John 8:58 and Trinitarians.

[ittarter]

you are correct.if something is with something it can't be the thing it's with. prob. is, for you that is, that god never said 'the word was with god, he said the word was towards god." contradictions are to you like deep truths too deep to fathom, but to me they are just that contradictions and as such proof that you are wrong.

You're right. There are contradictions, and there are contradictions. Some are meaningful "paradoxes" and others are actually problematic. In the eye of the beholder? I guess this is where the limitations of logic in comprehending religious experience come into full view. I'll come back to this in a second.

Trinitarian thought can cope with multiple meanings of the word "God" and a distinct development of the concept of God here in John 1. The first "God" refers to "The Father," the second to deitific rank. No problem. I'd like to hear your own interpretation of John 1 -- I know you've already explained it on this thread, but I'd like you to explain it specifically dealing with the problem below:

It doesn't say with it says unto or towards , the greek word is pros, and pros means unto or towards.

Gk. pros can mean a variety of things, and translators here are obviously influenced by other interpretative considerations of the text. However, we need not explore that tangent yet, because whatever we take pros to signify, we still have the same problem. "The word was unto God, and the word was God." Something can't be for the purpose of something else, and be that something else at the same time. So now, explain your view of John 1 to me, please.

just gobbeldy goop to me. perhaps if you defined what you mean by nature, i might be able to better make heads or tails of it. See god is a spirit, but a nature is not a spirit a nature is not a flesh,as is commonly thought in trinitarian circles.

I wasn't using it in a technical or theological sense. "Nature" means "aspect," I guess, or how one component "fits" into a larger schematic. In this case, the difficulty is reconciling how a single being could possess the divine attributes (e.g. omniscience) and the human attributes (e.g. limitation in knowledge) at the same time. Now THIS is what I call a contradiction. And, unlike making up rules like "God can't become incarnate because there's a verse somewhere in the Bible that says he's spirit," this contradiction is actually made up of distinct propositions that cannot all be assented to logically at the same time. See the difference?

 

[scriptures]

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. .

Trinitarians cannot defend their "proof texts", because they need a lot of help from preconcieved ideas.

 

[Der Alte]

[SIZE="-1"]Trinitarians cannot defend their "proof texts", because they need a lot of help from preconcieved ideas.[/SIZE]

Anti-Trinitarians endlessly squabble and bicker about words, used by Trinitarians, trying to express the nature of God, as revealed in scripture. All words are inherently finite and imperfect, therefore the words, "Trinity,” ”triune,” ”person," "being," "entity," "substance," "essence,” ”nature,” ”who,” Hypostatic union,," and/or any other words, are totally inadequate to describe God, the infinite, perfect, omniscient, omnipresent, omnipotent. But the fact that human words are finite, limited and imperfect does not prove or disprove anything about the doctrine of the Trinity.

Here are scriptural truths I have posted before, without any so-called unscriptural words or man made doctrines.

1. There is one God! The Father is called/referred to as God, in scripture, but the Father is not the Son or the Spirit. Numerous vss. e.g., John 6:27, Gal 1:1, Gal 1:3, Eph 6:23, Philippians 2:11, 1 Thess 1:1, 2 Tim 1:2, Titus 1:4, 1 Peter 1:2, 2 Peter 1:17, et. al.

2. There is one God! The Son is called/referred to as God, in scripture, but the Son is not the Father or the Spirit.

[1] Mat 1:23 Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us.

[2] Isa 9:6 For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.

[3] Luk 7:16 And there came a fear on all: and they glorified God, saying, That a great prophet is risen up among us; and, That God hath visited his people.

[4] Joh 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

[5] Joh 1:3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.

[6] Joh 1:10 He was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not.

[7] Joh 1:14 And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.

[8] Joh 1:18 No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten God, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.

[9] John 10:30 I and my Father are one.

[10] 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.

[11] Joh 5:18 Therefore the Jews sought the more to kill him, because he not only had broken the sabbath, but said also that God was his Father, making himself equal with God.

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

[13] John 12:41 These things said Esaias, when he saw his glory, and spake of him.

[14] Joh 14:9 Jesus saith unto him, Have I been so long time with you, and yet hast thou not known me, Philip? he that hath seen me hath seen the Father; and how sayest thou then, Shew us the Father?

[15] Joh 17:5 And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was.

[16] Joh 17:10 And all mine are thine, and thine are mine; and I am glorified in them.

[17] Joh 20:28 And Thomas answered and said unto him, My Lord and my God.

[18] Act 20:28 Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he [God] hath purchased with his own blood.

[19] Rom 9:5 Whose are the fathers, and of whom as concerning the flesh Christ came, who is over all, God blessed for ever. Amen.

[20] 2 Cor 4:4 In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them.

[21] Col 1:14 In whom we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins:
15 Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature:
16 For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him:

[22] Col 2:9 For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.

[23] Eph 3:9 And to make all men see what is the fellowship of the mystery, which from the beginning of the world hath been hid in God, who created all things by Jesus Christ:

[24] Heb 1:2 Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds;
3 Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high;

[25] Heb 1:8 But unto the Son he [God] saith, Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: a sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of thy kingdom.
9 Thou hast loved righteousness, and hated iniquity; therefore God, even thy God, hath anointed thee with the oil of gladness above thy fellows.
10 And, Thou, Lord, in the beginning hast laid the foundation of the earth; and the heavens are the works of thine hands:
11 They shall perish; but thou remainest; and they all shall wax old as doth a garment;
12 And as a vesture shalt thou fold them up, and they shall be changed: but thou art the same, and thy years shall not fail.

[26] Heb 3:3 For this man was counted worthy of more glory than Moses, inasmuch as he who hath builded the house hath more honour than the house.
4 For every house is builded by some man; but he that built all things is God.

[27] Phi 2:6 Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:

[28] 1 Tim 3:16 And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.

