Trinity is wrong.

[Jews for Jesus]

There has been a major shift in this forum. Very interesting. Perhaps the reason some would reject the idea of the Trinity is because they have not personally experienced the Holy Spirit who reveals all things. Could this be the reason?

 

[2ducklow]

There has been a major shift in this forum. Very interesting. Perhaps the reason some would reject the idea of the Trinity is because they have not personally experienced the Holy Spirit who reveals all things. Could this be the reason?

no, it's cause trinity makes no sense to us. to us trinity means 3 gods are one god. Plus another biggie for us is that the terminology and word trinity aren't in the bible. I
'd say those are the 2 biggies. But there's lots of other reasons, like all trinity explanations are purposely confusing and no one understands them. Non trinitarians have been saying for centuries that trinity makes no sense, trinitarians have been trying to explain it for centuries and never have. all trinity explanations are failures in logic. or are so confusing that no one has the vaguest idea what they mean cause they don't mean anything, they are just meant to confuse. trinity is confusion, and God is not the author of confusion.

We non trinitarians have experienced and do experience the Holy spirit, do you? anyone who thinks believing in the trinity is necessary to experience the Holy Spirit has such a wrong idea about it it makes me wonder if they even have ever experienced the holy spirit. I experienced the Holy spirit even before i even thought about trinity.

 

[Jews for Jesus]

That sound logical, however since when is God governed by logic, mathematics, or anything? Just because we don't know how to explain God does not mean He isn't what He is. God is obviously very complicated and we have experienced three aspects of him. The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are very biblical and are very much a part of God. So do you reject the wording or the whole concept?

Sometimes I wonder if a pet mouse thinks my right hand and my left hand and my face are different beings? the mouse only perceives three very large objects. What do you think?

 

[2ducklow]

That sound logical, however since when is God governed by logic, mathematics, or anything? Just because we don't know how to explain God does not mean He isn't what He is. God is obviously very complicated and we have experienced three aspects of him. The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are very biblical and are very much a part of God. So do you reject the wording or the whole concept?

you have to decide if you are going to interpret God's word to make sense of not. ON what authority do you decide to interpret God's word illogically?
I say god has instructed us in his word to make sense of his word, not nonsense. ex.

Nehemiah 8:8 So they read in the book in the law of God distinctly, and gave the sense, and caused them to understand the reading.


Giving the sense of god's word causes people to understand, no one understands trinity because it makes no sense. Every scripture that you interpret to make no sense in support of trinity, I can interpret to make sense with and line up with the rest of god"s word.

Sometimes I wonder if a pet mouse thinks my right hand and my left hand and my face are different beings? the mouse only perceives three very large objects. What do you think?

You can't talk to a mouse, God can talk to you, God can make you to understand very complicated things. we are in the image of God, a mouse is not in your image. God's word is meant to enlighten us, to increase our understanding , not decrease it. there is no way you will ever understand how 3 beings are one being, or 3 persons are one god, because it is a contradiciton and contradictions are not understandable. God doesn't contradict himself, when he says God the father is the one and only true god he doesn't contradict it somewhere else in his word by saying oh Jesus is god, and the holy spirit is god and I'm god, that's 3 is one.

John 17:1-3 These things spake Jesus; and lifting up his eyes to heaven, he said, Father, the hour is come; glorify thy Son, that the son may glorify thee: even as thou gavest him authority over all flesh, that to all whom thou hast given him, he should give eternal life. And this is life eternal, that they should know thee the only true God, and him whom thou didst send, even Jesus Christ.

(Rotherham) 1 Corinthians 8:6 [[Yet]], to us, there is one God the Father, of whom are all things, and, we, for him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, through whom are all things, and, we, through him.


So since the bible says god the father is the one and only true God, that should end the debate about anyone else being God, it's a slam dunk for me. I'll take my stand on the word of God.

The real reason most christians hold onto the trinity, iin my opinon, is because their church teaches it, and there isn't anywhere else to go, so people don't wanna rock the boat at theire church so they accept trinity, usually without ever studing it for rfear of finding out it is really bankrubpt scripturally and logically.

 

[Jews for Jesus]

You took my mouse story a little to literal, the focus isn't the mouse and it's intelligence, the focus is size and perspective.

Do you believe that Jesus is the son of God?

 

[2ducklow]

You took my mouse story a little to literal, the focus isn't the mouse and it's intelligence, the focus is size and perspective.

Do you believe that Jesus is the son of God?

You say God is too complicated to understand, I say God has enabled man to understand very complicated things. Contradictions are not understandable,and are not truth.


I believe God created a new human male seed with which he fertilized Mary's egg thus making god the begatter of Jesus and Mary the conciever of Jesus. Jesus is fully human, the new man, sinless because he doesn't have the adamic race on his father's side but has a new creation of god which is sinless, and since sin is passed through the blood, and the blood comes from the father, Jesus was born sinless.

(KJV) Jeremiah 31:22 How long wilt thou go about, O thou backsliding daughter? for the LORD hath created a new thing in the earth, A woman shall compass a man.

Mary, a woman , compassed a man in getting pregnant. the new thing Yahweh created was new human male seed. It is male seed that causes a woman to conceive. Matthew 1.18 says Jesus is a new creation.


Most bibles falsely translate matthew 1.18 to read birth when the word means genesis. There is another word that means birth but bible translators don't want to have to say the beginning of Jesus Christ, which is what theverse means which is what genesis means, amongst other things.

(Douay-Rheims) Matthew 1:18 Now the generation of Christ was in this wise. When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child, of the Holy Ghost.

Our text should be read with 1:1-17 in mind. They are intentionally connected by Matthew. Our lessons begins: "The genesisof Jesus Christ was like this" (v. 18). Mt 1:1 reads: "A book of the genesis of Jesus Christ, son of David, son of Abraham." Matthew could have used other words for "genealogy" or "birth," but he used this word, which is also the Greek title of the first book of scriptures. Similar wording is in the LXX at Gn 2:4 "This is the book of the genesis of heaven and earth;" and in 5:1 "This is the book of the genesis of human beings. In the day God made Adam, according to the image of God he made him." I think Matthew intended a connection between these two sections of chapter 1 and with the first book of scriptures. This is a new beginning -- a new creation.

