The Trinity Doctrine

Participant

HI RD,
Why?
Can God not create?

January 22, 2008 at 2:22 am#107361

Participant

Quote (Nick Hassan @ Jan. 21 2008,09:10)

Hi RD,
You state without giving proof that Jesus was not the son of Mary.

I don't remember anything I have written wherein I have said that Jesus was not the son of Mary. What I did present, I did indeed give the scriptural proofs.

Quote (Nick Hassan @ Jan. 21 2008,09:10)

Matthew 1:18
Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost.

Matthew 2:11
And when they were come into the house, they saw the young child with Mary his mother, and fell down, and worshipped him: and when they had opened their treasures, they presented unto him gifts; gold, and frankincense and myrrh.

Matthew 13:55
Is not this the carpenter's son? is not his mother called Mary? and his brethren, James, and Joses, and Simon, and Judas?
So he was not truly a lamb taken from amongst the flock of man
but rather some sort of superman that we cannot follow?

Jesus plays the role of both sacrifical lamb of God, as well as the shepherd appointed by Yahweh. (Ezekiel 34:23,24) The two roles, however, do not mix, but Jesus had to be not under the bondage of corruption to fulfill either role.

Jesus could not at all have been the sacrificial lamb of God if God had made him crooked and under the bondage of corruption as he has done with mankind in general who are dying in Adam.

I am not sure why I am being asked concerning Jesus' being some sort of superman that we cannot follow.

Christian love,
Ronald

January 22, 2008 at 3:00 am#107362

Participant

Hi RD,
When a Jew selected a perfect lamb
was it just an ordinary lamb without obvious faults?
God ascribed no sin to Christ but that did not mean he was different.[ps32]

January 22, 2008 at 4:04 am#107363

Participant

Hi RD
Compare
Exodus 12:5
Your lamb shall be without blemish, a male of the first year: ye shall take it out from the sheep, or from the goats:
Numbers 6:14
And he shall offer his offering unto the LORD, one he lamb of the first year without blemish for a burnt offering, and one ewe lamb of the first year without blemish for a sin offering, and one ram without blemish for peace offerings,
1 Peter 1:19
But with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot:

January 22, 2008 at 6:02 pm#107364

Participant

Mental ascension and intellectualized Christians always over complicate things with rhetoric and dogma that hides behind the guise of Godly doctrine.
Rather then see a simple yet elegant and magnificent plan of God they insist on mystical formulas and accumulated head data to explain God. They use scripture/law as the end of all authority and with bullet lists and proof texts they plow around in circles always sowing knowledge and never reaping truth.

The scriptures are not the finale measuring rod. Christ is the measuring rod and secondly the plan of God is paramount. Scripture interpretation must fit within the overall plan of God to be considered correct. Biblical truth is here a little there a little. That does not mean we pull a little out here and we pull a little out there and jam them together to make a doctrine. This cut and past theology of modern Christianity has hurt far to many people and left them stranded without experiencing God. Here a little and there a little means that encompassed in the entire context of scripture are clues to the plan of God. That plan is fulfilled in Christ and those that will become like him. Any conclusion that works against the plan of God has to be false no matter how much intellectualized data is listed.
The saddest part is that many believe that knowing something in their head means that they have attained to that truth. You can study all the great writings on salvation, learn all the scriptures and hear a million salvation messages, but until you experience the thrill of having your sins taken away and feel Jesus come into your heart you do not know anything about salvation. Everything that God teaches and says is for the purpose of fostering in His plan for man.
The gospel/good news/plan is very organic and simple. We tend to overcomplicate things to satisfy our pride that we figured something out in our heads that others do not know. Let me give one example
(I am not going to give scripture references for all of these because I know most know them.)

John 20:28?Thomas answered Him, My Lord and my God!

And the intellectual debate begins. Who can conjugate more Greek verbs. Who can find more obscure meanings for “Theos”. Who can make more statements about what Thomas really meant.

WASKA WACKA WACKA – YADI YADI YADI

NONE OF IT MEANS SQUAT UNLESS UNDERSTOOD IN THE CONTEXT OF THE PLAN OF GOD FOR CHRIST AND US.

