Does "I am" have any other meanings?

[GTW27]

Before Abraham was I Am.

John 1 vs 18 No one has ever seen God; The only Son, who is in the bosom of The Father, He has made Him known.

 

[Lukaris]

In John 8:58 where Yeshua said "I am" (egó eimi in Greek) then 10 verses later Yeshua said "I am" again in John 9:9, but the translators made the exact same phrase, egó eimi, mean "I am he" or "I am the man." That means John 8:58 could just as easily been made, "I am the man."

Also, John 8:58 is the only such place where egó eimi was incorrectly translated as just "I am" in the New Testament.

All of that being said, the correct way to understand John 8:58 is that Yeshua is the man [prophesied about] before Abraham. In other words, Yeshua isn't God.

You are wrong and have been repeatedly refuted in other threads you keep opening up others. You say the same incorrect things over and over again.

You cannot compare the healed blind man saying that he is the person of interest in John 9:9 to the Lord declaring His divinity in John 8:58. Plus the healed blind man knew the Lord is God as he worshiped the Lord in John 9:35-38.

 

[Carl Emerson]

You are wrong and have been repeatedly refuted in other threads you keep opening up others. You say the same incorrect things over and over again.

Agree - will not process the responses that challenge his position.

 

[AbbaLove]

You are wrong and have been repeatedly refuted in other threads you keep opening up others. You say the same incorrect things over and over again.

You cannot compare the healed blind man saying that he is the person of interest in John 9:9 to the Lord declaring His divinity in John 8:58. Plus the healed blind man knew the Lord is God as he worshiped the Lord in John 9:35-38.

You've got to wonder who is the source of his manmade theology that is contrary to the Word of God ...

Crosswalk

www.crosswalk.com

 

[ViaCrucis]

Well, I would maintain that Yeshua is a Unitarian, along with the apostles, and dozens of the early church fathers because they said so. They all said God is One, God said God is One so God must be one, not three.

Trinitarianism wasn't even mainstream until it was state-sanctioned by Constantine at the council of Nicea in the 4th century. After that, they literally began blocking access to the scriptures and killing everyone who challenged their beliefs. Over the centuries, they changed bits here and there. Nowadays, we have public access to Bible and the oldest manuscripts. Much of what the Trinitarians created has been successfully debunked or proven false.

You mean the same Constantine who exiled Athanasius and favored the Arians, whose closest religious advisors were Arians and semi-Arians (Eusebius of Nicomedia who baptized the emperor, and Eusebius of Caesarea the emperor's biographer respectively)? The same Constantine whose son, a devout Arian, continued his father's policy of sponsoring Arianism, and making Nicene-confessing bishops enemies of the state? That Constantine?

Someone should really let him know that he "state-sanctioned" Trinitarianism at the Council of Nicea, because the historical record says otherwise.

Constantine's only real contribution was that:

1) He ended the official persecutions of Christians by the Roman State.
2) He convened the Council of Nicea where the bishops sorted things out for themselves.

Because Constantine himself, after Nicea, pretty much backpeddled on that, and there were other councils which were convened under the auspices of the emperor, which weren't as large or involved as many bishops, but which did favor the Arian position.

If Constantine "state-sanctioned" anything, it was Arianism. But even that would be too strong a statement, Constantine probably didn't understand what the precise differences were between the two sides in the debate, but was largely influenced by others--such as the aforementioned Eusebiuses of Nicomedia and Caesarea. Constantine's two sons were split, one was Arian and the other Nicene; it was the Arian son who was the more powerful and enacted strong pro-Arian policies. Pro-Arian policies that would last until Julian the Apostate, who while raised Arian rejected Christianity altogether and attempted to enforce his own form of Neo-Pagan Reform--cut short by his death. The first, arguably, real pro-Nicene emperor was Jovian, and it wasn't until Theodosius I that Christianity became the official religion of the empire, and the Nicene Creed gained a state-sanction.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Runningman]

You are wrong and have been repeatedly refuted in other threads you keep opening up others. You say the same incorrect things over and over again.

You cannot compare the healed blind man saying that he is the person of interest in John 9:9 to the Lord declaring His divinity in John 8:58. Plus the healed blind man knew the Lord is God as he worshiped the Lord in John 9:35-38.

Yeshua never declared his divinity, in fact he outright denied it.

As I have already refuted your false claims elsewhere, "I am" is translated incorrectly. In John 9:9 it translated as "I am he" or "I am the man" and if this same objective translation was applied to John 8:58 then you, flatly, wouldn't have any plausible deniability.

This isn't a one-off thing: egó eimi is never translated as just "I am" anywhere else in the New Testament because that isn't what it means.

 

[Runningman]

You mean the same Constantine who exiled Athanasius and favored the Arians, whose closest religious advisors were Arians and semi-Arians (Eusebius of Nicomedia who baptized the emperor, and Eusebius of Caesarea the emperor's biographer respectively)? The same Constantine whose son, a devout Arian, continued his father's policy of sponsoring Arianism, and making Nicene-confessing bishops enemies of the state? That Constantine?

Someone should really let him know that he "state-sanctioned" Trinitarianism at the Council of Nicea, because the historical record says otherwise.

Constantine's only real contribution was that:

1) He ended the official persecutions of Christians by the Roman State.
2) He convened the Council of Nicea where the bishops sorted things out for themselves.

Because Constantine himself, after Nicea, pretty much backpeddled on that, and there were other councils which were convened under the auspices of the emperor, which weren't as large or involved as many bishops, but which did favor the Arian position.

If Constantine "state-sanctioned" anything, it was Arianism. But even that would be too strong a statement, Constantine probably didn't understand what the precise differences were between the two sides in the debate, but was largely influenced by others--such as the aforementioned Eusebiuses of Nicomedia and Caesarea. Constantine's two sons were split, one was Arian and the other Nicene; it was the Arian son who was the more powerful and enacted strong pro-Arian policies. Pro-Arian policies that would last until Julian the Apostate, who while raised Arian rejected Christianity altogether and attempted to enforce his own form of Neo-Pagan Reform--cut short by his death. The first, arguably, real pro-Nicene emperor was Jovian, and it wasn't until Theodosius I that Christianity became the official religion of the empire, and the Nicene Creed gained a state-sanction.

-CryptoLutheran

Constantine sanctioned the council, supported their conclusions, and allowed the church-state to enforce their conquests and inquisitions. A long dong chapter in the Trinitarian church you can't sweep under the rug.

 

[ViaCrucis]

Constantine sanctioned the council, supported their conclusions, and allowed the church-state to enforce their conquests and inquisitions. A long dong chapter in the Trinitarian church you can't sweep under the rug.

I don't need to be wrong historically to be critical of parts of that history.

I don't need to make up that crusaders were actually lizard people in order to recognize that the crusades were awful.

I don't need to make up that Constantine did something he never did to recognize that the blend of church and state power had terrible historical ramifications.

It's possible to engage in actual historical analysis and inquiry without making things up--and also to be critical. That's not sweeping anything under the rug, that's being a good student of history.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[tampasteve]

ADMIN HAT ON

THIS THREAD IS CLOSED FOR REVIEW

ADMIN HAT OFF

 

[tampasteve]

ADMIN HAT ON

This thread will remain closed. Please not the Terms of Service Rule:
Topics Requiring Special Consideration:
●Promoting* or proselytizing religious beliefs or religions other than Christianity is not allowed. Members who are Satanists (followers of any form of Satanism) are not allowed at CF. For the purpose of these rules, Christianity is defined by Christian Forums' Statement of Faith which is found in the Sitewide Rules.

ADMIN HAT OFF