"Before Abraham Was, I AM"

[Justified]

No, I believe only God existed originally, and later God created His Son. God's Son was not immortal, so he was not exactly like God. When God resurrected Jesus, after Jesus had proved himself loyal to God and learned obedience, He gave him immortality, so now Jesus may have identical nature to God, in which case God's promises to Christians is indeed exceedingly great! :

2 Peter 1:4 WEB

(4) by which he has granted to us his precious and exceedingly great promises; that through these you may become partakers of the divine nature, having escaped from the corruption that is in the world by lust.​

1 John 3:2 WEB

(2) Beloved, now we are children of God, and it is not yet revealed what we will be. But we know that when he is revealed, we will be like him; for we will see him just as he is.​

​

Hebrews 5:7-10 WEB

(7) He, in the days of his flesh, having offered up prayers and petitions with strong crying and tears to him who was able to save him from death, and having been heard for his godly fear,​

(8) though he was a Son, yet learned obedience by the things which he suffered.​

(9) Having been made perfect, he became to all of those who obey him the author of eternal salvation,​

(10) named by God a high priest after the order of Melchizedek.​

When did God create his Son?

All things (all of creation) are from God, because they are His design and it was His will that they be created. God chose that His Son should perform the creative acts, according to God's plan. Colossians 1:16 says that all created things were for God's Son (as Jesus said in prayer, "All things that are mine are yours, and yours are mine, and I am glorified in them" - John 17:10).

Col. 1:16 also says that all things were created by the Son:

Col 1:16 For by him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities—all things were created through him and for him.

I take it then that you don't really believe what that verse is saying, just like John 1:3 and 1 Cor. 8:6. If "all things" were created by the Son, then how can the Son be created, as you claim? If just one thing wasn't created by the Son--and he certainly didn't create himself--then isn't it false that "by him all things were created"?

Or, as John puts it in John 1:3: "All things were made through him, and without him was not any thing made that was made." That precludes the Son from being created, does it not? If the Son was made, then how can it also be true that "without him was not any thing made that was made"? If one thing was made without the Son, that is, himself, the it cannot be true that "without him was not any thing made that was made."

The "for"s introduce further explanation. Verse 10 comments more on faith/belief.

Verse 11 is indeed referring to Jesus, as the Scripture Paul is referring to is Isaiah 28:16 (Septuagint - the translation used by Jesus and the early Christians):

(16) Therefore thus saith the Lord, even the Lord, Behold, I lay for the foundations of Sion a costly stone, a choice, a corner-stone, a precious stone, for its foundations; and he that believes on him shall by no means be ashamed.​

Verse 12 refers to God making no distinction between believers in Christ - compare with Romans 3:21-30 WEB

(21) But now apart from the law, a righteousness of God has been revealed, being testified by the law and the prophets;​

(22) even the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ to all and on all those who believe. For there is no distinction,​

(23) for all have sinned, and fall short of the glory of God;​

(24) being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus;​

(25) whom God sent to be an atoning sacrifice, through faith in his blood, for a demonstration of his righteousness through the passing over of prior sins, in God’s forbearance;​

(26) to demonstrate his righteousness at this present time; that he might himself be just, and the justifier of him who has faith in Jesus.​

(27) Where then is the boasting? It is excluded. By what kind of law? Of works? No, but by a law of faith.​

(28) We maintain therefore that a man is justified by faith apart from the works of the law.​

(29) Or is God the God of Jews only? Isn’t he the God of Gentiles also? Yes, of Gentiles also,​

(30) since indeed there is one God who will justify the circumcised by faith, and the uncircumcised through faith.​

When verse 12 says "the same Lord is Lord of all, and is rich to all who call on him" I believe it is referring to God, not Jesus - from the above and 1 Timothy 2:5 WEB

(5) For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus,​

Note that Romans 10:9 begins with confessing that "Jesus is Lord." The "fors" then begin. So when Paul says that "the same Lord is Lord of all," and "everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved," he is speaking of Jesus, not the Father. That is how it works; that is the clear flow of thought.