God had a plan and purpose for His creation. He started out to create children that would be like Him in character.
Adam was created sinless, yet immature. He failed his maturing process an introduced sin into the world.
Jesus the second Adam was created sinless, yet immature. He was matured and perfected by the things he suffered. He did not fail.
Adam choose to rely on his own knowledge of good and evil to be the authority in his life.
Christ continually submitted his will to that of His Father and His father’s wisdom and knowledge. Christ was a champion for God’s cause and kept God’s authority paramount in his life. How absolutely magnificent is our brother Jesus!
One man failed the other did not. One man brought sin into the world, the other man brought redemption from sin.
Jesus describes himself as the Temple of God. We are described as Temples of God. Jesus had God dwelling in him. We are to have God/Holy Spirit dwelling in us. Jesus had more of God in him but we are to work with God to be filled even as he was. This filling is for the purpose of completing God’s plan for us. Changing our character and inner man to be what God created us to be in the first place. To be the perfect dwelling places for God to reside. God is just and fair. He knows that were he to send us an example to follow, that example would have to be human just like us or the example would be invalid.
God wants us all to be human temples in which He can reside. For this reason he showed us the example of the human temple of Jesus Christ in whom dwelled the fullness of God.

Jesus was sent into the world and we are sent in the same way. Not sent from heaven but sent from God for the purpose of perfecting ourselves and others.
John 17
18 (Jesus speaking)”As You sent Me into the world, I also have sent them into the world.

Jesus was one with God and so should all of us be one with God
John 17
11″I am no longer in the world; and yet they themselves are in the world, and I come to You Holy Father, keep them in Your name, the name which You have given Me, that they may be one even as We are.

And so — The debate continues among those that can not get past the intellectualized head knowledge——— “But Thomas bowed down before Jesus” Indeed he did. So what! Thomas saw the human Jesus, his Lord (master) and he saw God dwelling in the temple that is the human, Jesus. When Jesus died the veil was torn separating us from the Holy of Holies. Now everyone had access to the presence of God. The Temple of stone was no longer needed because the real temple called Jesus was completed. It does not make Jesus God. It makes Jesus the first fruits, the first to complete the Temple/dwelling place for God. Jesus is the forerunner, the door, the way, The example for all of us to follow. This has been and continues to be the plan of God for mankind. If God’s plan is for others to follow, where are they?

Before reading this next verse I have translated the term name, in verse , to it’s original Greek meaning.

Rev 3
7″And to the angel of the church in Philadelphia write: He who is holy, who is true, who has the key of David, who opens and no one will shut, and who shuts and no one opens, says this:
8'I know your deeds Behold, I have put before you an open door which no one can shut, because you have a little power, and have kept My word, and have not denied My cause and my authority.(name)
9'Behold, I will cause those of the synagogue of Satan, who say that they are Jews and are not, but lie–I will make them come and bow down at your feet, and make them know that I have loved you.

YOU MEAN OTHERS WILL BOW AT OUR FEET? THE FEET OF THE CHURCH? THAT’S RIGHT, BECAUSE THEY WILL SEE THE SAME GOD DWELLING IN OUR HUMAN TEMPLE AS DWELLED IN THE HUMAN TEMPLE NAMED JESUS.

All the debate we do on here is entertaining (what other purpose it serves, I do not know) Instead of triny to prove our conclussions are corrct via our particular form of scripture interpretation, perhaps we should ask ourselves if any conclussion we conjure up actually serves, promotes and establishes a better walk with God and makes us bettr Temples in which YHWH/Elohim can dwell.

January 22, 2008 at 6:06 pm#107365

Participant

Hi Martian,
You say
“The saddest part is that many believe that knowing something in their head means that they have attained to that truth. You can study all the great writings on salvation, learn all the scriptures and hear a million salvation messages, but until you experience the thrill of having your sins taken away and feel Jesus come into your heart you do not know anything about salvation.”
So experience is the best truth?