4 Advent A - Matthew 1.18-25

 

[Jews for Jesus]

Are you saying you have full understanding of God?

 

[2ducklow]

Are you saying you have full understanding of God?

what I just described to you, I would call a full understanding of how Jesus came to be. Jesus is not God, he is god's son, God's boy. A full understanding of god will never happen, we will always be learning throughout eternity more and more about God, but everything we will learn about god will be understandable, and non contradictory. God doesn't contradict himself, Trinity does. Trinity hasn't fulfilled the first requirement of understanding, to be non contradictory. It is man that came up with the contradictory concept of Trinity not god, it is man that claims god is a trinity, not god.It is trinity that is not understandable not God, God is understandable. he explains himself throughout the bible. and he will continue to explain himself to us througho0ut eternity.

 

[Jews for Jesus]

Interesting, When Jesus said to the religious leaders, "Before Abraham, I AM" What do you think He meant?

 

[Der Alte]

[ . . . ]Most bibles falsely translate matthew 1.18 to read birth when the word means genesis. There is another word that means birth but bible translators don't want to have to say the beginning of Jesus Christ, which is what theverse means which is what genesis means, amongst other things.

(Douay-Rheims) Matthew 1:18 Now the generation of Christ was in this wise. When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child, of the Holy Ghost.[ . . . ]

γένεσις , εως , ἡ , ( γενέσθαι ) origin, source , Ὠκεανόν τε θεῶν γένεσιν Il. 14.201 ; Ὠκεανοῦ, ὅς περ γ. πάντεσσι τέτυκται ib. 246 , cf. Pl. Tht. 180d ; beginning , in dual, τοῖν γενεσέοιν ἡ ἑτέρα Id. Phd. 71e . II manner of birth , Hdt. 1.204 , 6.69 , etc.; race, descent , Id. 2.146 ; πατρὸς οὖσα γένεσιν Εὐρύτου S. Tr. 380 ; κατὰ γένεσιν , opp. καθ' υἱοθεσίαν , IG 12(1).181 ( Rhodes ).
2. Astrol., nativity, geniture, AP 11.164 ( Lucill. ), 183 (Id.), Epigr.Gr. 314.21 ( Smyrna ), PLond. 1.98r60 (i A. D.) , Vett.Val. 216.6 : hence, lot, fortune , Astramps. Orac. 16.8 , 23.7 . III production, generation, coming into being , opp. ὄλεθρος , Parm. 8.21 ; more usu. opp. φθορά , Pl. Phlb. 55a , etc.; περὶ γενέσεως καὶ φθορᾶς , title of work by Arist. : generally, formation , πύου Hp. Aph. 2.47 ; origination, making , ἱματίων, περὶ τὰ ἀμφιέσματα , Pl. Plt. 281b , 3 ; γ. καὶ οὐσία δικαιοσύνης Id. R. 359a .
2. = τὸ γίγνεσθαι , becoming , opp. οὐσία , ib. 525b , Ti. 29c , Procl. Inst. 45 ,al. concrete, creation , i.e. all created things , Pl. Phdr. 245e ; γ. καὶ κόσμος Id. Ti. 29e , freq. in Ph. , as 1.3 ,al., cf. Plot. 6.3.2 , etc. race, kind or sort of animals, Pl. Plt. 265b , etc.; family , δίδυμος γ. of the Spartan kings, Id. Lg. 691d . generation, age , Id. Phdr. 252d : pl., Id. Plt. 310d ; κατὰ περίστασιν τῆς γ. according to the circumstances of his time , Porph. Sent. 32 . παιδοπόρος γ. genitalia muliebria, AP 9.311 ( Phil. ). Math., generation of a figure, Papp. 234.4 ,al. origin of a spiral, Id. 272.7 ; ἡ ἐν γ. εὐθεῖα the initial line, Id. 286.22 .

Liddell, Scott, Jones Lexicon of Classical Greek.​

 

[2ducklow]

Interesting, When Jesus said to the religious leaders, "Before Abraham, I AM" What do you think He meant?

I believe he was saying that he was the Christ, the one promised to come even before Abraham. I believe 'he' is understood, just as it is in other places in john 8 like john 8.18

(Young) John 8:18 I am [one] who is testifying of myself, and the Father who sent me doth testify of me.

You will notice one is in brackets meaning it isn't in the Greek, Jesus just said "I am' there, but one or he was understood, just as often when we say i am , the word He is understood like

Are you the american who was in the office yesterday?

answer

I am.


we say I am but like the Greeks we too often mean "I am he." john 8.58 makes sense is if is translated that way,
Before Abraham was , I am he.

it makes no sense the way it is usually translated

Before abraham was, I am.

"I am before abraham was" is a nonsensical translation, yet it's the one in most every bible.

 

[Jews for Jesus]

In John 8:58 Jesus says, "before Abraham was, I Am[1]." Many people make the logical assumption that this is a reference to Exodus 3:14 where God reveals his name to be "I Am" (when he speaks it), or "You Are" (or Yahweh when his people say it). While there appears to be some basic similarity in meaning, the wording of the Greek underlying these verses looks quite different and so it seems unlikely that John intended for us to see a connection between these two verses.[2]

Was "I Am" a way of referring to God? We know that in Judaism in the time of Jesus the Jews had become very conscious of the sacredness of the Divine Name and were afraid to say it publically or even privately (Matt 7:6). For this reason it became common to say "Lord" instead. However, there were other methods used for referring to God besides this ("Power" Matt 26:64, "Heaven" is common in 2 Macc [3]).