Rom 10:9 because, if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.
Rom 10:10 For with the heart one believes and is justified, and with the mouth one confesses and is saved.

That flow of thought should be very clear--Paul is further explaining in v. 10 what he stated in v. 9.

Rom 10:11 For the Scripture says, “Everyone who believes in him will not be put to shame.”

Again, the same thought, but with reference to Isa. 28:16, which he quoted in 9:33.

Rom 10:12 For there is no distinction between Jew and Greek; for the same Lord is Lord of all, bestowing his riches on all who call on him.

This "for" is a continuation of what he has been saying in the previous verses. But, let's also look at Acts:

Act 10:36 As for the word that he sent to Israel, preaching good news of peace through Jesus Christ (he is Lord of all),

Peter certainly seemed to think that Jesus was Lord of all, or at least Luke did, so it seems reasonable to believe that Paul also did, which fits the flow of his argument.

Rom 10:13 For “everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.”

And the last "for" is where Paul applies Joel 2:32 to Jesus, as support for what he stated in verses 9 and 10. Except here, we know that "Lord" is "LORD," "YHWH."

The Septuagint indeed does subtitute 'Lord' for God's name, but the original Hebrew states God's name YHVH, as Paul and the Jews would have understood. They would not have believed it was referring to the Messiah. Joel 2:32 WEB

(32) It will happen that whoever will call on Yahweh’s name shall be saved; for in Mount Zion and in Jerusalem there will be those who escape, as Yahweh has said, and among the remnant, those whom Yahweh calls.​

God YHVH calls people to Himself through Jesus - John 6:44 WEB

(44) No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him, and I will raise him up in the last day.​

And, yet, Paul was writing to the church in Rome, as apostle to the Gentiles. While there would have been Jews he was addressing, who would have been familiar with the Septuagint, just as the writers of the NT were, that would likely have been what the Gentiles were using.

 

[MonoBiblical]

WRONG.

Faith is trusting in God by believing and obeying Him.
Unfortunately, YOU see it as blind belief and nothing more . . .

Pistis has no implication of obedience in Greek. The Demons trust HIM to be and are afraid. You can't have it both ways.

 

[Justified]

Well wouldnt you agree then it is our minds reasoning that brings the disagreements, the Holy Spirit would not contradict himself.

Of course, but that is precisely my point. Not a single believer in the history of Christianity has been without their own biases in reading and understanding Scripture. Paul makes it clear that even he didn't see all things clearly, so I think it wise to not be making the claim that one does.

We can be one in the Spirit, of one heart and one mind, but that would mean yielding completely to the Spirits leading

Of course, but there is this thing called sin.

Im not going to start another lengthy debate over Trinity. But I tell people on websites I believe the words of Jesus, the Father is the only true God, greater than he and greater than all.

So, why don't you believe Jesus when he says he is "I Am"? We must believe all the words of Jesus and all the words in the God-inspired NT, so that we don't take things out of context.

Now on the internet, I get told by many you cannot be saved if you believe that.

It depends on precisely what one understands "Father is the only true God, greater than he and greater than all," to mean. There is the rest of biblical context, particularly the NT, that needs to be taken into account.

So, people have used their studying/reasoning, to decide in reality, if you stand on the plain words of Christ when he walked this earth you will be condemned to hell. Of course, with their reasoning they feel fully justified in their beliefs. They may even quote fifty scriptures to try and prove it.

We are supposed to study and use our reasoning, along with prayerful help and dependence on the Holy Spirit. Those are not mutually exclusive options. Jesus said a lot of things that must be taken into account.

