Did Jesus say he was God???

[Popeyesays]

That means god is limited and not infinite.

No. It means that the universe exists as something God did. How much more vast is the nature of God than His creation.

God cannot be contained in the confines of the universe. The universe is a "thing" and God is not.

When a man is so full of the Spirit of God in a capacity far beyond our own capacity to be so filled, then it is easy to think of him as BEING God. Man has limited capacity. God does not.

A teacup (human capacity) has limited capacity. The Ocean (infinite Spirit of God) cannot be contained within.

An Avataar can be filled with the Spirit of God, but the Avataar cannot contain ALL the SPirit of God.

Regards,
Scott

 

[2ducklow]

I belive that Jesus was a great man, human not the God. He was the prophet of the God and he will be back.

Jesus was the new man, the second or last adam, all christians are new creations in Christ Jesus.

(Rotherham) 1 Corinthians 15:45 Thus, also, it is written--The first man, Adam, became, a living soul, the last Adam, a life-giving spirit.

Revelation 3:14 And unto the angel of the church of the Laodiceans write; These things saith the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the beginning of the creation of God;

Jesus is the beginning of the new creation of God, the second adam. Not rock creation.

Colossians 1:15 who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation;


Jesus is the beginning and firstborn of all new creations of God (2nd adam).

the new creation of God was new male seed which God created and begat Jesus with. Begat means male seed fertilizes female egg.

(Rotherham) Matthew 1:20 But, when, these things, he had pondered, lo! a messenger of the Lord, by dream, appeared to him, saying,--Joseph, son of David! do not fear to take unto thee Mary thy wife, for, that which, in her, hath been begotten, is of [the], Holy, Spirit.


So Jesus was begotten like all men, not a contortion act of god trying to squeese himself into mary's womb and changing shape to a 2 cell zygot.

And Jerimiah prophesised that God would create this new male seed.

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

the LORD created a male seed which enabled Mary (a woman) to compass or go around a man to conceive.

Jesus is the new man. Not God. God is not a man.,

 

[lew0049]

Refreshing to talk with someone who uses logic instead of illogic. I wonder is there any doctrine in all of Christendom more illogical than the Trinity doctrine? I can't think of any off hand more loaded with illogic than Trinity.

Well, I guess I am illogical. It's interesting though that logic is exactly what I used when I came to the conclusion that Jesus is God in the flesh.

Okay, if you believe that God created the universe/earth/us then he is obviously outside of his creation. Thus, he would also not be controlled by the Time function that we are controlled by. God doesn't live moment to moment as we.

Joshua 10:12-14 [KJV] Then spake Joshua to the LORD in the day when the LORD delivered up the Amorites before the children of Israel, and he said in the sight of Israel, Sun, stand thou still upon Gibeon; and thou, Moon, in the valley of Ajalon. And the sun stood still, and the moon stayed, until the people had avenged themselves upon their enemies. Is not this written in the book of Jasher? So the sun stood still in the midst of heaven, and hasted not to go down about a whole day. And there was no day like that before it or after it, that the LORD hearkened unto the voice of a man: for the LORD fought for Israel.
Exodus 10:21 - 23 [KJV] And the LORD said unto Moses, Stretch out thine hand toward heaven, that there may be darkness over the land of Egypt, even darkness which may be felt.And Moses stretched forth his hand toward heaven; and there was a thick darkness in all the land of Egypt three days:They saw not one another, neither rose any from his place for three days: but all the children of Israel had light in their dwellings.
2 Kings 20:11 [KJV] And Isaiah the prophet cried unto the LORD: and he brought the shadow ten degrees backward, by which it had gone down in the dial of Ahaz.
Its not when somebody asks "what was before our creation/what did God do?" Words like 'before' and 'after' literally have no meaning here. Nevertheless, the whole basis of this debate is "Why didn't Jesus simply come out and say "I am God." Correct? Tell me though, what contexual meaning of God did Jews have during this time? Simplistically, they believe God to be the One dwelling in heaven (among others). So if the question was stated "Do you believe you are God?", this would make absolutely no sense to the Jews because they believed God to be dwelling in heaven - thus confusion (as we obviously have now).
Consequently, if Jesus (or anyone) were to say "Hey I'm God" this would have made NO sense to the people and would be considered outrageous or blasphamy. And tell me, how would this reaction have at all been productive to his teachings?" In the FIRST century, not now. Hypothetically assume that Jesus is God, how could be possibly exclaim something so complex to people of this time - a good communicator explains complex truths in a way that doesn't confuse the audience (the Jews), but is beneficial/helps the audience grasp the point being made - irrespective of whether they accept the point being made.
According to the Jewish OT the One who established the earth is none other than Yahweh God:

