Runningman
Well-known member
PG13 insult. I promise not to report you if you want to do more than that. Don't worry, I can take it. I have been doing this for years.
Thomas... My Lord and my God
- Thread starter Peterlag
- Start date
Sorry. I forgot you have been trying to convince people for years.
Pancho Frijoles
Well-known member
Yes, I understand the conditional particle “if”.
Given an “if”, we can invent millions of propositions which are logically true, such as
“If Pancho Frijoles is God, those who deny it are God deniers.”
So, if you were interested in knowing whether your proposition is logically true, the answer would be “Yes, it is true”
However, I don’t think this is what you are really interested in.
I think you are interested in feeling justified to use the label “God deniers” agaisnt people who do not believe in Jesus deity.
Honesty implies unserstanding the context of your question and consequences of my answer.
civic
Well-known member
Nope all I wanted was an honest answer to my question. Thanks
Runningman
Well-known member
I am under no impression I will convince all of you, but yes I have helped some hardcore Trinitarians convert to Christianity. I also have had little to no resistance helping unrepentant sinners understand the gospel and who God is. It's really not complicated. If you intend to convert anyone, my advice to you is leave the Trinity out of it and deal with it later. It's probably the biggest turn off in your religion and probably explains why Trinitarianism is losing numbers and why so many are converting to Christianity.
Doug Brents
Well-known member
I have not read any of your OP, nor have I read any of the posts in the thread, so forgive me if I state things that have already been addressed, or that are off topic in your OP.
You invited me to this thread to discuss the Trinity, and whether or not Jesus is God, so here goes:
First off, let's establish that for Jesus to be our savior, He must be completely sinless. If He had any sin, then He would be in the same lost condition we are in, and His sacrifice on the cross would be meaningless.
Now, and this is not an exhaustive list by any means:
In Exo 3:14, God tells Moses that He is, "I AM!" And in John 8:58, Jesus claims to be "I AM!", thus making Himself equal with God.
Again in John 5:17-18, Jesus makes Himself equal with God by calling God His Father (and the audience listening understood that He was doing so).
Also, in John 10:30, Jesus says that He and the Father are One. He is in the Father and the Father is in Him, thus Jesus is equal with God.
He also claims to be "Lord of the sabbath". God established the sabbath in honor of His own rest on the seventh day. For Jesus to be the Lord of the sabbath, then He must be God.
Now, if any of these claims were untrue, then Jesus is guilty of sin (either lying, or blasphemy, or both) and cannot be either our savior or God. But if they are true, then to claim that He is not God is blasphemy against Him.
101G
Well-known member
now to what you said, 101G agree. but 101G have a question for you. "as Jesus is equal ...... "WITH" ....... God is he not the same one person God?" yes or no.
101G.
Peterlag
Well-known member
I will start with your first one...
John 8:58
At the last super, the disciples were trying to find out who would deny the Christ. They said literally, "Not I am, Lord" Matthew 26:22, 25. No one would say the disciples were trying to deny they were God because they were using the phrase "Not I am." "I am" was a common way of designating oneself and it did not mean you were claiming to be God. The argument is made that because Jesus was "before" Abraham, Jesus must be God. Jesus figuratively existed in Abraham's time. He did not actually physically exist as a person, but rather he existed in the mind of God as God's plan for the redemption of man. In order for the Trinitarian argument that Jesus' "I am" statement in John 8:58 makes him God, his statement must be equivalent with God's "I am" statement in Exodus 3:14. The two statements are very different. The Greek phrase in John does mean "I am." The Hebrew phrase in Exodus means "to be" or "to become." God was saying "I will be what I will be."
Doug Brents
Well-known member
Let's look closer at what the Apostles are saying there. "Not I am (what)"? What is the implied thing that they are saying they are (or are not)? They are not... the betrayer. We use the same phraseology today when someone asks, "Who is over 18?", and someone replies, "I am (over 18)".