Despite the failure of the connection between John 8:58 and Exodus 3:14, it can still be shown that God was known as the "I am" to the Jews, and that they sometimes used this as a way of referring to him. In fact, Psalm 90:2 is almost an exact parallel of John 8:58 - except that mountains are mentioned instead of Abraham, and the words used "You Are" are used instead of "I Am." (Note that only the Greek (LXX) version and not the Hebrew should be used for this comparison. The Hebrew says "You are God" not just "You Are.")

That Jesus' words were a forceful claim to Divinity is immediately apparent - the crowd attempts to stone him. This is something that they would not do if they merely thought he was crazy.

 

[Der Alte]

I believe he was saying that he was the Christ, the one promised to come even before Abraham. I believe 'he' is understood, just as it is in other places in john 8 like john 8.18

(Young) John 8:18 I am [one] who is testifying of myself, and the Father who sent me doth testify of me.

You will notice one is in brackets meaning it isn't in the Greek, Jesus just said "I am' there, but one or he was understood, just as often when we say i am , the word He is understood like

The problem with this comparison is in John 8:18 there is a clear predicate, i.e. "who is testifying of myself." John 8:58 has no such predicate

we say I am but like the Greeks we too often mean "I am he." john 8.58 makes sense is if is translated that way,
Before Abraham was , I am he.

it makes no sense the way it is usually translated

Before abraham was, I am.

Unless it is understood as claiming to be the 'I am.'" Which the Jews clearly understood, otherwise they would not have tried to desecrate the most sacred place in Israel's history, by stoning Jesus in the temple, while violating at least 23 other laws. When one has a PhD/ThD, has been published and peer reviewed, has studied and taught Greek for a number of years then what they say about the Greek might have some merit.

"I am before abraham was" is a nonsensical translation, yet it's the one in most every bible.

No, what is in most Bibles is, "Before Abraham was I am." The early church, all of whom spoke Greek did NOT have any trouble understanding what John wrote and what Jesus said.

Link to Early Church Fathers

Irenaeus Against Heresies Book IV [A.D. 120-202.] A disciple of Polycarp, one of John’s disciples.

And in that He points out, by means of His own advent, the ignorance of a people in a servile condition. But when He terms His disciples “the friends of God,” He plainly declares Himself to be the Word of God, whom Abraham also followed voluntarily and under no compulsion (sine vinculis), because of the noble nature of his faith, and so became “the friend of God.” But the Word of God did not accept of the friendship of Abraham, as though He stood in need of it, for He was perfect from the beginning (“Before Abraham was,” He says, “I am”), but that He in His goodness might bestow eternal life upon Abraham himself, inasmuch as the friendship of God imparts immortality to those who embrace it.

From The Lost Writings Of Irenaeus

The sacred books acknowledge with regard to Christ, that as He is the Son of man, so is the same Being not a [mere] man; and as He is flesh, so is He also spirit, and the Word of God, and God. And as He was born of Mary in the last times, so did He also proceed from God as the First-begotten of every creature; and as He hungered, so did He satisfy [others]; and as He thirsted, so did He of old cause the Jews to drink, for the “Rock was Christ” Himself: thus does Jesus now give to His believing people power to drink spiritual waters, which spring up to life eternal. And as He was the son of David, so was He also the Lord of David. And as He was from Abraham, so did He also exist before Abraham. And as He was the servant of God, so is He the Son of God, and Lord of the universe.

Origen Against Celsus Book 8 [A.D. 185-254]

And the multitude of them that believed were of one heart and of one soul,” that he may understand the meaning of the saying, “I and My Father are one.” We worship one God, the Father and the Son, therefore, as we have explained; and our argument against the worship of other gods still continues valid. And we do not “reverence beyond measure one who has but lately appeared,” as though He did not exist before; for we believe Himself when He says, “Before Abraham was, I am.” Again He says, “I am the truth;” and surely none of us is so simple as to suppose that truth did not exist before the time when Christ appeared. We worship, therefore, the Father of truth, and the Son, who is the truth; and these, while they are two, considered as persons or subsistences, are one in unity of thought, in harmony and in identity of will. So entirely are they one, that he who has seen the Son, “who is the brightness of God’s glory, and the express image of His person,” has seen in Him who is the image, of God, God Himself.

Novatian Concerning The Trinity [A.D. 210-280]

It has as much described Jesus Christ to be man, as moreover it has also described Christ the Lord to be God. Because it does not set forth Him to be the Son of God only, but also the Son of man; nor does it only say, the Son of man, but it has also been accustomed to speak of Him as the Son of God. So that being of both, He is both, lest if He should be one only, He could not be the other. For as nature itself has prescribed that he must be believed to be a man who is of man, so the same nature prescribes also that He must be believed to be God who is of God; but if he should not also be God when he is of God, no more should he be man although he should be of man. And thus both doctrines would be endangered in one and the other way, by one being convicted to have lost belief in the other. Let them, therefore, who read that Jesus Christ the Son of man is man, read also that this same Jesus is called also God and the Son of God. For in the manner that as man He is of Abraham, so also as God He is before Abraham himself. And in the same manner as He is as man the “Son of David,” so as God He is proclaimed David’s Lord. And in the same manner as He was made as man “under the law,” so as God He is declared to be “Lord of the Sabbath.”