For thus says the LORD, WHO CREATED THE HEAVENS, WHO IS GOD, Who formed the earth and made it, WHO HAS ESTABLISHED IT, Who did not create it in vain, Who formed it to be inhabited: "I am the LORD, and there is no other. Isaiah 45:18



Heres a quote from a Greek NT scholar robertson
But also called God his own Father (alla kai patera idion elege ton qeon). "His own" (idion) IN A SENSE NOT TRUE OF OTHERS. That is precisely what Jesus meant by "My Father." See Romans 8:32 for o idioß uioß, "his own Son." Making himself equal with God (ison eauton poiwn twi qewi). Isoß is an old common adjective (in papyri also) and means equal. In Philippians 2:6 Paul calls the Pre-incarnate Christ isa qewi, "equal to God" (plural isa, attributes of God). Bernard thinks that Jesus would not claim to be isoß qewi because in John 14:28 he says: "The Father is greater than I." And yet he says in John 14:7 that the one who sees him sees in him the Father. Certainly the Jews understood Jesus to claim equality with the Father in nature and privilege and power as also in John 10:33; John 19:7. Besides, if the Jews misunderstood Jesus on this point, it was open and easy for him to deny it and to clear up the misapprehension. This is precisely what he does not do. On the contrary Jesus gives a powerful apologetic in defence of his claim to equality with the Father (verses John 19-47). (Source)

 

[2ducklow]

Well, I guess I am illogical. It's interesting though that logic is exactly what I used when I came to the conclusion that Jesus is God in the flesh.

Okay, if you believe that God created the universe/earth/us then he is obviously outside of his creation. Thus, he would also not be controlled by the Time function that we are controlled by. God doesn't live moment to moment as we.

Joshua 10:12-14 [KJV] Then spake Joshua to the LORD in the day when the LORD delivered up the Amorites before the children of Israel, and he said in the sight of Israel, Sun, stand thou still upon Gibeon; and thou, Moon, in the valley of Ajalon. And the sun stood still, and the moon stayed, until the people had avenged themselves upon their enemies. Is not this written in the book of Jasher? So the sun stood still in the midst of heaven, and hasted not to go down about a whole day. And there was no day like that before it or after it, that the LORD hearkened unto the voice of a man: for the LORD fought for Israel.
Exodus 10:21 - 23 [KJV] And the LORD said unto Moses, Stretch out thine hand toward heaven, that there may be darkness over the land of Egypt, even darkness which may be felt.And Moses stretched forth his hand toward heaven; and there was a thick darkness in all the land of Egypt three days:They saw not one another, neither rose any from his place for three days: but all the children of Israel had light in their dwellings.
2 Kings 20:11 [KJV] And Isaiah the prophet cried unto the LORD: and he brought the shadow ten degrees backward, by which it had gone down in the dial of Ahaz.
Its not when somebody asks "what was before our creation/what did God do?" Words like 'before' and 'after' literally have no meaning here. Nevertheless, the whole basis of this debate is "Why didn't Jesus simply come out and say "I am God." Correct? Tell me though, what contexual meaning of God did Jews have during this time? Simplistically, they believe God to be the One dwelling in heaven (among others). So if the question was stated "Do you believe you are God?", this would make absolutely no sense to the Jews because they believed God to be dwelling in heaven - thus confusion (as we obviously have now).

I don't see it that way. Jesus, a man, claiming to be God who is a spirit being, would make no sense, not that it would be something difficult to understand. Besides Jesus after his resurrection explicitly stated that he was not a spirit being.

Luke 24:39 Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I myself: handle me, and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have.

Consequently, if Jesus (or anyone) were to say "Hey I'm God" this would have made NO sense to the people and would be considered outrageous or blasphamy. And tell me, how would this reaction have at all been productive to his teachings?" In the FIRST century, not now. Hypothetically assume that Jesus is God, how could be possibly exclaim something so complex to people of this time - a good communicator explains complex truths in a way that doesn't confuse the audience (the Jews), but is beneficial/helps the audience grasp the point being made - irrespective of whether they accept the point being made.

I don't consider someone saying "I am God" a concept difficult to understand. I consider concepts like 3 beings are one being, which is what trinity teaches defacto, to be a contradiction and therefore untruth, and impossible to understand. For all conctadicitons are untruth and impossible to understand.

According to the Jewish OT the One who established the earth is none other than Yahweh God:

For thus says the LORD, WHO CREATED THE HEAVENS, WHO IS GOD, Who formed the earth and made it, WHO HAS ESTABLISHED IT, Who did not create it in vain, Who formed it to be inhabited: "I am the LORD, and there is no other. Isaiah 45:18



Heres a quote from a Greek NT scholar robertson

Jesus called his Father the only true God, john 17.11, therefore Jesus isn't God. all the arguments presented here to get around that simple truth are loaded with errors, too many to deal with.