January 22, 2008 at 6:12 pm#107366

Participant

Quote (Nick Hassan @ Jan. 22 2008,10:04)

Of course, the shadow/type is not the reality; the shadow or type itself could not deliver anyone from sin, but the reality could. The reality had to be the offsetting price that would correspond with Adam; the shadow/type was not such, but was only meant to point to the reality which was to follow.

Christian love,
Ronald

January 22, 2008 at 6:19 pm#107367

Participant

Hi RD,
It is a relic of catholicism that Christ is held not to be a normal man that we can follow but because of his origins some sort of a godman. I believe his origins were true with God but that gave him NO ADVANTAGE and that what he knew even about his origins was given him by his anointing in the Spirit of God.

January 22, 2008 at 6:28 pm#107368

Participant

Quote (Nick Hassan @ Jan. 23 2008,05:06)

AS my example pointed out. Experiancing salvation is far superior to knowing data about salvation. Christianity is experiancial.

January 22, 2008 at 6:31 pm#107369

Participant

Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Jan. 14 2008,12:38)

None of the things you mention deal with
***
Jn 20:28

John 20:28
apekrithee thwmas kai eipen autw ho kurios mou
ANSWERED THOMAS AND HE SAID TO HIM THE LORD OF ME
061 2381 2532 1511_7 0846_5 3588 2962 1473_2
kai ho theos mou
AND THE GOD OF ME!
2532 3588 2316 1473_2
Westcott & Hort Intelinear
http://www.scripture4all.org/OnlineInterlinear/NTpdf/joh20.pdf

There is no tradition given in scripture of calling Jesus “My God”, or “Our God”. All through the New Testament we find a distinction made between Jesus and the God of Jesus. So if Thomas is here referring to Jesus as his “God/god”, then we have a singular exception to the general rule.

Thomas refers to Jesus as “ho kurios moU kai ho theos mou”, literally translated as “the Lord of me and the God of me.” (John 20:28) This Greek structure is different from what Jesus had said earlier when he spoke of the “ton patera mou kai patera humwn kai theon mou kai theon humwn”, literally translated as “the father of me and father of you and God of me and God of you.” (John 20:17) The difference is that in John 20:28 there are two definite articles “ho” used and in John 20:17, only one definite article — “ton” — is used for the whole phrase following. Generally, when two definite articles are used as in John 20:28, two different individuals are being addressed. Therefore, many scholars believe that Thomas may have been addressing Jesus as “the lord of me” while addressing the God and Father of Jesus as the “the God of me.”

Nevertheless, even if Thomas was addressing Jesus as “ho theos mou” in John 20:28, since the general trend all through the scriptures is distinguish Jesus from his God*, it would simply be an assumption here that Thomas was using this expression to designate Jesus as Yahweh.
http://godandson.reslight.net/jesusnotyhwh.html

Why would I say this? Because, in the Hebraic usage of the words that are rendered as “God” — forms of EL, ELOHIM or THEOS — if these words are applied to others than Yahweh or to false gods, they take on the more general meaning of “strength, might, or power”. One of the meanings of THEOS is “whatever can in any respect be likened unto God, or resemble him in any way; God's representative or viceregent; of magistrates and judges.”
http://studylight.org/lex/grk/view.cgi?number=2316

This basically falls back on the usage of forms of the Hebrew words EL and ELOHIM with meaning of strength, power, might. One scripture where this can be seen in practically every translation is Ezekiel 32:21. In this verse, for instance, the King James Version renders a form of EL (Strong's #410) as “strong”. There are many other instances that could be cited, but I refer one to:
http://godandson.reslight.net/hebraictitles.html
for further proofs.

Thus, if Thomas is calling Jesus “ho theos moi” in John 20:28, it should be considered in this light, and similar to Jesus' usage of the “theoi” (the plural of theos) in John 10:34,35. Rather than assuming and adding to the scripture that Thomas was claiming that the Almighty Yahweh was standing there before him, the default reasoning, in keeping with such usage throughout the Bible, would be to assume that Thomas is recognizing Jesus for the strength and power that Yahweh has given to Jesus.

