebrews 11 does not reinterpret the text.
'A later theological reflection into the text'? The Book of Hebrews was written somewhere between 64 - 67AD ---- The Gospel of John was written around 90AD. Maybe the author of the gospel of John pulled the idea of Abraham seeing Jesus' day from what the author of Hebrews wrote.

Jesus was in the plans and purposes of God, he was in God's foreknowledge. So, we have Hebrews 11 to draw from as one way of Abraham seeing his day. We have the first prophecy concerning Jesus in Genesis 3 so Jesus was BEFORE Abraham in as 'the offspring of the woman'. AND we also have the promise of God which was fulfilled in Jesus who was a descendant of Abraham: I will surely bless you, and I will surely multiply your offspring as the stars of heaven and as the sand that is on the seashore. And your offspring shall possess the gate of his enemies, and in your offspring shall all the nations of the earth be blessed, because you have obeyed my voice.” [Gen. 22:17,18] Now the promises were made to Abraham and to his offspring. It does not say, “And to offsprings,” referring to many, but referring to one, “And to your offspring,” who is Christ. [Gal. 3:16]

Why are you so concerned about Jesus correcting the Pharisees, and the unbelieving Jews? Why would he waste his time knowing they wouldn't believe him anyway.
They answered him, “Abraham is our father.” Jesus said to them, “If you were Abraham's children, you would be doing the works Abraham did, but now you seek to kill me, a man who has told you the truth that I heard from God. This is not what Abraham did. You are doing the works your father did.” They said to him, “We were not born of sexual immorality. We have one Father—even God.” Jesus said to them, “If God were your Father, you would love me, for I came from God and I am here. I came not of my own accord, but he sent me. Why do you not understand what I say? It is because you cannot bear to hear my word. You are of your father the devil, and your will is to do your father's desires. He was a murderer from the beginning, and does not stand in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks out of his own character, for he is a liar and the father of lies. But because I tell the truth, you do not believe me. Which one of you convicts me of sin? If I tell the truth, why do you not believe me? Whoever is of God hears the words of God. The reason why you do not hear them is that you are not of God.”

 

[Runningman]

Your argument explodes in a big ball of fire the moment you read John 1:2–3, because the text explicitly says that “He was in the beginning with God” and that “all things were made through Him, and without Him was not anything made that was made,” which directly contradicts the claim that the “beginning” is merely Jesus’ earthly ministry—since His ministry did not precede all created things. If everything that came into existence came through the Word, then the Word Himself cannot be part of the created order, or John’s statement becomes self-refuting. Rather than opposing Genesis or Psalm 33:9, John actually explains them: God “speaks” creation into existence through His Word, and John identifies that very Word as a personal, preexistent agent. So instead of “God working alone” excluding the Word, John reveals how God worked—through His Word—making the attempt to reduce John 1:1 to the start of Jesus’ ministry not just strained, but impossible in light of the immediate context.

Funny. However, John 1:2,3 does not require the Word be a distinct pre-existent person because in Jewish poetry (the people who wrote the Bible) God's "word" can be a personified expression of the Father's creative will (Psalm 33:6-9 for example), so saying all things were made "through" the Word simply describes God creating by His spoken command rather than a separate eternal person. And all the Unitarians said amen! Keep those Unitarian verses coming Synergy.

 

[Peterlag]

The first two commandments were written when the Word was active and well, before he became flesh... see John 1:14. The Word is Jesus. Period

John 1:14 is not a teaching on the trinity or that we should believe or confess that Jesus is God. The "Word" is the wisdom, plan or purpose of God and the Word became flesh as Jesus Christ. Thus, Jesus Christ was the Word in the flesh, which is shortened to the Word for ease of speaking. Scripture is also the Word in writing. Everyone agrees that the Word in writing had a beginning. So did the Word in the flesh. In fact, the Greek text of Matthew 1:18 says that very clearly: "Now the beginning of Jesus Christ was in this manner..." The modern Greek texts all read "beginning" in Matthew 1:18. Birth is considered an acceptable translation since the beginning of some things is birth, and so most translations read birth. Nevertheless, the proper understanding of Matthew 1:18 is the beginning of Jesus Christ. In the beginning God had a plan, a purpose, which became flesh when Jesus was conceived.

 

[synergy]

Funny. However, John 1:2,3 does not require the Word be a distinct pre-existent person because in Jewish poetry (the people who wrote the Bible) God's "word" can be a personified expression of the Father's creative will (Psalm 33:6-9 for example), so saying all things were made "through" the Word simply describes God creating by His spoken command rather than a separate eternal person. And all the Unitarians said amen! Keep those Unitarian verses coming Synergy.

