Trinity question

[buddy mack]

I am that I am, I was that I was, I is what I is.

 

[Simonline]

2: If all three are infinite, eternal, and immutable... that means Jesus is Immutable... however he started in a spiritual form... mutated, and was given a human form.... was slain, and brought back to heaven, in spiritual form again... Jesus is certainly not immutable.

No. All three Persons of the Trinitarian God [Father, Son and Holy Spirit] are God and therefore Immutable. 'Jesus' did not come into existence until the Incarnation. 'Jesus of Nazareth' is the human name of the Messiah. The Messiah's human nature is a finite creation and is therefore as capable of change as we are. The Messiah's Divine Nature is Immutable and therefore is impervious to and incapable of change, just like the rest of God [i.e. the Father and the Holy Spirit - the Son, as Incarnate, has become the Messiah (which he wasn't until he became incarnate)]. Therefore, only the Messiah's Divine Nature is Immutable. His human nature is absolutely not Immutable, indeed the very reason why the Son of God incarnated in the first place was so that he could 'become' a finite human nature (as well as being the Infinite Divine Nature) in the Person of the Messiah and with that finite human nature be 'the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world', an absolute impossibility for the Divine Nature, since the Divine Nature cannot experience death (1Tim.6:16).



THE DIVINE NATURE OF THE SON/WORD OF GOD - THE SECOND PERSON OF THE TRINITY - DID NOT CHANGE OR MUTATE IN ORDER TO INCARNATE. This is why the Messiah HAS to have TWO NATURES (one that changes and one that doesn't) so that, as the Messiah, he can be both Infinite Divine Creator and finite human creature simultaneously [Because of the Messiah's two natures this is not a contradiction, this really is a profound spiritual mystery.]

Well... maybe your God... but I'm not seeing that as the God in the Bible. The God in the bible revealed himself IN THE BIBLE as The Father, YHWH, the ONLY God, to which there is NO equal... The God in the Bible has a Son, Jesus, the Massiah, Emannuel, Logos, etc. who is his only begotten son and his most trusted and honored servent. A Servent is never equal to his master, according to the bible.

You're not seeing it because you absolutely refuse to see it. It's as simple as that (Matt.13:14-15).



I have tried my hardest to explain it to you in the best way I know how labouring over a hot keyboard for hour after hour and no matter what I say you flatly refuse to accept even the remotest possibility that the doctine of the Trinity could actually be the Truth...what if you're wrong?



If God is YHWH alone then to whom is John refering in Jn.1:1 when he speaks of 'the Word' as being both with God and God himself, in the begining? Jn.1:1 clearly and unequivocaly states that God and 'the Word' are both separate and distinct from each other (as evidenced by the use of the word 'with') and at the same time one and the same Being ('the word was God'). This is undeniable. This is a clear statement that incontrovertably denies a Unitarian nature for God (God has multiple Persons (at least two - the third is substantiated elsewhere) within his ONE BEING).



How can God possibly have a 'son' in the sense of bringing a 'son' into being...I've already laboured this point with you earlier on this thread and I do not wish to waste any further time swinging pearls as we continue to go round and round in ever increasing circles.



How can the Messiah possibly be 'Emmanuel' - 'God with Us' unless he is Divine?! If there was a point when God's 'Son' did not exist then God's 'Son' cannot, by definition, be Divine and therefore cannot, by definition, be 'Emmanuel' - Divinity[God] with us?! God, by definition, cannot duplicate himself (which is why John says what he does in Jn.1:1). If God and his Son are not one and the same Being, then God has no Son. Either the Son [like the Father and the Holy Spirit] is Eternal or he doesn't exist. There can be no third option.

I'm sorry... but I didn't understand that... what are you trying to say?

He's trying to say exactly what I have said, i.e. that in the begining there were at least two Persons who existed both as separate and distinct Persons (the Word was WITH God) and as One Being (the Word WAS God). This proves (except to the inordinately stupid) that God is not unitarian in Nature.

I'm assuming you're supporting the idea of the trinity ... but... how can they be 'one being' if the father isn't the son, neither is the son the father.... or... is there actually someone who agrees with me!?

There you go again, starting from unitarian finite creatures and forcing God into the same mold...that's making God in the image of man, in other words, idolatry.



Simonline.

 

[buddy mack]

in revelation both Christ and God are mention as the First and the Last. so who else wish to be Last and First?

 

[2ducklow]

You have no credibility in your post, showing that Jesus was speaking of the Father.

How do I not have any credibility in my post claiming that Jesus was refereing to God the Father when he used the divine name I AM? All we have is your assertion no proof.
I showed you how in john 8:24 Jesus used the divine name and in vs. 27 it says Jesus was refering to the Father and that they didn't know it. I showed you how the bible states that God the father is clearly shown to be the I AM. You would have to refute john 8:27 somehow to claim that my analysis isn't credible. what does john 8:27 mean then?

I find the writings in your posts to be of a hypocritical nature. What works for you in explaining Scripture (that which is plainly written in Scripture) is good, until someone else uses the same basis for explaining Scripture, upon which you now resort to talking about eating arms and drinking blood.

If you are going to accuse me of being hypocritical you need to give an example of something I said which is hypocritical. you haven't. All that is here is your bold assertion that I am being hypocritical. a hypocrite is someone who says not to do something and then does it himself. where in any of my posts have I done that? I haven't. I think you mean that because I said that scripture should make sense and be logically interpeted that I am a hypocrite for stating that the obvious meaning of john 1:1 is that God is the word. Not so. the obvious meaning of scirpture isn't always the correct meaning. One guiding principle to decide if the obvious meaning is the correct one is "does it make sene?". And I demonstrated how that saying god is his word does not make sense therefore the obvious meaning isn't the correct one. I also gave an example of how the obvious meaning of scritpure isnt the correct meaning in scripture that states we are to eat jesus flesh, pluck our eyes out, hate our parents etc.
How is any of this hypocritical? it isn't. having an interpetation of sdcripture that makes sense but isnt the obvious first choice doesnt make me a hypocrite. you need to show first some hypocricy and then state that it is hypocricy. not just accuse me of hypocricy.

What works for you in explaining Scripture (that which is plainly written in Scripture) is good, until someone else uses the same basis for explaining Scripture, upon which you now resort to talking about eating arms and drinking blood.

You gave no example I don't know what you are talking about. be specific and i can reply.

Lastly, by starting out in this thread to ask 1 simple question, it has now denigrated to what it has become.

It was not my intent to tear you down. Neither are you marked as an unbeliever. You're assumption is wrong.

I'll leave it at that.

You said i was marked biblically and that as a result you would no longer talk to me. the implication in this is that i have done something terribly against scritpure to be 'marked'. I showed that i believe what john was trying to convey in his book namely that we should believe Jesus is the son of God and as a result of that believe we would have life. since a large part of our discussion has concerned john 1:1 it is only natural to assume that since my beilieve that John 1:2 doesnt teach that Jesus is God, that I am 'biblically marked" because of that. You didn't state why I was biblically marked so i was left to assume why I was biblical.y marked. So according to the book of John I am biblically marked as one who believes Jesus is the christ, the son of god.

John 20:31 But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name.

Actually this verse pretty much states that john 1:1 does not mean that Jesus is god but rather the son of god.

only missed it as I was replying to you in post #116. During that time, you posted. Check the times of the postings. I may be able to type somewhat fast, but not able to reply in 3 minutes, regarding what I had posted.