 

[Don Penguinoini]

No. It means that the universe exists as something God did. How much more vast is the nature of God than His creation.

God cannot be contained in the confines of the universe. The universe is a "thing" and God is not.

When a man is so full of the Spirit of God in a capacity far beyond our own capacity to be so filled, then it is easy to think of him as BEING God. Man has limited capacity. God does not.

A teacup (human capacity) has limited capacity. The Ocean (infinite Spirit of God) cannot be contained within.

An Avataar can be filled with the Spirit of God, but the Avataar cannot contain ALL the SPirit of God.

Regards,
Scott

Once again, by saying god cannot do something, that means god is limited, do you believe god is limited?

 

[Popeyesays]

Once again, by saying god cannot do something, that means god is limited, do you believe god is limited?

No, I believe He is unlimited and the universe is to limited to contain Him. Get the difference? Six ounces of seawater is a sample that stops being the ocean as soon as you dip the sample. It becomes a teacup of salt water. THe SPirit of God fills a man to his capacity, in filling the individual man, it stops being GOD and is just the Spirit of God.

Regards,
Scott

 

[Dirty Penguin]

No. It means that the universe exists as something God did. How much more vast is the nature of God than His creation.

God cannot be contained in the confines of the universe. The universe is a "thing" and God is not.

When a man is so full of the Spirit of God in a capacity far beyond our own capacity to be so filled, then it is easy to think of him as BEING God. Man has limited capacity. God does not.

A teacup (human capacity) has limited capacity. The Ocean (infinite Spirit of God) cannot be contained within.

An Avataar can be filled with the Spirit of God, but the Avataar cannot contain ALL the SPirit of God.

Regards,
Scott

I don't see it that way. Jesus, a man, claiming to be God who is a spirit being, would make no sense, not that it would be something difficult to understand. Besides Jesus after his resurrection explicitly stated that he was not a spirit being.

Luke 24:39 Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I myself: handle me, and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have.

I don't consider someone saying "I am God" a concept difficult to understand. I consider concepts like 3 beings are one being, which is what trinity teaches defacto, to be a contradiction and therefore untruth, and impossible to understand. For all conctadicitons are untruth and impossible to understand.
Jesus called his Father the only true God, john 17.11, therefore Jesus isn't God. all the arguments presented here to get around that simple truth are loaded with errors, too many to deal with.

:clap
Well said.........

I like these too......;

Matthew 11:25
At that time Jesus answered and said, I thank you, O Father, Master of heaven and earth, because you hast hid these things from the wise and prudent, and hast revealed them unto babes.

John
3:34 For he whom God hath sent speaks the words of God: for God gives not the Spirit by measure.

John 6:38
For I came down from heaven, not to do mine own will, but the will of him that sent me.

John 17:3
And this is life eternal, that they might know YOU, the only true God, and Jesus the Messiah, whom YOU HAVE SENT.

 

[Francine]

Refreshing to talk with someone who uses logic instead of illogic. I wonder is there any doctrine in all of Christendom more illogical than the Trinity doctrine? I can't think of any off hand more loaded with illogic than Trinity.

Learn six impossible things before breakfast.

 

[lew0049]

I don't see it that way. Jesus, a man, claiming to be God who is a spirit being, would make no sense, not that it would be something difficult to understand. Besides Jesus after his resurrection explicitly stated that he was not a spirit being.

Luke 24:39 Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I myself: handle me, and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have.

I don't consider someone saying "I am God" a concept difficult to understand. I consider concepts like 3 beings are one being, which is what trinity teaches defacto, to be a contradiction and therefore untruth, and impossible to understand. For all conctadicitons are untruth and impossible to understand.
Jesus called his Father the only true God, john 17.11, therefore Jesus isn't God. all the arguments presented here to get around that simple truth are loaded with errors, too many to deal with.

As I said, we wouldn't have a problem with someone saying he is God (in the 21st century), the trinity concept that is. Yet, the Jews during the time of Jesus only knew of the Father (God being in heaven outside of this world). I mean look at our culture compared to the culture of the people in the 1st century, its a world of difference.

