amazing grace
Active Member
The so-called Jewish leaders didn't believe he was who he said he was - exactly the human Messianic Davidic King, the Son of God, the Messiah.
The Trinity and all of its supporting doctrines are all circular in reasoning
- Thread starter Runningman
- Start date
amazing grace
Active Member
I have to join medium.com in order to read the full article .... no thanks. Maybe you can copy and paste what it is you wanted to convey that is relevant.
Actually no the question hasn't been explained why it is different when Jesus ego eimi and not when others say ego eimi.
Is it every usage of ego eimi that Jesus says? If not, how do you distinguish between when he means 'I am God' and when he is just identifying himself or is there a difference?
Sorry you feel it is such a waste of time.
Doug Brents
Active Member
No cost for their membership.
My apologies, I have explained that so many times for others who hold your mistaken belief that I though I must have already explained it to you also.
Jesus uses no qualifiers when He uses the phrase ego eimi (Greek for "I am"). Whenever you use the phrase "I am", you must always qualify it with what it is that you are. Are you hungry, thirsty, tired, a rock, a couch potato, etc. But God does not use any qualifiers when He uses the phrase in Exodus 3, and Jesus does not use any qualifiers when He uses the phrase in John 8:24 and in 8:58. In other places Jesus uses the phrase with qualifiers: I am the bread of Life, I am the Way, etc., but in these two places in John 8, He uses no qualifier which hearkens back to Exodus 3, and God's use of that phrase when speaking to Moses.
If there were any hope of you coming to a right understanding of who Jesus is, then it would not be a waste of time. But you continue to use the same arguments that are contrary to the clear statements of Scripture. If you are willing to learn, and rightly understand Scripture, then I would love to continue.
amazing grace
Active Member
I just didn't want to go through the hassle of signing up --- I guess you can't cut and paste what you thought was relevant?
Really, I hadn't thought about that. I rarely ever use a 'qualifier'.... someone ask me 'Are you so-and-so's wife?' I just say I am (ego eimi). If someone asked me 'Are you going to the store today?', I say 'Yes, I am.' (ego eimi) If someone ask me: 'Are you hungry?' I most often just answer, Yes, I am. (ego eimi)
In Exodus 3 - when God tells Moses I AM WHO I AM...... Ehyeh Asher Ehyeh (אֶֽהְיֶ֖ה אֲשֶׁ֣ר אֶֽהְיֶ֑ה): Commonly rendered "I AM THAT I AM" (KJV) or "I AM WHO I AM" (NKJV). or "I Will Be What I Will Be". The qualifier is the word אֲשֶׁר (Asher), which acts as a relative pronoun, typically meaning "that," "which," or "who". It connects the first "I AM" (Ehyeh) to the second, linking God's essence with his self-existence, often translated as "I will be what I will be".
The second I am has sent me to you, the qualifier is Ehyeh, which functions as a personal name of presence indicating that God "is" and "will be" with His people. God's recognition to Moses about who God said he was...... we cannot neglect v15 when God tells Moses “Say this to the people of Israel: ‘The LORD (Yahweh), the God of your fathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, has sent me to you.’ This is my name forever, and thus I am to be remembered throughout all generations.
God is referring to the name by which he wants the people of Israel to know him and refer to him.
Look how similar in spelling the two words are: LORD - יְהֹוָה ........ hāyâ I AM - הָיָה I find it fascinating!
But see I believe I have a right understanding of who Jesus is - he is the Son of God, the Messiah.
You want to continue only to convert me to Trinitarianism --- I been there, I don't want to go back.
I do enjoy a good debate though. Thanks.
One more question - John 4 ---- Was Jesus saying here using 'ego eimi' that he was Yahweh? - Jesus said to her, “I who speak to you am [he].” = I am who speaks to you.
Doug Brents
Active Member
Just as the "I am" is understood or implied in the sentence, "Going to the store", when you reply, "I am" in your example above, the qualifier, "so-and-so's wife" is understood. But there is no understood or implied qualifier in Jesus statement, "Before Abraham, I AM." He, like God in Exo 3, exist just because they exist.