I originally stated that I wouldn't respond to your 1 question because you ignored my analysis of john 1:1, and therefore it was likely you wouldn't respond to my analysis of your 1 question. well i responded to your 1 question and true to my prediciton you didnt respond to my analysis of your 1 question either.

 

[buddy mack]

look, there is enough ambiguity for all of us, well not me included, but anyhow, believe what you wish without all that nastiness.

 

[Brennin]

but you are correct. Jesus is the divine name. I am.

Only God gets to say that.

Tell that to the Angel of the Lord.

Only God forgives sin.

Zechariah 3:4
And the angel said to those who were standing before him, "Remove the filthy garments from him." And to him he said, "Behold, I have taken your iniquity away from you, and I will clothe you with rich apparel."

 

[2ducklow]

look, there is enough ambiguity for all of us, well not me included, but anyhow, believe what you wish without all that nastiness.

I try to live in peace with all men as much as is possible within me. i try and have civil discourses when i debate. If i have said anything uncivil or cruel I apologise. But I don't think I have or at least I havent said much that would be cruel or uncivil or inflamatory. one can have a heated debate without resorting to name calling or belittleing others.

 

[Simonline]

How do I not have any credibility in my post claiming that Jesus was refereing to God the Father when he used the divine name I AM? All we have is your assertion no proof.

I showed you how in john 8:24 Jesus used the divine name and in vs. 27 it says Jesus was refering to the Father and that they didn't know it. I showed you how the bible states that God the father is clearly shown to be the I AM. You would have to refute john 8:27 somehow to claim that my analysis isn't credible. what does john 8:27 mean then?

"I told you that you would die in your sins; if you do not believe that IAM the one I claim to be you will indeed die in your sins" (Jn.8:24)

Here the Messiah is using a play on words to assert his claim to Divinity. He is saying that unless his hearers believe that he, as the Messiah, is YHWH [i.e. Divine - God incarnate - Emmanuel - God with us] (the reference to 'IAM' being the English translation of the name of God YHWH) then they will indeed die in their sins. The words in blue are not in the original text but have been added for the benefit of the English speaking world and cultures for clarification purposes. Sadly, in clarifying for the English, the translators have obfuscated the profound subtleties of the original Hebrew (not Greek).

This verse is not speaking specifically of the Father (only in so far as the Father along with the Son and the Holy Spirit are all the One Being who is God) but rather it is teaching that the Messiah is Divine [i.e. God/YHWH] and not just human (Lk.20:41-44).

Furthermore, v.27 is an explanation of v.26 and not v.24, since verse 24 (unlike verse 26) makes no specific reference to the Father. That is simply you manipulating Scripture in an attempt to justify your own theological presuppositions.

If you are going to accuse me of being hypocritical you need to give an example of something I said which is hypocritical. you haven't. All that is here is your bold assertion that I am being hypocritical. a hypocrite is someone who says not to do something and then does it himself. where in any of my posts have I done that? I haven't. I think you mean that because I said that scripture should make sense and be logically interpeted that I am a hypocrite for stating that the obvious meaning of john 1:1 is that God is the word. Not so. the obvious meaning of scirpture isn't always the correct meaning. One guiding principle to decide if the obvious meaning is the correct one is "does it make sense?". And I demonstrated how that saying god is his word does not make sense therefore the obvious meaning isn't the correct one. I also gave an example of how the obvious meaning of scritpure isnt the correct meaning in scripture that states we are to eat jesus flesh, pluck our eyes out, hate our parents etc.

This is a classic case of manipulating the Scriptures in order to try and justify one's own theological presuppositions. On what basis do you assert that 'the obvious meaning of scripture isn't always the correct meaning'?! If the Scriptures should only be interpreted according to 'what makes sense' (i.e so that the doctrine of the Trinity can be ruled out a priori) then what makes sense to one may not make sense to someone else [as is blatantly obvious from this debate about the Trinity] so who's subjective ['nonsensical'?] interpretation is correct if the guiding principle is 'whatever makes sense'?! What you are advocating is pure subjective relativism (in opposition to objective Biblical Truth) and as such that has nothing to do with Biblical Christianity (2Tim.2:15).

If the obvious meaning of Jn.1:1 isn't the correct meaning then what else could it possibly mean without reducing it to utterly meaningless gibberish?! To completely ignore or manipluate passages which do not fit into our theological presuppositions is both deceitful and dishonest. It is effectively to sit in judgment on God and his revelation to Mankind. If the Bible really is the Word of God then it should hold absolute sway and we should take captive our theological presuppositions and submit them to the judgment of God and not the other way around (2Cor.10:4-5).

How is any of this hypocritical? it isn't. having an interpetation of scripture that makes sense but isnt the obvious first choice doesnt make me a hypocrite. you need to show first some hypocricy and then state that it is hypocricy. not just accuse me of hypocricy.

See above.

I showed that i believe what john was trying to convey in his book namely that we should believe Jesus is the son of God and as a result of that belief we would have life. since a large part of our discussion has concerned john 1:1 it is only natural to assume that since my beilieve that John 1:2 doesnt teach that Jesus is God, that I am 'biblically marked" because of that.

Based only on what John says in Jn.1:1 [i.e so that you can't read you theological presuppositions into the text] how do you arrive at the conclusion that Jesus is God's Son?! The text clearly and unequivocally states a) the Word existed in the begining, b) that the Word was WITH God, and c) that the Word WAS God. From this we can conclude that God cannot possibly be unitarian in Nature. This makes absolutely perfect sense. If the Messiah ('Jesus') is the Word who was WITH God in the begining and the Word who also WAS God in the begining then that must mean that God is Trinitarian in Nature and not Unitarian in Nature. That makes perfect sense to me (and to most other sane and reasonable people) therefore, according to your criteria, it must be the correct interpretation?!

John 20:31 But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name.

Actually this verse pretty much states that john 1:1 does not mean that Jesus is god but rather the son of god.

That is not true at all, not even remotely true. This verse (Jn.20:31) simply states that the man Jesus of Nazareth is the Messiah (the Lord's annointed) who is also the Son of God and that by believing in him one might have life in his name. This verse is not stating that the Messiah, as the Son of God, is not One Being with the other two Persons of the Trinity. In fact no text in Scripture states that as clearly and as unequivocally as Jn.1:1 states the exact opposite. Therefore, any sane and reasonable person would have to deduce that the Bible teaches that God is Trinitarian in Nature rather than Unitarian as is the case with all his creatures (including the Messiah)?!

Simonline.

 

[gort]

Tell that to the Angel of the Lord.



Zechariah 3:4
And the angel said to those who were standing before him, "Remove the filthy garments from him." And to him he said, "Behold, I have taken your iniquity away from you, and I will clothe you with rich apparel."

The Angel of the Lord is an interesting study.

I find that only the Angel of the Lord is the one who will have enough authority to include "I will......" in any statements made.

Does even Michael the Archangel have authority to take away iniquity?

Also interesting is the "Captain of the Lords Army."

The one who told Joshua he was on Holy ground......

But, a topic for another thread.

<><

 

[2ducklow]

Furthermore, v.27 is an explanation of v.26 and not v.24, since verse 24 (unlike verse 26) makes no specific reference to the Father. That is simply you manipulating Scripture in an attempt to justify your own theological presuppositions

John 8:24-27 I said therefore unto you, that ye shall die in your sins: for except ye believe that I am he, ye shall die in your sins. They said therefore unto him, [/b]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. They perceived not that he spake to them of the Father.