[29] 1 Tim 1:1 Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ by the commandment of God our Saviour, and Lord Jesus Christ, which is our hope;

[30] 1 Tim 6:15 Which in his times he shall shew, who is the blessed and only Potentate, the King of kings, and Lord of lords;

[31] Tit 2:13 Looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ;
14 Who gave himself for us, that he might redeem us from all iniquity, and purify unto himself a peculiar people, zealous of good works.

[32] 2 Pet 1:1 Simon Peter, a servant and an apostle of Jesus Christ, to them that have obtained like precious faith with us through the righteousness of God and our Saviour Jesus Christ:

[33] 1 John 5:20 And we know that the Son of God is come, and hath given us an understanding, that we may know him that is true, and we are in him that is true, even in his Son Jesus Christ. This is the true God, and eternal life.

[34] Rev 17:14 These shall make war with the Lamb, and the Lamb shall overcome them: for he is Lord of lords, and King of kings: and they that are with him are called, and chosen, and faithful.

[35] Rev 19:16 And he hath on his vesture and on his thigh a name written, KING OF KINGS, AND LORD OF LORDS.

[36] Rev 22:12 And, behold, I come quickly; and my reward is with me, to give every man according as his work shall be.
13 I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, the first and the last.​

3. There is one God! The Holy Spirit is called/referred to as God, in scripture, but the Spirit is not the Father or the Son. Acts 5:3-4, Acts 28:25-27, Heb 3:7-11, Heb 10:15-17.

There is one God! The Father, the Son, and the Spirit, all three are called/ referred to as God, in scripture, but each has a distinct mind, will, and self; John 16:13, 1 Cor 12:11, Philippians 2:5, John 5:26, Rom 8:27, Matthew 26:39.

Scripture which identify the Holy Spirit as God

Act 5:3 But Peter said, Ananias, why hath Satan filled thine heart to lie to the Holy Ghost, and to keep back part of the price of the land?
4 Whiles it remained, was it not thine own? and after it was sold, was it not in thine own power? why hast thou conceived this thing in thine heart? thou hast not lied unto men, but unto God.​

This passage, Act 5:3-4, identifies the Holy Spirit as God by equating lying to the H.S. with lying to God.

Act 28:25 And when they agreed not among themselves, they departed, after that Paul had spoken one word, Well spake the Holy Ghost by Esaias the prophet unto our fathers,
26 Saying, Go unto this people, and say, Hearing ye shall hear, and shall not understand; and seeing ye shall see, and not perceive:
27 For the heart of this people is waxed gross, and their ears are dull of hearing, and their eyes have they closed; lest they should see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and understand with their heart, and should be converted, and I should heal them.​

This passage Act 28:25-27, identifies the Holy Spirit as YHWH by saying the H.S. spoke words which were spoken by YHWH, in Isa 6:8-10, below.

Isa 6:8 Also I heard the voice of the Lord, [יהוה/YHWH] saying, Whom shall I send, and who will go for us? Then said I, Here am I; send me.
9 And he said, Go, and tell this people, Hear ye indeed, but understand not; and see ye indeed, but perceive not.
10 Make the heart of this people fat, and make their ears heavy, and shut their eyes; lest they see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and understand with their heart, and convert, and be healed

Heb 10:15 Whereof the Holy Ghost also is a witness to us: for after that he had said before,
16 This is the covenant that I will make with them after those days, saith the Lord, I will put my laws into their hearts, and in their minds will I write them;
17 And their sins and iniquities will I remember no more. [O.T. see יהוה/YHWH, Jer 31:33-34]​

This passage, Heb 10:15-17, identifies the Holy Spirit as YHWH by saying words spoken by YHWH, in Jer 31:33-34, below, were spoken by the H.S.

Jer 31:33 But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the LORD, [יהוה/YHWH] I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people.
34 And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the LORD: for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the LORD: for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more

Heb 3:7 Wherefore (as the Holy Ghost saith, To day if ye will hear his voice,
8 Harden not your hearts, as in the provocation, in the day of temptation in the wilderness:
9 When your fathers tempted me, proved me, and saw my works forty years.
10 Wherefore I was grieved with that generation, and said, They do alway err in their heart; and they have not known my ways. [O.T. יהוה/YHWH, Ps 95:10]
11[/b] So I sware in my wrath, They shall not enter into my rest.) [O.T. יהוה/YHWH, Deu 1:34-35]​

This passage identifies the Holy Spirit as YHWH by saying words spoken by YHWH in Psa 95:10-11, and Deu 1:34-35, below.

Psa 95:10 Forty years long was I grieved with this generation, and said, It is a people that do err in their heart, and they have not known my ways:
11 Unto whom I sware in my wrath that they should not enter into my rest.

Deu 1:34 And the LORD [יהוה/YHWH] heard the voice of your words, and was wroth, and sware, saying,
35 Surely there shall not one of these men of this evil generation see that good land, which I sware to give unto your fathers,​

 

[Der Alte]

Here are twenty six (26) passages from the O.T. which refer to יהוה/YHWH, paired with verses in the N.T. which identify Jesus as יהוה/YHWH

[1] Isa 40:3 ¶ The voice of him that crieth in the wilderness, Prepare ye the way of the LORD [יהוה], make straight in the desert a highway for our God.

N.T. reference.
Matt 3:3 For this is he that was spoken of by the prophet Esaias, saying, The voice of one crying in the wilderness, Prepare ye the way of the Lord, make his paths straight. [Mk 1:3, Lk 3:4, John 1:23]

<>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <><
[2] Ps 8:1 ¶ <<To the chief Musician upon Gittith, A Psalm of David.>> O LORD [&#1497;&#1492;&#1493;&#1492;] our Lord, how excellent is thy name in all the earth! who hast set thy glory above the heavens.
2 Out of the mouth of babes and sucklings hast thou ordained strength because of thine enemies, that thou mightest still the enemy and the avenger.