You have to understand a few things though. First, I guess you would qualify me as a Christian, but I assure you that I did not simply accept Christianity and its doctrines because this would be neglecting our "God given" if you will, use logic and reason come to the conclusion Jesus is God. Secondly, I complete understand why someone could read the Bible and believe Jesus not to be God - like what you posted and what Dregod has posted numerous in verses, Jesus prays to the Father for help (and then of course the logical thought is "obviously Jesus is not God if he is praying to God." I will try to respond more to this later (maybe tonight), but essentially what I am saying is that if Jesus was God incarnate, then he would be good in a sense (have many of the attributes) BUT in other ways he would be lacking. Instead of being outside of His creation (and thus mankinds time function), he would be part of the creation. There are many instances where the Bible says Jesus was sinless, yet he still prayed to the Father for strength. What does this tell us? Because Jesus was a man, he had mankinds characteristics, for example, mankind's temptations and physical pain. Now, could God, outside of our world have these characteristics? Of course not.
To understand Jesus praying to the Father and being less than the Father, i believe, is very dependant upon understanding the time function and God not having this constraint - yet if God became a man, he would to mankinds time function (because he was a man). I've got to go, but hopefully I didn't lose you with my thoughts. There is alot more I can say about the Time concept, among others, just ask! And I assure you that I am not saying that I know everything or can undoubtably prove Jesus is God, but I'll tell ya, so many people (that I have talked to in person) cannot get beyond the question "why did Jesus have to pray to God/Father if he was God." Obviously, everyone on the Internet (in my opinion of course) will say that they can, but in all honesty, people build their arguments considerably based upon this (and I completely understand why), but conclusions should be drawn after analyzing everything - not just what Jesus said. Have a good night
-chip

 

[Popeyesays]

Lew,

That's a very reasonable approach and persuasive even though it does not convince me.

I think there is another aspect to this:
God cannot make Himself manifest to man, so He sends Those Perfect Mirrors of His light. Those perfect Souls Who make Manifest the presence of God in the reflection They provide. Elsewise there would be no way for us to know God's Hidden Essence. It is very easy to think that we behold God when all we do behold is a reflection of God's Presence.

It's the closes to God we can perceive with out own senses, limited as we are by our nature as beings contingent on Creation for our existence.

"I shall restate here My theme, that perchance this may assist thee in recognizing thy Creator. Know thou that God - exalted and glorified be He - doth in no wise manifest His inmost Essence and Reality. From time immemorial He hath been veiled in the eternity of His Essence and concealed in the infinitude of His own Being. And when He purposed to manifest His beauty in the kingdom of names and to reveal His glory in the realm of attributes, He brought forth His Prophets from the invisible plane to the visible, that His name "the Manifest" might be distinguished from "the Hidden" and His name "the Last" might be discerned from "the First", and that there may be fulfilled the words: "He is the First and the Last; the Seen and the Hidden; and He knoweth all things!"33 Thus hath He revealed these most excellent names and most exalted words in the Manifestations of His Self and the Mirrors of His Being."

(Baha'u'llah, Gems of Divine Mysteries, p. 34)

Regards,
Scott

 

[Dirty Penguin]

Why can't John 17:3 stand on its own? Do we need to over analyze what Yeshua was "trying" to say but didn't make clear so he must have meant this instead?

I don't think so.

I think John 17:3 speaks for itself and is one......(just one OF) the clearest verses where Yeshua defines his role.... You are the ONE true God and I am the messiah (the messenger, the prophet, the servant, the student, the mouthpiece, the ambassador who speaks for you) whom you've sent.......

I mean, at this point in his prayer, if he is God he would have truly known this which, to me, would have made this statement (john 17:3) moot.

This verse amongst a few others are so plainly clear cut. It's amazing how some can look right at it and still say he is God.....

I think we have truly hit the brick wall and crashed through it with this thread.....we're going to keep it going to no end I guess.

 

[2ducklow]

Why can't John 17:3 stand on its own? Do we need to over analyze what Yeshua was "trying" to say but didn't make clear so he must have meant this instead?

I don't think so.

I think John 17:3 speaks for itself and is one......(just one OF) the clearest verses where Yeshua defines his role.... You are the ONE true God and I am the messiah (the messenger, the prophet, the servant, the student, the mouthpiece, the ambassador who speaks for you) whom you've sent.......

I mean, at this point in his prayer, if he is God he would have truly known this which, to me, would have made this statement (john 17:3) moot.

This verse amongst a few others are so plainly clear cut. It's amazing how some can look right at it and still say he is God.....

In my opinion, a major reason, perhaps the major reason, Christians can look at verses like 1 cor. 8.6 and john 17.11 and still maintain that Jesus is god, is because they have been taught all their christian life that their salvation depends on believing that Jesus is god. And since almost all christians believe it, it must be true. Consequently no amount of logic will persuade them when they believe that their very salvation is dependant upon it.

I think we have truly hit the brick wall and crashed through it with this thread.....we're going to keep it going to no end I guess.

I dunno, I think i'm gonna drop out of it. I got a big bump on my forehead. Just try and figure this one out.

Most christians say that God became a man when talking about john 1.14 (the word became flesh). But when Jesus was on the cross and died, they switch gears and say that God part of Jesus didn't die, the man christ Jesus died. Never heard anyone explain that one to me. It's one they avoid at all costs.

