John 8:58 and Trinitarians.

[2ducklow]

John 8:12 Then spake Jesus again unto them, saying, I am the light of the world: he that followeth me shall not walk in darkness, but shall have the light of life.

John 8:16 And yet if I judge, my judgment is true: for I am not alone, but I and the Father that sent me.

John 8:18 I am one that bear witness of myself, and the Father that sent me beareth witness of me.

John 8:23 And he said unto them, Ye are from beneath; I am from above: ye are of this world; I am not of this world.

John 8:24 I said therefore unto you, that ye shall die in your sins: for if ye believe not that I am he, ye shall die in your sins.

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

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


by my count Jesus said I am 8 times in john chapter 8, and 2 of those times it was translated "I am he."

The only verse that makes no sense is verse 58. THe only way it makes sense is if it is translated "I am He."




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


Question. How did Abraham see Jesus day? by faith. By faith in what? God's word that promised the messiah would come even before abraham.

ergo,

Jesus was saying in verse 58 'before abraham was, I am he whose day Abraham and those before abraham saw by faith.

I am before Abraham was makes no sense.

I am he, before abraham was, does make sense.

 

[Der Alte]

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 only time Jesus admitted to being the Messiah, in John, was to the Samaritan woman, the only witnesses were Jesus' disciples. None of the priests, scribes or Pharisees Jesus talked to in the temple much later, John 8, heard of or knew of that conversation. When Jesus said "I am" in John 8:23, often translated "I am he," he was affirming that he was not of this world vs. 23.

Joh 8:23 He said to them, "You are from below; I am from above. You are of this world; I am not of this world.
24 I told you that you would die in your sins, for unless you believe that I am he you will die in your sins."​

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..

Actually Jesus said "I am" ten times in John 8, only 2 are translated "I am he." So the evidence is against you. I wonder why the early church, all of whom spoke Greek, supposedly got it wrong but people who could not parse a Greek verb, if their life depended on it, claim they somehow have it right 2000 +/- years later?

In John 8:28 what Jesus was saying was "I am he, the son of man."

Joh 8:28 So Jesus said to them, "When you have lifted up the Son of Man, then you will know that I am he, and that I do nothing on my own authority, but speak just as the Father taught me.​

 

[Der Alte]

[ . . . ]I am before Abraham was makes no sense.

I am he, before abraham was, does make sense.

Who is the "he" Jesus is supposed to be claiming he is in John? Who/what is the referent? And why would that enrage the Jews so much they would try to desecrate the most sacred place in Israel, for its entire history, by committing murder, in the temple? There are only 18 stoning offenses listed in the OT, claiming to be before Abraham is NOT one of them.

 

[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"

How about that?

 

[2ducklow]

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"

How about that?

what is wrong with that is that "I am" or "I exist" does not mean I was or that I existed. Where else in the entire bible does "I am" mean "I was"? Nowhere that I am aware of. Whereas, "I am" always means "I am" everywhere else in the bible. To say that "I am" means "I was" is just as illogical and nonsensical as it is to say that someone saying "I am" means that person is god, IMO.


The second problem with that interpretation, is that he doesn't say how "I am" is idiomatic for "I was". He just claims it. He shows no examples of other scriptures where "I am" means "I was." So his claim that it is idiomatic has no foundation in fact, but only has foundation in his fantasy.

 

[gort]

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.

You ignore the obvious plainly stated reason as to why they were going to stone him: That him, being a man, makest himself God.

ANd your idea that they wanted a direct statement from him so they could leagally stone him and not get in trouble is full of holes. They were in the Temple after all...



In the words of Gomer Pyle, Shame...shame ...shame

 

[Der Alte]

There are several things wrong with this. First you did not properly identify your source. Which writing of BeDuhn's did this supposedly come from? Second BeDuhn is not known as, nor shown to be, an accredited Greek scholar by any college or university. The fact the BeDuhn has a PhD, is a Professor of Religious Studies, and former chair of the Department of Humanities at Northern Arizona University does NOT make him an authority in Greek. The greatest error is this quote is nothing but some guy giving his opinion. There is NO, ZERO, NONE scholarship to support any of the assertions

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.

