John 8:58 and Trinitarians.

[ittarter]

I said if the man jesus is god, then that would mean that flesh is spirit, not t hat he is both spirit and flesh, i also never said anything about mutually exclusive, you put those words in my mouth,. you misunderstood me, yet it's not ok if i misunderstand you. you went into talking about paradoxes and contradictions with realtion to john 1 ( the word was with/towards god, and the word was god) the way you said it was rather fuzzy to me, but it appeared to me that you were saying that there is a contradiction in john 1.1 so now I'm a bad guy cause i perceived your rather unclear explanation diffently than you intended. . here is the discourse i am refering to.

I just said I was tired of this conversation. To me, that's me being a "bad guy" (for giving up) just as much as you, if not more.

I've had people confused by my posts, but they ask me to clarify, whereas you handle it rather differently, and attack me in all sorts of ways. (And I'm not going to start discussing each and every attack.) I guess on some occasions I've been a little aggressive too. What's good for the goose is good for the gander, eh? but I've really tried in the last few posts to be friendly and clear. But It didn't seem to fix anything. So I'm done.

I hope we can end this conversation without pointing fingers and saying "good guy" / "bad guy." Some people just have a hard time understanding other people. Good thing we're not married! right?

This is my last post on this thread. I'm sure you will want to respond -- feel free to do so -- but I'm not going to reply. No slight meant against you, but I believe this conversation is going nowhere, and I have to take a stand.

 

[jpr7]

would you also say that it is not entirely improbable that Jesus was saying "Before Abraham was, I am he."? He being understood as it is in.

What's the context 2ducklow? Here I'll help you:

John 8:57-58 - Then the Jews said to Him, “You are not yet fifty years old, and have You seen Abraham?” Jesus said to them, “Most assuredly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I AM.”

What kind of question is Jesus responding to? How much sense does it make for Jesus to say "I am he" in response to this question? Not much really.

John 8:28 Jesus therefore said, When ye have lifted up the Son of man, then shall ye know that I am he, and that I do nothing of myself, but as the Father taught me, I speak these things.

The "I am" occurs in a different clause, different context.

he is not in the text but is understood , just as when we say in english I am, he is frequently understood. So it's not a copula if Jesus was saying "I am he." it would be a complete sentence that made sence then.

No, it would be a copula with a logical predicate implied ("he"). The grammatical predicate, however, would not be there.

saying I exist or am before abraham was" makes no sense.

You have to tell us why it wouldn't make sense, rather than just asserting that it doesn't.

Incidentally, the very construction conveys this:

ego
1st person/singular/nominative/pronoun
1) The nomatives ego and hemeis, when joined to a verb, generally have force and emphasis (Thayer's lexicon)
Blue Letter Bible - Lexicon G1473&t=KJV

eimi
1st person/singular/present/indicative/verb
G1510 the first person singular present indicative; a prolonged form of a primary and defective verb; I exist (used only when emphatic):--am, have been, X it is I,
Strong's Greek Lexicon Search Results dex=1510
​

Notice that ego is used for emphasis when connected to a verb. The verb is eimi and when emphatic--that is, when used with the corresponding personal pronoun--it means "I exist."

Additionally, ego eimi carries a timeless sense here. Jesus has always existed.

Which is another reason i discount the possibility that Jesus was uttering I am in reference to god, God never uses poor illogical nonsensical grammar like "I am before he was."

Illogical, possibly, in the English. But to Jesus' hearers, it actually meant something (see above).

what about the probability that Jesus was claiming to be the christ, the one promised in scripture even before abraham was? after all the whole preceeding discourse to john 8.58 is about Jesus claiming to be the christ, the one the father sent. to me that is more probable, but I will say that it is possible that I am refers to god and that Jesus was uttering some cryptic message.

That's your prerogative to see it how you want to see it. I see it based on simple grammar and semantics.

I don't give it much probability though as you do. but even if I am is god's name and Jesus is uttering it, he still isn't claiming to be the i am. If I am is god, then all jesus is saying is "before abraham was , god."

Misrepresentation of the probable explanation I put forth.

you assume jesus is saying 'before abraham was , I am the I am, or I was the I am."

My assumption was based on the way rabbis taught in that time.

that is not in the text. so your interpretation doesn't fit what is actually said, it fits what isn't said.