 

[Muffled]

In my opinion, a major reason, perhaps the major reason, Christians can look at verses like 1 cor. 8.6 and john 17.11 and still maintain that Jesus is god, is because they have been taught all their christian life that their salvation depends on believing that Jesus is god. And since almost all christians believe it, it must be true. Consequently no amount of logic will persuade them when they believe that their very salvation is dependant upon it.
I dunno, I think i'm gonna drop out of it. I got a big bump on my forehead. Just try and figure this one out.

Most christians say that God became a man when talking about john 1.14 (the word became flesh). But when Jesus was on the cross and died, they switch gears and say that God part of Jesus didn't die, the man christ Jesus died. Never heard anyone explain that one to me. It's one they avoid at all costs.

I do not recall ever being taught this. I also don't believe it to be true. God has always saved people willing to come to Him. It is true that one of the evidences that Jesus is God inthe flesh, is that only God is Savior but Jesus is also Savior. I came to this issue through a trinitarian question from my wife who was not religious but had attended sunday school so she knew a little. She asked how God could be in a body when He needed to be running the unvierse as though God were confined to or trapped in the body and therefore powerless outside it. It is the omnipresence of God that makes it possible for Him to be both in the body and everywhere else. God then led me through a series of steps to study the attributes of God in relation to Jesus and has added many other verses along the way. God has used other people to direct my studies but it is God who has lighted my path to come to this understanding.

This isn't true. Neither numbers nor church authority guarantee truth. All you need do is look at the evidence objectively and you should be able to see the truth of it. Of course in my case, I was led by God to see the truth so it was not entirely objectivity on my part.

This is not the case. I have no trouble seeing how logical it is that you can't fit a God who inhabits the whole universe into a body. However although I agree with Scott on spatiality, I do not see spatiality as more than an attribute and not one that identifies God. God is identified (as you and I) through His intelligence (I think therfore I am). The intelligence of God is available everywhere and therfore the identity of God is available in Jesus.

This isn't true. I have addressed this issue in another thread.

This statment may sound transformational but there is no way that it can be. This verse explains why:
John 3:6 That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.
What the body is able to do is provide a mouth, voicebox, and tongue for speaking the Word of God. It also provides a physical mind through which the Word can be transposed from spiritual to physically spoken Word.

 

[Muffled]

Not confused at all. As I assumed you would..You're going to try and link Exodus 3:14 to make a connection to John 8:58 and these two verses have nothing to do with each other. The confusion is on your part.



What are you talking about? In the third century the Septuagint translated (ehyeh asher ehyeh) into the greek (ego eimi ho on) as opposed to 1st/2nd century Aquila and Theodotion rendering as (esomai hos esomai) which litteraly translates as "I will be who I will be". This, to me, is more in keeping with the hebrew due the fact that the root of (ehyeh) is (hayah) which means (to be). It's the same as what we see in verse 3:12. For some strange reason scholars translate it as (I am).



Again that has nothing to do with John 8:58 regardles of how much you want to sretch it.



Well I'm not a Jehovah's Witness so I have no idea what you mean. But I still think your rendering of 3:14 is incorrect.

And so we're back to square one. John 8:58 has nothing to do with 3:14. I guess John 8:58 is all in how it is translated. I contend that the KJV scholars were bias in their translation to try and make the same connection you have even though the verse means (I existed). The translation "before Abraham was born I existed" makes sense given the testimony in Yeshua's prayer later in the same book of John.

John 17:5
And now, O Father, glorify you, me with your own self with the glory which I had with you before the world existed.

Interesting that the word at the end of his statement (existed) is in the same family as the word being used in John 8:58 to mean he existed before something. In 8:58 he said he existed before Abraham and in 17:5 he illustrates he existed with his god before the world was created. But, to me, the emphasis needs to be on the word (WITH)....​

On the contrary, since both verses use the short name of JHVH as identity for God they have much in common.

You have not presented a declination of the Hebew word "hayeh." How can this verb be declined two different ways? Is there some confusion of tense in Hebrew so that one must view context to determine the tense? I disagree the Iwill be makes any sense. How can God say that He will be if His identity is tied to the fact that He has always existed. It is after all what makes God different from His creation among other less important things.

There have been numerous Hebrew scholars making translations and none of them have translated the verse the way you have and the translators of the Septuagint used "ego eimi" to mean "I exist" not "I existed." Or will you now try to say that Jesus was saying "I will exist?" This does not fit the context at all.

 

[2ducklow]

I do not recall ever being taught this. I also don't believe it to be true. God has always saved people willing to come to Him. It is true that one of the evidences that Jesus is God inthe flesh, is that only God is Savior but Jesus is also Savior. I came to this issue through a trinitarian question from my wife who was not religious but had attended sunday school so she knew a little. She asked how God could be in a body when He needed to be running the unvierse as though God were confined to or trapped in the body and therefore powerless outside it. It is the omnipresence of God that makes it possible for Him to be both in the body and everywhere else. God then led me through a series of steps to study the attributes of God in relation to Jesus and has added many other verses along the way. God has used other people to direct my studies but it is God who has lighted my path to come to this understanding.