The Jews were confused as to whether Jesus was refereing to himself or not when he said "except ye believe that I AM". It is confusing because Gods name means "I AM". So if anyone says "I AM" the first thing one imagines is one is speaking of themselves. Jesus did not say "I am the I AM, which is probably what they suspected he meant as it is what most christians take it to mean. So as a result of this confusion they ask him to clarify as to who he is (vs. 25). Jesus responds by stating that he is 'that' which he spoke to them at the beginning (of thier discourse in john chapter 8). so even after this explanation by jesus as to who he is they still didn't get it that he was speaking of his father. If you examine the discourse beginning at vs. 12 you will see Jesus is aligning himself with God the Father. Not of course that he is God the Father. So since in vs. 26 Jesus says he is the one he talked about in the beginning "he spake of his father cannot refer to vs. 26 but has to be in reference to vs. 24 (I AM verse) and their subsequent question as to who he is "who at thou". because of his statement about "I AM'.
God the Father, the only true god according to 1 cor. 8:6, is the I AM. If God the Father is the I AM, and he most assurdely is, then Jesus cannot be the I AM.
To say Jesus is the I AM and God the Father is the I AM , and they aren't each other, and there is only one I AM is confusing and a contradiction and therefore cannot be a doctrine from God for God is not the author of confusion.

1 Corinthians 14:33 For God is not the author of confusion, but of peace, as in all churches of the saints.

So any doctrine that is of God will not be confusing. If a doctrine is confusing then it can't be from God.

John 7:16-17 Jesus therefore answered them and said, My teaching is not mine, but his that sent me. If any man willeth to do his will, he shall know of the teaching, whether it is of God, or whether I speak from myself.

Jesus doctrine wasn't his own it was his fathers. And our doctrine shouldn't be our own it should be our heavenly Fathers. If it is confusing then it isnt our heavenly fathers doctrine.

If the Scriptures should only be interpreted according to 'what makes sense' (i.e so that the doctrine of the Trinity can be ruled out a priori) then what makes sense to one may not make sense to someone else [as is blatantly obvious from this debate about the Trinity] so who's subjective ['nonsensical'?]

God is not the author of confusion so any doctrine that is confusing is a priori not of God and therefore not true. I beleive God has given us the ability to decide what makes sense and what doesnt. God has given us the ability to recoginise contradictions. Something either makes sense or it doesn't. it isn't subjective. To say that 2 + 2 =10 is wrong is not a subjective reasoning. To say that I am my own Father makes no sense is not subective. to say that I have judy, joan, and alice for friends but I have only one friend is nonsensical and is not subjective. to say that red is blue is incorrect is not subjective reasoning. god gave us the ability to recognize these things.

Based only on what John says in Jn.1:1 [i.e so that you can't read you theological presuppositions into the text] how do you arrive at the conclusion that Jesus is God's Son?!

I don't John 1:1 doesn't prove that Jesus is the son of God but it lays the ground work for what John is trying to convey to us as stated in john 20:32 namely that Jesus is the son of God. so in that sense it is related to proving that Jesus is the son of god. It is not related to proving that Jesus is God.

The text clearly and unequivocally states a) the Word existed in the begining, b) that the Word was WITH God, and c) that the Word WAS God.

then if you interpet it as to the obvious or literal meaning you have a contradiction and therefore confusion. if the word is with god it can't be the one that it is with. if the word is god then it can't be with god. the bible unequivocally states that we are to eat the flesh of Jesus to have eternal life. the bible unequivocally states that we are to pluck our eyes out if they offend us. the bible unequivocally states that we are to hate our parents. the bible unequivocally states that we don't believe in Jesus john (12:44). Most all of us reject the obvious meaning of these verses I allude to because the obvious meaning doesnt make sense. The obvious meaning of "the word was God" makes no sense because it has the word of god as a living thinking acting being called God. It results in gods word being God which makes just as much sense as me saying my words are me. So the obvious meaning is not always , and frequently isn't, the true meaning.

This verse is not speaking specifically of the Father (only in so far as the Father along with the Son and the Holy Spirit are all the One Being who is God) but rather it is teaching that the Messiah is Divine [i.e. God/YHWH] and not just human (Lk.20:41-44).

this explanation is confusing and makes no sense therefore cannot be of god. you have named 3 beings that you are calling one being. Unless you are going to say god the father the only true god is not a being. Unless you are going to say that Jesus is not a being. you haven't explained it here in a way that makes sense. There is only one god you have named 3 gods. therefore your explanation dies on that account. you just refuse to add up the individuals you each call god until you call them something else namely the unbiblical term 'person of god'. Then you have no difficulty adding the 3 individuals up to 3. this is confusing and nonsensical for t hat reason and therefore cannot be a teaching of god since god is not the author of confusion as he 'unequivocally' states.

That is not true at all, not even remotely true. This verse (Jn.20:31) simply states that the man Jesus of Nazareth is the Messiah (the Lord's annointed) who is also the Son of God and that by believing in him one might have life in his name.

You left out the part "these things have I written to you that you might believe that". you left out that believing that jesus is the son of god is his own stated purpose for writting the book of John. "these things" refers back to all he has written prior to this statement of his.

This verse is not stating that the Messiah, as the Son of God, is not One Being with the other two Persons of the Trinity.

Of course it isn't no verse states that. do a word search on '2 persons' or 'trinity' if you don't believe me.

In fact no text in Scripture states that as clearly and as unequivocally as Jn.1:1 states the exact opposite

You interpet john 1:1 to mean that John 1:1 says nothing about 2 persons or a trinity.

. Therefore, any sane and reasonable person would have to deduce that the Bible teaches that God is Trinitarian in Nature

Nothing you have said demonstrates that to me and many others.

rather than Unitarian

I don't calim God is unitarian because of the excess baggage that goes along with the word 'unitarian" I claim that there is only one God , God the Father and Jesus is his son.

as is the case with all his creatures (including the Messiah)?!

Don't really know what you mean with this last statement.

If the obvious meaning of Jn.1:1 isn't the correct meaning then what else could it possibly mean without reducing it to utterly meaningless gibberish?!

See my post on page 10 of this thread #91. it is a non jibberishal non Jesus is god interpetation of John 1:1.

 

[Simonline]

John 8:24-27 I said therefore unto you, that ye shall die in your sins: for except ye believe that I am he, ye shall die in your sins. 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. They perceived not that he spake to them of the Father.

It would be even less confusing if you posted as if you lived in the 21st century and not the 17th century, using archaic and antiquated English text that is guaranteed to cause confusion for those of us living in the 21st century. It's no wonder you're confused if you're learning your theology through the medium of archaic and antiquated English (Gen.11:5-9; Gal.1:7; 5:10; 1Cor.14:33(a))?!



'"But," he continued, "You are from below; I am from above. You are of this world I am not of this world. I told you that you would die in your sins; if you do not believe that I AM, you will indeed die in your sins."

"Who are you?" they asked

"Just what I have been claiming all along," Jesus replied. "I have much to say in judgment of you. But he who sent me is reliable, and what I have heard from Him I tell the world."