But here's the interesting thing. I have been to trinitarian churches of various denominations for over forty years. My best guess is, amongst the churches I have been to, over half the people in them would solely refer to Christ as the Son of God, and well over90% of people would happily accept anyone as a Christian who solely refers to Christ as the son of God.
So why the huge difference between the internet and the churches? Well, the average pew sitter has studied nowhere near as much as the average internet debater, so they have not used their reasoning as much have they

Yes, Jesus is the Son of God, so Trinitarian churches rightfully refer to him as such, but that does not mean he isn't also truly God, as the NT makes clear.

 

[Justified]

I don't know what you said for John 8:58 when Yeshua answered his audience that he was in the mind and plan of God before Abraham and greater that him.

Where does Jesus say that "he was in the mind and plan of God before Abraham"?

 

[JustMe]

If you know you're in the minority....
why not choose to believe what Christianity teaches?

What you believe is called adoptionism.
It's heretical.
Why not just believe what is taught???

What is taught is poison. What was taught in the 1st century aligns with the minority view, and always has been that way by design. I don't want to die out of ignorance by depending on ignorant people. You can believe if course what you want.

You can call it Adoptionism and it being heretical as if that really matters much when the truth is at stake. And do you really know its true meaning and the effect on our salvation. The Father is always greater than the Son. Read your Bible and it speaks to this point many times over. And this greatness was clearly accented by his Father, birthing his Son and then at his anointing and afterwards. How can you be so blind not to see this in scripture is beyond me.

And so you must think that Yeshua's anointing was not the miraculous transformation of his human spirit by the empowerment of his Father's word and Spirit. It caused Yeshua to be successful because of his Father's embedded word within him.

Without this word planted within Yeshua, he would have most certainly have failed his mission, as he was only still a mortal man, without superhuman strength, determination and power.

 

[saved by grace 101]

So, why don't you believe Jesus when he says he is "I Am"? We must believe ALL the words of Jesus and all the words in the God-inspired NT, so that we don't take things out of context.

Well some believe, if you do accept statements of Jesus you will be cast into hell.
Concerning ''I AM''
Well the angel actually uttered the words I AM from the burning bush. God spoke through the angel as God spoke through Christ. For consistency, would you be happy to refer to God as an angel?

 

[saved by grace 101]

And you would be 100% correct, and also in the minority.

Why is it so easy for you and I to know this I wonder, and some others.

Possibly because scholars and theologians are not our bottom line

 

[JustMe]

Where does Jesus say that "he was in the mind and plan of God before Abraham"?

What are you looking for? Just fault in my posts to gather some kind of empty victory? Or are your searching for true with honestly and without bias?

You must know the person Yeshua and who were his enemies. His primary enemy was the senior religious Pharisee, and his view of the Christ.

Jesus did not directly tell the Pharisees that He was in the mind and plan of God, his Father, from the beginning, and even later in the verse you quote.

He deliberately omitted this fact for two reasons: 1. because their hearts were hardened by pride, self-righteousness, and a desire for power, which prevented them from receiving spiritual truth and 2. Yeshua want them to be angry once more, to deliberately offend them and embarrass them in public.

While Jesus performed miracles and spoke in parables to reveal His identity, He knew that the Pharisees were not seeking truth but were instead looking for a Messiah who would affirm their authority and conform to their expectations of a political or military leader.

As stated in John 12:40, "He has blinded their eyes and hardened their hearts, so that they would not see with their eyes or understand with their hearts and turn, and I would heal them." This was not because God withheld grace, but because the Pharisees had already chosen to reject it.

As Luke 16:31 states: "If they do not listen to Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded if someone rises from the dead."

The Pharisees were not worth the effort...

 

[Justified]

Well some believe, if you do accept statements of Jesus you will be cast into hell.

Well, who Jesus is is central to salvation. That is what "believed in his name" means--"the sum of qualities which mark the nature or character of a person" (M. R. Vincent, on John 1:12).