Lots of trinitarians flat out state that you have to believe the trinity or you don't know God and you are not saved. They consider you a heretic, and therefore outside christianity. The nicene creed started it by saying that anyone who ddidn't believe it was damned or some such thing. While most christians may not verbally express it, the idea weights heavily in their decision to not honestly examine their beliefs vis a vis the trinty, IMO. Your opinion is obviously different.

This isn't true. Neither numbers nor church authority guarantee truth. All you need do is look at the evidence objectively and you should be able to see the truth of it. Of course in my case, I was led by God to see the truth so it was not entirely objectivity on my part.

the fact that most people believe the trinity is a factor in many peoples reluctance to truthfully examine the trinity, IMO.

This is not the case. I have no trouble seeing how logical it is that you can't fit a God who inhabits the whole universe into a body.

God fiting in a body is not god becoming a man. THe spirit of the living God is in my body, but God is not me. you haven't addressed the problem, If God became a man, then he ceased to be God. For if a man has a sex change operation and has his dna changed to that of a woman, and has his brain changed to a female brain, he is no longer a man, he is a woman. IF God became a man, he ceased to be God.

However although I agree with Scott on spatiality, I do not see spatiality as more than an attribute and not one that identifies God. God is identified (as you and I) through His intelligence (I think therfore I am). The intelligence of God is available everywhere and therfore the identity of God is available in Jesus.[

This isn't true. I have addressed this issue in another thread.

well i'm not going to look for it as I have no idea where it is.

This statment may sound transformational but there is no way that it can be. This verse explains why:
John 3:6 That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.
What the body is able to do is provide a mouth, voicebox, and tongue for speaking the Word of God. It also provides a physical mind through which the Word can be transposed from spiritual to physically spoken Word.

you answered why you think God became a man. That was not my question. My question was if God became a man, then why did God not die when the man christ Jesus died as most trintiarians maintain? So you have proven my case with your answer, trinitarians will not face the question of how god can become a man and then how they can say the man jesus died but not God. you avoided it like everyone does. and I'm quite sure if you respond you will avoid it once again no matter how many times I ask it.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

On the contrary, since both verses use the short name of JHVH as identity for God they have much in common.

They most certainly are not the same. Yor're reading it in english. Every instance where Yeshua or even others in the 4 gospels stated (ego eimi) they did not mean it as invoking the name of God. There are plenty of instances where Yeshua said "ego eimi". You can't simply say he was saying he was God, because ego eimi depends on the context of the situation or converstation. In John 8:58 he was not invoking the name of God. He simply expressed he had existed before Abraham was born.

You have not presented a declination of the Hebew word "hayeh."

Did you mean definition? If you do mean definition then here t is. But I did post the definition a few pages ago. You might have missed it.

Strong's Lexicon
1961 hayah haw-yaw a primitive root (Compare 1933); to exist, i.e. be or become, come to pass (always emphatic, and not a mere copula or auxiliary):--beacon, X altogether, be(-come), accomplished, committed, like), break, cause, come (to pass), do, faint, fall, + follow, happen, X have, last, pertain, quit (one-)self, require, X use.

Additionally what I have found is at www.blueletterbible.org the scholars have done a great job cross referencing that and linking it (NOT to the greek ego eimi) but rather the greek word (epimeno). http://cf.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=H01961&Version=kjv. They also do a great job listing the many instances where 1961 (hayah) appear in the OT. If you don't believe me then just click the link above. You will start to see a pattern. This word means (to be, exist, to come to pass).

How can this verb be declined two different ways? Is there some confusion of tense in Hebrew so that one must view context to determine the tense? I disagree the Iwill be makes any sense. How can God say that He will be if His identity is tied to the fact that He has always existed. It is after all what makes God different from His creation among other less important things.

Ponder all you like. The definition is above. The linking of (hayah) is in accordance to the greek epimeno;

Strong's Lexicon
1961. epimeno ep-ee-men'-o from 1909 and 3306; to stay over, i.e. remain (figuratively, persevere):--abide (in), continue (in), tarry.

1909. epi ep-ee' a primary preposition; properly, meaning superimposition (of time, place, order, etc.), as a relation of distribution (with the genitive case), i.e. over, upon, etc.; of rest (with the dative case) at, on, etc.; of direction (with the accusative case) towards, upon, etc.:--about (the times), above, after, against, among, as long as (touching), at, beside, X have charge of, (be-, (where-))fore, in (a place, as much as, the time of, -to), (because) of, (up-)on (behalf of), over, (by, for) the space of, through(-out), (un-)to(-ward), with. In compounds it retains essentially the same import, at, upon, etc. (literally or figuratively).

