John 8:58 and Trinitarians.

[2ducklow]

Of course, you found a unitarian website which posted some arguments that you agree with so you have no choice but to try to defend them. If any of those guys ever publish a book, or paper, on Greek grammar or exegesis which is peer reviewed by knowledgeable scholars in the field let me know. I do not seek or take medical, tax, financial, accounting, etc. advice from random websites. The willy-nilly opinions and scribblings of every anti-Trinitarian who owns a computer does NOT merit discussion.

then what you are saying is that I, a non greek language scholar, have to just accept whatever the greek language scholar yu pick out says by faith, since, according to you , I am incapable of understanding what he says means. IF 2 or 3 different scholars have differing opinons about some point ofgreek gramma then, according to you, I am incapable of determining which one is telling the truth. If that be the case, then what greek scholars say is only proof of what sciprute means to them and no one else.

I don't accept what people say, no matter how many degrees they have after their name by faith. the only thing I accept by faith is the unadulterated, non spurious, non interpoleated non falsely tranlslated word of god. If i am incapable of comprehendingwhat greek scholars are saying then I can't be a berian christian. christians of pauls day were lauded for checking out with scripture the things paul said whether they were tuire or not. but you say jus6 accept what athenaia says, what hte scholars youy pick out say , cause I 2dl and too much of a dummy to even know what they are talking about , cause everyone knowx grammar is like nucular sscine or quamtum echanics.

 

[2ducklow]

Logical fallacy -Description of Poisoning the Well
​

This sort of "reasoning" involves trying to discredit what a person might later claim by presenting unfavorable information (be it true or false) about the person. This "argument" has the following form:

1. Unfavorable information (be it true or false) about person A is presented.
​

either naming 3 differnt individuals as each being god and not being each other means 3 is one, or it means something else.

my brain tells me it means 3 is one. I don't know what your brain tells you it means. to me , training my brain to believe 3 is one, to accept that illogic, would be poison to my logical thinking, as it would be to anyones.

I say it means 3 is one, and 3 is poisonous thinking. all you've said is your usual "Is not." that's the essence of this entire post of yours anyway.
either trinity teaches 3 is one or it doesn't. all the information i've gotten from trinitarians indicates to me that that is what trinity teaches. saying "Is not" doesn't convince me.

I don't accept athenasias explanation that we areforbidden to say 3 gods simply because he named 3 different individuals and called each one god, but forbids us to turn our brains on and say that is 3 gods. I would have to accept his explanation by faith and turn my brain off in the process. I aint' gonna do thast for no man. i ain't gonna accept anything any man says, no matter who he is by faith except the written word of god. Even if Paul himself were alive and kicking I wouldn't accept anything he said by faith and neither did the berians. so if im not to accept what paul says by faith (outside the written word of god) then i'm sure not gonna accept by faith what some dude for the 5th or 6tth century , no matter how much christians ooh and awww over what he says.
Atheanasia says Jesus is god, and the holy spirit is god, and god the father is god, but there is only one god, so i check it out with scripture and I saee that scipture contradicts him in many places saying there is only one god, and god the father is the one and only true god. so I accept 1 cor. 8.6, john 17.3 by faith and don't accept atheansias illogic by faith especially sicne he contradicts the word of god, and logic.

2. Therefore any claims person A makes will be false.

This sort of "reasoning" is obviously fallacious. The person making such an attack is hoping that the unfavorable information will bias listeners against the person in question and hence that they will reject any claims he might make. However, merely presenting unfavorable information about a person (even if it is true) hardly counts as evidence against the claims he/she might make. This is especially clear when Poisoning the Well is looked at as a form of ad Homimem in which the attack is made prior to the person even making the claim or claims. The following example clearly shows that this sort of "reasoning" is quite poor.

You commit this fallacy in two ways, scholars who believe in the Trinity are wrong about everything,

no you are imputing your reasoning to me. It is you who believes that one has to believe everything a certain schlalar believes, not me. I decide for myself whether what they say is true or not. sometimes they speak the truth sometimes not. the only person i'm gonna let decide for me what the truth is is me.

what I meant was that any proof that a scholar provides that he uses to proove the trinity, immedialtly has to be suspect to me, because 3 is one is not truth, and trinity is 3 is one, to me,

people who don't believe in the Trinity are right about most other things.

never said that, and don't beleive that.sometimes trintiarians are right sometimes oneness are wrong, and vice versa. sometimes unitarians are right sometimes not. it is you who have the all or nothing view not me. you keep trying to impute it to me.

Also you commit this logical fallacy.

Description of Appeal to Authority
​

An Appeal to Authority is a fallacy with the following form:

1. Person A is (claimed to be) an authority on subject S.
2. Person A makes claim C about subject S.
3. Therefore, C is true.

This fallacy is committed when the person in question is not a legitimate authority on the subject. More formally, if person A is not qualified to make reliable claims in subject S, then the argument will be fallacious.