So what? There are many seemingly ungrammatical translations in the NT. What is grammatical in Greek, can appear ungrammatical when translated literally from the Greek.

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.

Unsupported assertion. The early church translated Jn 8:58 the way it is translated in most modern Bibles, and they spoke Greek. Here

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.

Ignores the witness of the early church.

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.

No evidence that this is a Greek idiom. BeDuhn's unsupported opinions are no more relevant than any man on the street.

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.

The early church, who actually spoke Greek did not have a problem.
"I am before Abraham" would be my choice to cheat our way out of it.

More unsupported opinion. I am not interested in some speculative way to "cheat out" an interpretation.

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"

How about that?

The modern versions follow the lead of the early church in translating this passage.

 

[2ducklow]

You ignore the obvious plainly stated reason as to why they were going to stone him: That him, being a man, makest himself God.

so it's gotta be true because unbelieving Jews said it right? in that case then Jesus blaspehemed by saying he was the son of god because the unbelieving Jews considered it blasphemy, and unbelieving jews know that is blasphemey so its' gotta be right?

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?

so that means jesus is afornicator, cause they accused him of that as well. you ignored this previously, and all the rest of what I said in favor of your gomer pyle defence.

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?

John 10:30-36 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? 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. 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 sanctified and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am the Son of God?

Jesus said that they accused him of Blasphemy because He, Jesus, said he was the son of God. So it appears that perhaps the jews interpreted Jesus saying that he was the son of god to mean that he was making himself God. It appears to me that Jesus response was in effect to say "how can you accuse me of blasphemy for claiming to be the son of god, when God himself said you are gods? even if Son of god means I'm making myself god, the bible says you are gods, so I like you would also be a god.."

But,If the accuasation from unbelieving Jews is true that Jesus was making himself God, and if JEsus is God as most assume, then why would Jesus, God, make himself God? why would god even need to make himself God? Doesn't make sense.

Note: making one self god isn't the same as claiming to be god, as most all falsely assume here.

ANd your idea that they wanted a direct statement from him so they could leagally stone him and not get in trouble is full of holes. They were in the Temple after all...

So when they asked Jesus to tell them plainly whether he was the Christ or not, that's full of holes. i see your reasoning here.

In the words of Gomer Pyle, Shame...shame ...shame

I don't need to quote Gomer to prove my theology.
I see my detailed answers are wasted against your oneliners. did you even read what I said?

 

[Der Alte]

ignoring my response will not make it go away.

[ . . . ]It appears to me that Jesus response was in effect to say "how can you accuse me of blasphemy for claiming to be the son of god, when God himself said you are gods? even if Son of god means I'm making myself god, the bible says you are gods, so I like you would also be a god.."

But,If the accuasation from unbelieving Jews is true that Jesus was making himself God, and if JEsus is God as most assume, then why would Jesus, God, make himself God? why would god even need to make himself God? Doesn't make sense.

Note: making one self god isn't the same as claiming to be god, as most all falsely assume here.
I don't need to quote Gomer to prove my theology.

You need to quote somebody, because you have twice now misquoted John 10:34. Note: To the Jews who believed that Jesus was only a man "you make yourself God" meant they believed he was claiming to be God.

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 35, "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.

 

[gort]

so it's gotta be true because unbelieving Jews said it right? in that case then Jesus blaspehemed by saying he was the son of god because the unbelieving Jews considered it blasphemy, and unbelieving jews know that is blasphemey so its' gotta be right?

Unbeleiving Jews were going to stone him for making himself God. The unbelieving Jews understood better than the unbelieving 2ducklow

 

[Der Alte]

so it's gotta be true because unbelieving Jews said it right? in that case then Jesus blaspehemed by saying he was the son of god because the unbelieving Jews considered it blasphemy, and unbelieving jews know that is blasphemey so its' gotta be right?

