John 8:58 and Trinitarians.

[Der Alte]

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?

Relevant part quoted here.

"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/ehyeh 'sher ehyeh, i.e. "I am that I am."

In the same verse God said, "Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, I AM [אהיה/ehyeh] hath sent me unto you.

 

[scriptures]

Relevant part quoted here.

In the same verse God said, "Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, I AM [אהיה/ehyeh] hath sent me unto you.

So? Ex. 3.14 and John 8.58 the same or not?

 

[Der Alte]

So? Ex. 3.14 and John 8.58 the same or not?

I answered that in the post you replied 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.​

John 8:58 is the same as אהיה but not יהוה, although both are self identification of God.

58Sinabi ni Jesus sa kanila: Katotohanan, katotohanang sinasabi ko sa inyo: Bago pa si Abraham ay ako na.​

 

[Albion]

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.

Perhaps that's because your posts show no willingness to discuss these matters, but only to state your position and close your mind to any feedback--except of course to sneer at it on the grounds that it doesn't agree with your opinion. OR, it could be that the answer is so obvious that it's thought by them to not be worth arguing. Hard to know which. Anyway, let's put to bed the proud boast, true or not, that no Trinitarian has ever responded.

By saying "before Abraham was, I AM," Jesus was clearly not saying what "before Abraham was, God (i.e. his name)." It is a double entendre at the least. It is to say that before Abraham was, I was existing AND ALSO to utilize the divine term at the same time. More important, it was to do this in an ungrammatical way and in a very personal way. Jesus is not saying something about the great I AM; he's saying it of himself.

Other posters have suggested that other speakers in the Bible used "I" and "am" in the same way and meant only what we'd mean by it, that "they were (something or other)." But that is to use it in the normal way. No one can seriously claim that the sentence attributed to Jesus was the normal way of speaking. It was a statement with a double meaning.

Moreover, we have a referee in this regard, one that beats the ponderings and theories of any of us--the Jews. They accused Jesus of blaspheming for speaking as he did. They didn't do this for no reason.

 

[2ducklow]

never mind

 

[scriptures]

I answered that in the post you replied 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.
​

John 8:58 is the same as אהיה but not יהוה, although both are self identification of God.

Since both are identification for God, then the meaning of John 8.58 will be, "before Abraham came to be, God" It's a poor English!

​

58Sinabi ni Jesus sa kanila: Katotohanan, katotohanang sinasabi ko sa inyo: Bago pa si Abraham ay ako na.
​

It's a problem when you quote something you don't actually understand.
The last part of the Tagalog Bible is an erroneous translation of the ASV. This is the literal translation of the above Tagalog Bible in English.

"Before Abraham was I am already",

 

[Der Alte]

Since both are identification for God, then the meaning of John 8.58 will be, "before Abraham came to be, God" It's a poor English!

That is your interpretation of what it meant. There are many things in both Hebrew and Greek which cannot be directly, word for word, translated into another language. The priests, scribes, and Pharisees who heard Jesus say, "ego eimi," certainly had no trouble understanding the meaning.

Joh 8:13 The Pharisees therefore said unto him, Thou bearest record of thyself; thy record is not true.
[ . . . ]
Joh 8:58-59
(58) Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am.
(59) Then took they up stones to cast at him: but Jesus hid himself, and went out of the temple, going through the midst of them, and so passed by.​

What horrendous crime had Jesus committed that the priests, scribes, and Pharisees would attempt to desecrate the holiest place in all Israel, in its entire history, and murder a man, in the temple, and violating at least 20 other laws?

Joh 10:23 And Jesus walked in the temple in Solomon's porch.
[ . . . ]
Joh 10:31 Then the Jews took up stones again to stone him.
[ . . .]
Joh 10:33 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.
​

It's a problem when you quote something you don't actually understand.
The last part of the Tagalog Bible is an erroneous translation of the ASV. This is the literal translation of the above Tagalog Bible in English.

"Before Abraham was I am already"

I don't really care. Thought it might help you. But the word "already" does NOT change the meaning.

 

[gort]

Interesting. They did pick up stones to kill Him right in the very temple itself!

And, it would appear that Jesus DID reference himself to being God as obviously, the Jews thought that's what He said; makest thyself God.