This sort of reasoning is fallacious when the person in question is not an expert. In such cases the reasoning is flawed because the fact that an unqualified person makes a claim does not provide any justification for the claim. The claim could be true, but the fact that an unqualified person made the claim does not provide any rational reason to accept the claim as true.
​

all you are saying is that i can't question anything a scholar says and just have to accept by faith, wh\ich ever shcolar you der alter pick out. Even if that were true, it would mean that I should just ignore whatever scholars say cause I am incapable of checking out to see whether what they say is true or not.
i m not going to accept anything someone says by faith. feel free to but as for me , only the word of god will be accepted by faith by me.

​

 

[Der Alte]

you've offered no exllanation as to why trinity doesn't teach 3 is one, you just named it and claimed it, in other words all youve said is "Is not.".

either naming 3 differnt individuals as each being god and not being each other means 3 is one, or it means something else.

my brain tells me it means 3 is one. I don't know what your brain tells you it means. to me , training my brain to believe 3 is one, to accept that illogic, would be poison to my logical thinking, as it would be to anyones.

I say it means 3 is one, and 3 is poisonous thinking. all you've said is your usual "Is not." that's the essence of this entire post of yours anyway.
either trinity teaches 3 is one or it doesn't. all the information i've gotten from trinitarians indicates to me that that is what trinity teaches. saying "Is not" doesn't convince me.

I don't accept athenasias explanation that we areforbidden to say 3 gods simply because he named 3 different individuals and called each one god, but forbids us to turn our brains on and say that is 3 gods. I would have to accept his explanation by faith and turn my brain off in the process. I aint' gonna do thast for no man. i ain't gonna accept anything any man says, no matter who he is by faith except the written word of god.

Since I have never used the phrase "3 is one" I have no obligation to address anything about it! Nobody has suggested you accept, believe, understand, do, etc, anything. None of this addresses anything I posted so guess we're done here.

 

[2ducklow]

Since I have never used the phrase "3 is one" I have no obligation to address anything about it!

you never do, all you do is say your a scholarand I'm not and is not. so you've just said your usual is not here. nothing new. refusing to comment on anything i say = is not.

Nobody has suggested you accept, believe, understand, do, etc, anything.

It's not a good idea to suggest that someone believe illogical nonsense. you're on the right track here. I on the other hand would strongly adive you or anyone to take the word of god as making sense and not nonsense. everyone should believe that what God says makes sense, not nonsense. I have no trouble whatsoever advicing anyone of that.

None of this addresses anything I posted so guess we're done here.

so you don't care to explain how trinity doesn't teach that 3 is one. you name 3 indviduals and call each one god, then say there is only one god. that = 3 is one. You've taken your only real option here (saying Athenasia forbids you top say 3 gods is no real option) which is to bail out.

 

[2ducklow]

I have found that it is necessary to have a thorough knowledge of scripture if one intends to discuss them.

Jesus existed in one form, Philp 2, vs. 6, but took upon himself another form, vs. 7.

What was Jesus’ form before? If he was literally, actually a man afterward what was he literally, actually before?

Philippians 2:6-11 6. Who, being [continual existence] in the form [μορφη] of God,
​

Jesus was in the form of god in that he manifested continually God the father who indwelled him.
​

 

[Der Alte]

[SIZE=-1]

Jesus was in the form of god in that he manifested continually God the father who indwelled him.
​

[/SIZE]

"in that he manifested continually God the father who indwelled him." is not stated or implied in the text.

 

[2ducklow]

never mind

 

[Der Alte]

never mind

A wise decision.

 

[2ducklow]

A wise decision.

Let me gues, you want to have the last word.

 

[Godfixated]

[SIZE=+1]Where did John begin, "the book of John to prove that Jesus is the christ , the son of god?" In John 1:18 the oldest most reliable manuscripts read "the monogenes Theos ho wn, the one being in the bosom of the father."

There you go again with "I say. . . " and "my interpretation," as your evidence for your argument. Neither is relevant. The problem with what you "say" and your "interpretation" is it contradicts 2000 years +/- of church history and of course ALL the early church father.

Link to writings of the early church fathers (ECF).

Ignatius, Epistle to the Ephesians - [30-107 AD] - Disciple of John

But our Physician is the only true God, the unbegotten and unapproachable, the Lord of all, the Father and Begetter of the only-begotten Son. We have also as a Physician the Lord our God, Jesus the Christ, the only-begotten Son and Word,

Ignatius, Epistle to the Magnesians [30-107 AD]

He, being begotten by the Father before the beginning of time, was God the Word, the only-begotten Son, and remains the same for ever; for “of His kingdom there shall be no end,” says Daniel the prophet. …

Ignatius, Epistle to the Trallians [30-107 AD] [30-107 AD]

And God the Word was truly born of the Virgin, having clothed Himself with a body of like passions with our own. . . .Since, also, there is but one unbegotten Being, God, even the Father; and one only-begotten Son, God, the Word and man; . . .

Ignatius, Epistle to the Philadelphians [30-107 AD]

If any one confesses these things, and that God the Word did dwell in a human body, being within it as the Word, . . .

Ignatius, Epistle to the Smyrneans [30-107 AD]

our Lord Jesus Christ, that He was the Son of God, “the firstborn of every creature,” God the Word, the only-begotten Son, and was of the seed of David according to the flesh, . . .

Ignatius, Epistle to the Tarsians [30-107 AD]

. . .He who was born of a woman was the Son of God, and He that was crucified was “the first-born of every creature,” and God the Word, who also created all things.