For further study, see:
http://godandson.reslight.net/john-20-28.html
http://reslight.net/forum/index.php?topic=260.0
http://reslight.wordpress.com/2008/01/02/john-2028-part-b/

In service of Jesus and His God,
Ronald

January 22, 2008 at 6:35 pm#107370

Participant

Quote (Nick Hassan @ Jan. 22 2008,07:49)

Hi RD,
God does not have a human body.
But He is the Creator.

Seems you rely on opinion a lot.

Yes, precisely. God does not have a human body! Jesus was not his God in the flesh. Jesus is not the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.

I rely on the scriptures. In what do you believe that am relying on opinion?

Christian love,
Ronald

January 22, 2008 at 6:53 pm#107371

Participant

Quote (martian @ Jan. 23 2008,05:28)

Quote (Nick Hassan @ Jan. 23 2008,05:06)

AS my example pointed out. Experiancing salvation is far superior to knowing data about salvation. Christianity is experiancial.

Hi Martian,
So all spiritual experiences are valid?
Without scripture they are evidence of salvation?
Col2
18Do not let anyone who delights in false humility and the worship of angels disqualify you for the prize. Such a person goes into great detail about what he has seen, and his unspiritual mind puffs him up with idle notions.

January 22, 2008 at 7:52 pm#107372

Participant

Quote (Nick Hassan @ Jan. 22 2008,07:52)

Hi RD,
Self perfection or grace?

No can be reckoned perfect without the grace that comes through the blood of Christ. (Romans 3:28; 4; Romans 5:1; Galatians 2:16; Ephesians 2:4-9) No one can make himself perfect in faith without the grace given through God's holy spirit, his power in our lives. As God said to Paul: “My grace is sufficient for you, for my power is made perfect in weakness.” Of course, it is not the actual power that God has that is 'made perfect', but it is God's power as was shown in Paul that was to be made perfect. Nevertheless, there is the “reckoned” perfection that first comes through grace, God's favor, when one puts his faith in the blood of Jesus. Then, by the grace of God in giving his holy spirit, God works in the lives of the Christian to perfecting of faith, hope and love, the greatest three of the fruitage of the spirit.

No person in this life can be justified (declared incorrupt, declared as though made straight) without faith in the blood of Jesus. (Romans 3:28; 5:1; Galatians 2:6; 3:11,24) Only in this method is one reckoned, accounted, imputed, as “saved”, or delivered, from from the effects of sin and death in Adam, by which the world has been corrupted, made crooked, and subjected to vanity, fulitily, a bondage of corruption. (Ecclesiastes 1:2,14,15; Romans 1:24,26; 8:20,21) In other words, justification, the making straight of that which God has made crooked, cannot come by man's works, but only the work of God in providing his Son as the redeemer of mankind. A person, through faith in the redemption through Jesus, is then reckoned [accounted, imputed] as alive toward God, and dead toward sin. — Romans 6:11.

But that is only the beginning of the work of God's grace in our lives. One has to grow in the grace given. Thus Peter tells us: “Grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.” (2 Peter 3:18) Peter had just warned the saints of the possibility of their falling away. “You therefore, beloved, knowing these things beforehand, beware lest, being carried away with the error of the wicked, you fall from your own steadfastness.” (2 Peter 3:19) Earlier in the same letter Peter showed the way of perfecting what God had given through grace, saying:

2 Peter 1:2 Grace to you and peace be multiplied in the knowledge of God and of Jesus our Lord,
2 Peter 1:3 seeing that his divine power has granted to us all things that pertain to life and godliness, through the knowledge of him who called us by his own glory and virtue;
2 Peter 1:4 whereby he has granted to us his precious and exceedingly great promises; that through these you may become partakers of the divine nature, having escaped from the corruption that is in the world by lust.

