John 8:58 and Trinitarians.

[scriptures]

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.

 

[marcusampe]

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.

Yes. Also when we want to confirm that it were we we say "I am" or "I was" (in any case in our language) and that does not make us God.
Jesus simply uses the present tense of the verb "to be"

Jesus also did not say that he was before Abraham. Jesus was foreordained. He was the result of the word made flesh, not the originator of the divine plan.

“Jesus said to them: “If your Father was The God you would likely continue to love me. For I came out from The God and [then] I arrived. Nor did I come from myself, but that One sent me forth.” (Joh 8:42 MHM)

 

[freeport]

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.

Jesus is God incarnate, the Son of God.


Getting caught up in semantics and arguing about various sematical issues doesn't really help anything.


Jesus is how anyone sees God, at all. Look back at the Prophets and Moses. They saw God. They saw Jesus when they did so.

What could anyone's problem with that be?


Jesus pointed out that the Pharisees should have no problem with him calling himself "the Son of God", saying God called "gods" those by whom the word of God came.

 

[timlamb]

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.

I am trinitarian (although that is the first ime I called myself that), and I agree, in that verse Jesus does not say He is the "I AM". He IS saying He existed before Abraham. I think the verse in context says that Abraham was looking forward to Christ coming upon the Earth:
56"Your father Abraham rejoiced to see My day, and he saw it and was glad."

I believe in a triune God not because of one verse but because of what was prophesied, what Jesus did, what Jesus said, and the fact that He will judge you and me. All those things together point to Jesus being God.

5Have this attitude in yourselves which was also in Christ Jesus,
6who, although He existed in the form of God, did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped,
7but emptied Himself, taking the form of a bond-servant, and being made in the likeness of men. 8Being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross.

But this is pretty convincing to me.
Though He had existed as God, He let go of His God nature to become wholly man

 

[Albion]

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.

Trinitarians -- as has been said -- do not make this verse the final answer to the question of Jesus' divinity, nor do they pin everything on some other verse. Anti-Trinitarians often seem to pick out one verse, attempt to debunk it alone, and then proclain that that which Trinitarians base their belief on is rebutted.

In this case, I would agree that there are places in Scripture in which the words "I (and) am" appear without proving anything. But Jesus' use of the term was meant in a completely different way than when Paul said it or as we'd use it in ordinary speech. In fact, in the passage in question, Jesus' use of the words would be considered awkward, mysterious, unnatural if it were not a double entendre. And againt, that's again not the case with the other examples you gave.

 

[timlamb]

Trinitarians -- as has been said -- do not make this verse the final answer to the question of Jesus' divinity, nor do they pin everything on some other verse. Anti-Trinitarians often seem to pick out one verse, attempt to debunk it alone, and then proclain that that which Trinitarians base their belief on is rebutted.

In this case, I would agree that there are places in Scripture in which the words "I (and) am" appear without proving anything. But Jesus' use of the term was meant in a completely different way than when Paul said it or as we'd use it in ordinary speech. In fact, in the passage in question, Jesus' use of the words would be considered awkward, mysterious, unnatural if it were not a double entendre. And againt, that's again not the case with the other examples you gave.

I believe as you do, but I do not depend on that or any one verse to prove Jesus deity. He's "the Man" and God.

 

[Mankin]

While you do bring up a logical point regarding this text, this text does not disapprove trinitarianism. All it proves is that Jesus stated he was alive before Abraham.

 

[CalmRon]

But a point is missed in the context... why would the jews attempt to stone for saying what he was saying. he was claiming deity when said I AM. the context would make no sense after 8:58 because the jews are looking for any reason to put him to death simply say he was alive before abraham would have relegated him to position of crazy man saying before abraham was I AM is a statement the jews saw as blasphemy.

 

[jnois]

The Apostles had the same glory as Jesus, in respect to God the Father.

Read John 17: all

In God the Father and in Jesus

 

[Zebra1552]

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.

Again, you are ignoring language to support your own ideas. Why would the Jews want to stone someone for saying 'I am' unless it had divine implications?

 

[2ducklow]

Again, you are ignoring language to support your own ideas. Why would the Jews want to stone someone for saying 'I am' unless it had divine implications?

no you are ignoring the language, when people say I am they quite frequently mean I am he, with he understood. Jesus was claiming to be t he christ which is why they wanted to stone him. Jesus claimed to be t he christ by saying I am before the sanhedrin. claiming to be the christ was grounds for stoning, because the jews considered Jesus a false christ.