I never touted this as being my interpretation. I also should have made it clear that I was approaching this from the Septuagint Exodus 3:14 (reminder: update original post). Ego eimi is in John 8:58 and Exodus 3:14. But, "The I Am" is also there. So with the connections between the use of the Septuagint in Jesus' time, the appearance of ego eimi, and the fact that rabbis uttered things that hearers would fill in their minds, that interpretation is not very far off.

For me, a very big proof that john 8.58 cannot mean that Jesus was claiming to be god is the fact that at his trial no one accused him of claiming to be god.

So you're deriving your proof from what people didn't accuse Jesus of claiming to be. I've always wondered how arguments from silence prove anything.

If Jesus had claimed to have been god, they would have told the sannhedrin and they would immediatly have come and arrested him and put him to death for it.

Or they would have tried to stone him at that moment, you think?

no one took jesus statement "I am" to mean that he was god except latter day christians. by latter day i mean after the birth of logos christology.

I'll have to look more into this. But help me out by providing your evidence.

It is a grave fallacy for a trinitarian to admit to other possibilities because the trinitarian arguement that their doctrine doesn't make sense but is the only intepretation possible so it has to be falls apart if you admit, as you did indirectly, taht there are other POSSIBLE interpretations to any trinity related verse. so in the future it would be wise of you to stick to no other possibilities, that is if you want to hold on to false trinity doctrine..

Okay. If I weren't a Trinitarian, you'd have no basis for what you said. If I were a Trinitarian, I'd have to find it funny that people (especially non-Trinitarians) can tell a Trinitarian what he should and how he should believe it. LOL

 

[jpr7]

would you also say that it is not entirely improbable that Jesus was saying "Before Abraham was, I am he."? He being understood as it is in.

What's the context 2ducklow? Here I'll help you:

John 8:57-58 - Then the Jews said to Him, “You are not yet fifty years old, and have You seen Abraham?” Jesus said to them, “Most assuredly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I AM.”

What kind of question is Jesus responding to? How much sense does it make for Jesus to say "I am he" in response to this question? Not much really.

John 8:28 Jesus therefore said, When ye have lifted up the Son of man, then shall ye know that I am he, and that I do nothing of myself, but as the Father taught me, I speak these things.

The "I am" occurs in a different clause, different context.

he is not in the text but is understood , just as when we say in english I am, he is frequently understood. So it's not a copula if Jesus was saying "I am he." it would be a complete sentence that made sence then.

No, it would be a copula with a logical predicate implied ("he"). The grammatical predicate, however, would not be there.

saying I exist or am before abraham was" makes no sense.

You have to tell us why it wouldn't make sense, rather than just asserting that it doesn't.

Incidentally, the very construction conveys this:

ego
1st person/singular/nominative/pronoun
1) The nomatives ego and hemeis, when joined to a verb, generally have force and emphasis (Thayer's lexicon)
Blue Letter Bible - Lexicon G1473&t=KJV

eimi
1st person/singular/present/indicative/verb
G1510 the first person singular present indicative; a prolonged form of a primary and defective verb; I exist (used only when emphatic):--am, have been, X it is I,
Strong's Greek Lexicon Search Results dex=1510
​

Notice that ego is used for emphasis when connected to a verb. The verb is eimi and when emphatic--that is, when used with the corresponding personal pronoun--it means "I exist."

Additionally, ego eimi carries a timeless sense here. Jesus has always existed.

Which is another reason i discount the possibility that Jesus was uttering I am in reference to god, God never uses poor illogical nonsensical grammar like "I am before he was."

Illogical, possibly, in the English. But to Jesus' hearers, it actually meant something (see above).

what about the probability that Jesus was claiming to be the christ, the one promised in scripture even before abraham was? after all the whole preceeding discourse to john 8.58 is about Jesus claiming to be the christ, the one the father sent. to me that is more probable, but I will say that it is possible that I am refers to god and that Jesus was uttering some cryptic message.

That's your prerogative to see it how you want to see it. I see it based on simple grammar and semantics.

I don't give it much probability though as you do. but even if I am is god's name and Jesus is uttering it, he still isn't claiming to be the i am. If I am is god, then all jesus is saying is "before abraham was , god."

Misrepresentation of the probable explanation I put forth.

you assume jesus is saying 'before abraham was , I am the I am, or I was the I am."

My assumption was based on the way rabbis taught in that time.

that is not in the text. so your interpretation doesn't fit what is actually said, it fits what isn't said.