Here he speaks of the one having received grace as being given precious and exceedingly great promises, “that through these [promises] you may become partakers of the divine nature, having escaped from the corruption that is in the world by lust [desire].” Peter, in effect is saying that God's grace had already given the believer the effect of having escaped from the corruption that is in the world. Peter is actually addressing here the Christian as the new creature in Christ, not according to the flesh that was to be dissolved. He does not say that they are already partakers of the divine nature, but that they “may” become partakers of the divine nature. By “divine nature” Peter is speaking of the qualities of godlikeness that need to be developed by the Christian. Then Peter continues to speak how one becomes a partaker of this divine nature:

2 Peter 1:5 Yes, and for this very cause adding on your part all diligence, in your faith supply moral excellence; and in moral excellence, knowledge;
2 Peter 1:6 and in knowledge, self-control; and in self-control patience; and in patience godliness;
2 Peter 1:7 and in godliness brotherly affection; and in brotherly affection, love.
2 Peter 1:8 For if these things are yours and abound, they make you to be not idle nor unfruitful to the knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ.
2 Peter 1:9 For he who lacks these things is blind, seeing only what is near, having forgotten the cleansing from his old sins
2 Peter 1:10 Therefore, brothers, be more diligent to make your calling and election sure. For if you do these things, you will never stumble.
2 Peter 1:11 For thus will be richly supplied to you the entrance into the eternal kingdom of our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ.

Please notice that Peter allows that one could have received of the initial grace but not have grown in that grace in the developing the qualities spoken of.

In his first letter Peter stated to the saints:

1 Peter 5:10 – But may the God of all grace (who called you to his eternal glory by Christ Jesus), after you have suffered a while, perfect, establish, strengthen, and settle you.

James tells us:

James 1:4 – Let patience have its perfect work, that you may be perfect and complete, lacking in nothing.

Thus, the goal of the Christian is reach the settled condition of perfection that Peter refers to, which is done by faith and allowing God's spirit of grace to produce the fruit of the spirit.

I suppose one could write book on this. Some related material:
http://reslight.net/forum/index.php?topic=148.0

Christian love,
Ronald

January 22, 2008 at 8:16 pm#107373

Participant

Quote (Nick Hassan @ Jan. 23 2008,05:53)

Quote (martian @ Jan. 23 2008,05:28)

Quote (Nick Hassan @ Jan. 23 2008,05:06)

AS my example pointed out. Experiancing salvation is far superior to knowing data about salvation. Christianity is experiancial.

Hi Martrian,
So all spiritual experiences are valid?
Without scripture they are evidence of salvation?
Col2
18Do not let anyone who delights in false humility and the worship of angels disqualify you for the prize. Such a person goes into great detail about what he has seen, and his unspiritual mind puffs him up with idle notions.

First try a decent translation —
Second you are doing exactly what I pointed out. You are pulling it out of context and forming a conclusion that does not fit within the plan of God —

16Therefore no one is to act as your judge in regard to food or drink or in respect to a festival or a new moon or a Sabbath day–
17things which are a mere shadow of what is to come; but the substance belongs to Christ.
(Christ = the anointed one, the Human Jesus. He is again the measuring rod and the goal)
18Let no one keep defrauding you of your prize by delighting in self-abasement and the worship of the angels, taking his stand on visions he has seen, inflated without cause by his fleshly mind
19and not holding fast to the head, from whom the entire body, being supplied and held together by the joints and ligaments, grows with a growth which is from God.

(Verse 18 ” inflated without cause” Who was speaking of those? Not me!)

Visions are not inflated if they move you toward being like Christ. They are not inflated if they produce growth personally and in the corporate body. They are not inflated if they teach you how to hold fast to the head.

It is not about what I think or do not think in my mind, it is about the character and plan of God.

Spiritual experiences are subject to the same things a scriptural interpretation.
First – to the character of God
Second – to the plan of God for Christ and the rest of humanity
Third – To our own scriptural interpretation.

January 22, 2008 at 8:19 pm#107374

Participant

Hi Martian.
You say
“Spiritual experiences are subject to the same things a scriptural interpretation.
First – to the character of God
Second – to the plan of God for Christ and the rest of humanity
Third – To our own scriptural interpretation.”

2Peter 1
20Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.

What of the Spirit of God and His work through scripture?

January 22, 2008 at 9:05 pm#107375

Participant

Quote (Nick Hassan @ Jan. 23 2008,07:19)

2Peter 1
20Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.

What of the Spirit of God and His work through scripture?

His work through scripture will always fit within His character and His plan. If it does not fit, it is not His work. Somewhere along the line of interpretation a mistake has arisen.