How could such a one be a mere man, receiving the beginning of His existence from Mary, and not 210 rather God the Word, and the only-begotten Son? For “in the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.”

Ignatius, Epistle to the Philippians [30-107 AD]

And again, “Hath not one God created us? Have we not all one Father? And there is also one Son, God the Word. For “the only-begotten Son,” saith [the Scripture], “who is in the bosom of the Father.” …

... For “the Word became flesh.” For “Wisdom builded for herself a house.” And God the Word was born as man, with a body, of the Virgin, without any intercourse of man.

Justin Martyr - Dialogue with Trypho - [110-165 AD]

God begat before all creatures a Beginning, [who was] a certain rational power [proceeding] from Himself, who is called by the Holy Spirit, now the Glory of the Lord, now the Son, again Wisdom, again an Angel, then God, and then Lord and Logos;

“And that Christ being Lord, and God the Son of God, and appearing formerly in power as Man, and Angel, and in the glory of fire as at the bush, . . .

Irenaeus - Against Heresies Book 1 [120-202 AD] - Disciple of Polycarp, a disciple of John

. . . “In the beginning was the Word,” for He was in the Son; “and the Word was with God,” for He was the beginning; “and the Word was God,” of course, for that which is begotten of God is God. “The same was in the beginning with God” …

Irenaeus - Against Heresies - Book 2 [120-202 AD]

… and has in Himself nothing more ancient or late than another, and nothing at variance with another, but continues altogether equal, and similar, and homogeneous, … He is all intelligence, and all word, . . .He is intelligence, in that also He is word, and that this Nous is His Logos, . . . And in what respect will the Word of God — yea, rather God Himself, since He is the Word . . .

Chap 17 Father of all is not to be regarded as a kind of compound Being, who 762 can be separated from his Nous (mind), as I have already shown; but Nous is the Father, and the Father Nous… he who springs from Him as Logos, or rather that Nous himself, since he is Logos, must be perfect and impassible,… they are of the same substance with himself, should be perfect and impassible, …

Irenaeus - Against Heresies - Book 3 [120-202 AD]

For inasmuch as the Word of God was man from the root of Jesse, and son of Abraham, in this respect did the Spirit of God rest upon Him, and anoint Him to preach the Gospel to the lowly. But inasmuch as He was God, . . .

Irenaeus - Against Heresies - Book 4 [120-202 AD]

And through the Word Himself who had been made visible and palpable, was the Father shown forth, … all saw the Father in the Son: for the Father is the invisible of the Son, but the Son the visible of the Father. And for this reason all spake with Christ when He was present [upon earth], and they named Him God.

He, therefore, who was known, was not a different being from Him who declared “No man knoweth the Father,” but one and the same, the Father making all things subject to Him; while He received testimony from all that He was very man, and that He was very God, from the Father, from the Spirit, . . .

For the true God did confess the commandment of the law as the word of God, and called no one else God besides His own Father.

Theophilus To Autolycus - Book 2 - [115 -181 AD]

In like manner also the three days which were before the luminaries, are types of the Trinity, of God, and His Word, and His wisdom.

Hear what I say. The God and Father, indeed, of all cannot be contained, and is not found in a place, for there is no place of His rest; but His Word, through whom He made all things, being His power and His wisdom, assuming the person of the Father and Lord of all, went to the garden in the person of God, and conversed with Adam.

The Word, then, being God, and being naturally produced from God, whenever the Father of the universe wills, . . .

Clement of Alexandria - Exhortation To The Heathen - [153 - 217 AD]

Well, inasmuch as the Word was from the first, He was and is the divine source of all things; but inasmuch as He has now assumed the name Christ, consecrated of old, and worthy of power, . . . This Word, then, the Christ, the cause of both our being at first (for He was in God) and of our well-being, this very Word has now appeared as man, He alone being both, God and man.

He, who is in Him that truly is, has appeared; for the Word, who “was with God,” and by whom all things were created, has appeared as our Teacher. The Word, who in the beginning bestowed on us life as Creator when He formed us, taught us to live well when He appeared as our Teacher; that as God He might afterwards conduct us to the life which never ends.

If it is thy wish, be thou also initiated; and thou shalt join the choir along with angels around the unbegotten and indestructible and the only true God, the Word of God, raising the hymn with us. This Jesus, who is eternal, the one great High Priest of the one God, and of His Father, prays for and exhorts men.

Clement of Alexandria - The Instructor [153 - 217 AD]

God in the form of man, stainless, the minister of His Father’s will, the Word who is God, who is in the Father, who is at the Father’s right hand, and with the form of God is God.

Address Of Tatian To The Greeks – [110-172 AD]

God was in the beginning; but the beginning, we have been taught, is the power of the Logos. . . .And by His simple will the Logos springs forth; and the Logos, not coming forth in vain, becomes the first-begotten work of the Father. Him (the Logos) we know to be the beginning of the world. But He came into being by participation, not by abscission;

Chapter XXI.-Doctrines of the Christians and Greeks Respecting God Compared.

We do not act as fools, O Greeks, nor utter idle tales, when we announce that God was born in the form of a man.