Joh 1:12 But to all who did receive him, who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God,

Concerning ''I AM''
Well the angel actually uttered the words I AM from the burning bush. God spoke through the angel as God spoke through Christ. For consistency, would you be happy to refer to God as an angel?

But, that isn't the point. Why did Jesus give that answer and what does that answer mean within that immediate context?

 

[Justified]

What are you looking for? Just fault in my posts to gather some kind of empty victory? Or are your searching for true with honestly and without bias?

I'm just looking for answers to my questions. Since Jesus didn't say anywhere, never mind within the context of John 8:58, that "he was in the mind and plan of God before Abraham," it is important to understand if that was what Jesus actually meant.

You must know the person Yeshua and who were his enemies. His primary enemy was the senior religious Pharisee, and his view of the Christ.

Jesus did not directly tell the Pharisees that He was in the mind and plan of God, his Father, from the beginning, and even later in the verse you quote.
He deliberately omitted this fact for two reasons: 1. because their hearts were hardened by pride, self-righteousness, and a desire for power, which prevented them from receiving spiritual truth and 2. Yeshua want them to be angry once more, to deliberately offend them and embarrass them in public.

While Jesus performed miracles and spoke in parables to reveal His identity, He knew that the Pharisees were not seeking truth but were instead looking for a Messiah who would affirm their authority and conform to their expectations of a political or military leader.

As stated in John 12:40, "He has blinded their eyes and hardened their hearts, so that they would not see with their eyes or understand with their hearts and turn, and I would heal them." This was not because God withheld grace, but because the Pharisees had already chosen to reject it.

As Luke 16:31 states: "If they do not listen to Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded if someone rises from the dead."

The Pharisees were not worth the effort...

This all appears to be speculation. How do you know Jesus deliberately omitted such a "fact" if he never explicitly stated it? Should we not stick to what Jesus actually says?

Joh 8:57 So the Jews said to him, “You are not yet fifty years old, and have you seen Abraham?”
Joh 8:58 Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I am.”

What does his answer to the question really mean?

Joh 8:59 So they picked up stones to throw at him, but Jesus hid himself and went out of the temple.

Why would they do this? What did the Jews understand Jesus's answer to mean?

This is all the more important since Jesus had already stated:

Joh 8:23 He said to them, “You are from below; I am from above. You are of this world; I am not of this world.

 

[saved by grace 101]

Well, who Jesus is is central to salvation. That is what "believed in his name" means--"the sum of qualities which mark the nature or character of a person" (M. R. Vincent, on John 1:12).

Joh 1:12 But to all who did receive him, who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God,


But, that isn't the point. Why did Jesus give that answer and what does that answer mean within that immediate context?

Quite simple to me, Im not a scholar or theologian, God spoke through the angel as God spoke through Christ.

Well Jesus said the Father was the one true God and greater than he and greater than all. Now the scholarly like to reason that if you believe that you cannot be saved. Only the natural mind could come up with such belief.
Who Jesus is, is central to salvation
Well Jesus said you must believe him to be the Son of God, so did the apostles.
How many verses are in the bible that state you must believe Jesus is the one true God to be saved? You may say 1John5:20, I would not. And that would mean John is contradicting other statements of his.
And if it was salvific belief to term Christ God himself to be saved, did the Apostles fail abysmally in their duty by not laying that out clearly and repeatedly?
The bible is not a cryptic crossword. but you can make a belief out of anything if you try hard enough

 

[Justified]

So I will ask you one more time, when did the word of the Father take on human form?

Now, if that is still too hard to write about, then please just pick one of these options below, so I will gauge where you are on this subject. Look I'm not playing games here. I just want to know where you are on this scripture.
Hint: it's in John's gospel report.

I know you can pick one letter.

a. Before his birth
b. At his birth
c. At his baptism
d. At his resurrection
e. At his ascension
f. Other.

I would say C, but I accept I would be in the minority

You both think that the Father took on human form, and that he did so at "his baptism"?

Joh 1:14 And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we have seen his glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father, full of grace and truth.

