Jesus never said he was God Almighty

[bbyrd009]

two "Greeks" came to worship Jesus, and He "hid from them" also

 

[Nomad]

4. They had to find some part of scripture as its touchstone of their newly acquired lie. They forced a new meaning into John 1:1-2 and the FIRST part of John 1:14 to add a new secondary meaning for the Greek word ‘logos.’ In all scripture ‘logos’ has one consistent meaning: it has always meant a kind of plan, logic, or purpose and never a person, let alone Jesus. Check it out for yourself. Yes, Jesus is called the ‘word of God’ in a couple of places in scripture, although this simply means he was the instrument to execute and complete the ‘plan’ logos of salvation originated by God.

1. No sir, "logos" has quite a wide semantic range -- most of which you seem to ignore. And it's John, via context, who determined how "logos" is being used. I don't know who "they" are, but "they" had nothing to do with the obvious way John is using it. He points to Jesus as the word all the way through the first 17 verses of John 1. Verse 14 is the most clear of all. "And the word BECAME FLESH and dwelt among us" is extremely hard to misunderstand. It's painfully clear who John is talking about.

2. You assert that "in all scripture 'logos' has one consistent meaning," while at the same time recognizing and admitting that "Jesus is called the word of God in a couple of places in Scripture." That's a whopper of a contradiction and a self defeating argument.

Now, what would you like to do with John 1:1? It clearly establishes "the word" (Jesus) as "God."

 

[APAK]

1. No sir, "logos" has quite a wide semantic range -- most of which you seem to ignore. And it's John, via context, who determined how "logos" is being used. I don't know who "they" are, but "they" had nothing to do with the obvious way John is using it. He points to Jesus as the word all the way through the first 17 verses of John 1. Verse 14 is the most clear of all. "And the word BECAME FLESH and dwelt among us" is extremely hard to misunderstand. It's painfully clear who John is talking about.

2. You assert that "in all scripture 'logos' has one consistent meaning," while at the same time recognizing and admitting that "Jesus is called the word of God in a couple of places in Scripture." That's a whopper of a contradiction and a self defeating argument.

Now, what would you like to do with John 1:1? It clearly establishes "the word" (Jesus) as "God."

Nomad:
Sorry, I do not understand much of what you have said. I do not see your message for me besides your opening few words..
I think you are saying that logos has a wide semantic range of meanings then your logic stops....and you swing to John 1:1 at the end. And finally you state that word = Jesus = logos.

I challenge you to show me the basis for such an understanding beside just stating it as fact? It might be just an historical assertion and we know that many of these assertions are usually false and inserted by the victor at that time, right?

Bless you,

APAK

 

[101G]

Just got back into the house again...here's my answer 101G, it is clearly the spirit of God (YES) although I expect it is not in the same as the official trinity response.

Bless you,

APAK

First thanks for the response. yes God is a Spirit, John 4:24a.

then in your last post to me, you said, "Now, it is the spirit of God Almighty or his Father if you prefer, that raised Jesus’ body from the dead, and then to immortality".

well, let's see who raised that body. scripture, The Lord Jesus had a few conversations with some Jews and one of them is recorded here in John chapter 2. we will pick it up in verse 18. "Then answered the Jews and said unto him, What sign shewest thou unto us, seeing that thou doest these things? 19 "Jesus answered and said unto them, Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up. 20 "Then said the Jews, Forty and six years was this temple in building, and wilt thou rear it up in three days? 21 "But he spake of the temple of his body".

APAK, can the Lord Jesus Lie? God forbid, NO.

in verse 19 of John chapter 2, he, the Lord Jesus said that he would raise up his BODY. here the Lord Jesus is clearly saying that he is God. is these scriptures true?

PCY.

 

[APAK]

First thanks for the response. yes God is a Spirit, John 4:24a.

then in your last post to me, you said, "Now, it is the spirit of God Almighty or his Father if you prefer, that raised Jesus’ body from the dead, and then to immortality".

well, let's see who raised that body. scripture, The Lord Jesus had a few conversations with some Jews and one of them is recorded here in John chapter 2. we will pick it up in verse 18. "Then answered the Jews and said unto him, What sign shewest thou unto us, seeing that thou doest these things? 19 "Jesus answered and said unto them, Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up. 20 "Then said the Jews, Forty and six years was this temple in building, and wilt thou rear it up in three days? 21 "But he spake of the temple of his body".