A Treatise Of Novatian Concerning The Trinity [A.D. 210-280]

“And God,” says he, “was the Word.” Therefore God proceeded from God, in that the Word which proceeded is God, who proceeded forth from God. If Christ is only man, how does He say, “If any man shall keep my word, he shall not see death for ever?” Not to see death for ever! what is this but immortality? But immortality is the associate of divinity, because both the divinity is immortal, and immortality is the fruit of divinity. For every man is mortal; and immortality cannot be from that which is mortal. Therefore from Christ, as a mortal man, immortality cannot arise. “But,” says He, “whosoever keepeth my word, shall not see death for ever;” therefore the word of Christ affords immortality, and by immortality affords divinity. But although it is not possible to maintain that one who is himself mortal can make another immortal, yet this word of Christ not only sets forth, but affords immortality: certainly He is not man only who gives immortality, which if He were only man He could not give; but by giving divinity by immortality, He proves Himself to be God by offering divinity, which if He were not God He could not give. If Christ was only man, how did He say, “Before Abraham was, I Am?” For no man can be before Him from whom he himself is; nor can it be that any one should have been prior to him of whom he himself has taken his origin. And yet Christ, although He is born of Abraham, says that He is before Abraham. Either, therefore, He says what is not true, and deceives, if He was not before Abraham, seeing that He was of Abraham; or He does not deceive, if He is also God, and was before Abraham. And if this were not so, it follows that, being of Abraham, He could not be before Abraham. If Christ was only man, how does He say, “And I know them, and my sheep follow me; and I give unto them eternal life, and they shall never perish?” And yet, since every man is bound by the laws of mortality, and therefore is unable to keep himself for ever, much more will he be unable to keep another for ever. But Christ promises to give salvation for ever, which if He does not give, He is a deceiver; if He gives, He is God. But He does not deceive, for He gives what He promises. Therefore He is God who proffers eternal salvation, which man, being unable to keep himself for ever, cannot be able to give to another. If Christ is only man, what is that which He says, “I and the Father are one?” For how can it be that “I and the Father are one,” if He is not both God and the Son? — who may therefore be called one, seeing that He is of Himself, being both His Son, and being born of Him, being declared to have proceeded from Him, by which He is also God;which when the Jews thought to be hateful, and believed to be blasphemous, for that He had shown Himself in these discourses to be God, and therefore rushed at once to stoning, and set to work passionately to hurl stones, He strongly refuted His adversaries by the example and witness of the Scriptures. “If,” said He, “He called them gods to whom the words of God were given, and the Scriptures cannot be broken, ye say of Him whom the Father sanctified, and sent into this world, Thou blasphemest, because I said, I am the Son of God.” By which words He did not deny Himself to be God, but rather He confirmed the assertion that He was God.​

 

[Der Alte]

In John 8:58 Jesus says, "before Abraham was, I Am[1]." Many people make the logical assumption that this is a reference to Exodus 3:14 where God reveals his name to be "I Am" (when he speaks it), or "You Are" (or Yahweh when his people say it). While there appears to be some basic similarity in meaning, the wording of the Greek underlying these verses looks quite different and so it seems unlikely that John intended for us to see a connection between these two verses.[2]

Was "I Am" a way of referring to God? We know that in Judaism in the time of Jesus the Jews had become very conscious of the sacredness of the Divine Name and were afraid to say it publically or even privately (Matt 7:6). For this reason it became common to say "Lord" instead. However, there were other methods used for referring to God besides this ("Power" Matt 26:64, "Heaven" is common in 2 Macc [3]).

Despite the failure of the connection between John 8:58 and Exodus 3:14, it can still be shown that God was known as the "I am" to the Jews, and that they sometimes used this as a way of referring to him. In fact, Psalm 90:2 is almost an exact parallel of John 8:58 - except that mountains are mentioned instead of Abraham, and the words used "You Are" are used instead of "I Am." (Note that only the Greek (LXX) version and not the Hebrew should be used for this comparison. The Hebrew says "You are God" not just "You Are.")

That Jesus' words were a forceful claim to Divinity is immediately apparent - the crowd attempts to stone him. This is something that they would not do if they merely thought he was crazy.

It was a crowd, rather a mob, which was led by the priests, scribes, and Pharisees. There is another phrase, [size=+1] אני־הוא, translated "Ego Eimi" in the LXX. In the book of Isaiah it is only used of YHWH

(1) De 32:39 ¶ See now that I, even I, am he, (Hebrew: [size=+1] אני־הוא[/size]/LXX: [size=+1]εγω ειμι[/size]) and there is no god with me: I kill, and I make alive; I wound, and I heal: neither is there any that can deliver out of my hand.

(2) Isa 41:4 Who hath wrought and done it, calling the generations from the beginning? I the LORD, the first, and with the last; I am he. ([size=+1] אני־הוא/εγω ειμι[/size])

(3) Isa 43:10 Ye are my witnesses, saith the LORD, and my servant whom I have chosen: that ye may know and believe me, and understand that I am he ([size=+1] אני־הוא/εγω ειμι[/size]): before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me.

(4) Isa 43:13 Yea, before the day was I am he ([size=+1] אני־הוא/εγω ειμι[/size]); and there is none that can deliver out of my hand: I will work, and who shall let it?

(5) Isa 43:25 I, even I, am he ([size=+1] אני־הוא/εγω ειμι[/size]) that blotteth out thy transgressions for mine own sake, and will not remember thy sins.

(6) Isa 46:4 And even to your old age I am he ([size=+1] אני־הוא/εγω ειμι[/size]); and even to hoar hairs will I carry you: I have made, and I will bear; even I will carry, and will deliver you.

(7) Isa 48:12 Hearken unto me, O Jacob and Israel, my called; I am he ([size=+1] אני־הוא/εγω ειμι[/size]); I am the first, I also am the last.

(8) Isa 51:12 I, even I, am he ([size=+1] אני־הוא/εγω ειμι[/size]) that comforteth you: who art thou, that thou shouldest be afraid of a man that shall die, and of the son of man which shall be made as grass;

(9) Isa 52:6 Therefore my people shall know my name: therefore they shall know in that day that I am he ([size=+1] אני־הוא/εγω ειμι[/size]) that doth speak: behold, it is I.​

In these two passages YHWH punishes Tyrus and Babylon for claiming to be "I am," [size=+1] אני־הוא/εγω ειμι[/size]

Eze 28:2 Son of man, say unto the prince of Tyrus, Thus saith the Lord GOD; Because thine heart is lifted up, and thou hast said, I am ([size=+1] אני־הוא/εγω ειμι[/size]) a God, I sit in the seat of God, in the midst of the seas; yet thou art a man, and not God, though thou set thine heart as the heart of God:
. . .
Eze 28:9 Wilt thou yet say before him that slayeth thee, I am ([size=+1] אני־הוא/εγω ειμι[/size]) God? but thou shalt be a man, and no God, in the hand of him that slayeth thee.