But that is not what Jesus is saying. He says, "Before Abraham was, I AM!" I am... what? because there is no qualification to "I am", it simply means "I exist". There is no other person/entity that can say, "I exist" without qualification or explanation. Humans exist because of something (God). God simply exists. Further, even the tense of the verb does not match. Abraham "was"... so Jesus should have been "was". But Jesus says "am". He is saying that He, Jesus, existed before Abraham and continues to exist even now.
Jesus is clearly quoting Himself in what He spoke to Moses from the bush in Exo 3:14. He is pointing back to both Abraham and Moses, and bringing to the minds of His audience both of these patriarchs. He is making the case that He was the one speaking from the bush, and that even before that, He existed before the first patriarch, Abraham.
As for "I am" being different from "I be", that is a very, very weak argument. "Be" is one of the conjugative forms of the verb that "to be" (am, is, was, were, be, being, been). And God is not saying to Moses, "I will be", nor is He saying, "I have been". He is quite clearly saying, "I exist because I exist." And this is the same that Jesus is saying to the Pharisees, "Before Abraham was, I exist."
Runningman
Well-known member
I would also add that the same "I am" phrase in John 8:58 (egō eimi) appears all over the New Testament and isn't ever a claim to deity. Actually, John 9:9 in the NIV, among other versions like the ESV and Amplified Bible, translates the same words Jesus said as “I am the man.” Jesus didn't claim to be God, but rather he claimed to be a man just as he said in John 8:40.
Peterlag
Well-known member
You got that right.
Peterlag
Well-known member
@Runningman wrote it this way... "I would also add that the same "I am" phrase in John 8:58 (egō eimi) appears all over the New Testament and isn't ever a claim to deity. Actually, John 9:9 in the NIV, among other versions like the ESV and Amplified Bible, translates the same words Jesus said as “I am the man.” Jesus didn't claim to be God, but rather he claimed to be a man just as he said in John 8:40."
Also someone saying "I am" is not a teaching on the trinity. There is no whole paragraph or chapter teaching that we should believe or confess that Jesus is God. It seems it would have been clearly stated in the Bible and in the earliest Christian creeds if the doctrine of the Trinity was genuine and central to Christian belief and especially if belief in it was necessary for salvation as many Trinitarians teach. God gave the Scriptures to the Jewish people, and the Jewish religion and worship that comes from that revelation does not contain any reference to or teachings about a triune God. Surely the Jewish people were qualified to read and understand it, but they never saw the doctrine of the Trinity.
Doug Brents
Well-known member
Pete, Runner,
It is the context of any passage that shows you how to understand what is being said. There is not a single other "I am" statement in all of Scripture that compares with Jesus' claim. See post #360 above for more explanation.
Now, address the other passages and arguments made in my original reply to this thread.
Peterlag
Well-known member
“I am the one.” Many Trinitarians argue that this verse states that when Jesus said “I am” he was claiming to be God, (i.e., Yahweh, the God who revealed Himself to Moses in the Old Testament). But saying “I am” does not mean a person is claiming to be God. The Greek that is translated as “I am” is egō eime (ἐγὼ εἰμί), and it was a common Greek way for a person to identify themself. For example, only ten verses after Jesus said, egō eime (“I am”) in John 8:58, the man who had been born blind identified himself by saying exactly what Jesus said; egō eime (“I am;” John 9:9). Thus, Jesus and the man born blind both identified themselves by saying egō eime (“I am”) only ten verses apart.
Sadly, unless a person looks at the Greek text, he will never see that “I am” was a common Greek way for a man or woman to identify themselves. In what seems to be a clear case of Trinitarian bias in translating the Greek text, when Jesus says, egō eime (“I am”) in John 8:58, the English Bibles read, “I am.” But when Jesus says egō eime in other places in the New Testament, or other people say egō eime (“I am”), the Greek phrase gets translated differently. So, for example, some English translations of what the man born blind said are: “I am the one” (CJB, HCSB, NASB, NET); “I am he” (BBE, RV, KJV, YLT); “It is I” (DBY); and, “I am the man” (ESV, NIV). The only commonly used English Bible that has “I am” in John 9:9 is the New American Bible.