APAK, can the Lord Jesus Lie? God forbid, NO.

in verse 19 of John chapter 2, he, the Lord Jesus said that he would raise up his BODY. here the Lord Jesus is clearly saying that he is God. is these scriptures true?

PCY.

Let me get back with you...doing stuff now...I did give you a post on the other thread about Philippian Chapter 2 scripture..

Back later

 

[101G]

Let me get back with you...doing stuff now...I did give you a post on the other thread about Philippian Chapter 2 scripture..

Back later

Thanks, Philippian Chapter 2 has some good scriptures to discuss. I'll be looking forward to those scriptures discussion.

PCY.

 

[Naomi25]

Naomi: Here's a start of a conversation I hope will be edifying for both of us.

1/1+

Introduction:

I likewise do have loads of time although I’m happy to listen and learn anything I can gleam from you or waht I may find along the way…

I just want to make the statement and I guess it would go to all these types of scripture inquiries that if the Trinity concept was never born we most probably would not be having this type of discussion at all.

There would not be any controversy.

First things first. The Hebrew and Greek original manuscripts were written in capital letter with no space or any punctuation whatsoever. Of course, this goes for any scripture under study. Now the mostly Trinitarian translators of the bible took liberty to capitalize and punctuate or not to capitalize or punctuate their letters and sentence they formed, as they saw fit. So, we must be careful and keep this always in our mind when we discuss any scripture.

Not only that, the translators also chose what words they would use from the original language or transitional languages. So, this I am could or should have been I am he etc. We must also understand there was some manipulation and bias in what we as English readers saw in their final product.

The words ‘I AM’ or ‘I am’ or ‘I am he/she’ or ‘it is me’ or ‘I am the one’ or ‘it was me’….verb…

Greek for ‘I am’ is ‘ego eimi ‘

Now Jesus used this ‘I am’ translated from Greek to Latin to English many times. Some folks have even established because of this fact, that it must indicate or convey that Jesus is saying I am God Almighty. There is no basis for saying this at all. Of course, if we want to force a specific outcome in favor of this subjective data point or result we will believe it to be true all the time. It is like building a case out of conjecture rather than ‘in plain view’ facts.

..I will stop here for now and let you have a chance to respond, at your convenience....

APAK

Ok. Thanks for breaking it down into smaller conversations, that's much better than trying to reply to long, multi-pointed ones!
So...if I can understand your point correctly, you're saying that due to the ambiguous nature of translations, we cannot be sure that Jesus' "I AM" statement holds the connotations that most of us think.
But, I would say, that if it's so ambiguous, how can you be sure that it is not?
Consider this: look up all the English translations of John 8:58. A lot of very intelligent and very learned men studied very hard to be able to translate the bible, and a lot of work went into each different version. All of them vary slightly, as to be expected, but here...here they all seem to agree that Jesus is saying that he is "I AM". The versions that do not say "I AM" directly actually make the statement even more emphatically: "For sure, I tell you, before Abraham was born, I was and am and always will be!” (NLV)

There must be a good reason behind that, don't you think?

The other point I feel I must make is the NT call that is weaved all throughout it to follow, worship, praise, glorify and be baptized in the name of...Jesus. There is no way...no way that this would sit with God's first commandment to worship no God but him, if Jesus was not also God. And there really is no getting around this fact, not even by claiming that Jesus was literally God's actual "son". God is a jealous God, and we know that he is "one". We also know from the OT how he looks upon idol worship...how even good things he himself have made are not to be worshiped. This would also fall to his son, unless he suddenly decided to stretch the rules (thereby breaking the one saying that he cannot change), or it means that Jesus is God.

I'll leave it there for them moment, but again, when we start looking at the evidence together, rather than just one piece individually, we start to get the picture that no...no it cannot be a coincidence, it cannot be a strange wording. What it is is wondrous and amazing.