3306. meno men'-o a primary verb; to stay (in a given place, state, relation or expectancy):--abide, continue, dwell, endure, be present, remain, stand, tarry (for), X thine own.

There have been numerous Hebrew scholars making translations and none of them have translated the verse the way you have

Sure there are. There are a plethra of scholars that have translated that verse the way I posted it. Mind you, the verse that I posted was from a "Christian" web site. So your assumption that I translated it was false. I merely used a christian site to prove my point. Here are a few others;

1869: "From before Abraham was, I have been." The New Testament, by G. R.
Noyes.

1935: "I existed before Abraham was born!" The Bible-An American Translation,
by J. M. P. Smith and E. J. Goodspeed.

1965: "Before Abraham was born, I was already the one that I am." Das Neue
Testament, by Jrg Zink.

1981: "I was alive before Abraham was born!" The Simple English Bible.

1984: "Before Abraham came into existence, I have been." New World
Translation of the Holy Scriptures.

Additionally you can check these version of the bibles as well'

Contemporary English Version
Worldwide English (New Testament)
NLT Bible Onlie (Note: This is where I got my verse from. They actually believe Yeshua is God but they did the right thing by translating John 8:58 in the correct manner)

The text in Exodus 3:14 EGO EIMI is NOT the equivalent of the EGO EIMI of
John 8:58. It is HO ON. look it up. The Septuagint has it as EGO EIMI HO ON
with HO ON translated as THE BEING. So I hold that the christian rendering that I posted (WITH) the definitions of the words are correct and has nothing to do with Exodus 3:14

Jesus answered, "The truth is, I existed before Abraham was even born!


Strongs Greek Lexicon
ego
1473. ego eg-o' a primary pronoun of the first person I (only expressed when emphatic):--I, me.

eimi
1510. eimi i-mee' the first person singular present indicative; a prolonged form of a primary and defective verb; I exist (used only when emphatic):--am, have been, X it is I, was

and the translators of the Septuagint used "ego eimi" to mean "I exist" not "I existed."

You're double talking here. You can't have it both ways. You can't say that John 8:58 means Yeshua was claiming to be God if you are agreeing that the Septuagint translated as "I exist". Especially since their greek version of the OT says "Ego eimi ho on". So you are in agreement with Strong's Lexicon......Before Abraham was born I was, I am, I exist, I have been.

Or will you now try to say that Jesus was saying "I will exist?" This does not fit the context at all.

The context was given long ago. All that Yeshua said and meant in that verse was that he existed before Abraham was even born.

 

[Muffled]

They most certainly are not the same. Yor're reading it in english. Every instance where Yeshua or even others in the 4 gospels stated (ego eimi) they did not mean it as invoking the name of God. There are plenty of instances where Yeshua said "ego eimi". You can't simply say he was saying he was God, because ego eimi depends on the context of the situation or converstation. In John 8:58 he was not invoking the name of God. He simply expressed he had existed before Abraham was born.



Did you mean definition? If you do mean definition then here t is. But I did post the definition a few pages ago. You might have missed it.

Strong's Lexicon
1961 hayah haw-yaw a primitive root (Compare 1933); to exist, i.e. be or become, come to pass (always emphatic, and not a mere copula or auxiliary):--beacon, X altogether, be(-come), accomplished, committed, like), break, cause, come (to pass), do, faint, fall, + follow, happen, X have, last, pertain, quit (one-)self, require, X use.

Additionally what I have found is at www.blueletterbible.org the scholars have done a great job cross referencing that and linking it (NOT to the greek ego eimi) but rather the greek word (epimeno). http://cf.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=H01961&Version=kjv. They also do a great job listing the many instances where 1961 (hayah) appear in the OT. If you don't believe me then just click the link above. You will start to see a pattern. This word means (to be, exist, to come to pass).




Ponder all you like. The definition is above. The linking of (hayah) is in accordance to the greek epimeno;

Strong's Lexicon
1961. epimeno ep-ee-men'-o from 1909 and 3306; to stay over, i.e. remain (figuratively, persevere):--abide (in), continue (in), tarry.

1909. epi ep-ee' a primary preposition; properly, meaning superimposition (of time, place, order, etc.), as a relation of distribution (with the genitive case), i.e. over, upon, etc.; of rest (with the dative case) at, on, etc.; of direction (with the accusative case) towards, upon, etc.:--about (the times), above, after, against, among, as long as (touching), at, beside, X have charge of, (be-, (where-))fore, in (a place, as much as, the time of, -to), (because) of, (up-)on (behalf of), over, (by, for) the space of, through(-out), (un-)to(-ward), with. In compounds it retains essentially the same import, at, upon, etc. (literally or figuratively).