Isaiah 47:8,10 [Jehovah speaking to Babylon:] "Now, then, hear this, you sensual one, Who dwells securely, Who [Babylon speaking] says in your heart, ‘I am, ([size=+1] אני־הוא/εγω ειμι[/size]) and there is no one besides me. I shall not sit as a widow, Nor shall I know loss of children.’ 10 "And you felt secure in your wickedness and said, ‘No one sees me,’ Your wisdom and your knowledge, they have deluded you; For you have said in your heart, ‘I am, ([size=+1] אני־הוא/εγω ειμι[/size]) and there is no one besides me.’

Jewish Encyclopedia — NAMES OF GOD.

The pronoun "Ani" (I) is a name of God (Suk. iv. 5). The first verse in Ezekiel ("we-Ani") refers to God (Tos. Suk. 45a). Hillel's epigram "If I [am] here everything is here" (Suk. 53a) is interpreted as referring to God.

JewishEncyclopedia.com - NAMES OF GOD.​

[/SIZE]

 

[2ducklow]

In John 8:58 Jesus says, "before Abraham was, I Am[1]." Many people make the logical assumption that this is a reference to Exodus 3:14 where God reveals his name to be "I Am" (when he speaks it), or "You Are" (or Yahweh when his people say it). While there appears to be some basic similarity in meaning, the wording of the Greek underlying these verses looks quite different and so it seems unlikely that John intended for us to see a connection between these two verses.[2]

Was "I Am" a way of referring to God? We know that in Judaism in the time of Jesus the Jews had become very conscious of the sacredness of the Divine Name and were afraid to say it publically or even privately (Matt 7:6). For this reason it became common to say "Lord" instead. However, there were other methods used for referring to God besides this ("Power" Matt 26:64, "Heaven" is common in 2 Macc [3]).

Despite the failure of the connection between John 8:58 and Exodus 3:14, it can still be shown that God was known as the "I am" to the Jews, and that they sometimes used this as a way of referring to him. In fact, Psalm 90:2 is almost an exact parallel of John 8:58 - except that mountains are mentioned instead of Abraham, and the words used "You Are" are used instead of "I Am." (Note that only the Greek (LXX) version and not the Hebrew should be used for this comparison. The Hebrew says "You are God" not just "You Are.")

That Jesus' words were a forceful claim to Divinity is immediately apparent - the crowd attempts to stone him. This is something that they would not do if they merely thought he was crazy.

Most of the sources you quoted are saying that John 8.58 is not a reference to Jesus being God. It appears that you are saying that you believe john 8.58 is a reference to Jesus claiming diety, based on the attempted stoning of him, and that he could only have been stoned for claiming to be God.

My counter argument would be that john 8 is a discourse by Jesus in which he is claiming to be the Christ. I don't see how any verse in john 8 , except verse 58, could be considered as Jesus claiming divinity.
Example.

John 8:25-26 They said therefore unto him, Who art thou? Jesus said unto them, Even that which I have also spoken unto you from the beginning. I have many things to speak and to judge concerning you: howbeit he that sent me is true; and the things which I heard from him, these speak I unto the world.


Jesus here is talking about the Father sending him, i.e. the christ. the whole of chapter 8 is about Jesus claimiing to be christ. looke at john 10.

John 10:24-25 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. 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 did not plainly tell them in john 8 that he was the christ, so they wanted a direct statement and asked for one in john 10, but again Jesus refused to tell them directly that he was the christ.

now look at this

John 10:30-32 I and the Father are one. The Jews took up stones again to stone him. Jesus answered them, Many good works have I showed you from the Father; for which of those works do ye stone me?

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

the second time they attempted to Stone Jesus for 2 reason. 1. because of the blasphemy of falsely (in their minds) claimng to be the Christ, and 2. for saying 'I and my Father are one', which they falsely interrpeted, as do many day christians, to mean that Jesus was claiming to be God.

Plus, at Jesus trial he was put to death for claiming to be the Christ, not for claiming to be god.

Plus no one says after john 8.58 why they attempeted to stone him. NO one says he is claiming to be god by saying "I am". there are no verses prior to john 8.58 in which Jesus could be seen claiming to be God, Everything in john 8. is describing Jesus as the Christ, "my father who sent me". so if Jesus is saying the divine name in john 8 it's out of the blue, and it would merely be jesus saying the divine name, doesn't necessarily mean he is the I am because he said I am.

 

[2ducklow]

It was a crowd, rather a mob, which was led by the priests, scribes, and Pharisees. There is another phrase, [SIZE=+1]אני־הוא, translated "Ego Eimi" in the LXX. In the book of Isaiah it is only used of YHWH

(1) De 32:39 ¶ See now that I, even I, am he, (Hebrew: [SIZE=+1]אני־הוא[/SIZE]/LXX: [SIZE=+1]εγω ειμι[/SIZE]) and there is no god with me: I kill, and I make alive; I wound, and I heal: neither is there any that can deliver out of my hand.
​

[/SIZE]

(Young) Deuteronomy 32:39 See ye, now, that I--I [am] He, And there is no god with Me: I put to death, and I keep alive; I have smitten, and I heal; And there is not from My hand a deliverer,

Young says 'am' is not in the hebrew.

(2) Isa 41:4 Who hath wrought and done it, calling the generations from the beginning? I the LORD, the first, and with the last; I am he. ([SIZE=+1] אני־הוא/εγω ειμι

)

(Young) Isaiah 41:4 Who hath wrought and done, Calling the generations from the first? I, Jehovah, the first, and with the last I [am] He.

Am is in brackets. it's not in the hebrew.