 

[Nomad]

Nomad:
Sorry, I do not understand much of what you have said. I do not see your message for me besides your opening few words..
I think you are saying that logos has a wide semantic range of meanings then your logic stops....and you swing to John 1:1 at the end. And finally you state that word = Jesus = logos.

I challenge you to show me the basis for such an understanding beside just stating it as fact? It might be just an historical assertion and we know that many of these assertions are usually false and inserted by the victor at that time, right?

Bless you,

APAK

Not sure why you can't see it. Here's what I said again:

1. No sir, "logos" has quite a wide semantic range -- most of which you seem to ignore. And it's John, via context, who determined how "logos" is being used. I don't know who "they" are, but "they" had nothing to do with the obvious way John is using it. He points to Jesus as the word all the way through the first 17 verses of John 1. Verse 14 is the most clear of all. "And the word BECAME FLESH and dwelt among us" is extremely hard to misunderstand. It's painfully clear who John is talking about.

2. You assert that "in all scripture 'logos' has one consistent meaning," while at the same time recognizing and admitting that "Jesus is called the word of God in a couple of places in Scripture." That's a whopper of a contradiction and a self defeating argument.

Now, what would you like to do with John 1:1? It clearly establishes "the word" (Jesus) as "God."

 

[APAK]

Thanks, Philippian Chapter 2 has some good scriptures to discuss. I'll be looking forward to those scriptures discussion.

PCY.

OK he's a reply..
The scripture is of course true although not in the way you have described it or apparently understand it.

This is a passage of scripture that cannot be taken literally. Knowing the context is all important here.

It was a scene at the very beginning of Christ’s mission. He was speaking to unbelievers. He was speaking about both the physical temple being destroyed and replaced by himself.

The physical temple was conceived under the law for God’s presence and designed by him. The spiritual temple of Christ would be the home for God after Christ was raised from the dead - planned and designed by him. Jesus was the instrument, lamb of God and human unblemished sinless sacrifice to cover sin permanently.

The ‘I’ in John 2:19 must be carefully understood considering the usage of it here and in other places for the same meaning.

The ‘I’ here means being instrumental or having a vital interest in the subject at hand.

I f we believe that Jesus is the son of God and God spoke through his mind we also know that Jesus would speak for his Father most of the time during his mission to the cross.

Let’s look at another example of using ‘I ‘or ‘you’ as not the actual person doing the deed or action. Only having a vital interest in its action.

In Acts 5:30, Peter accused the Pharisee rulers that they crucified Jesus. We know of course Rome crucified him although these leaders instigated this action.

Likewise, Jesus went to the cross in obedience and then instigated the act of being raised from the dead by his Father.

So, when Jesus said in John I will raise it up in 3 days he meant the actual act would be done by his Father. It should be obvious.

(Rom 6:4) We were buried therefore with him by baptism into death, in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, we too might walk in newness of life.
(Rom 8:11) If the Spirit of him who raised Jesus from the dead dwells in you, he who raised Christ Jesus from the dead will also give life to your mortal bodies through his Spirit who dwells in you.
(Act 5:30) The God of our fathers raised Jesus, whom you killed by hanging him on a tree.
(1Co 6:14) And God raised the Lord and will also raise us up by his power.
(Psa 69:9) For zeal for your house has consumed me, and the reproaches of those who reproach you have fallen on me.
(Joh 2:17) His disciples remembered that it was written, “Zeal for your house will consume me.”
(Joh 2:18) So the Jews said to him, “What sign do you show us for doing these things?”
(Joh 2:19) Jesus answered them, “Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.”
(Joh 2:20) The Jews then said, “It has taken forty-six years to build this temple, and will you raise it up in three days?”
(Joh 2:21) But he was speaking about the temple of his body. (ALL ESV)

There are about a two dozen or so verses saying God Almighty raised Jesus to life. Some of them are cited above. More include: 2 Cor 4:14; In Ephesians Chapter 1; Acts 2:24, 3:15 there’s another 20 verses or more.

So, have you thrown out the preponderance of evidence in other verses that say Jesus was raised by God Almighty; in favor of one misunderstood verse?