So what God is saying, as I stated above, is "I exist because I exist". That is the essence of His deity. He doesn't need anything else. And that is the title that Jesus is assuming for Himself in John 8.
Precisely. "I AM" is the name, not Yahweh (the Lord), that God gave Himself. And that is the name that Jesus uses in John 8.
And who is the Lord? Jesus (Rom 10:9, Phil 2:10-11, 1 Cor 8:6, Acts 2:36, Luke 2:11, John 13:13).
He is all of that... and more. Much more. He is also God most High.
Do you believe that the Bible is God's inerrant Word? Do you believe that there is not a single word that is false, a mistake, etc. in the entire 66 books, 1,189 chapters and approximately 31,102 verses? If you do, then you cannot fail to believe in the deity of Jesus. It is states most explicitly several times, and implied in many more.
I enjoy a good debate too. But when debating Scripture and Biblical doctrine, we must always allow the Bible to have the last word. All of Scripture (not just some bits and pieces), and not your opinion or my opinion, or what we were taught since we were children, must ALWAYS be the foundation of any conclusion we reach. If there is any verse or passage of Scripture that disproves a particular doctrine, then that doctrine must be revised or abandoned.
And the deity of Jesus Christ is 100% supported and mandated by all of Scripture. It does not violate the doctrine of monotheism, because Jesus is not a different God than the Father.
Jesus was saying that He was the Messiah/Christ, the one the woman was saying had been foretold. He was not explicitly saying that He was Yahweh, but we know from other passages that the Messiah is Yahweh. So the woman at the well would not have understood that Jesus was saying He was God. But today, we can know through our perspective of hindsight that Jesus was indeed Yahweh when He was speaking to the woman.
amazing grace
Active Member
WHY would you say there is no qualifier when said qualifier is understood or implied in the context?
Possible options that could be suggested or implied without making him Yahweh:
1. He could be responding to their question: So they said to him, “Who are you?” Jesus said to them, “Just what I have been telling you from the beginning - the qualifier being: Before Abraham was, I am who I have been telling you from the beginning.
2. OR he could be responding to this question: Are you greater than our father Abraham, who died? And the prophets died! Who do you make yourself out to be?” - the qualifier being: I am greater than Abraham.
3. AND THEN: He is responding to this statement "Your father Abraham rejoiced that he would see my day. He saw it and was glad.” .... He was before Abraham in God's foreknowledge and in prophecy Genesis 22:17 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, fulfilled in Christ Gal. 3:16 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. -- Before Abraham was, I am the one spoken of through that OT prophets.
4. OR "Your father Abraham rejoiced that he would see my day. He saw it and was glad.” .... Abraham saw his day through faith Hebrews -- By faith Abraham obeyed when he was called to go out to a place that he was to receive as an inheritance. And he went out, not knowing where he was going. 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. ... Before Abraham I am the one he was looking forward to, my day that Abraham looked forward to through faith.
I prefer the last two options. It's clean and keeps Jesus, the Son of God, God's Christ from being God himself.
I understand what God was saying in Exodus 3 .... Jesus doesn't 'exist because I exist'. Jesus wouldn't exist if not for God 'giving his Son' (John 3:16). Jesus wouldn't exist if not for Mary, a young maiden who said "let it be to me according to your word.”
Jesus is not asei only Yahweh is asei.
Precisely, this is the name God wanted His people to know him by in telling Moses to tell His people “Say this to the people of Israel: ‘The LORD (Yahweh), the God of your fathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, has sent me to you.’ This is my name forever, and thus I am to be remembered throughout all generations.
Why do you ignore this verse? This is how God wanted to be known by His people, Yahweh aka LORD --- His personal name forever!