Php 2:5 Have this mind among yourselves, which is yours in Christ Jesus,
Php 2:6 who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped,
Php 2:7 but emptied himself, by taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men.
Php 2:8 And being found in human form, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross.

How does answer "c" take those passages into account?

 

[saved by grace 101]

You both think that the Father took on human form, and that he did so at "his baptism"?

Joh 1:14 And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we have seen his glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father, full of grace and truth.

Php 2:5 Have this mind among yourselves, which is yours in Christ Jesus,
Php 2:6 who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped,
Php 2:7 but emptied himself, by taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men.
Php 2:8 And being found in human form, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross.

How does answer "c" take those passages into account?

and the Holy Spirit descended on him in BODILY FORM like a dove. Luke3:22
For the one whom God has sent speaks the words of God, for God[i] gives the Spirit without limit. John3:34

 

[Justified]

Quite simple to me, Im not a scholar or theologian, God spoke through the angel as God spoke through Christ.

Okay, so God purposely lied through Jesus then? It's one thing to the messenger of God to appear as a flame in a bush, but quite another to be a man standing before other men and making that claim. How do you know that the messenger of God wasn't the preincarnate Christ?

Well Jesus said the Father was the one true God and greater than he and greater than all.

Yes, and he said a lot more than that that forms additional context, as with the rest of the NT.

Now the scholarly like to reason that if you believe that you cannot be saved.

Maybe some do, but that all depends on precisely what is meant by "the Father was the one true God and greater than he and greater than all." If you don't take the entirety of Scripture into account, you take such a statement out of context and just may not come to the right understanding.

Only the natural mind could come up with such belief.

Not necessarily.

Who Jesus is, is central to salvation
Well Jesus said you must believe him to be the Son of God, so did the apostles.
How many verses are in the bible that state you must believe Jesus is the one true God to be saved? You may say 1John5:20, I would not. And that would mean John is contradicting other statements of his.
And if it was salvific belief to term Christ God himself to be saved, did the Apostles fail abysmally in their duty by not laying that out clearly and repeatedly?

Yes, Jesus is the Son of God, I not at all disputing that. But, you're making assumptions about what the title "Son of God" means. The disciples did lay things out clearly, especially in passages such as John 1:1-18, which informs everything else John says about Jesus and in what he records Jesus doing and saying, passages such as Phil. 2:5-8, Col. 1:16-17, etc.

Those are all relevant because salvation rests in the person of Jesus, who he is, which is why his death and resurrection secure our salvation.

The bible is not a cryptic crossword. but you can make a belief out of anything if you try hard enough

Of course.

and the Holy Spirit descended on him in BODILY FORM like a dove. Luke3:22
For the one whom God has sent speaks the words of God, for God[i] gives the Spirit without limit. John3:34

Okay, but this doesn't address the passages I gave. It would be nice if you would actually engage with the passages I gave, rather than making general statements and providing verses you think proves your point.

 

[saved by grace 101]

Okay, so God purposely lied through Jesus then? It's one thing to the messenger of God to appear as a flame in a bush, but quite another to be a man standing before other men and making that claim. How do you know that the messenger of God wasn't the preincarnate Christ?


Yes, and he said a lot more than that that forms additional context, as with the rest of the NT.


Maybe some do, but that all depends on precisely what is meant by "the Father was the one true God and greater than he and greater than all." If you don't take the entirety of Scripture into account, you take such a statement out of context and just may not come to the right understanding.


Not necessarily.


Yes, Jesus is the Son of God, I not at all disputing that. But, you're making assumptions about what the title "Son of God" means. The disciples did lay things out clearly, especially in passages such as John 1:1-18, which informs everything else John says about Jesus and in what he records Jesus doing and saying, passages such as Phil. 2:5-8, Col. 1:16-17, etc.

Those are all relevant because salvation rests in the person of Jesus, who he is, which is why his death and resurrection secure our salvation.