Bless you,

APAK

 

[APAK]

Not sure why you can't see it. Here's what I said again:

1. No sir, "logos" has quite a wide semantic range -- most of which you seem to ignore. And it's John, via context, who determined how "logos" is being used. I don't know who "they" are, but "they" had nothing to do with the obvious way John is using it. He points to Jesus as the word all the way through the first 17 verses of John 1. Verse 14 is the most clear of all. "And the word BECAME FLESH and dwelt among us" is extremely hard to misunderstand. It's painfully clear who John is talking about.

2. You assert that "in all scripture 'logos' has one consistent meaning," while at the same time recognizing and admitting that "Jesus is called the word of God in a couple of places in Scripture." That's a whopper of a contradiction and a self defeating argument.

Now, what would you like to do with John 1:1? It clearly establishes "the word" (Jesus) as "God."

...I still do not understand again...read what I said..thanks

 

[Nomad]

...I still do not understand again...read what I said..thanks

Wow, okay. No wonder you've embraced an indefensible heresy. Let's try this: The Apostle John says that "logos" = God. And "logos" = Jesus. Therefore, Jesus = God.

 

[amadeus]

John 10:
28 I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish no one will snatch them out of my hand. 29 My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all no one can snatch them out of my Father’s hand. 30 I and the Father are one.”

Consider this prayer that Jesus prayed:

"Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on me through their word;
That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me." John 17:20-21

If the John 10:30 verse means they are both God or a part of a Trinitarian God with three persons then the John 17:20-21 verse must mean we, you and I and each believer, can also become God or a part of a Multiplicity God with a multitude of persons.

I don't believe that as a conclusion but neither do I believe the conclusion that you and others have construed from the John 10:30 verse.

 

[APAK]

Ok. Thanks for breaking it down into smaller conversations, that's much better than trying to reply to long, multi-pointed ones!
So...if I can understand your point correctly, you're saying that due to the ambiguous nature of translations, we cannot be sure that Jesus' "I AM" statement holds the connotations that most of us think.
But, I would say, that if it's so ambiguous, how can you be sure that it is not?
Consider this: look up all the English translations of John 8:58. A lot of very intelligent and very learned men studied very hard to be able to translate the bible, and a lot of work went into each different version. All of them vary slightly, as to be expected, but here...here they all seem to agree that Jesus is saying that he is "I AM". The versions that do not say "I AM" directly actually make the statement even more emphatically: "For sure, I tell you, before Abraham was born, I was and am and always will be!” (NLV)

There must be a good reason behind that, don't you think?

The other point I feel I must make is the NT call that is weaved all throughout it to follow, worship, praise, glorify and be baptized in the name of...Jesus. There is no way...no way that this would sit with God's first commandment to worship no God but him, if Jesus was not also God. And there really is no getting around this fact, not even by claiming that Jesus was literally God's actual "son". God is a jealous God, and we know that he is "one". We also know from the OT how he looks upon idol worship...how even good things he himself have made are not to be worshiped. This would also fall to his son, unless he suddenly decided to stretch the rules (thereby breaking the one saying that he cannot change), or it means that Jesus is God.

I'll leave it there for them moment, but again, when we start looking at the evidence together, rather than just one piece individually, we start to get the picture that no...no it cannot be a coincidence, it cannot be a strange wording. What it is is wondrous and amazing.

1/2+

Naomi:

The point I made or was making last time is a little different from your take away. Eventhough the expression “I AM” has variations for reasons noted, and therefore can be ambiguous in its PRECISE English reading, like many in scripture, the MEANING is NEVER ambiguous to most people if no additional new meanings are deliberately attached to it. In modern language it can readily understood as ‘it is me’ or ‘it is really me (and no one else).’ The meaning of which has NO relationship to DIVINTY or God or Jesus as the expression. Any meaning that is really another secondary meaning as the prevalent thought is deliberately installed for a specific agenda and is false. That is my next point.

Now let me try and respond to your second paragraph.

I don’t not agree with your premise at all that ties the 1st commandment to not only God but also Jesus. Is this a new commandment I’m not aware of? The telling part is when you said “if Jesus was not also God..” I believe Jesus the Christ was not God Almighty, ever.

