John 8:58 and Trinitarians.

[RMDY]

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.

Unlike Paul, the Jews accused Jesus of speaking blasphemy...

 

[gort]

The first problem in your post is that you present an "apparent contradiction" in the Word of God with no attempt to explain of rectify it. The Word does not nor ever will contradict Itself. Everything fits like a hand in a glove, thus if we actually take the time to study, as in 2 Timothy 2:15, we can come an accurate understanding of each of these passages.

The key to this is context. James 1:13 specifically says that God cannot be tempted with evil. "With evil" is the key. Jesus Christ was most assuredly tempted with evil as in Matthew 4:1, "Then was Jesus led up of the spirit into the wilderness to be tempted of the devil." Being tempted of the devil is definitely tempted by evil. Thus a more accurate statement would be, "How could Jesus be God if God cannot be tempted with evil by Jesus Christ was tempted by evil. God cannot be tempted to sin because He is not a man as it says in Numbers 23:19. The devil was trying to tempt Jesus Christ to sin in disobeying God. Of course Jesus Christ was victorious.

Let's look at a couple of places where God was "tempted" in the Old Testament. The first verse I would like to show would be Exodus 17:1-2, "And all the congregation of the children of Israel journeyed from the wilderness of Sin, after their journeys, according to the commandment of the LORD, and pitched in Rephidim: and there was no water for the people to drink. Wherefore the people did chide with Moses, and said, Give us water that we may drink. And Moses said unto them, Why chide ye with me? wherefore do ye tempt the LORD?" Here we see Moses asking the children of Israel why they tempt the Lord. Well a quick glance would have someone say, Oh God was tempted here, but looking deeper into this passage God is not being tempted to sin. They were more like testing God here because they did not believe on Him and thus He had to show another sign of His power. In Exodus 17:7, it explains exactly how they were tempting God. "And he called the name of the place Massah, and Meribah, because of the chiding of the children of Israel, and because they tempted the LORD, saying, Is the LORD among us, or not?" Thus God was not tempted by evil because He was not tempted to sin.

Another passage in the Old Testament where God was tempted would be Numbers 44:20-22, "And the LORD said, I have pardoned according to thy word: But as truly as I live, all the earth shall be filled with the glory of the LORD. Because all those men which have seen my glory, and my miracles, which I did in Egypt and in the wilderness, and have tempted me now these ten times, and have not hearkened to my voice;" Again they are not trying to cause God to sin, they are testing in the fact that God had said the land of Canaan is theirs, but they have decided they were no match for the Canaanites. They had seen the wonderful works of God so many times and still they test His power in not believing in what God could do.

So, why don't you tempt, er, test God in some sort of manner and then try to tell me that essentially that you are not evil for doing so? Or anybody else for that matter that would test/tempt God?

 

[2ducklow]

Handle what? You proved NOTHING.

Is not the trinity made up of three persons, this is the foundation of whole false doctrine?

Oh sure you used scripture to back up what you believe is the trinity; but you did not prove the doctrine of the trinity because you did not show me one verse that said anything about God is made up of "three persons". Until you can prove using scripture God is three persons you have no trinity. So stop spinning and show me using God's Word that God is made up of three person; if you can't you're verses have proven "NOTHING".

The ISBE vol. 4, pg. 3012 under trinity says,

"THe word Trinity is not a Bib. term, and we are not using Bib. language when we define what is expressed by it as the doctrine that there is only one true God, but in the unity of the Godhead there are three coeternal and coequal Persons, the same in substance but distinct in subsistance. A doctrine so define can be spoken of as a Bib. doctrine only on the principle that the sense of Scripture is Scripture. And the definition of a Bib. doctrine in such un-Bib. language can be justified only on the principle that it is better to preserve the truth of Scripture than the words of Scripture"


In other words they are saying that one doesen't have to have words that are in the bible to define a doctrine which isn't stated in the bible because Trinity is preserving the truth of Scripture, which , according to the ISBE is better than the words of scripture.

this is the only trinitarian response that I am aware of that deals with the issue you raised. Although some say things like 'you don't have to have a word in the bible to use it to define what is in the bible." But that would be a more simplistic explanation.

 

[RMDY]

2ducklow, I recall hearing that Elohim is pluralized....

 

[Spartan Warrior]

I really do not care about someone opinion (ISBE), religion is full of opinions. if a belief is not based on God's Word then that doctrine is not divine.