N.T. reference.
Matt 21:15 And when the chief priests and scribes saw the wonderful things that he did, and the children crying in the temple, and saying, Hosanna to the Son of David; they were sore displeased,
16 And said unto him, Hearest thou what these say? And Jesus saith unto them, Yea; have ye never read, Out of the mouth of babes and sucklings thou hast perfected praise?
<>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <><

[3] Ps 68:18 You have ascended on high; you have carried away captives; you have taken gifts in the form of men, Yes, even the stubborn ones, to reside among them, O Jah God." ("Jah" is an abbreviated form of the name Jehovah.)

N.T. reference.
Eph 4:7-10: "Now to each one of us undeserved kindness was given according to how the Christ measured out the free gift. Wherefore he says: 'When he ascended on high he carried away captives; he gave gifts in men.' Now the expression 'he ascended,' what does it mean but that he also descended into the lower regions, that is, the earth? The very one that descended is also the one that ascended far above all the heavens, that he might give fulness to all things."

<>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <><
[4] Mal 3:1 ¶ Behold, I will send my messenger, and he shall prepare the way before me: and the Lord, whom ye seek, shall suddenly come to his temple, even the messenger of the covenant, whom ye delight in: behold, he shall come, saith the LORD [&#1497;&#1492;&#1493;&#1492; ] of hosts.

N.T. reference.
Luk 1:76 And thou, child, [John] shalt be called the prophet of the Highest: for thou shalt go before the face of the Lord [Jesus] to prepare his ways;

<>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <><
[5] Isa 10:33 Behold, the Lord, the LORD [&#1497;&#1492;&#1493;&#1492;] of hosts, shall lop the bough with terror: and the high ones of stature shall be hewn down, and the haughty shall be humbled.

N.T. reference.
Rom 9:28 For he will finish the work, and cut it short in righteousness: because a short work will the Lord make upon the earth.
<>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <><

[6] Isa 49:23 And kings shall be thy nursing fathers, and their queens thy nursing mothers: they shall bow down to thee with their face toward the earth, and lick up the dust of thy feet; and thou shalt know that I am the LORD [&#1497;&#1492;&#1493;&#1492;]: for they shall not be ashamed that wait for me.

N.T. reference.
Rom 10:11 For the scripture saith, Whosoever believeth on him [the Lord Jesus vs. 9] shall not be ashamed.

1 Pet 2:6 Wherefore also it is contained in the scripture, Behold, I lay in Sion a chief corner stone, elect, precious: and he that believeth on him shall not be confounded.
<>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <><

[7] Joel 2:32 And it shall come to pass, that whosoever shall call on the name of the LORD [&#1497;&#1492;&#1493;&#1492;] shall be delivered: for in mount Zion and in Jerusalem shall be deliverance, as the LORD [&#1497;&#1492;&#1493;&#1492;] hath said, and in the remnant whom the LORD [&#1497;&#1492;&#1493;&#1492;] shall call.

N.T. reference.
Rom 10:13 For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord [Jesus vs. 9] shall be saved.
<>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <><

[8] Isa 45:23 I [&#1497;&#1492;&#1493;&#1492; vs. 21, 24] have sworn by myself, the word is gone out of my mouth in righteousness, and shall not return, That unto me every knee shall bow, every tongue shall swear.

N.T. reference.
Rom 14:11 For it is written, As I live, saith the Lord, [Christ, vs. 10] every knee shall bow to me, and every tongue shall confess to God.

Philip 2:10 That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth;
11 And that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.

<>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <><

[9] Jer 9:24 But let him that glorieth glory in this, that he understandeth and knoweth me, that I am the LORD [&#1497;&#1492;&#1493;&#1492;] which exercise lovingkindness, judgment, and righteousness, in the earth:for in these things I delight, saith the LORD [&#1497;&#1492;&#1493;&#1492;] .

N.T. reference.
1 Cor 1:31 That, according as it is written, He that glorieth, let him glory in the Lord. [Christ, vs. 30]
<>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <><

[10] Num 16:5 And he spake unto Korah and unto all his company, saying, Even to morrow the LORD [&#1497;&#1492;&#1493;&#1492;] will shew who are his, and who is holy; and will cause him to come near unto him: even him whom he hath chosen will he cause to come near unto him.

N.T. reference.
2 Tim 2:19 ¶ Nevertheless the foundation of God standeth sure, having this seal, The Lord knoweth them that are his. And, Let every one that nameth the name of Christ depart from iniquity.
<>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <><

[11] Ps 130:8 And he shall redeem Israel from all his iniquities.

N.T. reference.
Tit 2:13 Looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ;
14 Who gave himself for us, that he might redeem us from all iniquity, and purify unto himself a peculiar people, zealous of good works.
<>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <><
[12] Ps 97:7 Confounded be all they that serve graven images, that boast themselves of idols: worship him, all ye gods.

N.T. reference.
Heb 1:6 And again, when he bringeth in the firstbegotten into the world, he saith, And let all the angels of God worship him.
<>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <><

[13] Ps 45:6 ¶ Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: the sceptre of thy kingdom is a right sceptre.

N.T. reference.
Heb 1:8 But unto the Son he saith, Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: a sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of thy kingdom.
<>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <><

[14] Ps 102:25 Of old hast thou laid the foundation of the earth: and the heavens are the work of thy hands.
26 They shall perish, but thou shalt endure: yea, all of them shall wax old like a garment; as a vesture shalt thou change them, and they shall be changed:
27 But thou art the same, and thy years shall have no end

[15] Isa 51:6 Lift up your eyes to the heavens, and look upon the earth beneath: for the heavens shall vanish away like smoke, and the earth shall wax old like a garment, and they that dwell therein shall die in like manner: but my salvation [&#1497;&#1513;&#1473;&#1493;&#1506;&#1492;] /Yeshuah] shall be for ever, and my righteousness shall not be abolished.

N.T. reference.
Heb 1:10 And, Thou, Lord, [[Jesus/&#1497;&#1513;&#1473;&#1493;&#1506;] /Yeshua, vss. 2, 5, 8, 9] in the beginning hast laid the foundation of the earth; and the heavens are the works of thine hands:
11 They shall perish; but thou remainest; and they all shall wax old as doth a garment;
12 And as a vesture shalt thou fold them up, and they shall be changed: but thou art the same, and thy years shall not fail.
<>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <><
[16] Ps 34:8 O taste and see that the LORD [&#1497;&#1492;&#1493;&#1492;] is good: blessed is the man that trusteth in him.