Even your distorted view that a personification can tabernacle as a human fails miserably because His ministry did not precede all created things. I even highlighted that fact and you still ignored that obvious crippling error on your part. "Let logic be dawned!" scream all unitarians.

I will keep Trinitarian verses coming, rest assured.

 

[synergy]

Correct, it doesn't exactly spell out Abraham's faith but it is NOT saying Abraham saw Jesus nor that Jesus saw Abraham. It doens't spell out a literal preexistence either. Again, if you want to agree with the unbelieving Pharisees --- go ahead.

My bible doesn't say that Jesus had a continuous existence - My bible tells of his conception, his birth and his death ..... he was a mortal human being.

The text doesn't say that Abraham SAW Jesus nor does it say that Jesus saw Abraham.......the text says "Your father Abraham rejoiced that he would see my day. He saw it and was glad.”

The Bible doesn’t say they played chess either, but that omission doesn’t erase what the text does clearly affirm—that Jesus existed as the Word, who was God, before Abraham (John 1), In John 8 Jesus doesn’t merely speak of Abraham anticipating “a day” in the abstract, He culminates the discussion with “before Abraham was, I AM!,” a statement of ongoing, preexistent identity that His audience understood as a divine claim, which is why they attempted to stone Him, so appealing to what the text doesn’t spell out while ignoring what it emphatically declares is selective reasoning, and dismissing preexistence by pointing to His conception and birth confuses His incarnation with His eternal nature. Scripture presents both, not one at the expense of the other, and your attempt at a false dichotomy contradicts the very passage under discussion.

Now how did Abraham SEE Jesus' day? Hebrews 11 tells us how --- and Hebrews 11 does not reinterpret the text.
'A later theological reflection into the text'? The Book of Hebrews was written somewhere between 64 - 67AD ---- The Gospel of John was written around 90AD. Maybe the author of the gospel of John pulled the idea of Abraham seeing Jesus' day from what the author of Hebrews wrote.

Jesus was in the plans and purposes of God, he was in God's foreknowledge. So, we have Hebrews 11 to draw from as one way of Abraham seeing his day. We have the first prophecy concerning Jesus in Genesis 3 so Jesus was BEFORE Abraham in as 'the offspring of the woman'. AND we also have the promise of God which was fulfilled in Jesus who was a descendant of Abraham: I will surely bless you, and I will surely multiply your offspring as the stars of heaven and as the sand that is on the seashore. And your offspring shall possess the gate of his enemies, and in your offspring shall all the nations of the earth be blessed, because you have obeyed my voice.” [Gen. 22:17,18] Now the promises were made to Abraham and to his offspring. It does not say, “And to offsprings,” referring to many, but referring to one, “And to your offspring,” who is Christ. [Gal. 3:16]

Hebrews 11 speaks of faith anticipating promises, not redefining or exhausting the meaning of Abraham “seeing” Christ’s day, while John 8 gives us Jesus’ own authoritative interpretation which culminates in “before Abraham was, I AM!”. That goes far beyond mere foreknowledge or prophetic expectation and asserts real preexistence. Appealing to writing dates to suggest John borrowed theology from Hebrews is pure speculation with zero textual evidence, and your reduction of Christ to something existing only in God’s plan ignores that the same passage you quote has Jesus distinguishing Himself from Abraham in a way that provokes charges of blasphemy, something that would make no sense if He were merely speaking about being “in the plan”.

Why are you so concerned about Jesus correcting the Pharisees, and the unbelieving Jews? Why would he waste his time knowing they wouldn't believe him anyway.
They answered him, “Abraham is our father.” Jesus said to them, “If you were Abraham's children, you would be doing the works Abraham did, but now you seek to kill me, a man who has told you the truth that I heard from God. This is not what Abraham did. You are doing the works your father did.” They said to him, “We were not born of sexual immorality. We have one Father—even God.” Jesus said to them, “If God were your Father, you would love me, for I came from God and I am here. I came not of my own accord, but he sent me. Why do you not understand what I say? It is because you cannot bear to hear my word. You are of your father the devil, and your will is to do your father's desires. He was a murderer from the beginning, and does not stand in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks out of his own character, for he is a liar and the father of lies. But because I tell the truth, you do not believe me. Which one of you convicts me of sin? If I tell the truth, why do you not believe me? Whoever is of God hears the words of God. The reason why you do not hear them is that you are not of God.”