There are many other examples of the phrase egō eime not being translated as “I am” but being translated as “I am he” or some other similar phrase. For example, Jesus taught that people would come in his name, saying egō eime (“I am he”) and will deceive many (Mark 13:6; Luke 21:8 (HCSB, ESV, NAB, NET, NIV).
Jesus said egō eime (“I am”) in a large number of places, but it is usually translated “I am he,” “It is I” or “I am the one” which are good translations because, as was stated above, egō eime was commonly used by people to identify themselves. Examples of Jesus using egō eime include: John 13:19; 18:5, 6, and 18:8; Jesus identifying himself to the apostles on the boat: Matthew 14:27; Mark 6:50; and John 6:20; and Jesus identifying himself to the Jews, saying egō eime, translated “I am the one I claim to be” (John 8:24 and 8:28 NIV84). All these places where Jesus says egō eime but it is not translated “I am” shows that the translators understand that just saying egō eime does not mean the person is claiming to be God.
At the Last Supper, the disciples were trying to find out who would deny Christ. They used egō eime as the standard Greek identifier. Jesus had said one of them would betray him, and one after another they said to him, mētiegō eime, Kurie (literally, “not I am, Lord;” Matt. 26:22 and 26:25.) The apostles were not trying to deny that they were God by saying, “Not I am.” They were simply using as the common personal identifier egō eime and saying, “Surely not I, Lord.”
In Acts 26:29, when Paul was defending himself in court, he said, “I pray to God that…all who hear me this day would become the same as I am [egō eime].” Obviously, Paul was not claiming to be God. There are more uses of the phrase “I am,” and especially so if we realize that what has been covered above is only the nominative singular pronoun and the first-person singular verb that we have just covered. The point is this: “I am” was a common way of designating oneself, and it did not mean you were claiming to be God. C. K. Barrett writes:
A major problem that occurs when we misunderstand a verse is that the correct meaning goes unnoticed, and that certainly is the case with John 8:58. If the phrase egō eime in John 8:58 were translated “I am he” or “I am the one,” like all the other places where Jesus says it, instead of coming to the erroneous conclusion that Jesus is God, we would more easily see that Jesus was speaking of himself as the Messiah of God who was foretold throughout the Old Testament.
Trinitarians assert that because Jesus was “before” Abraham, Jesus must have been God. But Jesus did not literally exist before his conception in Mary, but he “existed” in the plan of God, and was foretold in prophecy. Prophecies of the coming redeemer start as early as Genesis 3:15, which was before Abraham. Jesus was “the one” the Savior, long before Abraham. The Church did not have to literally exist as people for God to choose us before the foundation of the world (Eph. 1:4), we existed in the mind of God. Similarly, Jesus did not exist as an actual physical person during the time of Abraham, but he “existed” in the mind of God as God’s plan for the redemption of man.
It is also important to notice that many people misread John 8:58 and think it says Jesus saw Abraham. We must read the Bible carefully because it says no such thing. It does not say Jesus saw Abraham, it says Abraham saw the Day of Christ. A careful reading of the context of the verse shows that Jesus was speaking of “existing” in God’s foreknowledge. John 8:56 says, “Your father Abraham rejoiced to see my day, and he saw it, and was glad.” This verse says that Abraham “saw” the day of Christ (the day of Christ is usually considered by theologians to be the day when Christ conquers the earth and sets up his kingdom—and it is still future). That would fit with what the book of Hebrews says about Abraham: “for he was looking forward to the city that has the lasting foundations, whose builder and maker is God” (Heb. 11:10). The Bible says Abraham “saw” a city that is still future. In what sense could Abraham have seen something that was future? Abraham “saw” the day of Christ because God told him it was coming, and Abraham “saw” it by faith. Although Abraham saw the day of Christ by faith, that day existed in the mind of God long before Abraham (cf. Gen. 3:15). Thus, in the context of God’s plan existing from the beginning, Christ certainly was “before” Abraham. Christ was the plan of God for man’s redemption long before Abraham lived.