If it were true, I would agree with everything you said and even go further like many people do that believe this premise.

I would change nearly every word or at least footnote the entire Bible and say where ever you read God, Lord, YHWH etc. it also means Jesus, Yeshua etc. I’ve already read posts on this site that suggest some have bought into this incredible idea.

Yes, I believe that scripture, especially in the NT is riddled with the performance of all those acts you mentioned in the name of Jesus, or by using his mind or spirit in us, except for a few.

We are to only worship God Almighty as the 1st commandment states. We are to show respect, reverence as the son of God deserves as God’s only begotten son. We do not glorify Jesus, we glorify God Almighty, his and our Father.

Now in my mind, we are making an idol of Jesus when we equate Jesus with his Father.

I see a major roadblock here Naomi. Every time you mention God you apparently see Jesus as the same being, most probably in your mind and in your reading of scripture. That is the unfortunate impasse. We cannot agree on who the person Jesus and God, his and our Father.

I reckon you also believe that Jesus created the world as it is not written in Genesis. It is only possible if you imagine that Jesus is written in Genesis 1:1 rather that God. Words and symbols do have specific meanings.

You know I went to school at a RCC Convent school. You would have thought the nuns would have taught the trinity. I never knew of it. I remember one morning I was called out when the class was in session. I was talking in class. The nun instructor raised her tone, slapped down her cane on her front desk and called me out. She said what does Genesis 1:1 say! I correctly said that God made the heavens and the earth. I read it that God Almighty was the creator and not Jesus Christ. I had no reason to believe otherwise. Even when I decided to leave the RCC religion, I always believed in God as separate from Jesus, while Jesus was on earth and in heaven. I cannot imagine seeing God Almighty in heaven, although I can Jesus, as the son, the image of God and our Lord and savior. By the way, Lord here does not mean God Almighty. It means a title of high reverence and a respect as given to an earthy King by a peasant or a servant.

Naomi, continue on.....change thee approach..do whatever...let me know..it's all good

Bless you,



APAK

 

[101G]

OK he's a reply..
The scripture is of course true although not in the way you have described it or apparently understand it.

This is a passage of scripture that cannot be taken literally. Knowing the context is all important here.

It was a scene at the very beginning of Christ’s mission. He was speaking to unbelievers. He was speaking about both the physical temple being destroyed and replaced by himself.

The physical temple was conceived under the law for God’s presence and designed by him. The spiritual temple of Christ would be the home for God after Christ was raised from the dead - planned and designed by him. Jesus was the instrument, lamb of God and human unblemished sinless sacrifice to cover sin permanently.

The ‘I’ in John 2:19 must be carefully understood considering the usage of it here and in other places for the same meaning.

The ‘I’ here means being instrumental or having a vital interest in the subject at hand.

I f we believe that Jesus is the son of God and God spoke through his mind we also know that Jesus would speak for his Father most of the time during his mission to the cross.

Let’s look at another example of using ‘I ‘or ‘you’ as not the actual person doing the deed or action. Only having a vital interest in its action.

In Acts 5:30, Peter accused the Pharisee rulers that they crucified Jesus. We know of course Rome crucified him although these leaders instigated this action.

Likewise, Jesus went to the cross in obedience and then instigated the act of being raised from the dead by his Father.

So, when Jesus said in John I will raise it up in 3 days he meant the actual act would be done by his Father. It should be obvious.

(Rom 6:4) We were buried therefore with him by baptism into death, in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, we too might walk in newness of life.
(Rom 8:11) If the Spirit of him who raised Jesus from the dead dwells in you, he who raised Christ Jesus from the dead will also give life to your mortal bodies through his Spirit who dwells in you.
(Act 5:30) The God of our fathers raised Jesus, whom you killed by hanging him on a tree.
(1Co 6:14) And God raised the Lord and will also raise us up by his power.
(Psa 69:9) For zeal for your house has consumed me, and the reproaches of those who reproach you have fallen on me.
(Joh 2:17) His disciples remembered that it was written, “Zeal for your house will consume me.”
(Joh 2:18) So the Jews said to him, “What sign do you show us for doing these things?”
(Joh 2:19) Jesus answered them, “Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.”
(Joh 2:20) The Jews then said, “It has taken forty-six years to build this temple, and will you raise it up in three days?”
(Joh 2:21) But he was speaking about the temple of his body. (ALL ESV)

There are about a two dozen or so verses saying God Almighty raised Jesus to life. Some of them are cited above. More include: 2 Cor 4:14; In Ephesians Chapter 1; Acts 2:24, 3:15 there’s another 20 verses or more.