Of course.


Okay, but this doesn't address the passages I gave. It would be nice if you would actually engage with the passages I gave, rather than making general statements and providing verses you think proves your point.

I dont ask you to address anything I put before you, I've discussed this subject far too much in the past to be inclined to get into another elongated discussion concerning it, what does interest me is salvific belief in this regard.
How do you know the angel in the bush was the preincarnate Christ? Steven simply referred to ''the angel''
Basically, you want additional context to justify your belief. Then the plain words of Christ get overturned. And it is with that additional context people claim in effect, if you believe the words of Jesus when he walked this earth you will be cast into hell.
You only get this on the internet, not in the churches. Why do you think that is?

 

[Justified]

I dont ask you to address anything I put before you,

But that is how discussions work, even theological ones, and it should be that way especially when discussing things central to salvation. Do you not agree?

I've discussed this subject far too much in the past to be inclined to get into another elongated discussion concerning it, what does interest me is salvific belief in this regard.
How do you know the angel in the bush was the preincarnate Christ?

I didn't say it was; I simply asked how do you know it wasn't.

Steven simply referred to ''the angel''
Basically, you want additional context to justify your belief. Then the plain words of Christ get overturned.

Not anymore than I could make the claim that you're ignoring additional context to justify your belief. Such claims get us nowhere. I'm trying to get to the understanding of the plain words of Christ, particularly in John 8:58.

And it is with that additional context people claim in effect, if you believe the words of Jesus when he walked this earth you will be cast into hell.

Since Jesus is the central figure of the entirety of Scripture, in whose name alone is salvation (Acts 4:12), and that we must believe in his name, that is, who he is (John 1:12; 3:18), then does it not stand to reason that we cannot believe whatever we want about him and expect to be saved?

Well, do think the Mormons' belief that "Son of God" means that Jesus is the literal brother of Satan is correct? What about the JWs who believe that "Son of God" means that Jesus was the incarnation of Michael the Archangel and that is whom he returned to being after his resurrection? What about polytheists who believe that Jesus, as the Son of God, is another actual God? What about Modalism/Oneness that teach the Son of God is just one manifestation of the Father? And, of course, Adoptionists and other groups believe differently yet.

Do you see the problem with simply saying we just need to believe that Jesus is the Son of God, and that we cannot believe whatever we want about him and expect to be saved?

Joh 3:16 “For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life.
Joh 3:17 For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him.
Joh 3:18 Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God.

Jesus sure seemed to think that people must believe in who he claimed to be, which includes a right understanding of the title Son of God.

You only get this on the internet, not in the churches. Why do you think that is?

I've heard it in churches. Perhaps you're going to the wrong churches.

 

[saved by grace 101]

But that is how discussions work, even theological ones, and it should be that way especially when discussing things central to salvation. Do you not agree?



Since Jesus is the central figure of the entirety of Scripture, in whose name alone is salvation (Acts 4:12), and that we must believe in his name, that is, who he is (John 1:12; 3:18), then does it not stand to reason that we cannot believe whatever we want about him and expect to be saved?

You feel the Apostles didnt do a very good job in laying out who we must believe Christ to be to inherit eternal life?

 

[saved by grace 101]

But that is how discussions work, even theological ones, and it should be that way especially when discussing things central to salvation. Do you not agree?


I didn't say it was; I simply asked how do you know it wasn't.


Not anymore than I could make the claim that you're ignoring additional context to justify your belief. Such claims get us nowhere. I'm trying to get to the understanding of the plain words of Christ, particularly in John 8:58.


Since Jesus is the central figure of the entirety of Scripture, in whose name alone is salvation (Acts 4:12), and that we must believe in his name, that is, who he is (John 1:12; 3:18), then does it not stand to reason that we cannot believe whatever we want about him and expect to be saved?