(3) Isa 43:10 Ye are my witnesses, saith the LORD, and my servant whom I have chosen: that ye may know and believe me, and understand that I am he ([SIZE=+1] אני־הוא/εγω ειμι[/SIZE]): before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me.

(Young) Isaiah 43:10 Ye [are] My witnesses, an affirmation of Jehovah, And My servant whom I have chosen, So that ye know and give credence to Me, And understand that I [am] He, Before Me there was no God formed, And after Me there is none.

am is in brackets, it's not in the hebrew.

(4) Isa 43:13 Yea, before the day was I am he ([SIZE=+1] אני־הוא/εγω ειμι[/SIZE]); and there is none that can deliver out of my hand: I will work, and who shall let it?

(5) Isa 43:25 I, even I, am he ([SIZE=+1] אני־הוא/εγω ειμι[/SIZE]) that blotteth out thy transgressions for mine own sake, and will not remember thy sins.

(6) Isa 46:4 And even to your old age I am he ([SIZE=+1] אני־הוא/εγω ειμι[/SIZE]); and even to hoar hairs will I carry you: I have made, and I will bear; even I will carry, and will deliver you.

(7) Isa 48:12 Hearken unto me, O Jacob and Israel, my called; I am he ([SIZE=+1] אני־הוא/εγω ειμι[/SIZE]); I am the first, I also am the last.

(8) Isa 51:12 I, even I, am he ([SIZE=+1] אני־הוא/εγω ειμι[/SIZE]) that comforteth you: who art thou, that thou shouldest be afraid of a man that shall die, and of the son of man which shall be made as grass;

(9) Isa 52:6 Therefore my people shall know my name: therefore they shall know in that day that I am he ([SIZE=+1] אני־הוא/εγω ειμι[/SIZE]) that doth speak: behold, it is I.

In these two passages YHWH punishes Tyrus and Babylon for claiming to be "I am," [SIZE=+1]אני־הוא/εγω ειμι[/SIZE]

Eze 28:2 Son of man, say unto the prince of Tyrus, Thus saith the Lord GOD; Because thine heart is lifted up, and thou hast said, I am ([SIZE=+1] אני־הוא/εγω ειμι[/SIZE]) a God, I sit in the seat of God, in the midst of the seas; yet thou art a man, and not God, though thou set thine heart as the heart of God:
. . .
Eze 28:9 Wilt thou yet say before him that slayeth thee, I am ([SIZE=+1] אני־הוא/εγω ειμι[/SIZE]) God? but thou shalt be a man, and no God, in the hand of him that slayeth thee.
​

these two verses have god saying "I am God" not "I am".

Isaiah 47:8,10 [Jehovah speaking to Babylon:] "Now, then, hear this, you sensual one, Who dwells securely, Who [Babylon speaking] says in your heart, ‘I am, ([SIZE=+1] אני־הוא/εγω ειμι[/SIZE]) and there is no one besides me. I shall not sit as a widow, Nor shall I know loss of children.’ 10 "And you felt secure in your wickedness and said, ‘No one sees me,’ Your wisdom and your knowledge, they have deluded you; For you have said in your heart, ‘I am, ([SIZE=+1] אני־הוא/εγω ειμι[/SIZE]) and there is no one besides me.’

Jewish Encyclopedia — NAMES OF GOD.

The pronoun "Ani" (I) is a name of God (Suk. iv. 5). The first verse in Ezekiel ("we-Ani") refers to God (Tos. Suk. 45a). Hillel's epigram "If I [am] here everything is here" (Suk. 53a) is interpreted as referring to God.

JewishEncyclopedia.com - NAMES OF GOD.

I dont' really follow this bit from the Jewish encylopedia, Ani and suk. and tos suk, are Greek to me. ( Just a joke son) but the verse in Isa. doesnt say I am. it just says I

[SIZE=+0](Young) Isaiah 47:8 And now, hear this, O luxurious one, Who is sitting confidently--Who is saying in her heart, `I [am], and none else, I sit not a widow, nor know bereavement.'[/SIZE]

ex. 3.14 says I am or I will become, depending on whose opinon of the meaing of the hebrew you believe, the None of the verses you quoted say I am in the hebrew. they all say I or I am God.

(Rotherham) Exodus 3:14 And God said unto Moses, I Will Become whatsoever I please, And he said--Thus, shalt thou say to the sons of Israel, I Will Become hath sent me unto you.

Young) Exodus 3:14 And God saith unto Moses, `I AM THAT WHICH I AM;' He saith also, `Thus dost thou say to the sons of Israel, I AM hath sent me unto you.'
​

[/SIZE]

 

[Der Alte]

Young says 'am' is not in the hebrew.

Am is in brackets. it's not in the hebrew.

am is in brackets, it's not in the hebrew.

Irrelevant! Irrelevant! Irrelevant! "Ani Hu" was translated as "Ego Eimi" by Jewish scholars before Christ!

I dont' really follow this bit from the Jewish encylopedia, Ani and suk. and tos suk, are Greek to me. ( Just a joke son) but the verse in Isa. doesnt say I am. it just says I

(Young) Isaiah 47:8 And now, hear this, O luxurious one, Who is sitting confidently--Who is saying in her heart, `I [am], and none else, I sit not a widow, nor know bereavement.'

Again translated by Jewish scholars as "Ego Eimi" before Christ. אני was understood as "Ani [Hu]", i.e. "I am."

 

[2ducklow]

The problem with this comparison is in John 8:18 there is a clear predicate, i.e. "who is testifying of myself." John 8:58 has no such predicate

The predicate for John 8.58 is Jesus entire discourse in john 8 wherein he identifies himself as the Christ. where is the predicate for Jesus being God before John 8. 58? there is none. there is only the predicate of Jesus claiming to be the Christ.

It's clear to me. It wasn't clear to the Jews, as they pointed out in john 10.24-25

Unless it is understood as claiming to be the 'I am.'" Which the Jews clearly understood, otherwise they would not have tried to desecrate the most sacred place in Israel's history, by stoning Jesus in the temple, while violating at least 23 other laws. When one has a PhD/ThD, has been published and peer reviewed, has studied and taught Greek for a number of years then what they say about the Greek might have some merit.