So, have you thrown out the preponderance of evidence in other verses that say Jesus was raised by God Almighty; in favor of one misunderstood verse?

Bless you,
APAK

Thanks for the response, but can't buy that, or none of what you said, especially, "This is a passage of scripture that cannot be taken literally. Knowing the context is all important here.

It was a scene at the very beginning of Christ’s mission. He was speaking to unbelievers. He was speaking about both the physical temple being destroyed and replaced by himself".

Let me help you out. scripture, Isaiah 63:5 "And I looked, and there was none to help; and I wondered that there was none to uphold: therefore mine own arm brought salvation unto me; and my fury, it upheld me".

APAK, is not God "ARM" him? read that Isaiah 63:5 scripture again. is not the Lord Jesus the POWER of God, meaning the ARM of God? see (1 Corinthians 1:24). Isaiah 63:5 said it's GOD "OWN" ARM. God himself made manifested in flesh. scripture, Isaiah 53:1 "Who hath believed our report? and to whom is the arm of the LORD revealed?".

so did God reveal "HIS" OWN arm in flesh? yes or no.

PCY.

 

[Nomad]

1/2+
The point I made or was making last time is a little different from your take away. Eventhough the expression “I AM” has variations for reasons noted, and therefore can be ambiguous in its PRECISE English reading, like many in scripture, the MEANING is NEVER ambiguous to most people if no additional new meanings are deliberately attached to it. In modern language it can readily understood as ‘it is me’ or ‘it is really me (and no one else).’ The meaning of which has NO relationship to DIVINTY or God or Jesus as the expression. Any meaning that is really another secondary meaning as the prevalent thought is deliberately installed for a specific agenda and is false. That is my next point.

Once again, context is indispensable when it comes to hermeneutics. The meaning of the PRESENT TENSE verb "eimi" in John 8:58 is not ambiguous in the least. Literally translated, "eimi" means "I am existing." For Jesus to say "before Abraham WAS, I am existing" makes absolutely no sense, unless he was using "eimi" to indicate eternal existence, which is the exact same way it was used in Exodus 3:13-14.

 

[Reggie Belafonte]

What this is about is that Jesus name is Emmanuel, he is God with us.
Jesus is the 'God with us Emmanuel', that means he is Gods Son, the Man who Saves us Humans, not your dog or cat etc, they can not be saved because they don't have a Soul as Man as.

It's all about the Son of God coming and doing the will of the Father, and in such we can be put on the right track with God, so as to understand our Sinful nature leads us astray and in being enslaved to the power of Sin and outcast of the garden.
Christ Jesus came to restore mans Soul with the Holy Spirit and deal with them who took over his Fathers Vineyard, remember the Prophets were sent by God and were killed by them who controlled the Vineyard and then Jesus came and kicked them who practised what amounts to like Political Correctness out of that Land.

God the Father is not a man, but words can not explain fully, but is called the Father because he is the Father of all, he made everything we could comprehend and more.

Jesus is not God the Father, he is the Son of the Father and the Holy Spirit confirms this as a fact, so you have the Trinity, that is the Holy Spirit and the Son and the Father are one in the same but three different identity but all three are of the Same as one. as Jesus says he only does the will of the Father because the Father is in him, one in the same but only through the Holy Spirit can one truly comprehend this fact. man without being born again in the Holy Spirit is dead to this fact.

Jesus said that he was not the God of the dead, but the living, he came so we can have Life abundantly and that's the power of the Holy Spirit working in us shining the Light in all, not the darkness of Satan with malice and greed and the gutless etc weakness of a coward that only deserves to be under enslavement, because that's what will become of such a people.
Holy Moses led the path out of Slavery and Jesus finished it all off and gave us the keys to Salvation abiding under his Grace.