They did not understand that he was telling them about his Father. So Jesus said "When you have lifted up the Son of Man, then you will know that I AM and that I do nothing on my own but speak just what the Father has taught me. The one who sent me is with me; He has not left me alone, for I always do what pleases him."' (Jn.8:23-29).



Here we clearly see that the Messiah is asserting his claim to Divinity by specifically using the Tetragramaton ['YHWH - I AM'] by means of a subtle play on words (notice the semi-colon in between the two statements of verse 24 thereby clearly showing that there are two statements in verse 24 and not just one?) 'he' is not in the original text but has been added by way of 'explanation' for English readers. In the NIV text the phrase 'the one I claim to be' has been interjected by way of 'explanation'.



The Jews then ask 'Who are you?' to which the Messiah replies 'I am exactly who I have been claiming to be all along (ever since my ministry started) [I'm not going to change my story!]' [i.e. 'I AM' - YHWH]. The Messiah then goes on to say that he has much to say in judgment (concerning their wilful unbelief?) but the Father is reliable and what the Messiah has heard of the Father he tells the world. In other words, the Messiah (in human frustration at the Jews' unbelief) wants to speak judgment but the Father has said 'No. Now is not the time.' so the Messiah has remained obedient to his Father by continuing the message of repentance in the time of grace.



The Messiah then goes on to say 'When you actually begin to believe in me ('lift me up') and stop regarding me 'as just another man' then (and only then) will you understand that I AM [YHWH] and that I am not acting alone but I am acting in conjunction with the Father who is the same Being as me. Thus what I speak are not my words but the words of my Father which I relay to you. Because I am always obedient to my Father and do only what pleases him He remains with me always, and never leaves me alone.

The Jews were confused as to whether Jesus was refereing to himself or not when he said "except ye believe that I AM". It is confusing because Gods name means "I AM". So if anyone says "I AM" the first thing one imagines is one is speaking of themselves.

Not for the Messiah and his hearers since they were first century Hebrews and not 21st Century English-speakers. The Jews knew exactly who he was claiming to be (which is why they were absolutely determined to have him executed for blasphemy). They fully understood his play on words. They just couldn't believe the audacity of the Messiah in claiming to be One with YHWH. Notice that John's statement that the Jews did not realise that the Messiah was refering to the Father comes after verse 26 and not before. Therefore the explanation refers to what the Messiah says in verse 26 and not verse 24. In verse 28 the Messiah repeats the same play on words [I AM - YHWH] thereby asserting, yet again, that he is One Being with God in heaven (i.e. the Father and the Holy Spirit)...no wonder he gets frustrated with their unbelief.

Jesus did not say "I am the I AM, which is probably what they suspected he meant as it is what most christians take it to mean.

No, the Messiah did not say that he was the 'I AM' since that would not have been true (and neither did his hearers think that he had said that). God is not Unitarian. The Messiah NEVER claims to be 'the Father'. God is not 'modalistic' either. What the Messiah claimed was that he was One Being with YHWH (a 'part' (one of the three Persons) of YHWH but not 'YHWH in toto'). This was a new concept for the Jews and it was for this that they sought clarification by asking 'Who are you?'

So as a result of this confusion they ask him to clarify as to who he is (vs. 25). Jesus responds by stating that he is 'that' which he spoke to them at the beginning (of thier discourse in john chapter 8). so even after this explanation by jesus as to who he is they still didn't get it that he was speaking of his father.

No. Absolutely not. Otherwise the Messiah is claiming to be the Father and that would mean that the ancient heresy of Sabellianism [a.k.a. 'Modalism'] would be true?! The Messiah NEVER claims to be 'the Father'. The Messiah claims to be One Being with YHWH [Father Son and Holy Spirit] not YHWH in toto. God is Trinitarian, not Unitarian (or even a Unitarian Modalist).



When the Messiah makes reference to 'the Father' he is always speaking of a different Person [even whilst they are the same Being] to himself.

If you examine the discourse beginning at vs. 12 you will see Jesus is aligning himself with God the Father. Not of course that he is God the Father. So since in vs. 26 Jesus says he is the one he talked about in the beginning "he spake of his father cannot refer to vs. 26 but has to be in reference to vs. 24 (I AM verse) and their subsequent question as to who he is "who at thou". because of his statement about "I AM'.

That is a blatant contradiction?! You cannot say in one breath "Not of course that he [the Messiah] is God the Father" and then, in the very next breath, say "So since in vs. 26 Jesus says he is the one he talked about in the begining [i.e. 'the Father'], "he spake of his father" (v.27) cannot refer to v.26 but has to be in reference to v.24 (the 'I AM' verse) and their subsequent question as to who he is "who art thou?". because of his statement about "I AM'" since that is to contradict yourself because you are actually saying that the Messiah is claiming to be 'the Father' each time he makes reference to the tetragrammaton ['I AM - YHWH'] (i.e the ancient heresy of Sabellianism a.k.a. 'Modalism')?!

God the Father, the only true god according to 1 cor. 8:6, is the I AM. If God the Father is the I AM, and he most assurdely is, then Jesus cannot be the I AM.

Absolutely not. Although 1Cor.8:6 refers to the Father as the 'one God', it does not teach that only the Father is the one God. You are reading that understanding into the passage based on your normal everyday experience of human beings being unitarian (one being/one person) in nature. Your underlying assumption is that God has to be exactly the same as his human creatures. That assumption is wrong. You are starting from the creature and projecting back onto the Creator.



The reason why we know that 1Cor.8:6 does NOT teach that only the Father is YHWH (even though that is what it 'appears' to say at first glance) is because we interpret it correctly in the context of the whole of the rest of the Scriptures and not in 'splendid isolation' or just the immediate passage or even our own theological presuppositions. Those who are genuinely seeking after Truth and not simply out to propagate and/or reiterate their own theological presuppositions will interpret the text in conjunction with other passages which clearly teach the Divinity of both the eternally begotten Son/Word of God and the Holy Spirit.



If the Bible clearly and unequivocally teaches that there are myriad 'gods' but only One Divine Being and also that the three Persons of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit are all Divine, then the only explanation that fits all the Biblical evidence is that the One Divine Being is Trinitarian in Nature. This is how we know that YHWH (the One Divine Being) is composed of more than just one Person. Therefore, based on the evidence of the whole of Scripture, it cannot be true that the Father alone is YHWH?!



If Jesus [the Messiah] is not YHWH (as you assert) then in what sense is the Messiah 'Emmanuel - God with us', since there is only One Divine Being?! These kind of questions cannot simply be ignored or swept under the carpet by anyone who is an honest seeker after Truth. Only those who are more concerned with propagating and reiterating their own theological presuppositions would either willfully (and culpably) disregard or try and manipulate any evidence that did not support their own theological pressupositions (Jer.17:9; Matt.13:14-15).

To say Jesus is the I AM and God the Father is the I AM , and they aren't each other, and there is only one I AM is confusing and a contradiction and therefore cannot be a doctrine from God for God is not the author of confusion.

1 Corinthians 14:33 For God is not the author of confusion, but of peace, as in all churches of the saints.



So any doctrine that is of God will not be confusing. If a doctrine is confusing then it can't be from God.

This is only confusing when you try and understand it in the flesh, relying solely on human reason and logic rather than Divine Revelation, human reason and logic, and in that order (1Cor.2:6-16).