A Plea For The Christians By Athenagoras The Athenian: [c.120- 180]

. . . But the Son of God is the Logos of the Father, in idea and in operation; for after the pattern of Him and by Him were all things made, the Father and the Son being one. . . .Who, then, would not be astonished to hear men who speak of God the Father, and of God the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, and who declare both their power in union and their distinction in order, called atheists?

…that they know God and His Logos, what is the oneness of the Son with the Father, what the communion of the Father with the Son, what is the Spirit, what is the unity of these three, the Spirit, the Son, the Father, and their distinction in unity; and who know 255 that the life for which we look is far better than can be described in words,

The Epistle Of Mathetes To Diognetus [c. 130 AD]

…but truly God Himself, who is almighty, the Creator of all things, and invisible, has sent from heaven, and placed among men, [Him who is] the truth, and the holy and incomprehensible Word, and has firmly established Him in their hearts … but the very Creator and Fashioner of all things-by whom He made the heavens-by whom he enclosed the sea within its proper bounds-, . . This [messenger] He sent to them. Was it then, as one might conceive, for the purpose of exercising tyranny, or of inspiring fear and terror? By no means, but under the influence of clemency and meekness. As a king sends his son, who is also a king, so sent He Him; as God He sent Him; as to men He sent Him; as a Saviour He sent Him, and as seeking to persuade, not to compel us; for violence has no place in the character of God....​

What makes no sense to you is NOT relevant.

1Co 1:18 For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God.

1Co 1:21 For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe.

1Co 1:23 But we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumblingblock, and unto the Greeks foolishness;

1Co 1:25 Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men; and the weakness of God is stronger than men.

1Co 2:14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.

1Co 3:19 For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God. For it is written, He taketh the wise in their own craftiness.

1 Co 1:27 But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty;​

Where does "John begins his book stating that Jesus is the son of god?" See John 1:18. Your "opinion" is irrelevant.
[/SIZE]

It's some what ironic that you would quote a number of verses about the foolishness of this world when all you did the first 3/4 of the post was quote from men of this world. Your used Church fathers to prove your point, which is wholly irrelevant when it comes to the Word.

 

[Godfixated]

What's funny about this thread is that it reminds me of another passage from John where Jews wanted to stone Jesus Christ for blasphemy. And this one is in plain English. John 10:29-36, "My Father, which gave them me, is greater than all; and no man is able to pluck them out of my Father's hand. I and my Father are one. Then the Jews took up stones again to stone him. Jesus answered them, Many good works have I shewed you from my Father; for which of those works do ye stone me? The Jews answered him, saying, For a good work we stone thee not; but for blasphemy; and because that thou, being a man, makest thyself God. Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods? If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken; Say ye of him, whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am the Son of God?" If one, which they usually do, reads, "I and My Father are one," by itself, it definitely sounds like Jesus is claiming to be God and that is obviously what the Jews believed in this instance. But one look at the Greek, should tell you that, hen, is used for one, which means oneness of purpose.

Also, amazingly, Jesus Christ says something in this passage which would probably surprise many trinitarians, (mostly because they probably have never read past John 10:30). Jesus Christ goes out of His way to claim He is not God. After the Jews accuse Him of claiming to be God, he says, "Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods? If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken; Say ye of him, whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am the Son of God?" If Jesus would ever claim to be God, this would have been a great time to do it, but instead He points out that they were called gods. he then asks about why He is blaspheming if He claims to be the Son of God, not God.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

It's some what ironic that you would quote a number of verses about the foolishness of this world when all you did the first 3/4 of the post was quote from men of this world.
You used Church fathers to prove your point, which is wholly irrelevant when it comes to the Word.

Good catch!

 

[Der Alte]

[SIZE=+1]Where did John begin, "the book of John to prove that Jesus is the christ , the son of god?" In John 1:18 the oldest most reliable manuscripts read "the monogenes Theos ho wn, the one being in the bosom of the father."

There you go again with "I say. . . " and "my interpretation," as your evidence for your argument. Neither is relevant. The problem with what you "say" and your "interpretation" is it contradicts 2000 years +/- of church history and of course ALL the early church father.

Link to writings of the early church fathers (ECF).

Ignatius, Epistle to the Ephesians - [30-107 AD] - Disciple of John

But our Physician is the only true God, the unbegotten and unapproachable, the Lord of all, the Father and Begetter of the only-begotten Son. We have also as a Physician the Lord our God, Jesus the Christ, the only-begotten Son and Word,

Ignatius, Epistle to the Magnesians [30-107 AD]

He, being begotten by the Father before the beginning of time, was God the Word, the only-begotten Son, and remains the same for ever; for “of His kingdom there shall be no end,” says Daniel the prophet. …

Ignatius, Epistle to the Trallians [30-107 AD] [30-107 AD]

And God the Word was truly born of the Virgin, having clothed Himself with a body of like passions with our own. . . .Since, also, there is but one unbegotten Being, God, even the Father; and one only-begotten Son, God, the Word and man; . . .

Ignatius, Epistle to the Philadelphians [30-107 AD]

If any one confesses these things, and that God the Word did dwell in a human body, being within it as the Word, . . .

Ignatius, Epistle to the Smyrneans [30-107 AD]

our Lord Jesus Christ, that He was the Son of God, “the firstborn of every creature,” God the Word, the only-begotten Son, and was of the seed of David according to the flesh, . . .