I never touted this as being my interpretation. I also should have made it clear that I was approaching this from the Septuagint Exodus 3:14 (reminder: update original post). Ego eimi is in John 8:58 and Exodus 3:14. But, "The I Am" is also there. So with the connections between the use of the Septuagint in Jesus' time, the appearance of ego eimi, and the fact that rabbis uttered things that hearers would fill in their minds, that interpretation is not very far off.

For me, a very big proof that john 8.58 cannot mean that Jesus was claiming to be god is the fact that at his trial no one accused him of claiming to be god.

So you're deriving your proof from what people didn't accuse Jesus of claiming to be. I've always wondered how arguments from silence prove anything.

If Jesus had claimed to have been god, they would have told the sannhedrin and they would immediatly have come and arrested him and put him to death for it.

Or they would have tried to stone him at that moment, you think?

no one took jesus statement "I am" to mean that he was god except latter day christians. by latter day i mean after the birth of logos christology.

I'll have to look more into this. But help me out by providing your evidence.

It is a grave fallacy for a trinitarian to admit to other possibilities because the trinitarian arguement that their doctrine doesn't make sense but is the only intepretation possible so it has to be falls apart if you admit, as you did indirectly, taht there are other POSSIBLE interpretations to any trinity related verse. so in the future it would be wise of you to stick to no other possibilities, that is if you want to hold on to false trinity doctrine..

Okay. If I weren't a Trinitarian, you'd have no basis for what you said. If I were a Trinitarian, I'd have to find it funny that people (especially non-Trinitarians) can tell a Trinitarian what he should believe and how he should believe it. LOL

 

[2ducklow]

I just said I was tired of this conversation. To me, that's me being a "bad guy" (for giving up) just as much as you, if not more.

adios.

 

[2ducklow]

I just said I was tired of this conversation. To me, that's me being a "bad guy" (for giving up) just as much as you, if not more.

I've had people confused by my posts, but they ask me to clarify, whereas you handle it rather differently, and attack me in all sorts of ways. (And I'm not going to start discussing each and every attack.) I guess on some occasions I've been a little aggressive too. What's good for the goose is good for the gander, eh? but I've really tried in the last few posts to be friendly and clear. But It didn't seem to fix anything. So I'm done.

I hope we can end this conversation without pointing fingers and saying "good guy" / "bad guy." Some people just have a hard time understanding other people. Good thing we're not married! right?

This is my last post on this thread. I'm sure you will want to respond -- feel free to do so -- but I'm not going to reply. No slight meant against you, but I believe this conversation is going nowhere, and I have to take a stand.

yea well you want to end the conversation with parting low blows directed at me and don't want me to respond. typical.

 

[ittarter]

yea well you want to end the conversation with parting low blows directed at me and don't want me to respond. typical.

Well, I HAD to respond to this.

Feel free to respond. I said I'M not going to respond. You can defend yourself to other readers in whatever way you see fit. A free piece of advice: you won't score any points with the aforementioned readers if you yourself do exactly what you deplore in my posts.

"Typical."

 

[2ducklow]

What's the context 2ducklow? Here I'll help you:

John 8:57-58 - Then the Jews said to Him, “You are not yet fifty years old, and have You seen Abraham?” Jesus said to them, “Most assuredly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I AM.”

What kind of question is Jesus responding to? How much sense does it make for Jesus to say "I am he" in response to this question? Not much really.

I don't beleive he was responding to that question because,

Proverbs 26:4 Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest thou also be like unto him.

the question was foolish. it was foolish to ask jesus if he saw abraham who existed some 2000 years or so before Jesus was even born. I believe Jesus was continuing on with his previous statement about abraham.

John 8:56 Your father Abraham rejoiced to see my day; and he saw it, and was glad.


Jesus was explaining how abraham saw Jesus day not by his natural eyes, b ut by faith in the promised messiah. I looked in 3 commentaries and they all say this about john 8.56.

The "I am" occurs in a different clause, different context.

No, it would be a copula with a logical predicate implied ("he"). The grammatical predicate, however, would not be there.

You have to tell us why it wouldn't make sense, rather than just asserting that it doesn't

Incidentally, the very construction conveys this:

ego
1st person/singular/nominative/pronoun
1) The nomatives ego and hemeis, when joined to a verb, generally have force and emphasis (Thayer's lexicon)
Blue Letter Bible - Lexicon G1473&t=KJV

eimi
1st person/singular/present/indicative/verb
G1510 the first person singular present indicative; a prolonged form of a primary and defective verb; I exist (used only when emphatic):--am, have been, X it is I,
Strong's Greek Lexicon Search Results dex=1510
​

Notice that ego is used for emphasis when connected to a verb. The verb is eimi and when emphatic--that is, when used with the corresponding personal pronoun--it means "I exist.

most bibles translate it as I am. if it means i exist then it can in no way be the same as ex. 3.14. Also Godnever said in ex. 3.14 something like 'I am before you was.' God never said anything anywhere nonsensical like "I am before you exist." God always used good grammar.