N.T. reference.
1 Pet 2:3 If so be ye have tasted that the Lord is gracious.
<>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <><
[17] Isa 8:13 Sanctify the LORD [&#1497;&#1492;&#1493;&#1492;] of hosts himself; and let him be your fear, and let him be your dread.

N.T. reference.
1 Pet 3:15 But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts: and be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you with meekness and fear: [Christ, vs. 16]
<>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <><

[18] Zech 12:10 And I [&#1497;&#1492;&#1493;&#1492;] will pour upon the house of David, and upon the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the spirit of grace and of supplications: and they shall look upon me [&#1497;&#1492;&#1493;&#1492;] whom they have pierced, and they shall mourn for him, as one mourneth for his only son, and shall be in bitterness for him, as one that is in bitterness for his firstborn.

N.T. reference.
Rev 1:7 Behold, he cometh with clouds; and every eye shall see him, and they also which pierced him: and all kindreds of the earth shall wail because of him. Even so, Amen.
<>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <><

[19] Jer 17:10 I the LORD [&#1497;&#1492;&#1493;&#1492;] search the heart, I try the reins, even to give every man according to his ways, and according to the fruit of his doings.

N.T. reference.
Rev 2:23 And I will kill her children with death; and all the churches shall know that I am he which searcheth the reins and hearts: and I will give unto every one of you according to your works.
<>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <><
[20] Ps 62:12 Also unto thee, O Lord, belongeth mercy: for thou renderest to every man according to his work.

[21] Isa 40:10 Behold, the Lord GOD [&#1497;&#1492;&#1493;&#1492;] will come with strong hand, and his arm shall rule for him: behold, his reward is with him, and his work before him.

[22]Isa 41:4 Who hath wrought and done it, calling the generations from the beginning? I the LORD, [&#1497;&#1492;&#1493;&#1492;] the first, and with the last; I am he.

[23]Isa 44:6 Thus saith the LORD [&#1497;&#1492;&#1493;&#1492;] the King of Israel, and his redeemer the LORD [&#1497;&#1492;&#1493;&#1492;] of hosts; I am the first, and I am the last; and beside me there is no God.

[24]Isa 48:12 Hearken unto me [&#1497;&#1492;&#1493;&#1492;] O Jacob and Israel, my called; I am he; I am the first, I also am the last.

[25] Isa 62:11 Behold, the LORD [&#1497;&#1492;&#1493;&#1492;] hath proclaimed unto the end of the world, Say ye to the daughter of Zion, Behold, thy salvation [&#1497;&#1513;&#1493;&#1506;&#1492;/Yeshuah] cometh; behold, his reward is with him, and his work before him.

N.T. reference.
Rev 22:12 And, behold, I come quickly; and my reward is with me, (Isa 40:10, 62:11), to give every man according as his work (Ps 62:12, 34:8) shall be.
13 I [Jesus/&#1497;&#1513;&#1493;&#1506;/Yeshua] am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, the first and the last. (Isa 41:4, 44:6, 48:12)
<>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <><
[26] Isa 6:1 In the year that king Uzziah died I saw also the Lord sitting upon a throne, high and lifted up, and his train filled the temple. . .
10 Make the heart of this people fat, and make their ears heavy, and shut their eyes; lest they see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and understand with their heart, and convert, and be healed.

N.T. reference.
Joh 12:39 Therefore they could not believe, because that Esaias said again,
40 He hath blinded their eyes, and hardened their heart; that they should not see with their eyes, nor understand with their heart, and be converted, and I should heal them. (Is 6:10)
41 These things said Esaias, when he saw his glory, and spake of him. (Isa 6:1)​

 

[2ducklow]

You're right. There are contradictions, and there are contradictions. Some are meaningful "paradoxes" and others are actually problematic. In the eye of the beholder? I guess this is where the limitations of logic in comprehending religious experience come into full view. I'll come back to this in a second.

Trinitarian thought can cope with multiple meanings of the word "God" and a distinct development of the concept of God here in John 1. The first "God" refers to "The Father," the second to deitific rank. No problem. I'd like to hear your own interpretation of John 1 -- I know you've already explained it on this thread, but I'd like you to explain it specifically dealing with the problem below:

Gk. pros can mean a variety of things, and translators here are obviously influenced by other interpretative considerations of the text. However, we need not explore that tangent yet, because whatever we take pros to signify, we still have the same problem. "The word was unto God, and the word was God." Something can't be for the purpose of something else, and be that something else at the same time. So now, explain your view of John 1 to me, please.

I think I already did.
the word was god is saying "what god says is god" so that the meaning is the same as if I said "your words ittarter are you" In other words, what we say speaks volumes about who and what we are. Therefore, there is no contradiction or paradoix with my interrpretation between 'the word was towards god" and 'the word was god".


Think about it, I get a totally different impression as to what kind of person you are based on the only evidence I have which is your words, than I do from the words of other fellas in here. I could go into the qualitative predicate nominative grammar of john 1.1c and other similar bible examples such as "God is love" or "love is kind". but I won't. ooops guess i just did. see these words of mine show that i have a joking nature, they identify me.

I wasn't using it in a technical or theological sense. "Nature" means "aspect," I guess, or how one component "fits" into a larger schematic. In this case, the difficulty is reconciling how a single being could possess the divine attributes (e.g. omniscience) and the human attributes (e.g. limitation in knowledge) at the same time. Now THIS is what I call a contradiction. And, unlike making up rules like "God can't become incarnate because there's a verse somewhere in the Bible that says he's spirit," this contradiction is actually made up of distinct propositions that cannot all be assented to logically at the same time. See the difference?