John 7:16-17 Jesus therefore answered them and said, My teaching is not mine, but his that sent me. If any man willeth to do his will, he shall know of the teaching, whether it is of God, or whether I speak from myself. Jesus doctrine wasn't his own it was his fathers. And our doctrine shouldn't be our own it should be our heavenly Fathers. If it is confusing then it isnt our heavenly fathers doctrine.

continued...

 

[Simonline]

When the Messiah said this he was speaking as one who is both Infinite Divine Creator (Col.1:15-17; 2:9) and finite human creature simultaneously. His emphasis at this point was on his humanity (Jn.14:28) rather than his Divinity (Jn.10:30) which is why he was saying that the source of his teaching was Divine (from YHWH - the Trinitarian God) rather than human (from Man in general and Jesus of Nazareth (the Messiah's human name) in particular).

God is not the author of confusion so any doctrine that is confusing is a priori not of God and therefore not true. I beleive God has given us the ability to decide what makes sense and what doesnt. God has given us the ability to recoginise contradictions. Something either makes sense or it doesn't. it isn't subjective. To say that 2 + 2 =10 is wrong is not a subjective reasoning. To say that I am my own Father makes no sense is not subective. to say that I have judy, joan, and alice for friends but I have only one friend is nonsensical and is not subjective. to say that red is blue is incorrect is not subjective reasoning. god gave us the ability to recognize these things.

Really?! So if the Messiah is Emmanuel - 'God with us' (i.e. Divine) and he is also the Truth (Jn.14:6) then that means that Truth and Divinity are identical. If Divinity is Infinite, then by definition, Truth is also Infinite [and Personal]. If Truth is Infinite then it is utterly beyond any finite mind (even the best finite mind) to fully comprehend.



Therefore, Infinite Truth sometimes has to reveal himself to finite minds in the form of illogical paradox (God's sovereignty/predestination and Man's free will for example). If only that which is 'logical' is True then by your wonderful reasoning God is false?! I think you'd better go back to the drawing board and start again, don't you?

I don't John 1:1 doesn't prove that Jesus is the son of God but it lays the ground work for what John is trying to convey to us as stated in john 20:32 namely that Jesus is the son of God. so in that sense it is related to proving that Jesus is the son of god. It is not related to proving that Jesus is God.

What absolute nonsense. Jn.1:1 establishes the facts that:

a) 'the Word' existed in the begining;

b) 'the Word' was WITH God (in the begining) [by definition, this statement means that there were at least two Persons in the begining as is blatantly obvious by the use of the word 'with' (unless it meant something completely different in the 17th century?!). [the third Person can be established on the basis of other texts when taken in their proper context)]]

and finally: c) 'the Word' WAS God (in the begining).



These three statements combined categorically and irrefutably prove that God is absolutely not Unitarian in Nature (and in so doing substantially strengthens the case for a Trinitarian God).



All that needs to be done now is to establish the identity of 'the Word' since, whoever it is, is, according to Jn.1:1, the Infinite Divine Creator (Jn.1:3-5, 10-14; Col.1:15-17; 2:9; Heb.1:8-13...the evidence is stacking up against you mate...need I go on)?

then if you interpet it as to the obvious or literal meaning you have a contradiction and therefore confusion. if the word is with god it can't be the one that it is with. if the word is god then it can't be with god.

This defective reasoning is based entirely on the false theological presupposition that God (as made in the image of man by '2ducklow') is Unitarian in Nature. I have already demonstrated (Q.E.D.) that John (along with the rest of Scripture) utterly repudiates such a ludicrous idea.

the bible unequivocally states that we are to eat the flesh of Jesus to have eternal life. the bible unequivocally states that we are to pluck our eyes out if they offend us. the bible unequivocally states that we are to hate our parents. the bible unequivocally states that we don't believe in Jesus john (12:44).

But to any sane and reasonable person it is obvious that these statements are either pictorial or symbolic and definitely not literal. There is absolutely nothing in the context of the opening chapter of John (or even the rest of Scripture) to suggest that the first chapter of John should not be understood literally and certainly not symbolically. Only people's theological presuppositions (and refusal to accept the Truth due to either spiritual blindness, demonic deception or both (Matt.13:14-15)) would 'force' them to interpret Jn.1 symbolically.

Most all of us reject the obvious meaning of these verses I allude to because the obvious meaning doesnt make sense. The obvious meaning of "the word was God" makes no sense because it has the word of god as a living thinking acting being called God. It results in gods word being God which makes just as much sense as me saying my words are me. So the obvious meaning is not always , and frequently isn't, the true meaning.

So I say again: In what sense is the Messiah 'Emmanuel - God with us' and to whom do Jn.1:3-5, 10-14; Col.1:15-17; 2:9; Heb.1:8-13 refer if not to the Messiah as the Living Word of God [YHWH incarnate]?!



Please don't behave like an ostrich at this point?

this explanation is confusing and makes no sense therefore cannot be of god. you have named 3 beings that you are calling one being.

continued...

 

[Simonline]

No. I have 'named' three Persons who together are One Divine Being. You just can't escape your fixation with the idea that absolutely all beings (including YHWH) MUST be unitarian in nature. Until you can liberate yourself from that fixation you will NEVER understand the Trinitarian Nature of God.

Unless you are going to say god the father the only true god is not a being. Unless you are going to say that Jesus is not a being. you haven't explained it here in a way that makes sense.

That's nonsense. To say that both the Father and the Son are not 'beings' is to say that God does not exist...that's Atheism and Atheism is only for the absurd since to truely be an Atheist one has to have Infinite knowledge (otherwise it's just arrogant agnosticism) and if one has Infinite knowledge then, by definition, one is Divine, which, by definition, also disproves Atheism.

There is only one god you have named 3 gods. therefore your explanation dies on that account.

Claptrap! Now you're grasping at straws. I am a Trinitarian not a tritheist (Deut.6:4 - the absolute basis of all Judeo-Christian theology) I believe in THREE Persons who, together, are the ONE Divine Being.

You just refuse to add up the individuals you each call god until you call them something else namely the unbiblical term 'person of god'. Then you have no difficulty adding the 3 individuals up to 3. this is confusing and nonsensical for that reason and therefore cannot be a teaching of god since god is not the author of confusion as he 'unequivocally' states.

What I and all Trinitarians believe is nowhere near as confusing and nonsensical as this last statement?!



I have stated the case for the Trinitarian Nature of God as clearly and concisely as I can. If you choose to ignore it in favour of your own theological presuppositions then that is your affair but whatever theological position any of us take we will one day have to give an account for it and will undoubtedly be judged according to the Truth of the Word (spoken, written and Living).

You left out the part "these things have I written to you that you might believe that". you left out that believing that jesus is the son of god is his own stated purpose for writting the book of John. "these things" refers back to all he has written prior to this statement of his.

True, but the fact that the Messiah is the [eternally begotten] Son of God, does not mean that he is not himself Divine (otherwise, how can he be 'Emmanuel - God with us'?) and since there can be only ONE Infinite, Omniscient, Omnipotent, Omnipresent, Immutable Divine Being (and the concept of a 'finite Divine Being' is an oxymoronic contradiction in terms) then the only explanation left is that the ONE DIVINE BEING who is God [YHWH] is Trinitarian in Nature...three Persons who together are One Being.

Of course it isn't no verse states that. do a word search on '2 persons' or 'trinity' if you don't believe me.