Rom. 10:9 Jesus of Nazareth, the man attested by God; Phil. 2:10,11 Jesus of Nazareth, the man attested by God exalted to the right hand of God his Father; 1 Cor. 8:6 Jesus of Nazareth, the man attested by God, the one Lord;
Acts 2:36 Jesus of Nazareth, the man attested by God - God has made both Lord and Christ, this Jesus whom you crucified.”;
Luke 2:11 Jesus of Nazareth, the man attested by God is the Son of God, who is Christ the Lord (God was NOT born); John 3:13 Jesus of Nazareth, the man attested by God. --- Son of Man = human being.
NONE of these verses say Jesus is God because he has the title 'lord'.
I disagree and I do not see scripture as teaching that doctrine. That doctrine came at a much later date and is being read into scripture
I think there are some errors in translation which translations are made by man.
I think that there are errors in punctuation, chapter breaks, chapter titles, etc. which are also added features by man.
But for the most part I believe scripture to be God's word as we have it and are to be taken as truth.
I also know that there are ambiguous verses (something open to more than one interpretation, having a double meaning, or being unclear, often causing confusion) which is why there are different translations of the Bible.
I don't agree with reading into scripture things that are not relative to the culture and time period of when those scriptures originated, i.e. produces years later. I believe that God left us His word, preserved His word for us and it holds everything we need to obtain salvation, to live humbly, to judge righteously, to be kind, just, merciful - to live righteously. I think He plainly stated what we need to know and that He doesn't have to HINT, or IMPLY or make us GUESS He wants us to know.
God said he gave HIS SON and that SON came into existence, aka came from God, aka came down from heaven, aka came from the Father, aka sent by God via a miraculous conception and His Son would be great and be called the Son of the Most High. His Son would inherit the throne of his father David and he will reign over the house of Jacob forever, and of his kingdom there would be no end ... and for this to occur: God did not have to become a man.
I disagree that the deity of Jesus Christ is 100% supported nor mandated by scripture.
He NEVER explicitly said he was Yahweh. Yahweh did not anoint himself - He anointed his Son.
I have more to say but I have a doctor's appointment this morning so I need to go. Be back later! Thanks.
Doug Brents
Active Member
There is no qualifier in God's statement in Exo 3, or in Jesus statement in John 8.
None of those make any sense in the context. You are searching for any reason you can come up with to not believe the Truth.
Why are you trying to keep Him from being who He is?
I have never heard of "asei", so I have to look it up. Jesus is indeed self-existent. He is the Way, the Truth, and the Life. He is the one who gives life (not just renewal of life) to all things. He is responsible for all of Creation. He existed before Creation with the Father as God, and through Him all things that were made were Created. Just as God exists because God exists, Jesus exists because Jesus exists.
No, Yahweh is not the name He is emphasizing there. I AM is the name. Yahweh (the Lord) is a descriptor, a title. What did He say in verse 14b? "This is what you shall say to the sons of Israel: ‘I AM has sent me to you.’"
What is the name of the person who sent you? "I AM" sent me.
Jesus is not just "a lord", He is "the Lord".
Again, we go back to the most explicit statement of Jesus deity in Scripture: John 1. The Word/Logos was God (and was with God, so not the same being, but the same God). Then the Logos became/put on flesh in the form of a man. And that man is Jesus. So Jesus is the Logos and the Logos is God. Jesus is God.
If you truly believe that the Bible is God's Word, that He preserved it for us, and that it is fully trustworthy, then you MUST believe in the deity of Jesus. And it doesn't matter that Jesus didn't use the words, "I am Yahweh" while He was alive on Earth. What matters is that Scripture says He is. John 1 says it explicitly. Jesus says He is the "first and the last", "alpha and omega" in Revelation. And all the other passages we have discussed all point to Him being God. I know it is hard to believe. I don't know how it all works, but I trust that it does, because that is what Scripture says.
If, as you have said you agree, Jesus is the Logos of God. And the Logos was both with God and was God before the world was created (as John 1 says). Then the ONLY conclusion we can reach is that Jesus is God. Either that, or Scripture contains a MASSIVE error, and none of it can be trusted at all.
amazing grace
Active Member
I gave you previous information about the qualifier in Exodus 3.