Hard for me to unravel this. But here goes. Jesus isn't omniscient, that is a presumtion on your part because you assume that _________(here is the difficulty in talking to you you won't allow me to say that you believe Jesus is god and you of course don't believe that Jesus is not god {i presume} so i am left with not being ablte to finish the snetence. You have in effect made it impossible for anyone to critique your theology). you say Jesus is go is to simplistic so i guess i would have to quote volumes of your statements and place them in the blank spaces above, thus it is impossible to critique your beliefs.

but _______ it is ony your assumption, so there is no contradiction in the bible, just the one you invented. ______ is the only thing I can call your belief since you have no word for replacing Jesus is god. What I have gathered is that you believe something similar to Jesus is god, but not exactly, but whatever it is there is no name for it.

 

[2ducklow]

Anti-Trinitarians endlessly squabble and bicker about words, used by Trinitarians, trying to express the nature of God, as revealed in scripture. All words are inherently finite and imperfect, therefore the words, "Trinity,&#8221; &#8221;triune,&#8221; &#8221;person," "being," "entity," "substance," "essence,&#8221; &#8221;nature,&#8221; &#8221;who,&#8221; Hypostatic union,," and/or any other words, are totally inadequate to describe God, the infinite, perfect, omniscient, omnipresent, omnipotent. But the fact that human words are finite, limited and imperfect does not prove or disprove anything about the doctrine of the Trinity.

would you say that the words god used in the bible are imperfect, and that god's description of himself in his word is imperfect? would you say the words god chose to describe himself are totally inadequate? IF all words are imperfect would that not mean that god's word is imperfect, since it uses imperfected words?

1. There is one God! The Father is called/referred to as God, in scripture, but the Father is not the Son or the Spirit. Numerous vss. e.g., John 6:27, Gal 1:1, Gal 1:3, Eph 6:23, Philippians 2:11, 1 Thess 1:1, 2 Tim 1:2, Titus 1:4, 1 Peter 1:2, 2 Peter 1:17, et. al.

2. There is one God! The Son is called/referred to as God, in scripture, but the Son is not the Father or the Spirit.

[1] Mat 1:23 Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us.
​

And you believe that the ony possible way to interpret "they shall call his name Emmanuel, wich being interpreted is, God with us" is your way , right? I'm not talking about whether your interpretation is or isn't correct, I mean possibilities. Is it possible that someone could say the words above and mean something different than what you conclude they mean? I'd say there are several possibilities..
​

 

[Der Alte]

Anti-Trinitarians endlessly squabble and bicker about words, used by Trinitarians, trying to express the nature of God, as revealed in scripture. All words are inherently finite and imperfect, therefore the words, "Trinity,” ”triune,” ”person," "being," "entity," "substance," "essence,” ”nature,” ”who,” Hypostatic union,," and/or any other words, are totally inadequate to describe God, the infinite, perfect, omniscient, omnipresent, omnipotent. But the fact that human words are finite, limited and imperfect does not prove or disprove anything about the doctrine of the Trinity.[ . . . ]

[SIZE="-1"]would you say that the words god used in the bible are imperfect, and that god's description of himself in his word is imperfect? would you say the words god chose to describe himself are totally inadequate? IF all words are imperfect would that not mean that god's word is imperfect, since it uses imperfected words?[/SIZE]

Perhaps you might wish to actually read what I wrote and address that? Does any description, in human language, anywhere, absolutely, totally, completely, adequately describe God?

 

[2ducklow]

Perhaps you might wish to actually read what I wrote and address that?

i did. i responded to one of your numerous scirputral examples, i could make the same points with any of them. I already know before hand from prior experience in dealing with you that you are going to phooey louie any alternate interpretation I have for any one of those verses, so my question is are there any other possible interpretations other than yours? can somneone say the words in mat. 1.23 and mean something different than what you presume they mean? Is it possible to say "his name shall be called Immanuel which means God with us." and mean something other by it than that Jesus is god? suppose some overly biased dad says to his daughter, "your name shall be called daddyfilly , which shall mean your dad is with you." is the only possible meaning 'the daughter is her dad"?

Does any description, in human language, anywhere, absolutely, totally, completely, adequately describe God?

, I would say that "god is love" describes god" I would also say that every description of god in the bible is completely accurate. I would also say that we will always be learning more and more about god , so yes human words can do those things. but that we havent discovered all there is to discover about god yet, but what we do discover in the future, will be completely accurate just as the bible is completely accurate. ..

but saying a description isn't accurate is different than saying all words are imperfect. so far you have said descriptions of god are not accurate and words are not perfect or accurate to describe him.

Anti-Trinitarians endlessly squabble and bicker about words, used by Trinitarians, trying to express the nature of God, as revealed in scripture. All words are inherently finite and imperfect, therefore the words, "Trinity,&#8221; &#8221;triune,&#8221; &#8221;person," "being," "entity," "substance," "essence,&#8221; &#8221;nature,&#8221; &#8221;who,&#8221; Hypostatic union,," and/or any other words, are totally inadequate to describe God, the infinite, perfect, omniscient, omnipresent, omnipotent. But the fact that human words are finite, limited and imperfect does not prove or disprove anything about the doctrine of the Trinity.[ . . . ]

am I to presume by your highlights in red that words used by trintiarians are imperfect but words used by god are perfect? If so then why did you say all words are imperfect? Are the words god used perfect or imperfect? Did not god use human words?


It appears to me that you are unwilling to say that the words god used in the bible are or are not imperfect. True?

 

[Zebra1552]

Trinitarians cannot defend their "proof texts", because they need a lot of help from preconcieved ideas.

And that in itself is a preconceived idea. Good job.

 

[Der Alte]

[SIZE=-1] i did. i responded to one of your numerous scirputral examples, i could make the same points with any of them. I already know before hand from prior experience in dealing with you that you are going to phooey louie any alternate interpretation I have for any one of those verses, so my question is are there any other possible interpretations other than yours? can somneone say the words in mat. 1.23 and mean something different than what you presume they mean? Is it possible to say "his name shall be called Immanuel which means God with us." and mean something other by it than that Jesus is god? suppose some overly biased dad says to his daughter, "your name shall be called daddyfilly , which shall mean your dad is with you." is the only possible meaning 'the daughter is her dad"?[/SIZE]

Meaningless mishmash which does NOT address anything posted. If you are saying that Matt 1:23, or any other passage, can be interpreted in different ways, then you have just proved my argument. Human words are limited, finite, and imperfect.