Oh, what will be the rebuttal to this by the nay-sayers....


stay tuned

 

[scriptures]

That is your interpretation of what it meant. There are many things in both Hebrew and Greek which cannot be directly, word for word, translated into another language. The priests, scribes, and Pharisees who heard Jesus say, "ego eimi," certainly had no trouble understanding the meaning.

Joh 8:13 The Pharisees therefore said unto him, Thou bearest record of thyself; thy record is not true.
​

[ . . . ]
Joh 8:58-59
(58) Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am.
(59) Then took they up stones to cast at him: but Jesus hid himself, and went out of the temple, going through the midst of them, and so passed by.
​

What horrendous crime had Jesus committed that the priests, scribes, and Pharisees would attempt to desecrate the holiest place in all Israel, in its entire history, and murder a man, in the temple, and violating at least 20 other laws?

Joh 10:23 And Jesus walked in the temple in Solomon's porch.
​

[ . . . ]
Joh 10:31 Then the Jews took up stones again to stone him.
[ . . .]
Joh 10:33 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. .​

Maybe NASB was correct by putting on its footnote an alternative rendering "I have been" instead of the literal "I am".

That will be a very good translations since the question is about existence. The Jews will certainly stone Jesus for that.
​

I don't really care. Thought it might help you. But the word "already" does NOT change the meaning.

The meaning was different. The tagalog Bible favors "existence" rather than "identity". You have to help yourself understand the scriptures without the influence of religious groups.

 

[Der Alte]

That is your interpretation of what it meant. There are many things in both Hebrew and Greek which cannot be directly, word for word, translated into another language. The priests, scribes, and Pharisees who heard Jesus say, "ego eimi," certainly had no trouble understanding the meaning.

Joh 8:13 The Pharisees therefore said unto him, Thou bearest record of thyself; thy record is not true.
[ . . . ]
Joh 8:58-59
(58) Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am.
(59) Then took they up stones to cast at him: but Jesus hid himself, and went out of the temple, going through the midst of them, and so passed by.​

What horrendous crime had Jesus committed that the priests, scribes, and Pharisees would attempt to desecrate the holiest place in all Israel, in its entire history, and murder a man, in the temple, and violating at least 20 other laws?

Joh 10:23 And Jesus walked in the temple in Solomon's porch.
[ . . . ]
Joh 10:31 Then the Jews took up stones again to stone him.
[ . . .]
Joh 10:33 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.
​

I don't really care. Thought it might help you. But the word "already" does NOT change the meaning.

Maybe NASB was correct by putting on its footnote an alternative rendering "I have been" instead of the literal "I am".

That will be a very good translations since the question is about existence. The Jews will certainly stone Jesus for that.

"Maybe?" Your yardstick seems to be whatever supports your assumptions/presuppositions. I don't see any scholarship, lexical, or grammatical evidence, just one version which also does not present any evidence. There are 18 stoning offenses listed in the OT, claiming existence before Abraham is NOT one of them.

The meaning was different. The tagalog Bible favors "existence" rather than "identity". You have to help yourself understand the scriptures without the influence of religious groups.

You are spending an inordinate amount of time discussing the Tagalog which is of virtually no interest to me at all. Where have I used the influence of any religious group for anything? Unlike you who cherry picked one version because it supports your assumptions/presuppositions. Would you be interested in how the early church interpreted John 8:58?

 

[2ducklow]

Interesting. They did pick up stones to kill Him right in the very temple itself!

And, it would appear that Jesus DID reference himself to being God as obviously, the Jews thought that's what He said; makest thyself God.


Oh, what will be the rebuttal to this by the nay-sayers....


stay tuned

They attempted to stone him for two reasons, according to scripture.
John 10:30-32 I and the Father are one. The Jews took up stones again to stone him. Jesus answered them, Many good works have I showed you from the Father; for which of those works do ye stone me?


John 10:33 The Jews answered him, For a good work we stone thee not, but for blasphemy; and because that thou, being a man, makest thyself God.


John 10:36 say ye of him, whom the Father sanctified and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am the Son of God?