Well, do think the Mormons' belief that "Son of God" means that Jesus is the literal brother of Satan is correct? What about the JWs who believe that "Son of God" means that Jesus was the incarnation of Michael the Archangel and that is whom he returned to being after his resurrection? What about polytheists who believe that Jesus, as the Son of God, is another actual God? What about Modalism/Oneness that teach the Son of God is just one manifestation of the Father? And, of course, Adoptionists and other groups believe differently yet.

Do you see the problem with simply saying we just need to believe that Jesus is the Son of God, and that we cannot believe whatever we want about him and expect to be saved?

Joh 3:16 “For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life.
Joh 3:17 For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him.
Joh 3:18 Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God.

Jesus sure seemed to think that people must believe in who he claimed to be, which includes a right understanding of the title Son of God.


I've heard it in churches. Perhaps you're going to the wrong churches.

But what about you?” he asked. “Who do you say I am?”

16 Simon Peter answered, “You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God.”

17 Jesus replied, “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by flesh and blood, but by my Father in heaven.

An alternative discussion:

But what about you?” he asked. “Who do you say I am?”

16 Simon Peter answered, “You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God.”
Jesus shook his head and sighed
''No Peter, that is nowhere near enough to believe, you must believe I am part of an equal Trinity and have been for infinitum. The Father, Holy Spirit and I are equally God in three persons. In the ontological sense of Trinity I am, and always have been equal to the Father, but in the economic sense of Trinity I am subject to the Father.
Peter shakes his head and walks away, he doesn't understand

 

[saved by grace 101]

I've heard it in churches. Perhaps you're going to the wrong churches.

What have you heard in the churches?
If you believe Jesus is the son of God but not the one true God you will be condemned to hell?
I wouldn't want to go to a church where that got preached!
I have told two trinitarian ministers what people say on the internet in this regard. They both shook their heads and laughed. Maybe the laughter was genuine, or maybe they were a bit embarrassed because they didn't preach it themselves, who knows.
Im quite content with the type of churches I go to, evangelical mainly

 

[JustMe]

I'm just looking for answers to my questions. Since Jesus didn't say anywhere, never mind within the context of John 8:58, that "he was in the mind and plan of God before Abraham," it is important to understand if that was what Jesus actually meant.


This all appears to be speculation. How do you know Jesus deliberately omitted such a "fact" if he never explicitly stated it? Should we not stick to what Jesus actually says?

Joh 8:57 So the Jews said to him, “You are not yet fifty years old, and have you seen Abraham?”
Joh 8:58 Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I am.”

What does his answer to the question really mean?

Joh 8:59 So they picked up stones to throw at him, but Jesus hid himself and went out of the temple.

Why would they do this? What did the Jews understand Jesus's answer to mean?

This is all the more important since Jesus had already stated:

Joh 8:23 He said to them, “You are from below; I am from above. You are of this world; I am not of this world.

First, Yeshua does not have to say everything that will satisfy your queries, not mine or any one else's for that matter. You have to refer to other scripture to deduce some of these facts you want to see clearly in scripture.

You can speculate all day long about what the Jews thought of Yeshua. He was clearly saying in verse 58 that he 'existed' before Abraham, as the future Son of God for his Father's purpose, and was then fulfilling it as he spoke to these Pharisees, at that moment.

You can imagine what the Pharisees thought he meant when Yeshua spoke his words of truth. They were already furious because he said he was the Son of God and the Messiah. So, Him saying he was from his Father, who existed before Abraham, and thus greater that Abraham, must have outraged them once more. I don't think they ever once thought he was God as they would have thought he was demon possessed as they already accused him of being before.

Second, adding in John 8:23 does support Yeshua's words in verse 58, although not in the way you think it does.

Verse 23 is saying clearly that Yeshua was born from his Father, by his will, who is above and not of this world, and that's why he also claimed to be the same in this regard as his Father, to contrast him from the man of the earth of corrupt will. These are idioms you know..