[SIZE=-1]I would say that "god is love" describes god" I would also say that every description of god in the bible is completely accurate. I would also say that we will always be learning more and more about god , so yes human words can do those things. but that we havent discovered all there is to discover about god yet, but what we do discover in the future, will be completely accurate just as the bible is completely accurate. ..

I'm not terribly interested in what you "would say." Does the word "Love" completely, totally, thoroughly express everything about the idea of "Love?" Does the simple word "Love," in and of itself, totally, completely, thoroughly convey the concept of the love of a mother for her child? The love of a child for its mother? The love of a husband for his wife, and vice versa? Does the word "Love," in and of itself, totally, completely, thoroughly convey what Jesus meant when he said "Greater agape has no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends?" If that were true then Paul's description of what love is and is not in Corinthians would not have been necessary.

[SIZE=-1]but saying a description isn't accurate is different than saying all words are imperfect. so far you have said descriptions of god are not accurate and words are not perfect or accurate to describe him.[/SIZE]

Name me one word which, in and of itself, totally, completely, thoroughly conveys the full meaning of the thought it attempts to express?

[SIZE=-1]am I to presume by your highlights in red that words used by trintiarians are imperfect but words used by god are perfect? If so then why did you say all words are imperfect? Are the words god used perfect or imperfect? Did not god use human words?[/SIZE]

Presume whatever you will. God did use human words and ALL, 100% without exception, of human words are limited, finite, and imperfect.

[SIZE="-1"]It appears to me that you are unwilling to say that the words god used in the bible are or are not imperfect. True?[/SIZE]

ALL, 100% without exception, of human words are limited, finite, and imperfect.[/size]

 

[2ducklow]

Meaningless mishmash which does NOT address anything posted. If you are saying that Matt 1:23, or any other passage, can be interpreted in different ways, then you have just proved my argument. Human words are limited, finite, and imperfect. [/qutoe] meaningless mishmash? do i detect a little hostility there?
[qutoe=deralter]



I'm not terribly interested in what you "would say."

yea I know you keep repeating that . you do that cause it's your christian duty to be rude and hostile to anyone who opposes the trinity right?

Does the word "Love" completely, totally, thoroughly express everything about the idea of "Love?" Does the simple word "Love," in and of itself, totally, completely, thoroughly convey the concept of the love of a mother for her child? The love of a child for its mother? The love of a husband for his wife, and vice versa? Does the word "Love," in and of itself, totally, completely, thoroughly convey what Jesus meant when he said "Greater agape has no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends?" If that were true then Paul's description of what love is and is not in Corinthians would not have been necessary.



Name me one word which, in and of itself, totally, completely, thoroughly conveys the full meaning of the thought it attempts to express?



Presume whatever you will. God did use human words and ALL, 100&#37; without exception, of human words are limited, finite, and imperfect.

that would mean that God's word is imperfect.

ALL, 100% without exception, of human words are limited, finite, and imperfect.

so when god said 1 Corinthians 1:4 I thank my God always concerning you, for the grace of God which was given you in Christ Jesus;

Paul didnt thank god he just sorta did something like that cause the word thank is imperfect. right?

 

[Der Alte]

[ . . . ][SIZE="-1"]so when god said 1 Corinthians 1:4 I thank my God always concerning you, for the grace of God which was given you in Christ Jesus;

Paul didnt thank god he just sorta did something like that cause the word thank is imperfect. right?[/SIZE]

I will check back from time to time to see if you are capable of responding to my posts in a truthful, honest manner. If not don't expect a reply.

 

[2ducklow]

I will check back from time to time to see if you are capable of responding to my posts in a truthful, honest manner. If not don't expect a reply.

lol

 

[ittarter]

I think I already did.
the word was god is saying "what god says is god" so that the meaning is the same as if I said "your words ittarter are you" In other words, what we say speaks volumes about who and what we are. Therefore, there is no contradiction or paradoix with my interrpretation between 'the word was towards god" and 'the word was god".

Think about it, I get a totally different impression as to what kind of person you are based on the only evidence I have which is your words, than I do from the words of other fellas in here. I could go into the qualitative predicate nominative grammar of john 1.1c and other similar bible examples such as "God is love" or "love is kind". but I won't. ooops guess i just did. see these words of mine show that i have a joking nature, they identify me.
Hard for me to unravel this. But here goes. Jesus isn't omniscient, that is a presumtion on your part because you assume that _________(here is the difficulty in talking to you you won't allow me to say that you believe Jesus is god and you of course don't believe that Jesus is not god {i presume} so i am left with not being ablte to finish the snetence. You have in effect made it impossible for anyone to critique your theology). you say Jesus is go is to simplistic so i guess i would have to quote volumes of your statements and place them in the blank spaces above, thus it is impossible to critique your beliefs.

That's a creative interpretation. However, most scholarly reflection places of a lot of effort attempting to understand the philosophical and theological roots of Gk. logos. There is the Jewish side and there's the Greek side. Somehow, I'm not exactly sure how, they come up with a much different view of the significance of the word logos. Are you familiar with any of this? What do you make of it?

but _______ it is ony your assumption, so there is no contradiction in the bible, just the one you invented.

Yes, but you were trying to find a contradiction in my inventions, so regardless of whether or not it is biblically supported, I was hoping that it would clarify the difference between a paradox and a contradiction. I know you're responding to a lot of other folks here, so I'm not surprised you're having difficulty following our rather meandering discussion Just so you know, I'm winning

______ is the only thing I can call your belief since you have no word for replacing Jesus is god. What I have gathered is that you believe something similar to Jesus is god, but not exactly, but whatever it is there is no name for it.

I don't think I've been evasive about my beliefs. However, I do try to correct you when you lump me in with a large number of people you've argued with in the past, whom you have labeled "Trinitarians."