John 10:37 If I do not the works of my Father, believe me not.

the blasphemy was claimng to be the christ, the son of god. Jesus said this was the blasphemy that they were trying to stone him for.
as to the charge that he was making himself god, Jesus reply was not "I am God" it was that "Ye are gods who recieve the word of god." Jesus is claiming to be an elohim just like all god's children who have received the word of god. He is not claiming to be YHWH, but YHWH"s representative, as all god's children are. someone doesn't claim to be god by answering a question as to if he is god by sayaing "Ye are gods" . to say otherwise makes as much sense as saying 3 is one. you[re basing your belief that Jesus is god on accusations from unbelieving Jews. THey didn't even accuse him of claiming to be god, they accused him of making himself god. yet you take an accusation from unbelievers that he is making himself god as proof that he is god. It doesn't get any weaker than that for proof that Jesus is god. you might just as well say Jesus was a fornicator and a drunkard cause the jews accused him of being those things. who are you going to belive? Jesus who said he is the son of god, or the jews who accused him of making himself god. the jews say 'you make yourself God' Jesus says "I am the son of god." so who do you believe?





the blasphemy that Jesus commited, inthier eyes, was claiming to be the christ, in both john chapters 8 and 10.

John 10:24 The Jews therefore came round about him, and said unto him, How long dost thou hold us in suspense? If thou art 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.


Jesus works bear witness that he is the Christ, not that he is god, john 8 talks about the works of Jesus ergo, john 8 is about Jesus being the Christ, not God.
when did Jesus tell them non plainly that he was the christ? John chapter 8 and specifically verse 58. "before Abraham was , I am he , the christ , the one who's day abraham and others saw by faith." They knew that's what he meant and that's why they attempted to stone him but didn't because they had no plain statement from Jesus that he was the christ, just I am. They knew thats what he meant, but they needed a direct statement so they could leagally stone him and not get in trouble.

Jesus forbad his disciples from saying that he was the Christ for that very reason.

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


Jesus was just following his own advice to not tell anyone that he was the christ, directly.

 

[scriptures]

"Maybe?" Your yardstick seems to be whatever supports your assumptions/presuppositions. I don't see any scholarship, lexical, or grammatical evidence, just one version which also does not present any evidence. There are 18 stoning offenses listed in the OT, claiming existence before Abraham is NOT one of them.

Of course, Jesus was being stoned not for any violation of the Law. With regards to the scholarship of translating "I am" as "I have been" on John 8.58, I can help you.

You are spending an inordinate amount of time discussing the Tagalog which is of virtually no interest to me at all.

It was you who quoted a Tagalog Bible,

Where have I used the influence of any religious group for anything? Unlike you who cherry picked one version because it supports your assumptions/presuppositions.

of course the peer influence.

Would you be interested in how the early church interpreted John 8:58?

Church History from the 3rd century? Forget it.

 

[Der Alte]

Of course, Jesus was being stoned not for any violation of the Law. With regards to the scholarship of translating "I am" as "I have been" on John 8.58, I can help you.

No you can't help me with anything concerning John 8:58, or any other NT passage. I have not seen one bit of credible, verifiable, historical, grammatical, or lexical evidence.

It was you who quoted a Tagalog Bible,

Did you read my first reply? Why do you continue to diatribe about it?

of course the peer influence.

The peer influence of whatever post 19th century religion you belong to, since I have NOT seen any evidence of any kind.

Church History from the 3rd century? Forget it.

That is the common rejection of all post 19th century false religions, since the only extant history of the church from the 1st through the 3d century always destroys their beliefs and practices.

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.​

Do you think you will ever be able to produce any evidence for your argument about why the Jews attempted to stone Jesus in the temple?

 

[2ducklow]

[/size][/font]

Of course, Jesus was being stoned not for any violation of the Law. With regards to the scholarship of translating "I am" as "I have been" on John 8.58, I can help you.


[/font][/size]

It was you who quoted a Tagalog Bible,

Ta-gal- og. Not 'tag-a-log". I know this. I also know a Korean fella who told me that the korean bible most koreans use is a translation of the english KJV bible. Maybe the Tagalog bible was similarly translated from some spanish bible or something.

 

[scriptures]

[/b][/color][/size][/font]

Ta-gal- og. Not 'tag-a-log". I know this. I also know a Korean fella who told me that the korean bible most koreans use is a translation of the english KJV bible. Maybe the Tagalog bible was similarly translated from some spanish bible or something.