Of course the word 'Trinity' isn't Scriptural. It was coined by the early Church fathers in an effort to encapsulate all that the Scriptures (from Genesis to Revelation) taught concerning the Divine Nature. Just because the word Trinity cannot be found in the Scriptures does not mean that the Truth which it conveys is not to be found in the Scriptures either (as I have clearly demonstrated throughout my posts both on this thread and others).

You interpet john 1:1 to mean that John 1:1 says nothing about 2 persons or a trinity.

Nothing you have said demonstrates that to me and many others.

What?! Do you speak English? Can you actually read what I've written? I have clearly demonstrated that Jn.1:1 teaches that the Divine Nature consists of at least two Persons, one of whom is called 'the Word', how then can you say "You interpet john 1:1 to mean that John 1:1 says nothing about 2 persons or a trinity.

Nothing you have said demonstrates that to me and many others."?! I'm begining to think that you really have lost it altogether?

I

don't claim God is unitarian because of the excess baggage that goes along with the word 'unitarian'. I claim that there is only one God , God the Father and Jesus is his son.

You obviously haven't got a clue what you're talking about because to claim that only the Father is Divine [i.e. God - YHWH] is, by definition, to claim that God is Unitarian (one Person/one Being) in the same way that all humans are unitarian (one person/one being)?! There are only two reasonable alternatives to God being Unitarian. Either he is Trinitarian (as the Bible actually teaches) or he doesn't exist at all(?!) Which is it?

Don't really know what you mean with this last statement.

I mean that all of God's creatures are, by definition, unitarian in nature, since nothing finite has the capacity to be anything other than unitarian

See my post on page 10 of this thread #91. it is a non jibberishal non Jesus is god interpetation of John 1:1.

Page 10 of this thread...this thread only has 4 (possibly 5 by the time I post this post) pages?! Based on what you have written so far I'd stake a years salary on it being complete jibberish?!



Simonline.

 

[The Gregorian]

I missed a lot, so I'll have to only comment on important stuff, tell me if I missed something you want commented on.

[/size][/font]
Jesus was speaking of the Father not himself when he said

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

I AM is the divine name. Jesus did not say "I was"

John 8:24 I said therefore unto you, that ye shall die in your sins: for except ye believe that I am he, ye shall die in your sins.kjv

My question is: are you sure the tetragrammeton (YHWH) was used there, not the most basic, and commonly used phrase in any language: "I am." (any time you say you're doing anything, you use this phrase: "I am sitting." does not mean you are God. Honestly I never understood why they would translate YHWH into "I am."

Not only is that not funny, it's also blasphemous. You were created in the image of God and to traduce that image by denegrating it to the level of any created being (especially one of a lower order than Man, who is created in God's image), is tantamount to blasphemy.

No... it was funny. I don't believe the poster of what you were commenting on (someone saying that, while some people were made in the image of divine beings, that he was made in the image of a dog.) was actually insinuating that God recreated a new breed of humanity in his mother's room for him to more closely resemble a dog... he was simply being humble, meek, etc.

He was using his sense of humor which God gave him... and you HAVE to admit God has a great sense of humor... I mean look at monkies (small ones like spider monkies, not the bigger apes).... those little buggers serve no purpose but for our personal amusement... birds do a better job at dispersing seeds and feed carnivors better with their higher meat/weight ratio... Monkies are a complete waste except for our amusement. And even if the species itself wasn't a waste.... look at the characteristics they show... name one other animal that flings poo and makes faces at people... Look at the platipus... that's nothing more than God amusing himself with a completely silly looking thing.

Through God's creations, he shows a lot of human emotions... such as beauty.... I mean look at some of the species of birds and fish that are completely and wastefully beautiful? Look at some of the landscapes out there in australia and in oregon... beautiful waterfalls and forests and desserts... getting off track here...

but you are correct. Jesus is the divine name. I am.

I'd still not assume that any time they use the hebrew form of the "to be" infinitive in the first person form, they're claiming to be god. Like I said "I am sitting in a chair." but I did not claim to be God just then... 'I am' is a pretty poor translation for the tetragrammeton (YHWH)

No. It may not be God, since God, according to the Scriptures, is not 'an individual'. He is three individuals within the ONE BEING. Again, as I said, you are starting from what you know (the term 'individual', which can only apply to a unitarian finite creature) and applying it to what you clearly do not know (the Trinitarian God). You are working backwards and projecting Man's limitations on to God, effectively making God in the image of Man...that is idolatry.

bah... make up your mind... what is the definition of "being?" If 'god' is not an individual but made of three individuals (Father/son/holy spirit), then each of the three ARE individuals.... they each have seperate minds (as I've given verses for that no one's refuted), and for at least SOME duration, they had seperate bodies/rank (at least while Jesus was on earth, he had his own human body and was lesser than God.)

So... if Jesus is an individual with his own personal mind/body/rank/etc. that is not to be confused with his father's.... what do you mean by they're one 'being'?

 

[The Gregorian]

Lucifer, by definition, cannot possibly be a Divine being since Divinity (being Infinite, Eternal, Omniscient, Omnipotent, Omnipresent and Immutable) cannot, by definition, be duplicated. You need to learn the difference between theological and religious terms. The class of created beings known as 'angels' might well be 'heavenly' but they are certainly not Divine (Heb.1) As bishop J.C.Ryle once said "Imprecise theological definitions are the essence of religious controversy"

OK... well, I don't care what any bishop says. Divine... by definition of the english language... is anything of a heavenly nature (God/angels/etc.), anything supernatural, holy, etc. Is, (as per the english language) divine. A dude in Italy cannot redifine the english language.

However... you're using "Divine" meaning the person is a Diety. Example: All Dieties are Divine (as far as supernatural, not necissarily holy, depending on the theology), But not all Divine beings/individuals are Dieties. (angels, while heavenly and beyond human, are not gods.)

This is how I use the terms... feel free to disagree with me...

Misrepresenting me again I see. I didn't say that God is incapable of changing any aspect of himself at all. What I said was that God's Nature (God's fundamental essence, what he is in and off himself, what defines him as God and distinguishes him from his creation) is Immutable. God is quite capable of changing the way in which he both manifests himself to his creation and relates to his creation in response to how his creation behaves in relation to his absolute, Immutable, [Perfect] Nature.

So he's mutable in every way but... his nature... nature, again by dictionary definition, is basically his atitude. You're using a HEAVILY altered vocabulary that does not corrispond with the general english language. I don't suggest that my english is perfect by any means... and I don't even consider it good... I misspell things, and my grammer is sub-par... but, accepting this, I don't completely negate my opponant's arguement because I'm pulling a definition of a word out of my various cavities.

So... as far as what you were saying: God is immutable in that he cannot stop being God. I agree with this, no one can stop being who they are... that's an utter fact with everyone... everyone is as immutable as God in that way... in fact God is much more mutable than us, because he has no physical limitations. I still don't see what you're referring to when you're saying he's immutable... "God's fundamental essence, what he is in and off himself, what defines him as God and distinguishes him from his creation" isn't any sort of definition...