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?

so that means jesus is afornicator,[sic] cause they accused him of that as well. you ignored this previously, and all the rest of what I said in favor of your gomer pyle defence.[ . . . ]

This is a logical fallacy, poisoning the well. Please explain to us how the Jews supposedly being unbelieving renders their accusation false? What exactly are you accusing them of being unbelieving about? They certainly believed in God and the OT. The fact that they did NOT accept Jesus as the prophesied Messiah does not make their interpretation of OT law invalid. When the Jews accused Jesus of being a fornicator, a Samaritan, and having a devil those were insults not accusations. Being a fornicator, a Samaritan, or having a devil were not blasphemy nor stoning offenses. But when they accused Jesus of making himself God, that was an accusation, it was blasphemy, and they acted on it immediately by trying to stone Jesus a third time in the temple.

Of the 18 stoning offenses listed in the O.T. the only one which fits all three stoning attempts in John 8, and 10, is blasphemy and would have to have involved the name of God.

 

[2ducklow]

Unbeleiving Jews were going to stone him for making himself God. The unbelieving Jews understood better than the unbelieving 2ducklow

Ah So, I see more clearly now where you're coming from. you think that because the Jews tried to stone him in the temple that therefore they were trying to stone him for a justifiable reason, and couldn't possibly try and stone him for an unjustifiable reason. Since they tried to stone him for blasphemy AND making himself god. that would mean that Jesus blasphemed when he claimed to be the son of god, cause they tried to stone him for that too.

John 10:30 I and the Father are one. ( the reason for the charge that Jesus was making himself god)

John 10:31 The Jews took up stones again to stone him.

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

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?


So the Jews tried to stone him for claining to be the son of god, which they considered blasphemy, so therefore, using your reasoning, that means Jesus was a balsphemer cause, according to you , the Jews wouldn't try and stone someone for an unjustifaable reason.

It also fails on the grounds that false accusations were made against Jesus by Jews at his trial.

Matthew 26:59 Now the chief priests and the whole council sought false witness against Jesus, that they might put him to death;

so your argument fails, as does you gomer pyle rebutal and your accusation that I am an unbeliever both likewise fail.

 

[Spartan Warrior]

The day some one can show me God is made up of three persons using the "BIBLE" is the day I will believe in the false doctrine of the trinity.

 

[Der Alte]

[ . . . ]John 10:30 I and the Father are one. ( the reason for the charge that Jesus was making himself god)

John 10:31 The Jews took up stones again to stone him.

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

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?[ . . . ]

Vs. 33 the Jews saying "because that thou, being a man, makest thyself God" is not a second reason. That is the explanation why they accused him of blasphemy. Blasphemy must include the name of God.

Jewish Encyclopedia - BLASPHEMY:

Evil or profane speaking of God. The essence of the crime consists in the impious purpose in using the words, and does not necessarily include the performance of any desecrating act.

The Jewish law is based on the case of the blasphemer, one of the mixed multitude that went out of Egypt with the children of Israel (Lev. xxiv. 10-23). He blasphemed the name of the Lord and cursed; was sentenced to be taken without the camp; and it was decreed that all who heard him should lay their hands upon his head, and that all the congregation should stone him. The judgment in his case was formulated in a general law in verses 15 and 16.

The term "we-noḳeb shem Yhwh," used in verse 16 ("And he that blasphemeth the name of the Lord," A. V.), does not seem to signify that the mere pronunciation of the Ineffable Name was considered blasphemy, but that it was blasphemous to curse or revile the same. The later law, however, took the word "noḳeb" in the sense of "pronouncing," and declared that the Ineffable Name must have been pronounced before the offender could be subjected to the punishment provided by the Law.

Both the lawgiver and the prophets speak of the blasphemer of God and of the king. To revile the king, who was God's representative, was apparently considered a species of blasphemy (Ex. xxii. 27; Isa. viii. 21). This is furthermore shown in the case of Naboth, the indictment against him being: "Thou didst blaspheme God and the king" (I Kings xxi. 10). Beyond the reference to cursing in the text of Leviticus, there is nothing in the Biblical laws to indicate what constitutes the crime, and nothing to show that, to prove blasphemy, it was required to prove that the blasphemer had uttered the name of God. The Mishnah, however, laying stress on the term "nokeb," declares that the blasphemer is not guilty unless he pronounce the name of God (Mishnah Sanh. vii. 5). The Gemara goes further and extends the crime to an impious use of any words which indicate the sacred attributes of God, such as "The Holy One" or "The Merciful One." As long as the Jewish courts exercised criminal jurisdiction, the death penalty was inflicted only upon the blasphemer who used the Ineffable Name; but the blasphemer of God's attributes was subjected to corporal punishment (Sanh. 56a). According to Talmudic tradition, the Sacred Name was in early times known to all; but later its use was restricted (Ḳid. 71a; see Adonai; God, Names of).