Actually, there are number of Tagalog (Ta-ga-log) Translation, one of them is the one quoted by our dear brother Del Alter.

"I am" on John 8.58 was translated as "ako na" which is "I am already" in literal English. (somehow this translation favors the "I have been" translation of ego eimi.)

Another version translated it as "ako nga" which is "I am really" in literal English. (Its like a confirmation of who Jesus was)

If you ask me, I'll translate it as "ako" which is actually the equivalent of English "I am".

Therefore to complete it, "bago si Abraham ay ako." which like its English equivalent is vague.

 

[scriptures]

No you can't help me with anything concerning John 8:58, or any other NT passage. I have not seen one bit of credible, verifiable, historical, grammatical, or lexical evidence.

That's the reason nobody can help you,

Did you read my first reply? Why do you continue to diatribe about it?

It seems you only know American religion, It was you who quoted a Tagalog Bible. Something totally unknown to you

The peer influence of whatever post 19th century religion you belong to, since I have NOT seen any evidence of any kind.

Actually I am talking about Trinitarian peer influence, you know belonging to a majority.

That is the common rejection of all post 19th century false religions, since the only extant history of the church from the 1st through the 3d century always destroys their beliefs and practices..

Correction it was the Trinitarians who made Jesus God, and where talking about the 3rd cent. not the ist.

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.
​

Do you think you will ever be able to produce any evidence for your argument about why the Jews attempted to stone Jesus in the temple?

Copy/Paste Again?

 

[Der Alte]

That's the reason nobody can help you,

People who have not studied the Biblical languages or Bible/church history are not capable of helping anyone.

It seems you only know American religion, It was you who quoted a Tagalog Bible. Something totally unknown to you

Totally irrelevant to anything.

Actually I am talking about Trinitarian peer influence, you know belonging to a majority.

I'm supposed to care what you were talking about? What is relevant here is that you are promoting a religion and its teachings which did NOT exist prior to 1872.

Correction it was the Trinitarians who made Jesus God, and where talking about the 3rd cent. not the ist.

No we were not talking about the 3d century. You tried to interject an irrelevant diversion about the 3d century. It was the Bible which calls or refers to Jesus as God at least 59 times.

Copy/Paste Again?

The only extant history of the church in the early centuries. You remember the church that Jesus built against which the gates of hell could not prevail? Unfortunately there is NO, ZERO, NONE evidence for any organized body of believers who believed as the JWs do, by any name, between 90 AD, when the NT was completed, and 1872 when Russell created his religion.

 

[Der Alte]

They attempted to stone him for two reasons, according to scripture.
[ . . . ]
the blasphemy was claimng to be the christ, the son of god. Jesus said this was the blasphemy that they were trying to stone him for.
as to the charge that he was making himself god, Jesus reply was not "I am God" it was that "Ye are gods who recieve the word of god." Jesus is claiming to be an elohim just like all god's children who have received the word of god. He is not claiming to be YHWH, but YHWH"s representative, as all god's children are. someone doesn't claim to be god by answering a question as to if he is god by sayaing "Ye are gods" . to say otherwise makes as much sense as saying 3 is one. you[re basing your belief that Jesus is god on accusations from unbelieving Jews. THey didn't even accuse him of claiming to be god, they accused him of making himself god. yet you take an accusation from unbelievers that he is making himself god as proof that he is god. It doesn't get any weaker than that for proof that Jesus is god. you might just as well say Jesus was a fornicator and a drunkard cause the jews accused him of being those things. who are you going to belive? Jesus who said he is the son of god, or the jews who accused him of making himself god. the jews say 'you make yourself God' Jesus says "I am the son of god." so who do you believe?[ . . . ]

Your argument falls apart here. Jesus did NOT say to anyone "Ye are gods who recieve the word of god." Jesus quoted scripture.

Joh 10:34-36
(34) Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods?
(35) If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken;
(36) 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?​

Note verse 2, "He [God] called them gods." "Them" refers to the unjust judges in Psalm 82. Jesus did not say, nor did he say that God said to the priests and Pharisees Jesus was talking to, "You are gods."