Ignatius, Epistle to the Tarsians [30-107 AD]

. . .He who was born of a woman was the Son of God, and He that was crucified was “the first-born of every creature,” and God the Word, who also created all things.

How could such a one be a mere man, receiving the beginning of His existence from Mary, and not 210 rather God the Word, and the only-begotten Son? For “in the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.”

Ignatius, Epistle to the Philippians [30-107 AD]

And again, “Hath not one God created us? Have we not all one Father? And there is also one Son, God the Word. For “the only-begotten Son,” saith [the Scripture], “who is in the bosom of the Father.” …

... For “the Word became flesh.” For “Wisdom builded for herself a house.” And God the Word was born as man, with a body, of the Virgin, without any intercourse of man.

Justin Martyr - Dialogue with Trypho - [110-165 AD]

God begat before all creatures a Beginning, [who was] a certain rational power [proceeding] from Himself, who is called by the Holy Spirit, now the Glory of the Lord, now the Son, again Wisdom, again an Angel, then God, and then Lord and Logos;

“And that Christ being Lord, and God the Son of God, and appearing formerly in power as Man, and Angel, and in the glory of fire as at the bush, . . .

Irenaeus - Against Heresies Book 1 [120-202 AD] - Disciple of Polycarp, a disciple of John

. . . “In the beginning was the Word,” for He was in the Son; “and the Word was with God,” for He was the beginning; “and the Word was God,” of course, for that which is begotten of God is God. “The same was in the beginning with God” …

Irenaeus - Against Heresies - Book 2 [120-202 AD]

… and has in Himself nothing more ancient or late than another, and nothing at variance with another, but continues altogether equal, and similar, and homogeneous, … He is all intelligence, and all word, . . .He is intelligence, in that also He is word, and that this Nous is His Logos, . . . And in what respect will the Word of God — yea, rather God Himself, since He is the Word . . .

Chap 17 Father of all is not to be regarded as a kind of compound Being, who 762 can be separated from his Nous (mind), as I have already shown; but Nous is the Father, and the Father Nous… he who springs from Him as Logos, or rather that Nous himself, since he is Logos, must be perfect and impassible,… they are of the same substance with himself, should be perfect and impassible, …

Irenaeus - Against Heresies - Book 3 [120-202 AD]

For inasmuch as the Word of God was man from the root of Jesse, and son of Abraham, in this respect did the Spirit of God rest upon Him, and anoint Him to preach the Gospel to the lowly. But inasmuch as He was God, . . .

Irenaeus - Against Heresies - Book 4 [120-202 AD]

And through the Word Himself who had been made visible and palpable, was the Father shown forth, … all saw the Father in the Son: for the Father is the invisible of the Son, but the Son the visible of the Father. And for this reason all spake with Christ when He was present [upon earth], and they named Him God.

He, therefore, who was known, was not a different being from Him who declared “No man knoweth the Father,” but one and the same, the Father making all things subject to Him; while He received testimony from all that He was very man, and that He was very God, from the Father, from the Spirit, . . .

For the true God did confess the commandment of the law as the word of God, and called no one else God besides His own Father.

Theophilus To Autolycus - Book 2 - [115 -181 AD]

In like manner also the three days which were before the luminaries, are types of the Trinity, of God, and His Word, and His wisdom.

Hear what I say. The God and Father, indeed, of all cannot be contained, and is not found in a place, for there is no place of His rest; but His Word, through whom He made all things, being His power and His wisdom, assuming the person of the Father and Lord of all, went to the garden in the person of God, and conversed with Adam.

The Word, then, being God, and being naturally produced from God, whenever the Father of the universe wills, . . .

Clement of Alexandria - Exhortation To The Heathen - [153 - 217 AD]

Well, inasmuch as the Word was from the first, He was and is the divine source of all things; but inasmuch as He has now assumed the name Christ, consecrated of old, and worthy of power, . . . This Word, then, the Christ, the cause of both our being at first (for He was in God) and of our well-being, this very Word has now appeared as man, He alone being both, God and man.

He, who is in Him that truly is, has appeared; for the Word, who “was with God,” and by whom all things were created, has appeared as our Teacher. The Word, who in the beginning bestowed on us life as Creator when He formed us, taught us to live well when He appeared as our Teacher; that as God He might afterwards conduct us to the life which never ends.

If it is thy wish, be thou also initiated; and thou shalt join the choir along with angels around the unbegotten and indestructible and the only true God, the Word of God, raising the hymn with us. This Jesus, who is eternal, the one great High Priest of the one God, and of His Father, prays for and exhorts men.

Clement of Alexandria - The Instructor [153 - 217 AD]

God in the form of man, stainless, the minister of His Father’s will, the Word who is God, who is in the Father, who is at the Father’s right hand, and with the form of God is God.

Address Of Tatian To The Greeks – [110-172 AD]

God was in the beginning; but the beginning, we have been taught, is the power of the Logos. . . .And by His simple will the Logos springs forth; and the Logos, not coming forth in vain, becomes the first-begotten work of the Father. Him (the Logos) we know to be the beginning of the world. But He came into being by participation, not by abscission;

Chapter XXI.-Doctrines of the Christians and Greeks Respecting God Compared.