Additionally, ego eimi carries a timeless sense here. Jesus has always existed.

Illogical, possibly, in the English. But to Jesus' hearers, it actually meant something (see above).

That's your prerogative to see it how you want to see it. I see it based on simple grammar and semantics.

Misrepresentation of the probable explanation I put forth.

My assumption was based on the way rabbis taught in that time.

I never touted this as being my interpretation. I also should have made it clear that I was approaching this from the Septuagint Exodus 3:14 (reminder: update original post). Ego eimi is in John 8:58 and Exodus 3:14. But, "The I Am" is also there. So with the connections between the use of the Septuagint in Jesus' time, the appearance of ego eimi, and the fact that rabbis uttered things that hearers would fill in their minds, that interpretation is not very far off.

So you're deriving your proof from what people didn't accuse Jesus of claiming to be. I've always wondered how arguments from silence prove anything.

John 8:58 Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was born, I am(he).

John 10:24 Then came the Jews round about him, and said unto him, How long dost thou make us to doubt? If thou be the Christ, tell us plainly.

John 10:25 Jesus answered them, I told you, and ye believe not: the works that I do in my Father's name, these bear witness of me.

when did jesus tell them that he was the christ and they beleived not? in john 8. and especially in vs. 58. when did jesus show them that he was the christ by his works? in john 8.

John 8:38 I speak the things which I have seen with my Father: and ye also do the things which ye heard from your father.

jesus is saying here he does the works of his father, and they also do the works of thier father.

John 8:41 Ye do the works of your father. They said unto him, We were not born of fornication; we have one Father, even God.

the jews here are accusing Jesus of doing the works of his father.

John 8:46 Which of you convicteth me of sin? If I say truth, why do ye not believe me?

here we see Jesus saying that they did not belive him, in john 10.25 Jesus said he had already told them previously that he was the christ and the proof that he is the christ, was that Jesus did the works of his father, who is god.


John 8:54-55 Jesus answered, If I glorify myself, my glory is nothing: it is my Father that glorifieth me; of whom ye say, that he is your God; and ye have not known him: but I know him; and if I should say, I know him not, I shall be like unto you, a liar: but I know him, and keep his word.


you would have us believe that just prior to john 8.58 Jesus is saying that he knows god and that god glorifys him
and that he Jesus keeps Gods' words, then a few verses latter Jesus says "oh Im god".

Or they would have tried to stone him at that moment, you think?

they didn't stone him because Jesus wouldn't say directly that he was the christ, if you look in john 10,24. the Jews are requesting that jesus say directly "I am the christ" so that they can stone him. but jesus wouldn't fall into their trap and was following the same advice he had given his disciples previously.

Matthew 16:20 Then charged he his disciples that they should tell no man that he was Jesus the Christ.

if jesus had clearly stated that he was god as you suggest he did in john 8.58, then the jews would have had legal grounds to stone him, but they didn't. they didn't because they knew he was claiming to be ther christ but couldn't stone him because to do so , without a clear declaration from Jesus own mouth, would be to put their own lives in jepordy. thats why they wanted him to say flat out "I am the christ." When Jesus did say "I am the chist" they put him to death for saying it.

I'll have to look more into this. But help me out by providing your evidence.

Okay. If I weren't a Trinitarian, you'd have no basis for what you said. If I were a Trinitarian, I'd have to find it funny that people (especially non-Trinitarians) can tell a Trinitarian what he should and how he should believe it. LOL

 

[jpr7]

I don't beleive he was responding to that question because,

Proverbs 26:4 Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest thou also be like unto him.

the question was foolish. it was foolish to ask jesus if he saw abraham who existed some 2000 years or so before Jesus was even born. I believe Jesus was continuing on with his previous statement about abraham.

John 8:56 Your father Abraham rejoiced to see my day; and he saw it, and was glad.

Incorrect, 2ducklow. It's very clear that the Jews are asking about Jesus' existence. How could Jesus have seen Abraham even though Jesus isn't fifty years old? In other words, they questioned how Jesus could have existed. (For Jesus to have seen Abraham, He obviously had to have existence.) Jesus' response has to do with existence.