January 22, 2008 at 10:09 pm#107376

Participant

Quote (martian @ Jan. 22 2008,03:01)

Ron,

Could you please tell me the way you would explin these scriptur. I copy this from another forum. It was a response to me, made to defend the divinity of Christ and the Trinity. I would appreciate your input on the verses.

In John 8:58, when quizzed about how he has special knowledge of Abraham, Jesus replies, “Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I Am”—invoking and applying to himself the personal name of God—”I Am” (Ex. 3:14). His audience understood exactly what he was claiming about himself. “So they took up stones to throw at him; but Jesus hid himself, and went out of the temple” (John 8:59).

I do not deny the divinity of Christ; I simply let the scriptures define that divinity.

Trinitarians and others who believe that Jesus is Yahweh like to read into John 8:58 and Exodus 3:14 things that are not really there. In Exodus 3:14, we have the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob identifying himself as EHYEH 'ASHER EHYEH (Anglicized transliteration) and EHYEH (Anglicized transliteration). Scholars tell us that EHYEH is in the form of a verb, the first person form of the verb HAYAH. They tell us that YAHWEH the third person form of the same verb. God identifies YAHWEH as his name in the following verse:
God said moreover to Moses, “You shall tell the children of Israel this, 'Yahweh, the God of your fathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, has sent me to you.' This is my name forever, and this is my memorial to all generations.

In stating that above, as related to what He had just stated as recorded in verse 14, we can see that EHYEH and YAHWEH or simply forms of the same name.

If we accept the word EHYEH as the Masoretes have given it to us, God, in the name EHYEH (Perfect Present), was expressing Himself as “I am being”. Thus EHYEH ASHER EHYEH would mean “I am being who I am being.” The active verb form denotes more than static existence, but rather an active one.

Still, most translators have rendered it in the simple present, “I am who I am”, “I am that I am”, or “I am what I am”, etc.. The simple form is partly supported by the later extant Septuagint Version which renders EHYEH ASHER EHYEH, not by a Greek form of the name as it should have been, but it was translated as “EGO EIMI HO OHN”, meaning, “I am the being.” In this rendering, one of the verbs was translated in simple present EGO EIMI, the pronoun ASHER was dropped and the second verb was rendered as an object of the verb eimi. However, in the second instance, where God says: “”You shall tell the children of Israel this: 'EHYEH has sent me to you,” EHYEH is used alone, the Septuagint does not render EHYEH as “I am”, but rather as HO OHN, “The Being”: “The Being has sent me to you.”

Many have challenged the Masoretic text, however, and claim the name originally meant “I will be” or “I cause to be”. Thus, Yahweh could mean: “He is being”, “He will be”, or “He causes to be”. I personally believe the latter fits the situation and usage better than the others, but I would not be dogmatic about it.

Regardless, Jesus did not in John 8:58 say that his name is EHYEH or YAHWEH. He was simply relating his existence before Abraham existed. In the New Testament, names are not rendered by their meanings, but some form of the original 'name' is brought over in a Greek form of the name. Thus, if Jesus had been emphasizing the name EHYEH, it would at least seem that he would have used some form of that name in the Greek. Actually, the evidence indicates he had no thought at all of what his God had said in Exodus 3:14.

Nor does Jesus' claim to have existed before Abraham came into existence mean that Jesus existed for all eternity before Abraham existed. Such an idea would have to be added to and read into what Jesus said.

Could it be that Jesus was quoting the Greek Septuagint Version (LXX) of Exodus 3:14 when he says EGO EIMI in John 8:58? Hardly, since in the Greek Septuagint Version, the short name of EHYEH is rendered as HO OHN, not EGO EIMI. The full form is rendered as a sentence: EGO EIMI HO OHN, which means “I am the being”. Thus the Septuagint gives EGO EIMI a predicate, but the short form is simply HO OHN, “The Being”. So if Jesus quoted the LXX, he would have used HO OHN, not EGO EIMI, which, of course, in context would have made no sense at all. Further, if he were quoting the LXX from the long form EGO EIMI HO OHN, then he left the subject and verb “I am” without a predicate, which indicates further that he was not quoting the LXX.