The shorthand version, which we've already discussed on numerous occasions, is that Jesus is incarnate deity, God-as-flesh, however you want to put it. However, I would qualify this by saying that I don't mean that God stopped being spirit, and nor do I mean that a single God-human being is free from difficulties. I'm still trying to work them out. Personally, I don't think the biblical writers really cared about working out the difficulties. They knew that Jesus was "one of them" and they also knew that to know him was to know the Father in heaven. The shorthand is to say that Jesus was the divine man -- strange as that may sound.

I hope this helps you critique my suggestions, if that is what you wish to do.

 

[2ducklow]

That's a creative interpretation.

Ummm, i see it as the only possible interpretation, only real possible interrpretation if one takes 'the word' to mean what god says ,as 'the word' is meant everywhere else in the bible. I did come up with the interpretation, it's my baby, but it's not too far from other interpretations I've heard where theos is considered a qualitative predicate nominative. In my opinion, the vast majority of christians have been blinded for centuries to the true meanning of john 1.

However, most scholarly reflection places of a lot of effort attempting to understand the philosophical and theological roots of Gk. logos. There is the Jewish side and there's the Greek side. Somehow, I'm not exactly sure how, they come up with a much different view of the significance of the word logos. Are you familiar with any of this? What do you make of it?

Yea i've read some stuff about it.As I recall it goes something like the Jews before Jesus day thought that it was wrong to utter the name of YHWH because when they came back from babylonian captivity they no longer spoke hebrew so they had a misunderstanding of some heb word that actually didn't mean you couldn't say the name, but that was what they thought it meant. Anyway they substituted the heb.word for word shema i think everywhere YHWH occured so that latter on in christian times they misunderstood the jewish mind and thought that the word was some being. thus the interpretation common amongst most christians for john 1.

Yes, but you were trying to find a contradiction in my inventions, so regardless of whether or not it is biblically supported, I was hoping that it would clarify the difference between a paradox and a contradiction. I know you're responding to a lot of other folks here, so I'm not surprised you're having difficulty following our rather meandering discussion Just so you know, I'm winning

A contradiction is not a paradox. A paradox is ony an apparent contradiction.

I don't think I've been evasive about my beliefs. However, I do try to correct you when you lump me in with a large number of people you've argued with in the past, whom you have labeled "Trinitarians."

The shorthand version, which we've already discussed on numerous occasions, is that Jesus is incarnate deity, God-as-flesh, however you want to put it. However, I would qualify this by saying that I don't mean that God stopped being spirit, and nor do I mean that a single God-human being is free from difficulties. I'm still trying to work them out. Personally, I don't think the biblical writers really cared about working out the difficulties. They knew that Jesus was "one of them" and they also knew that to know him was to know the Father in heaven. The shorthand is to say that Jesus was the divine man -- strange as that may sound.

ok so I gotta say you believe jesus is a divine man or jesus is god-as-flesh or incarnate diety instead of Jesus is god.

so here goes a modified recent response of mine.

. Jesus isn't omniscient, that is a presumtion on your part because you assume that Jesus is ____incarnate diety_____(
but ____incarnate diety ___ it is ony your assumption, so there is no contradiction in the bible, just the one you invented. incarnated diety is yur interpretatin not scripture so it is your intepretation that contradicts scripture not scriputre that contradicts scripture. you are in effect laying t he onus upon god for a contradiction you created with your interpretation, when it is you not god who should explain the contradiction you, not god, created. To say your contradiction just appears to be a contradiction but isn't however it cannot be explained how your created contradiction isn't a contradiction just doesn't wash.

 

[ittarter]

Ummm, i see it as the only possible interpretation, only real possible interrpretation if one takes 'the word' to mean what god says ,as 'the word' is meant everywhere else in the bible. I did come up with the interpretation, it's my baby, but it's not too far from other interpretations I've heard where theos is considered a qualitative predicate nominative. In my opinion, the vast majority of christians have been blinded for centuries to the true meanning of john 1.
Yea i've read some stuff about it.As I recall it goes something like the Jews before Jesus day thought that it was wrong to utter the name of YHWH because when they came back from babylonian captivity they no longer spoke hebrew so they had a misunderstanding of some heb word that actually didn't mean you couldn't say the name, but that was what they thought it meant. Anyway they substituted the heb.word for word shema i think everywhere YHWH occured so that latter on in christian times they misunderstood the jewish mind and thought that the word was some being. thus the interpretation common amongst most christians for john 1.

Except the Hebrews didn't replace it with "Shema" but with "Adonai." This is clear from the Masoretic vowel pointing under the YHWH consonants.

I guess I'll have to look into it myself.

Jesus isn't omniscient, that is a presumtion on your part because you assume that Jesus is ____incarnate diety_____(
but ____incarnate diety ___ it is ony your assumption, so there is no contradiction in the bible, just the one you invented. incarnated diety is yur interpretatin not scripture so it is your intepretation that contradicts scripture not scriputre that contradicts scripture. you are in effect laying t he onus upon god for a contradiction you created with your interpretation, when it is you not god who should explain the contradiction you, not god, created. To say your contradiction just appears to be a contradiction but isn't however it cannot be explained how your created contradiction isn't a contradiction just doesn't wash.

I never said it wasn't a contradiction. I'm admitting a difficulty I have with my own belief, namely, that Jesus can't be omniscient and limited in knowledge simultaneously. I am contrasting this REAL contradiction with the one you accused me of holding, namely, that God is spirit and Jesus is flesh therefore If Jesus is God he is both spirit and flesh and these are mutually exclusive.

I also never said it was a contradiction "in the Bible."

Frankly, I'm tired of correcting your readings of my posts. I've posted over two hundred times and never before has anyone had this much trouble understanding me. So I'm going to call it a day.

Hope your discussions with the others on this thread prove more fruitful than the discussion we had.

 

[2ducklow]

Except the Hebrews didn't replace it with "Shema" but with "Adonai." This is clear from the Masoretic vowel pointing under the YHWH consonants.