Psa 82:6-7
(6) I have said, Ye are gods; and all of you are children of the most High.
(7) But ye shall die like men, and fall like one of the princes.​

The difference here, which contradicts your argument, is that when the Jews accused Jesus of being a Samaritan and having a devil both were insults and resulted in no action. The Samaritans were hated by the Jews. But when they accused Jesus of making himself God they tried to stone him a third time in the temple.

 

[2ducklow]

Actually, there are number of Tagalog (Ta-ga-log) Translation, one of them is the one quoted by our dear brother Del Alter.

"I am" on John 8.58 was translated as "ako na" which is "I am already" in literal English. (somehow this translation favors the "I have been" translation of ego eimi.)

Another version translated it as "ako nga" which is "I am really" in literal English. (Its like a confirmation of who Jesus was)

If you ask me, I'll translate it as "ako" which is actually the equivalent of English "I am".

Therefore to complete it, "bago si Abraham ay ako." which like its English equivalent is vague.

I don't believe it was vague to those Jesus spoke it to, I believe they understood exactly what he meant. And the reason I say that is because they picked up stones to stone him. They knew that everything he said to them prior to verse 58 was showing that Jesus is the Christ, and when he said "before abraham was I am he" they knew he was saying that he was the christ, the one prophesised of even before abraham, they had no doubt about that, they just didn't have a direct statement from Jesus saying "I am the Christ". That's why they asked him latter on in chapter 10 to tell them plainly that he was the Christ, and Jesus response was that he had already told them and they didn't believe him, He already told them in john 8.58. THat's what the whole gospel of John is about, showing us that Jesus is the Christ, the son of god, not that he is god, or that he is a god.

The reason it appears vague is because most people don't understand what Jesus was talking about, they believe he was either claiming to be god, or claiming to exist before abraham, or some such thing. Why it appears vague is , IMO, because people leave off the understood 'he' after ;'I am". If it were translated "before Abraham was, I am He," then there would be no vagueness about i t. there would be no effort to interpret it to meant that Jesus is god, or that he existed before he existed or some such thing.
3 times in john 8 Jesus said the words 'I am" but it is translated "I am he" because he is understood in each of those instances, just as frequently we say "I am" with 'He" understood..

 

[scriptures]

People who have not studied the Biblical languages or Bible/church history are not capable of helping anyone.

Dr Jason BeDuhn has written:
"John 8:58. The traditional translation "Before Abraham was, I am" is slavishly faithful to the literal meaning of the Greek ("Before Abraham came to be, I am"). The result is ungrammatical English. We cannot mix our tenses in such a way. The reason for this ugly rendering is the accident that, in English, the idiomatic "I am" sounds what God says about himself in the Hebrew/Old Testament. This is sheer coincidence. Jesus is not employing a divine title here. He is merely claiming that he existed before Abraham and, of course, he still exists whereas Abraham is dead. There is nothing wrong with the Greek, but we need to take account of the Greek idiom being employed and render the meaning into proper English. The NWT moves a step closer, but doesn't quite get there, because it still sounds awkward. But at least they were trying to convey exactly what the Greek idiom means. It's not that easy to come up with a phrase that works.
"I am before Abraham" would be my choice to cheat our way out of it. Again, the inversion of the word order in the traditional English translation attempts to isolate "I am" as the divine title. But there's nothing unusual in the Greek word order to induce us to deviate from normal English usage here"

Well said,

Totally irrelevant to anything..

Not really!

I'm supposed to care what you were talking about? What is relevant here is that you are promoting a religion and its teachings which did NOT exist prior to 1872...

No, I am talking about ist century christianity,



No we were not talking about the 3d century. You tried to interject an irrelevant diversion about the 3d century. It was the Bible which calls or refers to Jesus as God at least 59 times.

The only extant history of the church in the early centuries. You remember the church that Jesus built against which the gates of hell could not prevail? Unfortunately there is NO, ZERO, NONE evidence for any organized body of believers who believed as the JWs do, by any name, between 90 AD, when the NT was completed, and 1872 when Russell created his religion.

Christianity has nothing to do with Russell, Unfortunately Trinity was not first century Christianity. It was in fact a deviation from it.