JewishEncyclopedia.com - BLASPHEMY:
​

​

​

 

[Der Alte]

The day some one can show me God is made up of three persons using the "BIBLE" is the day I will believe in the false doctrine of the trinity.

The day that you can show me credible, verifiable, historical evidence for any organized body of believers, by any name, which believed essentially as you do, between, 90 AD, when the NT was completed, and the 19th century, or later, when all false anti-Trinitarian religions, such as JW, LDS, OP, WWCG, INC, kristadelfian, etc. came into existence, then I will believe you. Posting this same post over and over and over does nothing to convince anyone. Is this your best shot?

 

[2ducklow]

The day some one can show me God is made up of three persons using the "BIBLE" is the day I will believe in the false doctrine of the trinity.

oh well

 

[plmarquette]

I don't think so....homey don't play that....

the council of trent and chancelon established the word "trinity" 4-500 years after Jesus' death,by people speaking of the students of the original 12 , of doctrine, dogma, and tenants....of our faith...who are we 2000 years later, to try to invalidate with smoke and mirrors, the work of faith then or now

 

[gort]

Ah So, I see more clearly now where you're coming from. you think that because the Jews tried to stone him in the temple that therefore they were trying to stone him for a justifiable reason, and couldn't possibly try and stone him for an unjustifiable reason. Since they tried to stone him for blasphemy AND making himself god. that would mean that Jesus blasphemed when he claimed to be the son of god, cause they tried to stone him for that too.

John 10:30 I and the Father are one. ( the reason for the charge that Jesus was making himself god)

John 10:31 The Jews took up stones again to stone him.

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

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?


So the Jews tried to stone him for claining to be the son of god, which they considered blasphemy, so therefore, using your reasoning, that means Jesus was a balsphemer cause, according to you , the Jews wouldn't try and stone someone for an unjustifaable reason.

It also fails on the grounds that false accusations were made against Jesus by Jews at his trial.

Matthew 26:59 Now the chief priests and the whole council sought false witness against Jesus, that they might put him to death;

so your argument fails, as does you gomer pyle rebutal and your accusation that I am an unbeliever both likewise fail.

You are confused. You don't seem to understand that the Jews picked up stones justified in their reasoning; making himself God and thereby blaspheming. Think of it in the same manner you pick up figurative stones and cast them at trinitarians every opportunity you get. You certainly feel justified in doing so and one day you will see the error of your ways. You are an unbeliever of Jesus being God the Son. There is no middle ground, one either does or does'nt believe something. There is no such thing as an accusation in this matter as you have over the years fully exhibited your unbelief for all to see.

'nuff said

 

[gort]

The day some one can show me God is made up of three persons using the "BIBLE" is the day I will believe in the false doctrine of the trinity.

So tell us about the origin (beginning) of Jesus (Logos) and the HOly Spirit. USing the bible, of course.

 

[scriptures]

what is wrong with that is that "I am" or "I exist" does not mean I was or that I existed. Where else in the entire bible does "I am" mean "I was"? Nowhere that I am aware of. Whereas, "I am" always means "I am" everywhere else in the bible. To say that "I am" means "I was" is just as illogical and nonsensical as it is to say that someone saying "I am" means that person is god, IMO.


The second problem with that interpretation, is that he doesn't say how "I am" is idiomatic for "I was". He just claims it. He shows no examples of other scriptures where "I am" means "I was." So his claim that it is idiomatic has no foundation in fact, but only has foundation in his fantasy.

" I am he" is an acceptable translation of the literal "I am" on John 8.58, I have no problem with that since definitely trinity(unbiblical doctrine) is denied. But then again we have to consider the context. The adverbial clause "before Abraham came to be" talks about existence and not identity.