Luke 22:67-71 If thou art the Christ, tell us. But he said unto them, If I tell you, ye will not believe: and if I ask you, ye will not answer. But from henceforth shall the Son of man be seated at the right hand of the power of God. And they all said, Art thou then the Son of God? And he said unto them, Ye say that I am. And they said, What further need have we of witness? for we ourselves have heard from his own mouth.


claiming to be the son of god by saying I am, with he understood. Likewise when Jesus said 'before abraham was, I am (he), he was likewise understood. read the whole 8th chapter of john Jesus is laying out his claim to be the christ, not god prior to his statement I am in vs. 58. you would have us believe that it is impossible for Jesus to ever say I am without claiming to be god, whereas anyone else except jesus is free to say I am without anyone ever believing he is God. that don't wash, except if you just ignore the facts.

 

[Albion]

no you are ignoring the language, when people say I am they quite frequently mean I am he, with he understood. Jesus was claiming to be t he christ which is why they wanted to stone him. Jesus claimed to be t he christ by saying I am before the sanhedrin. claiming to be the christ was grounds for stoning, because the jews considered Jesus a false christ.

That's reaonable. What is not reasonable is to speak as though Jesus did not use this expression many time, not just this once. Also, what do we do with the many other evidences of his divinity that are to be found in the NT, some of which involve him personally backing up the claim?

 

[Zebra1552]

no you are ignoring the language, when people say I am they quite frequently mean I am he, with he understood. Jesus was claiming to be t he christ which is why they wanted to stone him. Jesus claimed to be t he christ by saying I am before the sanhedrin. claiming to be the christ was grounds for stoning, because the jews considered Jesus a false christ.

That's some nice speculation you've got going on. Big assumptions. The Jews tended not to stone people for being false Christs on the spot, though, and they did tend to do it for blasphemy... because if you remember, the Romans kind of set up their government there and the Jews had to get permission to execute people.

Luke 22:67-71 If thou art the Christ, tell us. But he said unto them, If I tell you, ye will not believe: and if I ask you, ye will not answer. But from henceforth shall the Son of man be seated at the right hand of the power of God. And they all said, Art thou then the Son of God? And he said unto them, Ye say that I am. And they said, What further need have we of witness? for we ourselves have heard from his own mouth.

Irrelevant to the passage in John.

claiming to be the son of god by saying I am, with he understood. Likewise when Jesus said 'before abraham was, I am (he), he was likewise understood. read the whole 8th chapter of john Jesus is laying out his claim to be the christ, not god prior to his statement I am in vs. 58. you would have us believe that it is impossible for Jesus to ever say I am without claiming to be god, whereas anyone else except jesus is free to say I am without anyone ever believing he is God. that don't wash, except if you just ignore the facts.

More supposition. What do you do with other verses that suggest Jesus' divinity? Ignore them? Assume you can separate each passage from the Bible to make it say what you want?

 

[2ducklow]

That's reaonable. What is not reasonable is to speak as though Jesus did not use this expression many time, not just this once.[/qutoe] So you're saying that everytime Jesus says "I am" he is claiming to be god? so it's impossible for Jesus to say "I am " without claimimng to be god, but if we say "I am" we are never claiming to be god, according to you.
right? In otherwords it would be impossible for jesus to answer a question with I am.

Also, what do we do with the many other evidences of his divinity that are to be found in the NT, some of which involve him personally backing up the claim?

most of the scriptures used to support the Jesus is god doctrine are spurious, interpolations of scriptures, false translations, or just irrational reasoning. Likewhen you guys say Jesus is god cause he is in the image of god. which is like saying a statue of david in the image of david is david. Or like when you guys say Jesus has the name of the almighty so he is the almighty, or like when you guys say that all the fullness of god dwelling in Jesus means he is god. God dwells in me but i aint god but god dwells in Jesus os he is god, there is no rational to you guys reasoning on this subject of Jesus being god. All reasoning goes out the window with you guys when the subject is or is not Jesus God.

 

[Zebra1552]

That's reaonable. What is not reasonable is to speak as though Jesus did not use this expression many time, not just this once.