Actually, no I am not searching for any reason to not believe the truth. All of those that I listed - except for the last two are INFERENCES of POSSIBILITIES which do go along with the context of John 8 BUT the last two 3 & 4 line up with the immediate context and with remote context.
Is there other scripture that clearly say Jesus' is known by the personal name of Yahweh with which I can align John 8:58?
If Jesus is the I AM, if Jesus is Yahweh of the OT then Jesus is the Father.
Why are you trying to keep Him from being who He is?
Aseity (derived from the Latin phrase a se, meaning "from himself") is a technical theological term referring to the absolute independence, self-exsitence and self-sufficiency of God. It means that God does not depend on any external cause or source for his existence, life, or purpose; rather, he has within himself the sufficient reason for his own existence...... I AM THAT I AM.
Jesus said of himself --- 'the Son can do nothing of his own accord'.....'I can do nothing on my own.' Jesus depended on God his Father. Jesus depended on his parents when he was born. Jesus had to eat and drink to nourish his body, he had bodily functions, he had to rest, he had to sleep, etc.
Yep, Jesus is responsible for the new creation. Jesus is the way to the Father, Jesus is full of grace and truth, and Jesus is the way to eternal life. For as the Father raises the dead and gives them life, so also the Son gives life to whom he will.“Truly, truly, I say to you, an hour is coming, and is now here, when the dead will hear the voice of the Son of God, and those who hear will live. For as the Father has life in himself, so he has granted the Son also to have life in himself. [John 5']
find me a verse where God is ever called I AM----If that is his name then he should be called that SOMEWHERE by SOMEONE.
God continued in verse 15 and said some more to Moses and this is what he said. “Say this to the people of Israel: ‘The LORD (Yahweh), the God of your fathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, has sent me to you.’ This is my name forever, and thus I am to be remembered throughout all generations. [Exodus 3:15]
'I AM' is not a name.....God wanted to be known by His people, Yahweh aka LORD --- His personal name forever!
Now, since we can go no further with Exodus 3, we do not have to discuss it again.
You believe 'I AM' is God's name - I believe Yahweh is God's name --- we are at a standstill unless you find me a verse where someone addressed God by his name I AM.
Was any statement I made above about the verses you referenced incorrect?
I agree that Jesus is Lord. Jesus' position was publicly confirmed when he was 'made both Lord and Christ' as a result of his being raised from the dead and exalted to right hand of the Father.
The word was God in a descriptive sense it is in the nominative case which means it is NOT equivalent to God.
The Word/Logos was God (and was with God, so not the same being, but the same God........God was with God?
Please let me know how that is not two gods? I just believe that to be the biggest contradiction to the whole concept of Jesus being the Son of God and also to author's own designated purpose statement for the Gospel of John ---- 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.
Or does John 1:1 hold some type of precedence over the rest of scripture?
I believe God so loved the world that he gave his only Son and our redemption lies in the fact that Jesus was a human being. As Romans 5 says a man messed things up and it a man had to make things right.
Humanity owed God a debt - the wages of sin is death and only a perfect human could pay the debt that humanity owed God.
That man, Jesus of Nazareth - the Son of God, the Messiah paid the debt we owed - the free gift but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.
Not an error at all. Sorry, can't rest my faith on John 1:1 are on just a handful of scripture with hints, clues, inferences scattered here and there. God gave his Son.......Jesus is called the Son of God because he was conceived by the power of the Most High --- the logos became a human being the only Son from the Father --- he came to make know God the Father - His Father is the only true God.
I can easily follow my beliefs through scripture but I have a very hard time drawing the Trinitarian doctrine out of the scripture.
Hence, I am no longer Trinitarian.
this obvious is a timing issues that peterlag misses. Of course if peterlag thinks this was a daily teaching of Jesus, he would have a point. Maybe it is hard to miss that only after the resurrection was it the time that Thomas said this. Is this the common type of thing that unitarians miss reading scripture -- perhaps a flattening of all scripture?