Note your concern in our conversation so at least afford Jesus the same good intentions that you see in yourself. In John 8, Jesus is not “wasting time” but deliberately confronting error, exposing hearts, and bearing witness to the truth regardless of whether it is accepted, which is exactly what any sincere truth-seeker claims to value; your question assumes correction is pointless if rejected, yet Jesus clearly operates on the conviction that truth must be spoken even in the face of unbelief, both to remove excuse and to reveal who truly belongs to God. So when He calls out their inconsistency and unbelief, He is not engaging in futility but fulfilling His mission as one sent from the Father—meaning if you respect your own intent to argue what you believe is true despite opposition, you should at least grant that Jesus’ persistence in correcting them reflects at least the same, but perfectly grounded in truth rather than undermined by it.

 

[amazing grace]

The Bible doesn’t say they played chess either, but that omission doesn’t erase what the text does clearly affirm—that Jesus existed as the Word, who was God, before Abraham (John 1), In John 8 Jesus doesn’t merely speak of Abraham anticipating “a day” in the abstract, He culminates the discussion with “before Abraham was, I AM!,” a statement of ongoing, preexistent identity that His audience understood as a divine claim, which is why they attempted to stone Him, so appealing to what the text doesn’t spell out while ignoring what it emphatically declares is selective reasoning, and dismissing preexistence by pointing to His conception and birth confuses His incarnation with His eternal nature. Scripture presents both, not one at the expense of the other, and your attempt at a false dichotomy contradicts the very passage under discussion.

The foundation of the bible is not John 1:1. Jesus is not the Father. You are taking the I AM statement of Yahweh and applying it to Jesus in the context of John 8.......Yahweh is the Father.
I can't help what the Pharisees and/or the unbelieving Jews did to seek to kill Jesus, a man who had told them the truth that he heard from God but as Jesus said they were of their father, the devil, a murderer from the beginning.......

Hebrews 11 speaks of faith anticipating promises, not redefining or exhausting the meaning of Abraham “seeing” Christ’s day, while John 8 gives us Jesus’ own authoritative interpretation which culminates in “before Abraham was, I AM!”. That goes far beyond mere foreknowledge or prophetic expectation and asserts real preexistence.

Anticipating promises YES, and Abraham by faith did what God asked him to do anticipating seeing Christ's day ---- 'Your father, Abraham rejoiced to see my day. He saw it and was glad.' BY FAITH.
Jesus was not confessing to be Yahweh, Jesus is not the Father. That goes far beyond what the context intends.

Appealing to writing dates to suggest John borrowed theology from Hebrews is pure speculation with zero textual evidence, and your reduction of Christ to something existing only in God’s plan ignores that the same passage you quote has Jesus distinguishing Himself from Abraham in a way that provokes charges of blasphemy, something that would make no sense if He were merely speaking about being “in the plan”.

You were the one who implied that I brought in Hebrews 'imposed a later theological reflection onto a passage' -- In response I was showing Hebrews was not a later theological reflection.
I said 'Maybe the author of the gospel of John pulled the idea of Abraham seeing Jesus' day from what the author of Hebrews wrote.' NOT THAT HE DID! And let's just say as for 'imposing a later theological reflection into a passage', isn't that exactly what the Trinitarian does?
He was before Abraham existed in God's foreknowledge and that plan didn't STAY 'a plan' but what was prophesied concerning the Son of God, the Messiah was fulfilled in Jesus Christ.

Note your concern in our conversation so at least afford Jesus the same good intentions that you see in yourself. In John 8, Jesus is not “wasting time” but deliberately confronting error, exposing hearts, and bearing witness to the truth regardless of whether it is accepted, which is exactly what any sincere truth-seeker claims to value; your question assumes correction is pointless if rejected, yet Jesus clearly operates on the conviction that truth must be spoken even in the face of unbelief, both to remove excuse and to reveal who truly belongs to God. So when He calls out their inconsistency and unbelief, He is not engaging in futility but fulfilling His mission as one sent from the Father—meaning if you respect your own intent to argue what you believe is true despite opposition, you should at least grant that Jesus’ persistence in correcting them reflects at least the same, but perfectly grounded in truth rather than undermined by it.

Jesus NEVER said he was God. Jesus consistently said his Father was God which made him the Son of God, the Messiah ---And from their perspective, in claiming to be the Son of God - he was 'claiming to be equal with God' which is not 'claiming to BE GOD'. So the argument is not over Jesus being God.....They simply did not believe him to be the Son of God, the Messiah - PERIOD. Hadn't Jesus BEEN confronting these Pharisees/Jews throughout this dialogue? If someone refuses to accept the truth, is correction pointless? Should there be a time when you walk away and shake the dust off your feet?