Also note: their question ("You are not yet fifty years old, and You have seen Abraham") has to do with time. The clause "before Abraham was" answers the question "when?"

Jesus was explaining how abraham saw Jesus day not by his natural eyes, b ut by faith in the promised messiah. I looked in 3 commentaries and they all say this about john 8.56.

I agree that's what Jesus is saying about John 8:56. But what about John 8:58? What do they say there? Also note, John 8:56 is not John 8:58.

most bibles translate it as I am.

I don't deny that it can be translated that way.

if it means i exist then it can in no way be the same as ex. 3.14.

You seem to be confusing my probable interpretation with what I see the verse saying. I never equated Jesus saying "I exist" with Exodus 3:14.

Also Godnever said in ex. 3.14 something like 'I am before you was.'

Never did I say that either.

God never said anything anywhere nonsensical like "I am before you exist." God always used good grammar.

I never would attribute anything like that to God. Here is what I did say:

Incidentally, the very construction conveys this:

ego
1st person/singular/nominative/pronoun
1) The nomatives ego and hemeis, when joined to a verb, generally have force and emphasis (Thayer's lexicon)
Blue Letter Bible - Lexicon G1473&t=KJV

eimi
1st person/singular/present/indicative/verb
G1510 the first person singular present indicative; a prolonged form of a primary and defective verb; I exist (used only when emphatic):--am, have been, X it is I,
Strong's Greek Lexicon Search Results dex=1510
​

Notice that ego is used for emphasis when connected to a verb. The verb is eimi and when emphatic--that is, when used with the corresponding personal pronoun--it means "I exist.

Additionally, ego eimi carries a timeless sense here. Jesus has always existed.

and

...to Jesus' hearers, it actually meant something

In the Greek language, that is good grammar. I'm sure in whatever language Jesus uttered those words, it was good grammar. But the language from which John 8:58 is translated is not English, so whether it makes sense to you or not in the English really doesn't matter. I don't think John really thinks it matters either whether it makes sense to you or not, seeing that you deny Jesus' divinity, which John so aptly defends. When John recorded this in his gospel, the words and the order in which they occurred carried meaning to them. I've exegeted the words and told you what it says and what the recipients of his gospel understood it. You've used your time griping about bad grammar in the English when you could use that time actually dealing with the Greek (not English) grammar.

John 8:58 Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was born, I am(he).

And your point here is?

John 10:24 Then came the Jews round about him, and said unto him, How long dost thou make us to doubt? If thou be the Christ, tell us plainly.

John 10:25 Jesus answered them, I told you, and ye believe not: the works that I do in my Father's name, these bear witness of me.

when did jesus tell them that he was the christ and they beleived not? in john 8. and especially in vs. 58. when did jesus show them that he was the christ by his works? in john 8.

John 8:38 I speak the things which I have seen with my Father: and ye also do the things which ye heard from your father.

jesus is saying here he does the works of his father, and they also do the works of thier father.

John 8:41 Ye do the works of your father. They said unto him, We were not born of fornication; we have one Father, even God.

the jews here are accusing Jesus of doing the works of his father.

John 8:46 Which of you convicteth me of sin? If I say truth, why do ye not believe me?

here we see Jesus saying that they did not belive him, in john 10.25 Jesus said he had already told them previously that he was the christ and the proof that he is the christ, was that Jesus did the works of his father, who is god.

Wait a second. The issue here is John 8:58 being used by Trinitarians to call Jesus God. I took that post to task to show that the words and their relation shows that Jesus claimed divinity (by virtue of always existing). If you're going to disagree with my position, then you're going to need to explain the grammar (and not dismiss it on the basis of it not being "good [English] grammar," whatever that is to you). Because the grammatical constructions and the semantic value of the words very clearly shows that Jesus has always existed. Calling on John 10 and other verses in John 8 is not dealing with John 8:58. All you're giving me is your observation on texts other than John 8:58. I'm not interested in your commentary on texts other than the one under discussion; I'm interested in you telling me from the text itself what it says and what it means. At this point, you not only disagree with me but also with inspired Scripture (which includes inspired grammar).

John 8:54-55 Jesus answered, If I glorify myself, my glory is nothing: it is my Father that glorifieth me; of whom ye say, that he is your God; and ye have not known him: but I know him; and if I should say, I know him not, I shall be like unto you, a liar: but I know him, and keep his word.