Doesn't the present tense form EGO EIMI mean that should be understood as EHYEH of Exodus 3:14? This would have to be assumed. Many emphasize the usage of the present tense form EGO EIMI in John 8:58, as though this should in some way mean that EGO EIMI means Yahweh. Actually, in the Greek, a present tense can be used in a past setting to denote a continuous condition. In English such is often expressed in some form of the past tense, as in the case of John 8:58: “I was”, or “I have been”, etc. (See John 14:8,9) So, what Jesus was saying is very simple: “I have/had been existing since before Abraham was.”

Jesus expressly shows that he is not the only true God who sent him in John 17:1,3. Since there is only one true God, then Jesus, being sent by the only true God, is not the only true God. The only true God who sent Jesus is the One who identified Himself as EHYEH ASHER EHYEH in Exodus 3:14,15.

The only true God, by means of his Holy Spirit through the Scriptures, reveals that it is Himself, Yahweh, the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, who sent Jesus, and who anointed Jesus, and whom Jesus worshiped and prayed to as his God. – Deuteronomy 18:15-19; Matthew 4:4 (Deuteronomy 8:3; Luke 4:4); Matthew 4:7 (Deuteronomy 6:16); Matthew 4:10 (Exodus 20:3-5; 34:14; Deuteronomy 6:13,14; 10:20; Luke 4:8); Matthew 22:29-40; Matthew 26:42; Matthew 27:46; Mark 10:6 (Genesis 1:27; Genesis 2:7,20-23); Mark 14:36; 15:34; Luke 22:42; John 4:3; 5:30; 6:38; 17:1,3; 20:17; Romans 15:6; 2 Corinthians 1:3; 11:31; Ephesians 1:3,17; Hebrews 1:9; 10:7; 1 Peter 1:3; Revelation 2:7; 3:2,12.

For more information concerning John 8:58, and “I am” in other scriptures, go to:
http://godandson.reslight.net/i-am.html

Christian love,
Ronald

January 22, 2008 at 10:32 pm#107377

Participant

Quote (ronday888 @ Jan. 23 2008,09:09)

Quote (martian @ Jan. 22 2008,03:01)

Ron,

I do not deny the divinity of Christ; I simply let the scriptures define that divinity.

In stating that above, as related to what He had just stated as recorded in verse 14, we can see that EHYEH and YAHWEH or simply forms of the same name.

For more information concerning John 8:58, and “I am” in other scriptures, go to:
http://godandson.reslight.net/i-am.html

Christian love,
Ronald

I think you are way over complicating the verse.
The context is about the pharasees justifying themselvs by their heritage in Abraham. Jesus says before Abraham was I AM. In otherwords befoe Abraham existed there was the Great I AM. Correcting the pharasees by saying they should have justified themselvs by God and not their heritage.

January 22, 2008 at 10:35 pm#107378

Participant

Quote (Nick Hassan @ Jan. 23 2008,00:19)

I do believe that Jesus was a normal man as Adam was a normal man, and I do *not* believe that Jesus' orgins were some sort of godman. Jesus was not a man at all until he became flesh; in doing so, he no longer was the divine being, which is why the scripture uses the past tense — was — in John 1:1.

Jesus, thus, never was a godman (as that term is usually used to express the dualistic philosophy). He became a man, a little lower than the angels, crowned with the glory that Adam originally had. — Psalm 8:5; Hebrews 2:9.

I cannot say, since the scriptures do not say, when and how Jesus realized his orgin, or when or how he came remember his experiences that he had with his God and Father before he came into the world of mankind. Most that can be said about that would speculation. We do know that he knew about his Father at the age of twelve. (Luke 2:42,49) And we know that he did remember those heavenly experiences because he speaks being able to tell about the heavenly things since he had descended out of heaven. (John 3:12,13) I do believe, however, it is quite possible that God's holy spirit did have much to do with all of this. As a child, how could Jesus remain without sin except that he were be led by God's spirit? — Romans 8:14.

Christian love,
Ronald

January 22, 2008 at 11:13 pm#107379