 

[FreeInChrist]

John 1:14 is not a teaching on the trinity or that we should believe or confess that Jesus is God. The "Word" is the wisdom, plan or purpose of God and the Word became flesh as Jesus Christ. Thus, Jesus Christ was the Word in the flesh, which is shortened to the Word for ease of speaking. Scripture is also the Word in writing. Everyone agrees that the Word in writing had a beginning. So did the Word in the flesh. In fact, the Greek text of Matthew 1:18 says that very clearly: "Now the beginning of Jesus Christ was in this manner..." The modern Greek texts all read "beginning" in Matthew 1:18. Birth is considered an acceptable translation since the beginning of some things is birth, and so most translations read birth. Nevertheless, the proper understanding of Matthew 1:18 is the beginning of Jesus Christ. In the beginning God had a plan, a purpose, which became flesh when Jesus was conceived.

aarg.... I am leaving and so want to get into this .. Hopefully later I shall.

 

[amazing grace]

John 1:14 is not a teaching on the trinity or that we should believe or confess that Jesus is God. The "Word" is the wisdom, plan or purpose of God and the Word became flesh as Jesus Christ. Thus, Jesus Christ was the Word in the flesh, which is shortened to the Word for ease of speaking. Scripture is also the Word in writing. Everyone agrees that the Word in writing had a beginning. So did the Word in the flesh. In fact, the Greek text of Matthew 1:18 says that very clearly: "Now the beginning of Jesus Christ was in this manner..." The modern Greek texts all read "beginning" in Matthew 1:18. Birth is considered an acceptable translation since the beginning of some things is birth, and so most translations read birth. Nevertheless, the proper understanding of Matthew 1:18 is the beginning of Jesus Christ. In the beginning God had a plan, a purpose, which became flesh when Jesus was conceived.

Just to add to the 'beginning of Jesus Christ' ---- Matthew 1:1 begins: The book of the genealogy (generation KJV) of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham. The Greek word genealogy (generation KJV) is 'genesis' and the definition is source, origin - a book of one's lineage, i.e. in which his ancestry or progeny are enumerated; used of birth, nativity.
then list the genealogy of Jesus lineage, his origin, his source.

 

[Doug Brents]

You're confusing bowing down in reverence to a king or master with God worship. Not the same things. That's why there are no commandments for believers to worship Jesus in all of Scripture.

No confusion at all. But you have not addressed John 17:5.

It's neither required nor something anyone was teaching because they didn't believe Jesus was God back in the day.

Then why did Thomas call Jesus "Lord and God"?

For example, if your false accusation were true, then you have just accused Jesus of blasphemy, you have just called him a sinner, if you don't rescind your bad talking point.

Revelation 3:9
Behold, I give those from the synagogue of Satan--those declaring themselves to be Jews, and are not, but they lie--behold, I will cause them that they will come and will worship before your feet, and they shall know that I have loved you.

How is it blasphemy for God to command someone to do anything? If God commands worship (even if the worship is not directed at Him), then there is no sin in Him or in the one worshiping.

 

[Doug Brents]

John 17:5 does not say the son of God cannot be worshipped.

No, it says that Jesus was with God before the world was created, and had the same glory as God (which is part of what He emptied Himself of when He descended.
"And now You, Father, glorify Me together with Yourself, with the glory which I had with You before the world existed."

 

[JesusFan]

No, it says that Jesus was with God before the world was created, and had the same glory as God (which is part of what He emptied Himself of when He descended.
"And now You, Father, glorify Me together with Yourself, with the glory which I had with You before the world existed."

God stated that he will share His glory with no one else, so either jesus was blaspheming there, or is very God Himself

 

[praise_yeshua]

You're confusing bowing down in reverence to a king or master with God worship. Not the same things. That's why there are no commandments for believers to worship Jesus in all of Scripture. It's neither required nor something anyone was teaching because they didn't believe Jesus was God back in the day.

For example, if your false accusation were true, then you have just accused Jesus of blasphemy, you have just called him a sinner, if you don't rescind your bad talking point.

Revelation 3:9
Behold, I give those from the synagogue of Satan--those declaring themselves to be Jews, and are not, but they lie--behold, I will cause them that they will come and will worship before your feet, and they shall know that I have loved you.

Still kicking against what your heart already knows.

Joh 13:13 You call me Master and Lord: and you say well; for so I am.
Joh 13:14 If I then, your Lord and Master, have washed your feet; you also ought to wash one another's feet.
Joh 13:15 For I have given you an example, that ye should do as I have done to you.