Just look around yourself nowadays the Satanist are undermining all that Jesus gave us, we are heading down the path that leads to enslavement under the works of man, Political Correctness is dominating foolishness not to mention how people pick it up, they think it is empowering them, fact is it's only empowering their morbid foolish ego.

Talk to any twerp atheist or gutless moron and he will look to Political Correctness as an Idol and try to bite anyone with a religious zeal who points it out to be folly.
One can say look there a zealot of that like fanatical religious nut spewing out Political Correctness and worshiping it all as an Idol, they bring it into the Church and peddle it as a god, if you mention the trinity or Jesus they go into a fit and try shut you down.

 

[Reggie Belafonte]

Once again, context is indispensable when it comes to hermeneutics. The meaning of the PRESENT TENSE verb "eimi" in John 8:58 is not ambiguous in the least. Literally translated, "eimi" means "I am existing." For Jesus to say "before Abraham WAS, I am existing" makes absolutely no sense, unless he was using "eimi" to indicate eternal existence, which is the exact same way it was used in Exodus 3:13-14.

This is about Jesus is the beginning and the end, well he is in fact the Holy Spirit incarnate just as he is in God the Father, they are as one.
Jesus points out that some people will never believe in him as a man and he is not to bothered about this at all really, but he points out about the Holy Spirit is not to be dismissed with because he is in fact the Holy Spirit incarnate anyway, they are one in the same in fact anyway.

 

[epostle1]

No one can proof-text Christ's divinity; you either believe it or you don't.

 

[tabletalk]

Ok. Thanks for breaking it down into smaller conversations, that's much better than trying to reply to long, multi-pointed ones!
So...if I can understand your point correctly, you're saying that due to the ambiguous nature of translations, we cannot be sure that Jesus' "I AM" statement holds the connotations that most of us think.
But, I would say, that if it's so ambiguous, how can you be sure that it is not?
Consider this: look up all the English translations of John 8:58. A lot of very intelligent and very learned men studied very hard to be able to translate the bible, and a lot of work went into each different version. All of them vary slightly, as to be expected, but here...here they all seem to agree that Jesus is saying that he is "I AM". The versions that do not say "I AM" directly actually make the statement even more emphatically: "For sure, I tell you, before Abraham was born, I was and am and always will be!” (NLV)

There must be a good reason behind that, don't you think?

The other point I feel I must make is the NT call that is weaved all throughout it to follow, worship, praise, glorify and be baptized in the name of...Jesus. There is no way...no way that this would sit with God's first commandment to worship no God but him, if Jesus was not also God. And there really is no getting around this fact, not even by claiming that Jesus was literally God's actual "son". God is a jealous God, and we know that he is "one". We also know from the OT how he looks upon idol worship...how even good things he himself have made are not to be worshiped. This would also fall to his son, unless he suddenly decided to stretch the rules (thereby breaking the one saying that he cannot change), or it means that Jesus is God.

I'll leave it there for them moment, but again, when we start looking at the evidence together, rather than just one piece individually, we start to get the picture that no...no it cannot be a coincidence, it cannot be a strange wording. What it is is wondrous and amazing.

Very good post. Thank you.

 

[Windmillcharge]

Consider this prayer that Jesus prayed:

"Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on me through their word;
That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me." John 17:20-21

If the John 10:30 verse means they are both God or a part of a Trinitarian God with three persons then the John 17:20-21 verse must mean we, you and I and each believer, can also become God or a part of a Multiplicity God with a multitude of persons.

I don't believe that as a conclusion but neither do I believe the conclusion that you and others have construed from the John 10:30 verse.

Jesus clearly taught that there is God the Father and that he is God the Son and he also talks about sending the Spirit so the trinitarian believe is reasonable.

As a hristian doesn't the Spirit live in you? Aren't you seeking to be more like Jesus?

There is unity because of common purpose, but there is also unity of nature.
Jesus is discribed as being The Creator, which means he is God, yet he identifies God the Father as being different from himself while also being the same.