I guess I'll have to look into it myself.

I never said it wasn't a contradiction. I'm admitting a difficulty I have with my own belief, namely, that Jesus can't be omniscient and limited in knowledge simultaneously. I am contrasting this REAL contradiction with the one you accused me of holding, namely, that God is spirit and Jesus is flesh therefore If Jesus is God he is both spirit and flesh and these are mutually exclusive.

I said if the man jesus is god, then that would mean that flesh is spirit, not t hat he is both spirit and flesh, i also never said anything about mutually exclusive, you put those words in my mouth,. you misunderstood me, yet it's not ok if i misunderstand you. you went into talking about paradoxes and contradictions with realtion to john 1 ( the word was with/towards god, and the word was god) the way you said it was rather fuzzy to me, but it appeared to me that you were saying that there is a contradiction in john 1.1 so now I'm a bad guy cause i perceived your rather unclear explanation diffently than you intended. . here is the discourse i am refering to.

also you say it is your belief about god being omniscient and Jesus not being omniscent that is a contradiction and not the bible. That is not true. you have interpreted the bible to conclude that Jesus is god,therefore, it is your jesus is god interpretation that isthe contradiction that results in your omnisicent contradiction. if you interpret the bible to mean Jesus is god you are saying that's what the bible means, and thereby making the bible a contradiction. Jesus is god incarnate means Jesus is god. a red chevrolet is still a chevrolet. a holy god is still a god, a merciful god is still a god, a fleshy god is still a god. an incarnated god is still a god. you think you can say jesus is god incarnate and somehow you haven't said Jesus is god, that just isn't so. I never accsused you of saying Jesus is god, but I do now having thought on the matter some. your doctrine is a real can of worms.

(2dl)you are correct.if something is with something it can't be the thing it's with. prob. is, for you that is, that god never said 'the word was with god, he said the word was towards god." contradictions are to you like deep truths too deep to fathom, but to me they are just that contradictions and as such proof that you are wrong.
​

You're right. There are contradictions, and there are contradictions. Some are meaningful "paradoxes" and others are actually problematic. In the eye of the beholder? I guess this is where the limitations of logic in comprehending religious experience come into full view. I'll come back to this in a second.

to me you are saying john 1.1 is a contradiction here.

 

[2ducklow]

to say Jesus is god incarnate but you can't say Jesus is god, is like saying a chevrolet is a passanger car, but you can't say a chevrolet is a car. it is ridiculous to say I have a red chevrolet, but you can't conclude from that that I have a chevrolet.

 

[jpr7]

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.

It's not entirely improbable that Jesus was referencing Exodus 3:14. In the Septuagint, God says in Exodus 3:14, "I am The I Am," the first "I am" is ego eimi. The actual Greek text of John 8:58 records the words ego eimi coming from Jesus' lips. As was customary of Jewish rabbis at the time, they would quote only the first part of a particular Scripture and the hearers knew what followed. It's very probable that when Jesus said ego eimi, His hearers would have filled in the words ho on.

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&#8217; statement, i.e., "I am."

Poor reasoning. The man born blind says it in a certain context. Jesus says his in a certain context. In fact, the grammar is not the same. The "I am" in this statement is used as a copula.

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

More poor reasoning.

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

Because of grammar and context. Jesus specifically says: "Before Abraham was, I am." The "I am" here is not a copula (man born blind), nor does it occur in a wish (Paul). Instead, it occurs in the context of Jesus making a statement about time ("Before Abraham was"). So the words "I am" from Jesus' mouth mean something completely different than the same words from the other two examples you gave. The "I am" from Jesus makes Him unique and quite unlike the other two. Nothing really hard about that to grasp.

 

[2ducklow]

It's not entirely improbable that Jesus was referencing Exodus 3:14. When God says, "I am The I Am," the first "I am" is ego eimi.

would you also say that it is not entirely improbable that Jesus was saying "Before Abraham was, I am he."? He being understood as it is in.

John 8:28 Jesus therefore said, 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 the Father taught me, I speak these things.


he is not in the text but is understood , just as when we say in english I am, he is frequently understood. So it's not a copula if Jesus was saying "I am he." it would be a complete sentence that made sence then. saying I exist or am before abraham was" makes no sense. Which is another reason i discount the possibility that Jesus was uttering I am in reference to god, God never uses poor illogical nonsensical grammar like "I am before he was."

The actual Greek text of John 8:58 records the words ego eimi coming from Jesus' lips. As was customary of Jewish rabbis at the time, they would quote only the first part of a particular Scripture and the hearers knew what followed. It's very probable that when Jesus said ego eimi, His hearers would have filled in the words ho on.

what about the probability that Jesus was claiming to be the christ, the one promised in scripture even before abraham was? after all the whole preceeding discourse to john 8.58 is about Jesus claiming to be the christ, the one the father sent. to me that is more probable, but I will say that it is possible that I am refers to god and that Jesus was uttering some cryptic message. I don't give it much probability though as you do. but even if I am is god's name and Jesus is uttering it, he still isn't claiming to be the i am. If I am is god, then all jesus is saying is "before abraham was , god." you assume jesus is saying 'before abraham was , I am the I am, or I was the I am." that is not in the text. so your interpretation doesn't fit what is actually said, it fits what isn't said.

For me, a very big proof that john 8.58 cannot mean that Jesus was claiming to be god is the fact that at his trial no one accused him of claiming to be god. If Jesus had claimed to have been god, they would have told the sannhedrin and they would immediatly have come and arrested him and put him to death for it. no one took jesus statement "I am" to mean that he was god except latter day christians. by latter day i mean after the birth of logos christology.

It is a grave fallacy for a trinitarian to admit to other possibilities because the trinitarian arguement that their doctrine doesn't make sense but is the only intepretation possible so it has to be falls apart if you admit, as you did indirectly, taht there are other POSSIBLE interpretations to any trinity related verse. so in the future it would be wise of you to stick to no other possibilities, that is if you want to hold on to false trinity doctrine..