I affirm this verse and have no problem with it.

you would have us believe that just prior to john 8.58 Jesus is saying that he knows god and that god glorifys him
and that he Jesus keeps Gods' words, then a few verses latter Jesus says "oh Im god".

You keep trying to speak for me, which really isn't very nice. By the way, this isn't John 8:58.

they didn't stone him because Jesus wouldn't say directly that he was the christ, if you look in john 10,24. the Jews are requesting that jesus say directly "I am the christ" so that they can stone him. but jesus wouldn't fall into their trap and was following the same advice he had given his disciples previously.

More commentary on verses other than the one under discussion.

Matthew 16:20 Then charged he his disciples that they should tell no man that he was Jesus the Christ.

if jesus had clearly stated that he was god as you suggest he did in john 8.58, then the jews would have had legal grounds to stone him, but they didn't. they didn't because they knew he was claiming to be ther christ but couldn't stone him because to do so , without a clear declaration from Jesus own mouth, would be to put their own lives in jepordy. thats why they wanted him to say flat out "I am the christ." When Jesus did say "I am the chist" they put him to death for saying it.

Incidentally, I affirm this verse also. But this is really off topic. John 8:58 is the topic.

 

[2ducklow]

. I'm not interested in your commentary on texts other than the one under discussion;

then im not interested in your comments on greek and english grammar or ex. 3.14.

 

[2ducklow]

never mind

 

[2ducklow]

Well, I HAD to respond to this.

Feel free to respond. I said I'M not going to respond. You can defend yourself to other readers in whatever way you see fit. A free piece of advice: you won't score any points with the aforementioned readers if you yourself do exactly what you deplore in my posts.

"Typical."

like you said it's a good thing we ain't marrried.

 

[MrBojangles]

I own a company, and in that company I am the President, I am the Accountant, and I am the janitor.

Say I am dressed as the janitor and am doing the work of a janitor, but while doing that work I (by my authority as president) sell a building. A new employee sees the janitor sell the building, and demands of me "by what authority do you sell this building?"
I would respond, I (as janitor) am also the President. I and the president are one.
That, I think, is the context of this verse.

 

[2ducklow]

I own a company, and in that company I am the President, I am the Accountant, and I am the janitor.

President of GM?

Say I am dressed as the janitor and am doing the work of a janitor, but while doing that work I (by my authority as president) sell a building. A new employee sees the janitor sell the building, and demands of me "by what authority do you sell this building?"
I would respond, I (as janitor) am also the President. I and the president are one.
That, I think, is the context of this verse.

one person 3 roles is the oneness doctrine, not t rinity. trinity is 3 persons are one person. or 3 beings are one being, not one person in 3 roles.

 

[jpr7]

then im not interested in your comments on greek and english grammar or ex. 3.14.

#1, here is what I said about Exodus 3:14:

I never touted this as being my interpretation. I also should have made it clear that I was approaching this from the Septuagint Exodus 3:14 (reminder: update original post). Ego eimi is in John 8:58 and Exodus 3:14. But, "The I Am" is also there. So with the connections between the use of the Septuagint in Jesus' time, the appearance of ego eimi, and the fact that rabbis uttered things that hearers would fill in their minds, that interpretation is not very far off.

and

You seem to be confusing my probable interpretation with what I see the verse saying. I never equated Jesus saying "I exist" with Exodus 3:14.

In other words, I never said that the possible interpretation I put forth connecting Exodus 3:14 with John 8:58 is the interpretation I have of John 8:58. So you can disregard Exodus 3:14 if you want.

#2, what does the text say? You determine that by grammar and semantics. Scripture is inspired. Scripture consists of words, phrases, clauses, sentences, paragraphs, and all the things bound up with those such as word order and word choice. Therefore the grammar and semantics are inspired. And the grammar that the Holy Spirit inspired is not there for you to dismiss. So you might actually try dealing with the text itself. Before you tell us what it means, tell us what it says (what it means cannot be at odds with what it says, but you haven't even established what it says; whenever I have established what it says, you disagree without ever saying what it says). Like I said, at this point, you disagree not only with me but with inspired Scripture.

saying I exist or am before abraham was" makes no sense.

You have to tell us why it wouldn't make sense, rather than just asserting that it doesn't.

 

[jpr7]

one person 3 roles is the oneness doctrine, not t rinity. trinity is 3 persons are one person. or 3 beings are one being, not one person in 3 roles.

This one cannot go without comment, otherwise those who don't know much about what the doctrine of the Trinity ACTUALLY is might take what I'm responding to as truth.