For those desiring to understand the gospels, an obvious detail of the disciples is they could not understand what Jesus was saying and doing much of the time. They were trying to bridge what they heard from Jesus with what they knew culturally.
I'm not sure how that denies what Thomas said.
Last edited:
Runningman
Active Member
I doubt any of them like Mike and the bunch will give you a straight forward answer on this.
Doug Brents
Active Member
There is no qualifier in Exo 3. "I exist". Why do you exist? "Because I exist." I AM because I AM. There is no qualifier. "I AM has sent me." No qualifier.
Jesus is not the Father. If He were, then He would not be WITH God, as well as BEING God (John 1:1).
And that is exactly what Jesus is.
As a human, He did indeed. But His spirit is not dependent upon the Father for His existence. He exists because He exists (John 8:24, 8:58). He was with the Father before Creation (we are told this in John 1:1 and in John 17:5).
Jesus was not responsible for "just" the new creation. He is responsible for the creation of everything that was made (John 1:3). This proves His preexistence, His preeminence, and His deity. Because Gen 1:1 says that God is the one who created everything, and John 1:3 says that the Logos (which put on flesh that we know as Jesus) created everything.
God told Moses to tell Israel that "I AM has sent me." Yes, in verse 15, the name He is pointing back to is "I AM", not Yahweh.
We can discuss it until you understand it properly. But if you choose to remain in ignorance, that is your choice.
The point was that God is the LORD (Yahweh). Jesus is the LORD (Yahweh). God is the "I AM". Jesus is the "I AM". Jesus is God.
Nominative case tells us who is doing the action.
Accusative case tells us who is being acted upon.
The Word/Logos/Jesus was with God (accusative), and the Word/Logos/Jesus was God (nominative).
The same way that your spirit and your soul (two completely different parts of yourself) do not make two different "yous".
No, John 1:1 is not greater than any other verse in Scripture, but neither is it any less. You cannot formulate any doctrine on the identity of Jesus that does not include the deity of Jesus, because Jesus IS God.
Certainly He was human. That is not debatable. But He was also God, and that also is not debatable.
I am very sorry for you that you have fallen from the truth. It seems to me that you go to great length to discount clear passages of Scripture that explicitly state Jesus' deity, rather than accepting the Truth. I pray that you return to the Truth before it is too late, because there IS a "too late".
amazing grace
Active Member
Well, I am not the one that is associating him as the I AM in Exodus and the I AM in Exodus is Yahweh, the Father.
The first usage of 'theos' in John 1:1 is the Father......the Word was with God the Father and of course, the Trinitarian has to change the meaning of 'theos' in John 1:1c so that it doesn't reference the Father and round and round she goes.......
Yahweh is the only one in existence who depends upon nothing and no one. He doesn't have to eat, sleep, drink, etc. to sustain his life. He doesn't NEED anything. Jesus is a human being and has need of those things in order to exist - if he doesn't then he is not a human being as we are.
Jesus is not two people. Jesus is one person, a human being a member of the human race. He is very dependent on God his Father or else he lied when he said he could do nothing on his own accord.
Yes, Jesus admitted to be the Christ, the son of God and if one does not believe in him they will die and their sins and yes, Jesus was before Abraham in God's plan for mankind's redemption.
We are told in John 1:1 that in the beginning was the Word, the Word was with God and the Word was God. If God was in the vocative case in John 1:1 then it would be used as saying the Word was equivalent to God but it is in the nominative case and therefore, God is a noun being used as an adjective, i.e. a descriptive sense
We are told in John 17:5 that Jesus prayed to his Father, the only true God, saying that the hour had come and he had accomplished what God his Father had sent him, asking for the glory God had prepared for him - the glory God had in store for him. Just Jesus prayed that he had given his glory to us and to those who would believe in him but we have not entered that glory yet.
The Word, the logos made everything that was made in John 1:3 --- God spoke creation into existence.
Thus says Yahweh (the LORD), your Redeemer, who formed you from the womb: “I am Yahweh (the LORD), who made all things, who alone stretched out the heavens, who spread out the earth by myself, [Isaiah 44:24]
I guess God didn't know Jesus was with him helping him.