God's "fundamental essence" is not something that anyone but YOU knows what you're talking about because a "fundamental essence" is not a thing that can be given much of a definition, now is it? In litteral terms, his fundamental essance would be what his body is physically comprised of... but... again, I assume you're not using the english definition of the words you use to define your theories so... we're at an impass.

sin?) and neither can he exist within time (time exists for the benefit of finite creatures as the medium in which they exist (just like God created water for fish) Just as fish can't live outside of water and men can't live within water (artificial life support systems notwithstanding) so creatures can't exist outside of time and God cannot exist within time [I know what you're thinking - only the Messiah's finite human nature exists within time. His Infinite Divine Nature exists outside of time -which, again, is why the Messiah has to have two natures to enable him to do this.] These are things peculiar to finite creatures, but they are not limitations on God.

Time is not any sort of life sustaining environment as water is to a fish. Time is a measurement, like inches. Space has always existed and will always exist... objects can be moved around in space... but the empty area through which matter moves cannot be altered or destroyed because it doesn't 'exist' because it's not a 'thing' that can exist. Likewise time isn't a 'thing.' It never started, and, as long as anyone can count, it will never stop. Therefore, time isn't a thing that anyone can exist in, or out of, including God.

Example: God lives outside of time? Is he capable of counting "1,2,3?" Then time still exists... and he's 'in' it as much as we are.

'time' or 'motion' is a fundamental element of existance, and cannot be altered... even by God... because it's not a thing to be altered... God could freeze EVERYTHING... our minds/bodies/the entire universe... but HE could still count to 3... therefore time would still be ticking.

 

[The Gregorian]

Not true at all. [You really haven't grasped what defines God as God have you? It is obvious from what you're saying in your posts that you think of God as just a bigger version of a human creature (just like 'Gulliver' in 'Lilliput')?!] Whilst it is true that God cannot lie, it is absolutely not because 'anything that God holds to be the 'Truth' becomes the 'Truth''. That is complete relativism. If, tomorrow morning when you awoke, you discovered that during the night whilst you were asleep, God had announced to the world that everything that was, up until that point, 'good' was now 'evil' and that everything that was, up until that point, 'evil' was now 'good' would that then mean that, from that point on (the point when God made the announcement), the 'Truth' was that 'good' was now 'evil' and 'evil' was now 'good'?!

... look up in your post... you said basically the same thing... yet you assume that I don't grasp what difines God.... which I can't assume to be bad, considering God... being infinite, cannot be difined.... at least that's what you said in earlier posts. anyways here's your quote from earlier up this post:

God cannot sin (since God himself defines sin exclusively according to his own Perfect and Immutable Nature, against whom would God sin?)

In THAT way, God cannot Lie... He could say something that isn't specifically true... but if he honestly believed it... it would become true because he difines what reality is and isn't.

But then again, that's all just my opinion.... Why is it my opinion?

[font=Arial, Geneva, Helvetica]titus 1:2 "in the hope of eternal life that God, who cannot lie, promised before time began,"[/font]

Which bishop said the bible was wrong there? (hense... why I don't trust bishops who preach about a faith based on the bible.... things that directly oppose the bible.)

Do you understand the point I'm making? The point that I am making is that true TRUTH is that Good and Evil are not arbitrary. They do not change, ever.

I understand it... I don't accept it. Example: Murder is evil. Everyone agrees with that? But sometimes it isn't. Biggest example is God. He's killed many MANY people... but it wasn't EVIL that he did... he had his reasons, which were obviously just. Also .... I can't quote because I forget where in the bible it is or even who did it... and it's 2:00 AM so I'm not looking it up this late... but... I remember an illustration where there was an army out there or whatnot and they were celebrating something and one of the leaders got a prostitute... and this other dude saw that and went in there and skewered them both with a spear. He murdered them, no question about it... but God was happy about it, and it was a good thing in that situation.

Depending on the situation, even something as evil as murder can be rightous... i.e. Evil and Good are exactly... whatever God wants them to be.

Part of what it means to be a finite creature is that we have to exist in both time and space.

I'm not sure we should get into the nature of time and space in this thread. I won't call you wrong, but I have good reason for my opinion, which is "Space and time are not things to be existed in or out of. Neither can be changed... they are both a fundamental aspect of existance. Our perceptions of either can be change...but space and time are not things that can be changed by any means whatsoever." If you want to argue that... open another thread and gimme a link I'll be glad to... but that's WAY too much of an arguement for this thread.

Although the term Trinity is not found in the Scriptures the teaching is most certainly there (as you well know, since I have spent hours and hours spelling it out to you on this very thread).

Yes... hours have been spent on this thread... and many opinions have been made... but there is still one question that I've NEVER seen you answer... one I've asked of you and everyone many times on this thread:

"In one short sentance or paragraph... discribe the relationship between Jesus and his Father... if they are seperate "but one" discribe how they are the same and how they are different. Leave all poetics out... I don't care about the divine oneness of the infinity of the glory of divinity.... I want a simple explanation as though you were teaching it to an adult who has never picked up a bible before."

You've established that the Father and Son are seperate individuals... they have different minds, and are at least sometimes in different bodies... yet they are somehow one being.... what difines "being." I've said it before, but this time I'll stick to it... I'm going to post and repost this question until you answer it sim.....

 

[The Gregorian]

look, there is enough ambiguity for all of us, well not me included, but anyhow, believe what you wish without all that nastiness.

LOL I like how you think buddy. reps to you.

"I told you that you would die in your sins; if you do not believe that IAM the one I claim to be you will indeed die in your sins" (Jn.8:24)

Notice it's not "that I am, the one who I claim to be." but "that I am the one who I claim to be." He's not saying "that Jehovah, who I claim to be" he's using the first person singular form of the infinitive "to be" which is "I am." not the tetragrammeton. Find the greek text there, and I'll bet you won't see the tetragrammeton where he says "I am" but rather the first person singular form of "to be."


again... until this is answered, I'll repost until someone addresses the issue:

"In one short sentance or paragraph... discribe the relationship between Jesus and his Father... if they are seperate "but one" discribe how they are the same and how they are different. Leave all poetics out... I don't care about the divine oneness of the infinity of the glory of divinity.... I want a simple explanation as though you were teaching it to an adult who has never picked up a bible before."

 

[The Gregorian]

First: Emmanuel... DOES translate to "God with us" ... which is a good, and meaningful name... however, it does NOT mean the name's meaning is true... for example... there are people today named emmanuel... like this guy:

http://www.jimdirden.com/oibf2003/artists(2)/pages/emmanuel_oibf03_cd1__1593.htm

But he is not God... He's just some dude... who... obviously... likes elvis? Go to altavista.com... click on images and type in Emmanuel... you'll see a bunch of people named emmanuel today... none of them are God. It's a NAME...

Second: "I am" does not mean "I am claiming to be God." Yes... the tetragrammeton has been translated into "I am" by certain translators in order to change the bible. that's not a good thing, nore does it prove their point.

There have been a bunch of scriptures sited here quoting Jesus saying things like 'I am who I always claimed to be' Right after he claimed to be god's SON, and that the Father is greater than him... somehow people see the "I am" and assume this means Jesus is claiming to be God himself... Firstly this is gramatically wrong.... 'I am who I always claimed to be' would be 'YHWH, who I always claimed to be.' This is a sentance fragment and is meaningless... If he were to say "I am the 'I AM' who I always claimed to be." this would have a subject and a verb, and would be a meaningful sentance... however in this case "YHWH who I always claimed to be" is a fragment, with no subject or verb... if, however "I am" is translated into... the most common phrase in any langage.... the first person singular form of the infinitive "to be"... it becomes a complete sentance.

I assume... Jesus being God's son and all... that he would use a complete sentance... therefore, is not claiming to be God.