We do not act as fools, O Greeks, nor utter idle tales, when we announce that God was born in the form of a man.

A Plea For The Christians By Athenagoras The Athenian: [c.120- 180]

. . . But the Son of God is the Logos of the Father, in idea and in operation; for after the pattern of Him and by Him were all things made, the Father and the Son being one. . . .Who, then, would not be astonished to hear men who speak of God the Father, and of God the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, and who declare both their power in union and their distinction in order, called atheists?

…that they know God and His Logos, what is the oneness of the Son with the Father, what the communion of the Father with the Son, what is the Spirit, what is the unity of these three, the Spirit, the Son, the Father, and their distinction in unity; and who know 255 that the life for which we look is far better than can be described in words,

The Epistle Of Mathetes To Diognetus [c. 130 AD]

…but truly God Himself, who is almighty, the Creator of all things, and invisible, has sent from heaven, and placed among men, [Him who is] the truth, and the holy and incomprehensible Word, and has firmly established Him in their hearts … but the very Creator and Fashioner of all things-by whom He made the heavens-by whom he enclosed the sea within its proper bounds-, . . This [messenger] He sent to them. Was it then, as one might conceive, for the purpose of exercising tyranny, or of inspiring fear and terror? By no means, but under the influence of clemency and meekness. As a king sends his son, who is also a king, so sent He Him; as God He sent Him; as to men He sent Him; as a Saviour He sent Him, and as seeking to persuade, not to compel us; for violence has no place in the character of God....​

What makes no sense to you is NOT relevant.

1Co 1:18 For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God.

1Co 1:21 For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe.

1Co 1:23 But we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumblingblock, and unto the Greeks foolishness;

1Co 1:25 Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men; and the weakness of God is stronger than men.

1Co 2:14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.

1Co 3:19 For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God. For it is written, He taketh the wise in their own craftiness.

1 Co 1:27 But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty;​

Where does "John begins his book stating that Jesus is the son of god?" See John 1:18. Your "opinion" is irrelevant.
[/SIZE]

It's some what ironic that you would quote a number of verses about the foolishness of this world when all you did the first 3/4 of the post was quote from men of this world. Your used Church fathers to prove your point, which is wholly irrelevant when it comes to the Word.

I see you did not address anything just giving me your irrelevant opinion, again, what is or is not relevant. Jesus said that he would build his church and the gates of hell would not prevail against it. I quoted from the only extant history of that church in the first centuries of the Christian era. The ECF irrelevant? Read any good Greek lexicon and see how many times the ECF are cited as authority for the meaning of Greek words.

 

[Godfixated]

I see you did not address anything just giving me your irrelevant opinion, again, what is or is not relevant. Jesus said that he would build his church and the gates of hell would not prevail against it. I quoted from the only extant history of that church in the first centuries of the Christian era. The ECF irrelevant? Read any good Greek lexicon and see how many times the ECF are cited as authority for the meaning of Greek words.

I guess sarcasm is lost on you.

 

[Der Alte]

Trinitarians argue that this verse states that Jesus said he was the "I am" (i.e., the Yahweh of the Old Testament), so he must be God.

This is just not the case. Saying "I am" does not make a person God. The man born blind that Jesus healed was not claiming to be God, and he said "I am the man," and the Greek reads exactly like Jesus’ statement, i.e., "I am."

Paul also used the same phrase of himself when he said that he wished all men were as "I am" (Acts 26:29).

Thus, Christians conclude that saying "I am" did not make Paul, the man born blind or Christ into God.

The blind were considered sinners from birth and were exiled outside the cities, similar to lepers. Thus they would never have been in a synagogue or the temple and would have no more knowledge of the rules and practices of the Jews than any foreigner. The Jewish leaders would know this. Also the blind man was answering a question as to his identity, Jesus was not. Thus the blind man's answer would have been understood as , "Ego eimi (I am the man born blind)." Wonder why the early church, all of whom spoke Greek, got it wrong and the only people who supposedly got it right were religious groups that came into existence in or after the 19th century, virtually none of whom could conjugate a Greek verb if their life depended on it?

Link to Early Church Fathers

Irenaeus Against Heresies Book IV [A.D. 120-202.] A disciple of Polycarp, one of John’s disciples.

And in that He points out, by means of His own advent, the ignorance of a people in a servile condition. But when He terms His disciples “the friends of God,” He plainly declares Himself to be the Word of God, whom Abraham also followed voluntarily and under no compulsion (sine vinculis), because of the noble nature of his faith, and so became “the friend of God.” But the Word of God did not accept of the friendship of Abraham, as though He stood in need of it, for He was perfect from the beginning (“Before Abraham was,” He says, “I am”), but that He in His goodness might bestow eternal life upon Abraham himself, inasmuch as the friendship of God imparts immortality to those who embrace it.