Jesus was put to death for claiming to be the christ with an illegal trial by the head Jews, in the temple. The Jews were not above breaking the law in any holy place. . They tried to stone him twice for claiming to be the christ which they call blasphemy in john 10;24.

No, what is in most Bibles is, "Before Abraham was I am." The early church, all of whom spoke Greek did NOT have any trouble understanding what John wrote and what Jesus said.

Link to Early Church Fathers
​

Irenaeus Against Heresies Book IV [A.D. 120-202.] A disciple of Polycarp, one of John’s disciples.

And in that He points out, by means of His own advent, the ignorance of a people in a servile condition. But when He terms His disciples “the friends of God,” He plainly declares Himself to be the Word of God, whom Abraham also followed voluntarily and under no compulsion (sine vinculis), because of the noble nature of his faith, and so became “the friend of God.” But the Word of God did not accept of the friendship of Abraham, as though He stood in need of it, for He was perfect from the beginning (“Before Abraham was,” He says, “I am”), but that He in His goodness might bestow eternal life upon Abraham himself, inasmuch as the friendship of God imparts immortality to those who embrace it.

From The Lost Writings Of Irenaeus

The sacred books acknowledge with regard to Christ, that as He is the Son of man, so is the same Being not a [mere] man; and as He is flesh, so is He also spirit, and the Word of God, and God. And as He was born of Mary in the last times, so did He also proceed from God as the First-begotten of every creature; and as He hungered, so did He satisfy [others]; and as He thirsted, so did He of old cause the Jews to drink, for the “Rock was Christ” Himself: thus does Jesus now give to His believing people power to drink spiritual waters, which spring up to life eternal. And as He was the son of David, so was He also the Lord of David. And as He was from Abraham, so did He also exist before Abraham. And as He was the servant of God, so is He the Son of God, and Lord of the universe.

Origen Against Celsus Book 8 [A.D. 185-254]

And the multitude of them that believed were of one heart and of one soul,” that he may understand the meaning of the saying, “I and My Father are one.” We worship one God, the Father and the Son, therefore, as we have explained; and our argument against the worship of other gods still continues valid. And we do not “reverence beyond measure one who has but lately appeared,” as though He did not exist before; for we believe Himself when He says, “Before Abraham was, I am.” Again He says, “I am the truth;” and surely none of us is so simple as to suppose that truth did not exist before the time when Christ appeared. We worship, therefore, the Father of truth, and the Son, who is the truth; and these, while they are two, considered as persons or subsistences, are one in unity of thought, in harmony and in identity of will. So entirely are they one, that he who has seen the Son, “who is the brightness of God’s glory, and the express image of His person,” has seen in Him who is the image, of God, God Himself.

Novatian Concerning The Trinity [A.D. 210-280]

It has as much described Jesus Christ to be man, as moreover it has also described Christ the Lord to be God. Because it does not set forth Him to be the Son of God only, but also the Son of man; nor does it only say, the Son of man, but it has also been accustomed to speak of Him as the Son of God. So that being of both, He is both, lest if He should be one only, He could not be the other. For as nature itself has prescribed that he must be believed to be a man who is of man, so the same nature prescribes also that He must be believed to be God who is of God; but if he should not also be God when he is of God, no more should he be man although he should be of man. And thus both doctrines would be endangered in one and the other way, by one being convicted to have lost belief in the other. Let them, therefore, who read that Jesus Christ the Son of man is man, read also that this same Jesus is called also God and the Son of God. For in the manner that as man He is of Abraham, so also as God He is before Abraham himself. And in the same manner as He is as man the “Son of David,” so as God He is proclaimed David’s Lord. And in the same manner as He was made as man “under the law,” so as God He is declared to be “Lord of the Sabbath.”

A Treatise Of Novatian Concerning The Trinity [A.D. 210-280]

“And God,” says he, “was the Word.” Therefore God proceeded from God, in that the Word which proceeded is God, who proceeded forth from God. If Christ is only man, how does He say, “If any man shall keep my word, he shall not see death for ever?” Not to see death for ever! what is this but immortality? But immortality is the associate of divinity, because both the divinity is immortal, and immortality is the fruit of divinity. For every man is mortal; and immortality cannot be from that which is mortal. Therefore from Christ, as a mortal man, immortality cannot arise. “But,” says He, “whosoever keepeth my word, shall not see death for ever;” therefore the word of Christ affords immortality, and by immortality affords divinity. But although it is not possible to maintain that one who is himself mortal can make another immortal, yet this word of Christ not only sets forth, but affords immortality: certainly He is not man only who gives immortality, which if He were only man He could not give; but by giving divinity by immortality, He proves Himself to be God by offering divinity, which if He were not God He could not give. If Christ was only man, how did He say, “Before Abraham was, I Am?” For no man can be before Him from whom he himself is; nor can it be that any one should have been prior to him of whom he himself has taken his origin. And yet Christ, although He is born of Abraham, says that He is before Abraham. Either, therefore, He says what is not true, and deceives, if He was not before Abraham, seeing that He was of Abraham; or He does not deceive, if He is also God, and was before Abraham. And if this were not so, it follows that, being of Abraham, He could not be before Abraham. If Christ was only man, how does He say, “And I know them, and my sheep follow me; and I give unto them eternal life, and they shall never perish?” And yet, since every man is bound by the laws of mortality, and therefore is unable to keep himself for ever, much more will he be unable to keep another for ever. But Christ promises to give salvation for ever, which if He does not give, He is a deceiver; if He gives, He is God. But He does not deceive, for He gives what He promises. Therefore He is God who proffers eternal salvation, which man, being unable to keep himself for ever, cannot be able to give to another. If Christ is only man, what is that which He says, “I and the Father are one?” For how can it be that “I and the Father are one,” if He is not both God and the Son? — who may therefore be called one, seeing that He is of Himself, being both His Son, and being born of Him, being declared to have proceeded from Him, by which He is also God;which when the Jews thought to be hateful, and believed to be blasphemous, for that He had shown Himself in these discourses to be God, and therefore rushed at once to stoning, and set to work passionately to hurl stones, He strongly refuted His adversaries by the example and witness of the Scriptures. “If,” said He, “He called them gods to whom the words of God were given, and the Scriptures cannot be broken, ye say of Him whom the Father sanctified, and sent into this world, Thou blasphemest, because I said, I am the Son of God.” By which words He did not deny Himself to be God, but rather He confirmed the assertion that He was God.
​

Just peoples opinons. I don't get my doctrine from early christians. their opinon isn't anymore or less valid than anyones modern or ancient. I know they are to you, but not to me.