Jesus did not claim to be God in John 8:58. In very strong terms, however, he claimed to be the Messiah, the one whose day Abraham saw by faith. Jesus said that before Abraham was, “I am the one” meaning even before Abraham existed, Jesus was foretold to be the promised Messiah. Jesus gave the Jews many opportunities to see and believe that he was in fact the Messiah of God, but they were blind to that fact, and crucified him.
We see a good example of “I am” being used as a way to identify oneself but without any claim of being God when we compare Mark 13:6 with Matthew 24:5. In these parallel records, Jesus is in the last week of his life, and he is on the Mount of Olives teaching disciples. According to Mark, Jesus said, “Many will come in my name, saying "I am" and will lead many astray.” However, Matthew records the same incident as Jesus saying, “many will come in my name, saying, ‘I am the Messiah," and will mislead many.” In the context of the End Times, false Messiahs could identify themselves simply as “I am” but the meaning is clarified in Matthew, “I am the Messiah.” In this case, we can see that “I am” means “I am the Messiah.”
Runningman
Well-known member
I would understand if even once in any context that if someone said, "God is the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit" then there would have a great foundation for Trinitarianism. They didn't even directly describe God as three. I am positive that God, Jesus, nor any of the prophets or apostles believed in the Trinity. If they did understood God in this way, they would have said so. With something as important as who God is and describing Him accurately, there is a major disconnect between what the Bible says and Trinitarianism says.
Peterlag
Well-known member
The first red flag should have been that the Catholics believe in the trinity because they have never been right about anything. I have had folks say well, the Catholics are wrong on everything, but they were right on the trinity.
Runningman
Well-known member
I agree about context. In the context of John 8:58, Jesus had been speaking to the Scribes and Pharisees. The very same Jesus who said the Father taught him (John 8:28) is the same Jesus who said he is a man who heard the truth from God in John 8:40. How could Jesus be the omniscient I AM when this very same Jesus said he needed to be taught and is a man? There is a local and global context in Scripture. Acts 3:13 says Jesus is the son or servant of the God of Abraham, yet Exodus 3:14,15 says the I AM is the God of Abraham.
To me it looks like Jesus and the I AM aren't the same person. I am inclined to interpret John 8:58 as a statement that Jesus was the man who existed before Abraham. Since Jesus didn't literally exist before Abraham, then Jesus was speaking about existing before Abraham in prophecy. For example, there are prophecies about Jesus before Abraham, but no one identified as God's Son or the Word or a like title there saying or doing anything before Abraham.
So to me it just looks like Jesus and God aren't the same.
You almost are right saying Jesus and God are not the same since they are two different persons in the Godhead. But they are one God. You might have heard that this is best understood in the Trinitarian concept. Your interpretation is one of the weakest ideas you proposed, sort of an eisegesis out of desperation. There is no reason to stone Jesus unless he has made a claim to divinity in the Godhead.
Runningman
Well-known member
I find what I said to be quite powerful, especially concerning the context of John 8:58 being one that describes Jesus as lacking qualities inherent to the I AM. So the I AM, if as the Trinitarians propose, is literally a claim to deity, then Jesus effectively stripped the Father of His deity, or at least reduced Him in status, with that statement. I know Jesus would never do such a thing so I don't see it like how you do. I also see Acts 3:13 placing the God of Abraham and Jesus beside each other in the same sentence and describing them each differently. YHWH (the I AM) and Jesus aren't members of a triune Godhead together,
Similar threads