2ducklow, this is a misrepresentation. Whether you're doing it intentionally or unintentionally, I don't know. However, the Trinity is NOT what you wrote. The doctrine of the Trinity is one being, three persons.

 

[2ducklow]

This one cannot go without comment, otherwise those who don't know much about what the doctrine of the Trinity ACTUALLY is might take what I'm responding to as truth.

2ducklow, this is a misrepresentation. Whether you're doing it intentionally or unintentionally, I don't know. However, the Trinity is NOT what you wrote. The doctrine of the Trinity is one being, three persons.

Persons are beings.. So you have said one being, three beings. one being, three beings is not truth, it is a contradiction.
James white, the brilliant trinitarian theologian says it is one person 3 persons. he also says it is one non personal being 3 persons. but what is a trinity explanation without lots of contradictions?one time James white says god is stupid like a cat then he says god is a personal being (person). next he says a person of god is a personal being, then he says it is a personality.then he says god is a stupid cat like god and 3 personalities. {one what( a what is a stupid cat) and 3 whos (who's are personalities).} Uusally trinitarians ooooh and awwww over his explanation. go figure.

It is necessary here to distinguish between the terms "being" and "person."

we recognize both "what" and "who" when we talk about a person.

personal beings---God, man, and angels.

Cats cannot think of themselves over against others, and, say, work for the common good of "cat kind." Hence, we are saying that there is one eternal, infinite being of God,

three persons, Father, Son and Spirit. One what, three who's.

http://vintage.aomin.org/trinitydef.html

if a brilliant mind like James white has to come up with this nonsense to explain trinity, what hope is there for the average Joe in explaining trinity? none.

 

[2ducklow]

#1, here is what I said about Exodus 3:14:
andIn other words, I never said that the possible interpretation I put forth connecting Exodus 3:14 with John 8:58 is the interpretation I have of John 8:58. So you can disregard Exodus 3:14 if you want.

Ego eimi is in John 8:58 and Exodus 3:14. But, "The I Am" is also there.

you get the interpretation of john 8.58 that Jesus is the I am from ex. 3.14, otherwise you have only your opinon that i am means jesus is god. i neve said you have the same interpretation for both of them. you are very slippery.

#2, what does the text say? You determine that by grammar and semantics. Scripture is inspired. Scripture consists of words, phrases, clauses, sentences, paragraphs, and all the things bound up with those such as word order and word choice. Therefore the grammar and semantics are inspired. And the grammar that the Holy Spirit inspired is not there for you to dismiss. So you might actually try dealing with the text itself. Before you tell us what it means, tell us what it says (what it means cannot be at odds with what it says, but you haven't even established what it says; whenever I have established what it says, you disagree without ever saying what it says). Like I said, at this point, you disagree not only with me but with inspired Scripture.

I believe it says "before abraham was, I am he (meaning the christ). I will admit that one can grammaticaly say that it can mean "before abraham was ,I exist."
i believe both cases are grammatically possible, I'm not sure if you do. in my case "I am he" lines up with the rest of the previous scriptures where JEsus is trying to show them that he is the christ. In your case it results in a nonsensical, although grammatically possible, "I am before he was." You are claiming that it makes sense because jesus is god and he always existed therefore jesus can say he exists before someone was'. my counter point to that would be that we have no other examples of someone saying something nonsensical like that in the entire bible, neither god nor any man.

would you not agree that if I or you or anyone said ," i am before George washington was." that that would be nonsensical? If so , then you see why i say your interpetation is nonsensical.

I exist before you was' is illogical and nonsensical. it is saying God exists in the present in the past. that is why it is nonsensical.
. if you can't see this then I don't think i can explain it any more clearly.


also, do you have any scripture for your doctrine that god exists in the present in the past? I know of none.Therefore your doctrine has no scriptural basis. you need scipture stating that god exists in the present in the past to interpret john 8.58 to mean that Jesus or God exists( pressent tense) before abraham was (past tense). especially for a nonsensical one like that.


I offered proof why i believe john 8.58 means that Jesus is claiming to be the christ, it's very convincing to me, you just dismissed it without showing how you believe i was wrong, just sayin "you're wrong" doesn't convince me.

i'll give you my argument in a nutshell. jesus said he already told them that he was the christ in john 10.25, john 8.58 is where JEsus told them he is the christ and they didn't believe him. i gave numerous reasons and scriptures why this has to be. your response? irrelevant, no explanation as to how anything i said was irrelevant, just irrelevant, obviously you would rather believe nosnense than sense.