So you're saying that everytime Jesus says "I am" he is claiming to be god? so it's impossible for Jesus to say "I am " without claimimng to be god, but if we say "I am" we are never claiming to be god, according to you.
right? In otherwords it would be impossible for jesus to answer a question with I am.
most of the scriptures used to support the Jesus is god doctrine are spurious, interpolations of scriptures, false translations, or just irrational reasoning. Likewhen you guys say Jesus is god cause he is in the image of god. which is like saying a statue of david in the image of david is david. Or like when you guys say Jesus has the name of the almighty so he is the almighty, or like when you guys say that all the fullness of god dwelling in Jesus means he is god. God dwells in me but i aint god but god dwells in Jesus os he is god, there is no rational to you guys reasoning on this subject of Jesus being god. All reasoning goes out the window with you guys when the subject is or is not Jesus God.

Pot: Kettle.

 

[2ducklow]

That's some nice speculation you've got going on. Big assumptions. The Jews tended not to stone people for being false Christs on the spot, though, and they did tend to do it for blasphemy... because if you remember, the Romans kind of set up their government there and the Jews had to get permission to execute people.

Irrelevant to the passage in John.

I say that Jesus was put to death for claiming to be the christ and the son of god, and that in john 8.58 they attempted likewise to put him to death for claiming that he was the christ, "I am (He)" in BOTH CASES.

Jesus said "I am" in both cases, in john 8.58 and luke 22.70.

Luke 22:70 And they all said, Art thou then the Son of God? And he said unto them, Ye say that I am.

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

So you get around the problem by a simple cursory, Irrelevant.. Like You say jesus is g od cause he said I am, and I show you where he said I am and where he clearly didn't mean he is god and you say irrelevant.

so you prove the point of my thread, if scripture contradicts triniy you just ignore itas you have here..

More supposition. What do you do with other verses that suggest Jesus' divinity? Ignore them? Assume you can separate each passage from the Bible to make it say what you want?

you suppose that Jesus is god based on your contradictory interpretations of scripture, I suppose Jesus is not god based on my noncontradictory interpretation of scriptures. NO scripture says Jesus is god, they only suggest jesus divinity because you interpret them to conttadict john 17.3 and 1 cor. 8.6. if you interpreted them corretly you wouldn't contradict john 17.3 and 1 cor. 8.6.

 

[Zebra1552]

I say that Jesus was put to death for claiming to be the christ and the son of god, and that in john 8.58 they attempted likewise to put him to death for claiming that he was the christ, "I am (He)" in BOTH CASES.

Jesus said "I am" in both cases, in john 8.58 and luke 22.70.

Luke 22:70 And they all said, Art thou then the Son of God? And he said unto them, Ye say that I am.

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

And both are used in different contexts and have different meanings. One Greek work has several English meanings. I believe I've told you this before.

So you get around the problem by a simple cursory, Irrelevant.. Like You say jesus is g od cause he said I am, and I show you where he said I am and where he clearly didn't mean he is god and you say irrelevant.

It's irrelevant because the context is different. It's like comparing a statement by Bush and Obama and saying they mean the same thing when one is talking about healthcare and the other is talking about foreign policy. It makes a connection when there isn't one.

so you prove the point of my thread, if scripture contradicts triniy you just ignore itas you have here..

This isn't your thread. And your charge has no evidence behind it. I dismiss things that have no backing.

you suppose that Jesus is god based on your contradictory interpretations of scripture, I suppose Jesus is not god based on my noncontradictory interpretation of scriptures.

I claim and assert that Jesus is God because He said so and because He did things only God could.

NO scripture says Jesus is god, they only suggest jesus divinity because you interpret them to conttadict john 17.3 and 1 cor. 8.6. if you interpreted them corretly you wouldn't contradict john 17.3 and 1 cor. 8.6.

Your Bible contradicts your claims. Have fun with that.

 

[2ducklow]

And both are used in different contexts and have different meanings. One Greek work has several English meanings. I believe I've told you this before.

in both cases they are translated exactly the same "I am." so you are saying I am means one thing here and I am doesn't mean I am there.

It's irrelevant because the context is different. It's like comparing a statement by Bush and Obama and saying they mean the same thing when one is talking about healthcare and the other is talking about foreign policy. It makes a connection when there isn't one.

the context is the same, Jesus is claiming to be the messiah in both instances with the statement "I am" and "I am" always means "I am" not something else. If I am doesn't mean I am as you assert, what does it mean? he was? they stole? what?