It is not I who am in ignorance. “Say this to the people of Israel: ‘The LORD (Yahweh), the God of your fathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, has sent me to you.’ This is my name forever, and thus I am to be remembered throughout all generations. [Exodus 3:15] It's as plain as the nose on my face ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^.
Yahweh is NOT a human being, one of his created beings and in my opinion, it is offensive to think of him as one.
So God is being acted upon John 1:1b and God is doing the action in John 1:1c ..... God acting on God????
In John 1:1c the word theos is in the nominative case and functions as a predicate nominative. Since it precedes the verb 'was' and lacks a definite article it is widely understood to be a qualitative predicate noun, emphasizing the nature or essence of the Word (divine) rather than strict identity with the Father.
Of course, my spirit and my soul are not two completely different parts of myself.
I, as a human being, am composed of a spirit, and a soul and a body - without one or the other I cease to exist. My arm, my leg, my hand are parts of me and I can live without either of these.
If your God is Triune - he would cease to be Triune without being composed of ALL three persons. The problem is the identity of Jesus is being lost
I would agree that it is NOT debatable that Jesus Christ was a member of the human race, a human being. In your doctrinal belief a God-man, a being that possesses "two natures", one divine and one human. These two natures coexist "without confusion, without change, without division, without separation" in the one person.
So how is it that one can say "oh that was in his human nature" or oh that was in his nature as deity" if these natures are without separation or division? Is this a fusion of two totally distinct and different natures in the person of Jesus? And just how does one function with two completely opposite natures? Is a 'nature' considered a person?
No man who is also God can truly be a human being without redefining the term "human" because we do know and understand what a human being is since we are human beings! Whatever a God-man might be, he is not a human being as we are, he is simply not one of us.
Thanks for your concern but I have not fallen from the truth - I have followed the truth. I am now aligned with Jesus, the way, the truth and the life. I am on a firm foundation with a solid basis in the scriptures.
Thanks. I pray the same for you.
Peterlag
Active Member
I posted this (that I got the thought from you) on other sites and there they are twisting it to mean Thomas like others doubted God. But that's not what I asked. I did not ask if Thomas doubted God. I asked if Thomas would have doubted the resurrection if he thought Jesus was God?
Peterlag
Active Member
The question I asked earlier was not whether Thomas doubted God.
The question was would Thomas have doubted the resurrection if he thought Jesus was God? Thomas knew his Bible. There was no mention in the Old Testament that a resurrection was coming. Even the devils did not see it coming.
The question was would Thomas have doubted the resurrection if he thought Jesus was God? Thomas knew his Bible. There was no mention in the Old Testament that a resurrection was coming. Even the devils did not see it coming.
Runningman
Active Member
I would say to them that if Jesus were God, then Thomas would have already been a believer in that.
Observe that the 12 disciples were given power to do miracles which are powers only reserved for believers. Means Thomas was already a fully empowered believer in what mattered:
Luke 9
1Then Jesus called the Twelve together and gave them power and authority over all demons, and power to cure diseases.
Mark 16
17And these signs will accompany those who believe: In My name they will drive out demons; they will speak in new tongues;
So if Thomas had been a believer that Jesus is God then there isn't any evidence that he abandoned that belief. Thomas just never believed Jesus was God in the first place because if he had then he wouldn't have doubted the resurrection. It's also not a sound conclusion that Thomas suddenly formed a new theology about Jesus' identity after he was resurrected.
Peterlag
Active Member
Yeah... they are saying that too. That Thomas just found out that Jesus was God.
Okay I came back to this to edit it because it just happened again. Someone said...
I think Thomas was not fully convinced Jesus was God until the resurrection.
So, I used you by posting...
The 12 disciples were given power to do miracles which are powers only reserved for believers. Means Thomas was already a fully empowered believer in what mattered:
Luke 9
1Then Jesus called the Twelve together and gave them power and authority over all demons, and power to cure diseases.