 

[Der Alte]

[ . . . ][SIZE="-1"]I offered proof why i believe john 8.58 means that Jesus is claiming to be the christ, it's very convincing to me, you just dismissed it without showing how you believe i was wrong, just sayin "you're wrong" doesn't convince me.

i'll give you my argument in a nutshell. jesus said he already told them that he was the christ in john 10.25, john 8.58 is where JEsus told them he is the christ and they didn't believe him. i gave numerous reasons and scriptures why this has to be. your response? irrelevant, no explanation as to how anything i said was irrelevant, just irrelevant, obviously you would rather believe nosnense than sense.[/SIZE]

Jesus identified himself as the Messiah long before John 8:58 and he was called Christ at least 8 times in chapter seven, and zero times in chapter 8.

Joh 4:25 The woman saith unto him, I know that Messias cometh, which is called Christ: when he is come, he will tell us all things.
26 Jesus saith unto her, I that speak unto thee am he.

Joh 7:41 Others said, This is the Christ. But some said, Shall Christ come out of Galilee?​

 

[Kittenshere]

God is the father, Jesus is the son of God. anything OF or FROM something cannot be that something that it is of or from. The holy spirit is the power that responds to what Jesus commands kinda like electricity powers machines.

in john 14:28 Jesus said my father is greater than I. Now ask yourself If God is greater than Jesus how on earth can Jesus be God? One would not be greater than the other. they would be the same.

they only work as one (together) to accomplish the same goal. but are clearly not one.

 

[2ducklow]

Jesus identified himself as the Messiah long before John 8:58 and he was called Christ at least 8 times in chapter seven, and zero times in chapter 8.

as I recall, you believe all of john 8 is about Jesus claiming to be god, I say Jesus is claiming to be the christ in all of john 8, including vs. 58. neither one of us has a scripture in that chapter saying directly "I am christ, or I am god." so it's a matter of interpreting john 8 verse by verse.


I didn't say no one called hm the christ, I said Jesus said for no man to call him christ. And the reason he did so was because the jews would have put him to death for it , which they did when at his trial he admitted that he was the christ. that is why , even though he gave a somewhat elaborate explanation as to how he was the christ prior to john 8.58, he did not directly state that he was, in fact I gather from john 8, that the jews were confused, they sorta thought he was claiming to be christ but they were unsure. they wanted to be sure thaat Jesus was claiming to be the christ so that they wouldn't get in trouble with the law.

Matthew 16:20 Then charged he his disciples that they should tell no man that he was Jesus the Christ.


check john 8, and john chapter 10 where they ask him to tell them directly and clearly that He was the christ, Jesus didn't. Jesus never said to them I am the christ, \he never even used the word christ with them. he left um guessing, cause they only wanted him to say it so they could put him to death on the spot.

Joh 4:25 The woman saith unto him, I know that Messias cometh, which is called Christ: when he is come, he will tell us all things.
​

26 Jesus saith unto her, I that speak unto thee am he.

​

yea and jesus said the same thing in john 8.58 "I am he". indirectly stating that he is the christ.

Joh 7:41 Others said, This is the Christ. But some said, Shall Christ come out of Galilee?

like i said i didn't say people were not saying that he was the christ. I said Jesus forbad people to tell others that he was the christ.

here's more

Mark 7:36 And he charged them that they should tell no man: but the more he charged them, so much the more a great deal they published it;

Matthew 8:4 And Jesus saith unto him, See thou tell no man; but go thy way, shew thyself to the priest, and offer the gift that Moses commanded, for a testimony unto them.

Matthew 8:4 And Jesus saith unto him, See thou tell no man; but go thy way, shew thyself to the priest, and offer the gift that Moses commanded, for a testimony unto them.

Mark 8:30 And he charged them that they should tell no man of him.

Mark 9:9 And as they came down from the mountain, he charged them that they should tell no man what things they had seen, till the Son of man were risen from the dead.

Luke 8:56 And her parents were astonished: but he charged them that they should tell no man what was done.

Luke 9:21 And he straitly charged them, and commanded them to tell no man that thing;

true these other commandments to tell no man by Jesus are to tell no man of his works, but Jesus said in john 10.25 that it was his works that identify him as the christ. so really it's the same thing.
also it may be that he was telling people not to talk about his works because he didn't want to get thronged by the mases as he did. but definitely he could not say that he was the christ to anyone, directly or he would be put to death if the jews found out.