This isn't your thread.

My mistake, I inadvertantly thought i was in my world reknowned thread "scripturesthat trinitarians ignore."

And your charge has no evidence behind it. I dismiss things that have no backing.

I gave several examples such as ' the image of god example, the name of the almighty example and others, you just ignored my examples, Ignoring what I say doesn't mean i said nothing as you believe.

I claim and assert that Jesus is God because He said so and because He did things only God could.

Jesus never said he is god. you interpret scritpure to mean that. and you like most trintiarians can't tell the difference betweein your interpretations (as in Jesus is god here that you assert) and what scripture actually says, No wonder you guys are os messed up doctrinallyh you can't even tell what is and what isn't scripture.

Your Bible contradicts your claims. Have fun with that.

i haven't seen one iota of proof to that effect form you or anyone. Your false claim that Jesus said he is god is no proof, quote a scripture that says Jesus is god then you got proof but of course there is none. And of course you have proved nothing except that you can invent scripture such as Jesus saying he is god and that you don't know that I am always means I am. Perhaps if you were to quote scritpures that you imagine say "jesus is god" you could enlighten us. But perhaps you know all to well that no scripture says "Jesus is god" so you're only left with inveinting the scripture and never saying where it is. good trinitarian tactic. i've seen it a lot.

 

[Der Alte]

I say that Jesus was put to death for claiming to be the christ and the son of god, and that in john 8.58 they attempted likewise to put him to death for claiming that he was the christ, "I am (He)" in BOTH CASES.

Jesus said "I am" in both cases, in john 8.58 and luke 22.70.

What you "say" about anything is NOT relevant. Here is the reason the Jews wanted Jesus dead. From their own mouths, their very first accusation!

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.​

Luke 22:70 And they all said, Art thou then the Son of God? And he said unto them, Ye say that I am.

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

You claim that these two verses are saying the same thing. Only one of these vss. represents Jesus' own words, John 8:58. The other vs. Jesus is paraphrasing what the Jews said. Jesus said, "You, NOT me, say that I am, [the son of God.]" Therefore the two verses are NOT saying the same thing.

There are other "proof texts" folks like to use, if you happen to post any, I will respond to them as well.

 

[2ducklow]

What you "say" about anything is NOT relevant.

you got it backwards it's what you say about anything that is irrelevant and usually ridiculous, like verbs have no subjects, is is an action verb, .

Here is the reason the Jews wanted Jesus dead. From their own mouths, their very first accusation!

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.
​

wrong mr. verbs have no subjects. it says for blasphemy AND blah blah blah, makest thouself god. the blasphemy was Jesus claiming to be christ. the false accusation of jesus making himself god was an add on by ignorant Jews. knowledgeable jews like those in the sanhedrin never accused Jesus of claiming to be god, theey accused him of claiming to be the christ.

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 already told them that he was the christ earlier indirectly but they wanted a plain straightforward declaration that he was the christ which he would not do directly but would indirectly as is hte case here in john 10.25, and earlier in john 8.58 when he said "before abraham was i am he." I am he the christ the one promised even before abraham is the meaning of john 8.58 if you would read john 8 you would see the whole discourse is about Jesus being the christ not about jesus being god. ex.



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

I and the father that sent me, sent who? sent god himself? no sent the saviour , the christ, the messiah of course. that's what the whole book of john is about according to john's own words in john 2031.


​

You claim that these two verses are saying the same thing. Only one of these vss. represents Jesus' own words, John 8:58. The other vs. Jesus is paraphrasing what the Jews said. Jesus said, "You, NOT me, say that I am, [the son of God.]" Therefore the two verses are NOT saying the same thing.

are too. here is how is how it is recorded in another book.

Mark 14:61-62 But he held his peace, and answered nothing. Again the high priest asked him, and saith unto him, Art thou the Christ, the Son of the Blessed? And Jesus said, I am: and ye shall see the Son of man sitting at the right hand of Power, and coming with the clouds of heaven.


therefore the wording in luke prob. is a figure of speech meaningthe same thing as mark 14.61-62. or a bad translation, or an interpolation of scripture.

so you are irrelevant because you ignore mark 14.61.,62.

There are other "proof texts" folks like to use, if you happen to post any, I will respond to them as well.

mark 14.61.62. it doesn't get any more direct than that.