 

[2ducklow]

Irrelevant! Irrelevant! Irrelevant! "Ani Hu" was translated as "Ego Eimi" by Jewish scholars before Christ!



Again translated by Jewish scholars as "Ego Eimi" before Christ. אני was understood as "Ani [Hu]", i.e. "I am."

I read some on the ani hu / ego eimi / Divine name arguments both pro and con. It's not something I'm very vcersed in.

 

[Der Alte]

The predicate for John 8.58 is Jesus entire discourse in john 8 wherein he identifies himself as the Christ. It's clear to me. It wasn't clear to the Jews, as they pointed out in john 10.24-25

What is clear to you is irrelevant. Jesus entered the temple John 8:2 and the word Christ or Messiah is NEVER mentioned in the entire chapter. The Jews attempted to stone Jesus in the temple the second time, because according to them he was making himself God, 10:33.

Jesus was put to death for claiming to be the christ with an illegal trial by the head Jews, in the temple. The Jews were not above breaking the law in any holy place. .

When was the illegal trial in the temple? And you know that the Jews were willing to break the law even in the temple how? Can you conceive of religious leaders who would openly break the law in their place of worship in front of witnesses?

They tried to stone him twice for claiming to be the christ which they call blasphemy in john 10;24.

There is no mention of blasphemy in John 10:24.

Just peoples opinons. I don't get my doctrine from early christians. their opinon isn't anymore or less valid than anyones modern or ancient. I know they are to you, but not to me.

Yeah right! You would quote Osama Bin Laden if you thought it would support your argument. What I quoted was the only extant history of the early church that Jesus built on the rock and against which the gates of hell could not prevail. Check any lexicon these same early leaders are cited in determining the meaning of words. See e.g. the entry for θεός/Theos from BAGD.

2. Some writings in our lit. use the word θεός. w. ref. to Christ (without necessarily equating Christ with the Father), though the interpretation of some of the pass. is in debate. In Ro 9:5 the interpr. depends on the punctuation. If a period is placed before oJ w]n ktl., the doxology refers to God (so EAbbot, JBL 1, 1881, 81-154; 3, 1883, 90-112; RALipsius; HHoltzmann, Ntl. Theol. 2 II ’11, 99 f ; EGünther, StKr 73, ’00, 636-44; FCBurkitt, JTS 5, ’04, 451-5; Jülicher; PFeine, Theol. d. NTs 6 ’34, 176; OHoltzmann; Ltzm. ; AMBrouwer; RSV text).—If a comma is used in the same place, the reference is to Christ (so BWeiss; EBröse, NKZ 10, 1899, 645-57; ASchlatter; ThZahn; EKühl; PAlthaus; M-JLagrange; JSickenberger; RSV mg. S. also eijmiv I1.—Undecided: ThHaering.—The conjecture of the Socinian scholar JSchlichting [died 1661] w|n oJ =‘to whom belongs’ is revived by JWeiss, most recently in D. Urchristentum ’17, 363; WWrede, Pls ’05, 82; CStrömman, ZNW 8, ’07, 319 f ). In 2 Pt 1:1 ; 1J 5:20 the interpretation is open to question. On the other hand, q. certainly refers to Christ in the foll. NT pass. : J 1:1 b ( w. oJ qeov" 1: 1a, which refers to God the Father; on qeov" w. and without the article, acc. to whether it means God or the Logos, s. Phil o, Somn. 1, 22 9 f; JGGriffiths, ET 62, ’50 f , 314-16; BMMetzger, ET 63, ’51 f , 125 f ), 18b. oJ kuvriov" mou kai; oJ qeov" mou my Lord and my God! ( nom. w. art . =voc .; s. beg. of this entry.—On the resurrection as proof of divinity cf. Diog. L. 8, 41, who quotes Hermippus: Pythagoras returns from a journey to Hades and appears among his followers [ eijsevrcesqai eij" th;n ejkklhsivan ], and they consider him qei`ovn tina ) 20:28 (on the combination of kuvrio" and qeov" s. 3c below). Tit 2:13 ( mevga" q .). Hb 1:8 , 9 (in a quot. fr. Ps 44:7 , 8 ). S. TFGlasson, NTS 12, ’66, 270-72. Jd 5 P 72. But above all Ignatius calls Christ qeov" in many pass. : qeo;" jIhsou`" Cristov" ITr 7:1; Cristo;" qeov" ISm 10:1. oJ qeo;" hJmw`n IEph inscr .; 15:3; 18:2; IRo inscr. (twice); 3:3; IPol 8:3; to; pavqo" tou` qeou` mou IRo 6:3. ejn ai{mati qeou` IEph 1:1. ejn sarki; genovmeno" qeov" 7:2. qeo;" ajnqrwpivnw" fanerouvmeno" 19:3. qeo;" oJ ou{tw" uJma`" sofivsa" ISm 1:1.— Hdb. exc. 193 f ; MRackl, Die Christologie d. hl. Ign. v. Ant. ’14.—StLösch, Deitas Jesu u. antike Apotheose ’33.

A Greek-English Lexicon Gingrich & Danker​