From The Lost Writings Of Irenaeus

The sacred books acknowledge with regard to Christ, that as He is the Son of man, so is the same Being not a [mere] man; and as He is flesh, so is He also spirit, and the Word of God, and God. And as He was born of Mary in the last times, so did He also proceed from God as the First-begotten of every creature; and as He hungered, so did He satisfy [others]; and as He thirsted, so did He of old cause the Jews to drink, for the “Rock was Christ” Himself: thus does Jesus now give to His believing people power to drink spiritual waters, which spring up to life eternal. And as He was the son of David, so was He also the Lord of David. And as He was from Abraham, so did He also exist before Abraham. And as He was the servant of God, so is He the Son of God, and Lord of the universe.

Origen Against Celsus Book 8 [A.D. 185-254]

And the multitude of them that believed were of one heart and of one soul,” that he may understand the meaning of the saying, “I and My Father are one.” We worship one God, the Father and the Son, therefore, as we have explained; and our argument against the worship of other gods still continues valid. And we do not “reverence beyond measure one who has but lately appeared,” as though He did not exist before; for we believe Himself when He says, “Before Abraham was, I am.” Again He says, “I am the truth;” and surely none of us is so simple as to suppose that truth did not exist before the time when Christ appeared. We worship, therefore, the Father of truth, and the Son, who is the truth; and these, while they are two, considered as persons or subsistences, are one in unity of thought, in harmony and in identity of will. So entirely are they one, that he who has seen the Son, “who is the brightness of God’s glory, and the express image of His person,” has seen in Him who is the image, of God, God Himself.

Novatian Concerning The Trinity [A.D. 210-280]

It has as much described Jesus Christ to be man, as moreover it has also described Christ the Lord to be God. Because it does not set forth Him to be the Son of God only, but also the Son of man; nor does it only say, the Son of man, but it has also been accustomed to speak of Him as the Son of God. So that being of both, He is both, lest if He should be one only, He could not be the other. For as nature itself has prescribed that he must be believed to be a man who is of man, so the same nature prescribes also that He must be believed to be God who is of God; but if he should not also be God when he is of God, no more should he be man although he should be of man. And thus both doctrines would be endangered in one and the other way, by one being convicted to have lost belief in the other. Let them, therefore, who read that Jesus Christ the Son of man is man, read also that this same Jesus is called also God and the Son of God. For in the manner that as man He is of Abraham, so also as God He is before Abraham himself. And in the same manner as He is as man the “Son of David,” so as God He is proclaimed David’s Lord. And in the same manner as He was made as man “under the law,” so as God He is declared to be “Lord of the Sabbath.”

A Treatise Of Novatian Concerning The Trinity [A.D. 210-280]

“And God,” says he, “was the Word.” Therefore God proceeded from God, in that the Word which proceeded is God, who proceeded forth from God. If Christ is only man, how does He say, “If any man shall keep my word, he shall not see death for ever?” Not to see death for ever! what is this but immortality? But immortality is the associate of divinity, because both the divinity is immortal, and immortality is the fruit of divinity. For every man is mortal; and immortality cannot be from that which is mortal. Therefore from Christ, as a mortal man, immortality cannot arise. “But,” says He, “whosoever keepeth my word, shall not see death for ever;” therefore the word of Christ affords immortality, and by immortality affords divinity. But although it is not possible to maintain that one who is himself mortal can make another immortal, yet this word of Christ not only sets forth, but affords immortality: certainly He is not man only who gives immortality, which if He were only man He could not give; but by giving divinity by immortality, He proves Himself to be God by offering divinity, which if He were not God He could not give. If Christ was only man, how did He say, “Before Abraham was, I Am?” For no man can be before Him from whom he himself is; nor can it be that any one should have been prior to him of whom he himself has taken his origin. And yet Christ, although He is born of Abraham, says that He is before Abraham. Either, therefore, He says what is not true, and deceives, if He was not before Abraham, seeing that He was of Abraham; or He does not deceive, if He is also God, and was before Abraham. And if this were not so, it follows that, being of Abraham, He could not be before Abraham. If Christ was only man, how does He say, “And I know them, and my sheep follow me; and I give unto them eternal life, and they shall never perish?” And yet, since every man is bound by the laws of mortality, and therefore is unable to keep himself for ever, much more will he be unable to keep another for ever. But Christ promises to give salvation for ever, which if He does not give, He is a deceiver; if He gives, He is God. But He does not deceive, for He gives what He promises. Therefore He is God who proffers eternal salvation, which man, being unable to keep himself for ever, cannot be able to give to another. If Christ is only man, what is that which He says, “I and the Father are one?” For how can it be that “I and the Father are one,” if He is not both God and the Son? — who may therefore be called one, seeing that He is of Himself, being both His Son, and being born of Him, being declared to have proceeded from Him, by which He is also God;which when the Jews thought to be hateful, and believed to be blasphemous, for that He had shown Himself in these discourses to be God, and therefore rushed at once to stoning, and set to work passionately to hurl stones, He strongly refuted His adversaries by the example and witness of the Scriptures. “If,” said He, “He called them gods to whom the words of God were given, and the Scriptures cannot be broken, ye say of Him whom the Father sanctified, and sent into this world, Thou blasphemest, because I said, I am the Son of God.” By which words He did not deny Himself to be God, but rather He confirmed the assertion that He was God.​

 

[scriptures]

The blind were considered sinners from birth and were exiled outside the cities, similar to lepers. Thus they would never have been in a synagogue or the temple and would have no more knowledge of the rules and practices of the Jews than any foreigner. The Jewish leaders would know this. Also the blind man was answering a question as to his identity, Jesus was not. Thus the blind man's answer would have been understood as , "Ego eimi (I am the man born blind)."