The ISBE vol. 4, pg. 3012 under trinity says,

"THe word Trinity is not a Bib. term, and we are not using Bib. language when we define what is expressed by it as the doctrine that there is only one true God, but in the unity of the Godhead there are three coeternal and coequal Persons, the same in substance but distinct in subsistance. A doctrine so define can be spoken of as a Bib. doctrine only on the principle that the sense of Scripture is Scripture. And the definition of a Bib. doctrine in such un-Bib. language can be justified only on the principle that it is better to preserve the truth of Scripture than the words of Scripture"


In other words they are saying that one doesen't have to have words that are in the bible to define a doctrine which isn't stated in the bible because Trinity is preserving the truth of Scripture, which , according to the ISBE is better than the words of scripture.

this is the only trinitarian response that I am aware of that deals with the issue you raised. Although some say things like 'you don't have to have a word in the bible to use it to define what is in the bible." But that would be a more simplistic explanation.

 

[2ducklow]

2ducklow, I recall hearing that Elohim is pluralized....

Elohim can be either singular or plural, just like some words in English such as fish, or desk. No word in any language is plural singular. Either the meaning is plural or the meaning is singular, not both. The only reason for the existance of this concept that elohim is plural singular is because the trinity doctrine needs such a concept.

 

[2ducklow]

I really do not care about someone opinion (ISBE), religion is full of opinions. if a belief is not based on God's Word then that doctrine is not divine.

ok.

 

[gort]

Elohim can be either singular or plural, just like some words in English such as fish, or desk. No word in any language is plural singular. Either the meaning is plural or the meaning is singular, not both. The only reason for the existance of this concept that elohim is plural singular is because the trinity doctrine needs such a concept.

Gen 1:26 And God said, Let Us make man in Our image, after Our likeness. And let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the heavens, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over all the creepers creeping on the earth.

Is God plural or singular here?

 

[Der Alte]

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

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

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

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

That poor blind man must be spinning in his grave. Every time John 8:58 is discussed he gets resurrected and paraded around as a counter argument.

The blind, like lepers were social outcasts, not permitted to live in the cities. Since they were considered unclean sinners from birth, they were not permitted in the temple or synagogues.

Joh 9:34 They answered and said unto him, Thou wast altogether born in sins, and dost thou teach us? And they cast him out.​

Thus the blind man would never have heard the Torah and would have been ignorant of the fine points of Jewish law. Much as a foreigner ,,"ego eimi" would have had no special significance for the blind man. The Jewish leadership knew this.

Jesus, OTOH, was a Torah observant Jew who had taught in the temple and synagogues on more than one occasion, he would have been expected to know and comply with all the fine points of Jewish practice.

Jewish Encyclopedia - The Blind

The blind, like lepers, were outcasts of society. The were quarantined outside the cities,, since they were considered unclean from birth, they we not permitted in the temple or synagogues

The ancient nations regarded blindness as the lowest degradation that could be inflicted upon man; hence gouging out the eyes of an enemy was a form of national retaliation. The Philistines bored out the eyes of Samson, and the king of Babylon blinded Zedekiah. Nahash the Ammonite demanded as a condition of surrender that he should thrust out the right eye of every man of Jabesh-gilead, as a reproach upon all Israel (I Sam. xi. 2).

In the Bible.

The blind, together with cripples and lepers, were outcasts of society and kept quarantined outside the town limits; they became paupers and a menace to passers-by. When David besieged the Jebusites at Jerusalem, the blind and crippled mendicants were so numerous that he was compelled to take stringent measures against them (II Sam. v. 6). In the eyes of the ancient Hebrews the maimed, and especially the blind, were thought to possess a debased character. Balaam, the prophet of the Gentiles, according to Talmudic tradition, was lame and blind of one eye (Sanh. 105a). The blindness of Isaac is said to have been the cause of Rebekah's action in transferring the blessing from Esau to Jacob, as she considered herself better able to judge the merits and demerits of her two sons (Yalḳ.). Jacob would not marry Leah because she had "tender eyes." On this account the Talmud says that a bride whose eyes are beautiful needs no further examination (Ta'an. 24a).

JewishEncyclopedia.com - BLIND, THE, IN LAW AND LITERATURE:​

 

[Godfixated]

So, why don't you tempt, er, test God in some sort of manner and then try to tell me that essentially that you are not evil for doing so? Or anybody else for that matter that would test/tempt God?

Obviously you either didn't feel like reading my long post or you just don't get the point. My first point is that these two verses cannot contradict themselves or the Word will be for naught. Me second point is that tempting God as it appears in the Old Testament is not tempting God to sin as its meaning in James. In those passages, God indeed answered the murmurings of the children of Israel and gave them water and meat respectively. So, I guess in your world God giving the children of Israel things is a sin. I did the research to answer your post. Maybe you should open a Bible yourself and do a little reading before you post things that were made irrelevant by my first post.