Lastly... until this is answered, I'll repost until someone addresses the issue:

"In one short sentance or paragraph... discribe the relationship between Jesus and his Father... if they are seperate "but one" discribe how they are the same and how they are different. Leave all poetics out... I don't care about the divine oneness of the infinity of the glory of divinity.... I want a simple explanation as though you were teaching it to an adult who has never picked up a bible before."

Now that it's almost 3:00 AM... Me=

 

[Der Alte]

. . .[SIZE=-1]"In one short sentance or paragraph... discribe the relationship between Jesus and his Father... if they are seperate "but one" discribe how they are the same and how they are different. Leave all poetics out... I don't care about the divine oneness of the infinity of the glory of divinity.... I want a simple explanation as though you were teaching it to an adult who has never picked up a bible before."

Now that it's almost 3:00 AM... Me[/SIZE]=

This is a "discussion forum" not a game show. This is just another version of the lame Christian Unorthodox Later Theology, "One question/verse that completely, utterly, totally, absolutely, destroys the doctrine of the Trinity, and no Trinitarian can answer it."

 

[Der Alte]

[SIZE=-1]There have been a bunch of scriptures sited here quoting Jesus saying things like 'I am who I always claimed to be' Right after he claimed to be god's SON, and that the Father is greater than him... somehow people see the "I am" and assume this means Jesus is claiming to be God himself... Firstly this is gramatically wrong.... 'I am who I always claimed to be' would be 'YHWH, who I always claimed to be.' This is a sentance fragment and is meaningless... If he were to say "I am the 'I AM' who I always claimed to be." this would have a subject and a verb, and would be a meaningful sentance... however in this case "YHWH who I always claimed to be" is a fragment, with no subject or verb... if, however "I am" is translated into... the most common phrase in any langage.... the first person singular form of the infinitive "to be"... it becomes a complete sentance. I assume... Jesus being God's son and all... that he would use a complete sentance... therefore, is not claiming to be God.[/SIZE]

What are your qualifications in Biblical Greek, if any? Your grammatical musings may hold true for English, but John didn’t write in English. I will quote A.T. Robertson on this. He taught PhD level Biblical Greek for 47 years, wrote over 40 books on the Bible and Biblical Greek, including a 1200 page grammar that took 26 years to complete and his 6 volume, Word Pictures in the New Testament, which I quote here.

A fact that most anti-Trinitarians with their cut/paste arguments fail to understand, is this happened in the temple, the leaders of this mob were the priests, scribes, and Pharisees. If Jesus was not identifying himself as God, why would the priests desecrate the temple by trying to stone Jesus, there and then, in the temple, in front of witnesses, violating at least twenty-two Jewish laws, including "Thou shalt not murder?"

Note, the article from the Jewish encyclopedia, hundreds of years before the Christian era, the Jews held the words, “I Am,” to be a name of God.

Only blasphemy of God is a stoning offense. Merely identifying one's self with the first person pronoun is not.

Robertson - Joh 8:58 -
Before Abraham was (prin Abraam genesthai). Usual idiom with prin in positive sentence with infinitive (second aorist middle of ginomai) and the accusative of general reference, “before coming as to Abraham,” “before Abraham came into existence or was born.”
I am (ego¯ eimi). Undoubtedly here Jesus claims eternal existence with the absolute phrase used of God. The contrast between genesthai (entrance into existence of Abraham) and eimi (timeless being) is complete. See the same contrast between en in Joh_1:1 and egeneto in Joh_1:14. See the contrast also in Psa_90:2 between God (ei, art) and the mountains (gene¯the¯nai). See the same use of eimi in Joh_6:20; Joh_9:9; Joh_8:24, Joh_8:28; Joh_18:6.

Vincent’s Word Studies -Joh 8:58 -
Was, I am (&#947;&#949;&#957;&#949;&#769;&#963;&#952;&#945;&#953;, &#949;&#947;&#969;&#769; &#949;&#953;&#956;&#953
It is important to observe the distinction between the two verbs. Abraham's life was under the conditions of time, and therefore had a temporal beginning. Hence, Abraham came into being, or was born (&#947;&#949;&#957;&#949;&#769;&#963;&#952;&#945;&#953. Jesus' life was from and to eternity. Hence the formula for absolute, timeless existence, I am (&#949;&#947;&#969;&#769; &#949;&#953;&#956;&#953. See on Joh_1:3; see on Joh_7:34.

Jewish Encyclopedia-Names of God- YHWH.

Of the names of God in the Old Testament, that which occurs most frequently (6,823 times) is the so-called Tetragrammaton, Yhwh (), the distinctive personal name of the God of Israel. This name is commonly represented in modern translations by the form "Jehovah," which, however, is a philological impossibility (see Jehovah). This form has arisen through attempting to pronounce the consonants of the name with the vowels of Adonai ( = "Lord"), which the Masorites have inserted in the text, indicating thereby that Adonai was to be read (as a "peri perpetuum") instead of Yhwh. When the name Adonai itself precedes, to avoid repetition of this name, Yhwh is written by the Masorites with the vowels of Elohim, in which case Elohim is read instead of Yhwh. In consequence of this Masoretic reading the authorized and revised English versions (though not the American edition of the revised version) render Yhwh by the word "Lord" in the great majority of cases.

In appearance, Yhwh () is the third person singular imperfect "qal" of the verb ("to be"), meaning, therefore, "He is," or "He will be," or, perhaps, "He lives," the root idea of the word being, probably, "to blow," "to breathe," and hence, "to live." With this explanation agrees the meaning of the name given in Ex. iii. 14, where God is represented as speaking, and hence as using the first person? "I am" (, from , the later equivalent of the archaic stem ). The meaning would, therefore, be "He who is self-existing, self-sufficient," or, more concretely, "He who lives," the abstract conception of pure existence being foreign to Hebrew thought. There is no doubt that the idea of life was intimately connected with the name Yhwh from early times. He is the living God, as contrasted with the lifeless gods of the heathen, and He is the source and author of life (comp. I Kings xviii.; Isa. xli. 26-29, xliv. 6-20; Jer. x. 10, 14; Gen. ii. 7; etc.). So familiar is this conception of God to the Hebrew mind that it appears in the common formula of an oath, "chai Yhwh" (= "as Yhwh lives"; Ruth iii. 13; I Sam. xiv. 45; etc.).

Ehyeh-Asher-Ehyeh.

The Incommunicable Name was pronounced "Adonai," and where Adonai and Yhwh occur together the latter was pronounced "Elohim." After the destruction of the Second Temple there remained no trace of knowledge as to the pronunciation of the Name (see Jehovah). The commentators, however, agree as to its interpretation, that it denotes the eternal and everlasting existence of God, and that it is a composition of (meaning "a Being of the Past, the Present, and the Future"). The name Ehyeh () denotes His potency in the immediate future, and is part of Yhwh. The phrase "ehyeh-asher-ehyeh" (Ex. iii. 14) is interpreted by some authorities as "I will be because I will be," using the second part as a gloss and referring to God's promise, "Certainly I will be [ehyeh] with thee" (Ex. iii. 12). Other authorities claim that the whole phrase forms one name. The Targum Onqelos leaves the phrase untranslated and is so quoted in the Talmud (B. B. 73a). The "I AM THAT I AM" of the Authorized Version is based on this view.

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.

http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=52&letter=N​