Since Jesus was not after his identity here (according to you) then the verse actually did not say " I am God" or "I am Yahweh"

That is contrary to what Trinitarians are claiming

 

[Der Alte]

deliberately misrepresenting what I said.

The blind were considered sinners from birth and were exiled outside the cities, similar to lepers. Thus they would never have been in a synagogue or the temple and would have no more knowledge of the rules and practices of the Jews than any foreigner. The Jewish leaders would know this. Also the blind man was answering a question as to his identity, Jesus was not. Thus the blind man's answer would have been understood as , "Ego eimi (I am the man born blind)." Wonder why the early church, all of whom spoke Greek, got it wrong and the only people who supposedly got it right were religious groups that came into existence in or after the 19th century, virtually none of whom could conjugate a Greek verb if their life depended on it?[ . . . ]

Since Jesus was not after his identity here (according to you) then the verse actually did not say " I am God" or "I am Yahweh"

That is contrary to what Trinitarians are claiming.

Would you like to try again, and actually read and respond to what I said? I have highlighted it to assist you. Jesus could and did make a statement about his identity without having been asked. Here is the discussion from John 9. Note that the "neighbors" NOT the priests and Pharisees as in Jesus case, were discussing if he was the man born blind or not.

Joh 9:8-9
(8) The neighbours therefore, and they which before had seen him that he was blind, said, Is not this he that sat and begged?
(9) Some said, This is he: others said, He is like him: but he said, I am [ἐγὼ εἰμί] he.​

And FYI I prefer to communicate with words not cutsie little smileys.

 

[2ducklow]

Since Jesus was not after his identity here (according to you) then the verse actually did not say " I am God" or "I am Yahweh"

That is contrary to what Trinitarians are claiming

You are right, most trinitarians read it as if it said 'before abraham was ,I am the I am." IF I am is God's name , and Jesus was uttering God's name, then all Jesus said was ,'Before abraham was, YHWH" which doesn't make much sense. A fact I have brought up numerous times and a fact to which no trinitarian has responded to.


What do you believe the meaning of the verse is? I believe Jesus was saying that he was the one who's day not only Abraham saw but also all those who were looking for the messiah even before Abraham.

"before Abraham was , I am he the one who's day Abraham, and Adam and others saw.

I believe Jesus ignored the silly question that was asked of him , namely if he was alive when abraham was alive. Because scripture says to avoid foolish questions that gender strife. So Jesus stayed on tract, he was explaining that he was the christ in John chapter 8 and why he was the christ ( because he did the works of his father etc.) culminating in his declaration that He was the christ. "I am (he, the christ, the one whose day Abraham saw.)"


what say ye",?

 

[Der Alte]

You are right, most trinitarians read it as if it said 'before abraham was ,I am the I am." IF I am is God's name , and Jesus was uttering God's name, then all Jesus said was ,'Before abraham was, YHWH" which doesn't make much sense. A fact I have brought up numerous times and a fact to which no trinitarian has responded to.

"Ego eimi" translates the Hebrew word אהיה, Aleph, heh, yod, heh. YHWH transliterates the Hebrew name יהוה, Yod, heh, waw, heh. Two different words. But אהיה/"ego eimi" is self identification of God. When Moses asked him,

Behold, when I come unto the children of Israel, and shall say unto them, The God of your fathers hath sent me unto you; and they shall say to me, What is his name? what shall I say unto them?​

God answered אהיה אשׁר אהיה

What do you believe the meaning of the verse is? I believe Jesus was saying that he was the one who's day not only Abraham saw but also all those who were looking for the messiah even before Abraham.

"before Abraham was , I am he the one who's day Abraham, and Adam and others saw.

I believe Jesus ignored the silly question that was asked of him , namely if he was alive when abraham was alive. Because scripture says to avoid foolish questions that gender strife. So Jesus stayed on tract, he was explaining that he was the christ in John chapter 8 and why he was the christ ( because he did the works of his father etc.) culminating in his declaration that He was the christ. "I am (he, the christ, the one whose day Abraham saw.)"

what say ye",?

Nothing I have highlighted appears in scripture. It is all your assumptions/presuppositions.

 

[scriptures]

deliberately misrepresenting what I said.


Would you like to try again, and actually read and respond to what I said? I have highlighted it to assist you. Jesus could and did make a statement about his identity without having been asked. Here is the discussion from John 9. Note that the "neighbors" NOT the priests and Pharisees as in Jesus case, were discussing if he was the man born blind or not.

Joh 9:8-9
​

(8) The neighbours therefore, and they which before had seen him that he was blind, said, Is not this he that sat and begged?
(9) Some said, This is he: others said, He is like him: but he said, I am [ἐγὼ εἰμί] he.
​

And FYI I prefer to communicate with words not cutsie little smileys.

My pastor said "I am" is equivalent of Yahweh. Is that what you mean? He equate Ex. 3.14 with John 8.58. If that is the case then the verse actually said, "before Abraham came to be, Yahweh." Is that acceptable to you?