Mark 16
17And these signs will accompany those who believe: In My name they will drive out demons; they will speak in new tongues;
So, if Thomas had been a believer that Jesus is God then there isn't any evidence that he abandoned that belief. Thomas just never believed Jesus was God in the first place because if he had then he wouldn't have doubted the resurrection. It's also not a sound conclusion that Thomas suddenly formed a new theology about Jesus' identity after he was resurrected.
Last edited:
Doug Brents
Active Member
Where does Exodus 3 say anything about the Father? It doesn't. It says God.
Yes, as a man, Jesus did have those human needs. But then, He had already emptied Himself of His glory, and the independent use of His power, and His knowledge in order to be a human. He didn't cease to be God, but He took on all the weaknesses and frailties of humanity.
Yes, He had subordinated Himself to the Father when He emptied Himself. And I didn't say He was two people. He was one person with a body, soul, and spirit (just as you are, and just as God Himself is).
You have adopted the JW argument for why Jesus was not really before Abraham. But as you have already agreed, ego eimi (I AM) means "I exist". Jesus existed, not just as a thought or plan or idea, but as a living being before Abraham, and even before Creation.
Your argument is for a difference without distinction. If the Word (Jesus) was deity, had all the qualities and nature of deity, and was with deity, then He was God. As is stated in Isa 42:8, God does not share His glory. Yet the Logos (Jesus) had the glory of God before Creation, and was also deity with God before Creation. There then is NO DIFFERENCE between being God ruminatively and qualitatively and in actuality.
The Father is the only true God, as opposed to the false gods that the Greeks and Romans worshiped in their mythologies. But not as opposed to Jesus Himself. Because while He was indeed a human at the time, and so not acting as God, He was still divine.
Who is speaking in Isaiah 44? God. Jesus is God. Why can't it be Jesus speaking in Isaiah 44? It doesn't say that the Father is speaking. In Gen 1:1 it says that God created all things. In John 1:1 it says that the Logos created all things (and Jesus is the Logos). So that means that it was the Logos in Gen 1:1 that was doing all the creating. And the in Gen 1:6, the Logos (or the Father) is talking to the Father (or the Logos), and says, "Let US make man in OUR image." There is no conflict here between Scripture passages.
When the Spirit of God puts on flesh and becomes a man, how is that offensive? Why, if God chose to become a man, to live among us, and experience our life with us, and then do it perfectly so that He can be our kinsman redeemer, is that offensive to you? We didn't force Him to do it (as if we could). We didn't even ask Him to do it.
Literally, John 1:1c says, "and God was the Logos". The Logos is absolutely described and defined as being deity. There is NO DIFFERENCE between being qualitatively God and being actually God. Since the Logos has all the qualities and nature as deity, then the Logos IS deity.
No, you do not cease to be you, or cease to exist, if you do not have one of the body, spirit, and soul parts of yourself. If that were so, then when you go to Heaven (or Hell) without your physical body (as we all will when we die) we would not be ourselves. Yet Scripture describes people as being identifiable only by their spirit and/or soul when met in Heaven.
Jesus had the full nature of God, but He emptied Himself, so He did not exhibit the qualities of God while He was a man. Primarily, He exhibited only His human nature, except that He did not sin, and so never had the nature of fallen man.
Can God not empty Himself and reduce Himself down to the level of a man, so that He can share in all the experiences, frailties, passions, etc. of a man? Do you think so little of God that you don't think He could do that?
Runningman
Active Member
Right, those verses refute their argument that Thomas was not fully believing who Jesus is already. So Thomas had no reason to be a doubter about Jesus, therefore he wasn't stating a new realization who Jesus is.
Since Thomas already correctly believed in Jesus before, then he didn't suddenly get the belief that Jesus is God in John 20:28. Means that believing in Jesus without thinking he is God is the Biblical example. Thomas and the disciples had salvation without believing Jesus is God.
Thomas received a revelation that Jesus was His Lord and God , same way peter, Paul, John all of them had in fact received that understanding
Similar threads