3306. meno men'-o a primary verb; to stay (in a given place, state, relation or expectancy):--abide, continue, dwell, endure, be present, remain, stand, tarry (for), X thine own.




Sure there are. There are a plethra of scholars that have translated that verse the way I posted it. Mind you, the verse that I posted was from a "Christian" web site. So your assumption that I translated it was false. I merely used a christian site to prove my point. Here are a few others;

1869: "From before Abraham was, I have been." The New Testament, by G. R.
Noyes.

1935: "I existed before Abraham was born!" The Bible-An American Translation,
by J. M. P. Smith and E. J. Goodspeed.

1965: "Before Abraham was born, I was already the one that I am." Das Neue
Testament, by Jrg Zink.

1981: "I was alive before Abraham was born!" The Simple English Bible.

1984: "Before Abraham came into existence, I have been." New World
Translation of the Holy Scriptures.

Additionally you can check these version of the bibles as well'

Contemporary English Version
Worldwide English (New Testament)
NLT Bible Onlie (Note: This is where I got my verse from. They actually believe Yeshua is God but they did the right thing by translating John 8:58 in the correct manner)

The text in Exodus 3:14 EGO EIMI is NOT the equivalent of the EGO EIMI of
John 8:58. It is HO ON. look it up. The Septuagint has it as EGO EIMI HO ON
with HO ON translated as THE BEING. So I hold that the christian rendering that I posted (WITH) the definitions of the words are correct and has nothing to do with Exodus 3:14

Jesus answered, "The truth is, I existed before Abraham was even born!


Strongs Greek Lexicon
ego
1473. ego eg-o' a primary pronoun of the first person I (only expressed when emphatic):--I, me.

eimi
1510. eimi i-mee' the first person singular present indicative; a prolonged form of a primary and defective verb; I exist (used only when emphatic):--am, have been, X it is I, was




You're double talking here. You can't have it both ways. You can't say that John 8:58 means Yeshua was claiming to be God if you are agreeing that the Septuagint translated as "I exist". Especially since their greek version of the OT says "Ego eimi ho on". So you are in agreement with Strong's Lexicon......Before Abraham was born I was, I am, I exist, I have been.



The context was given long ago. All that Yeshua said and meant in that verse was that he existed before Abraham was even born.

I did some research on the declination of this verb. It appears there are only two tenses: perfect/past and imperfect/present-future. The word that I have in a hebrew text has letters that correspond to ahyh with the "a" representing first person or if you put in intervening vowels ahayah. The translation would be "I am" or "I will be" however since God is speaking He already is and the "I will be" does not fit the context.

I think the Ho On you are referring to equates to the middle word between the "I am"s.
I would also translate it as "the living" so that the passage would read "I am the living I am." "Ego Eimi" is a valid translation of "Ahayah."

I would not argue the Strong's definition but merely point out that the primary meaning is "exist" not "existed" I am sure that you will argue that the context requires the past tense because of the context "before Abraham" however there is the context of Jesus declaring who He is which would support the translation "I Am."

John 8:53 Art thou greater than our father Abraham, who died? and the prophets died: whom makest thou thyself?

Abraham died. If Jesus existed (He did not exist as Jesus) then He died and is not greater than Abraham but Jesus speaks with God's voice who was there with Abraham but did not die. What He did with the body who can say since God can materialize it and dematerialize it at will but that still would not identify Jesus as God simply because He was there. It takes the statement of Jesus "I Am" to declare who he is.
The Jews picked up stones to stone Him for blasphemy but as far as I know there is no injunction against declaring pre-existence but there is one against proclaiming that you are Jehovah if you aren't truly Jehovah. Namely that you should not take the name of God in vain.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

I did some research on the declination of this verb. It appears there are only two tenses: perfect/past and imperfect/present-future. The word that I have in a hebrew text has letters that correspond to ahyh with the "a" representing first person or if you put in intervening vowels ahayah. The translation would be "I am" or "I will be" however since God is speaking He already is and the "I will be" does not fit the context.

Again, I have no problem with that. It's basically what I said. My position is that is has nothing to do with the context of John 8:58.

I think the Ho On you are referring to equates to the middle word between the "I am"s. I would also translate it as "the living" so that the passage would read "I am the living I am." "Ego Eimi" is a valid translation of "Ahayah."

Again, not a problem for me. It was the Septuagint that translated it in the greek with (ho on). Which can be viewed as "I am the living one that I am"..But again, my issue is not with Exodus but how people want to insist it has a connection to John 8:58 and that Yeshua said he was God. This is incorrect.

I would not argue the Strong's definition but merely point out that the primary meaning is "exist" not "existed" I am sure that you will argue that the context requires the past tense because of the context "before Abraham" however there is the context of Jesus declaring who He is which would support the translation "I Am."

That's the problem. He's not declaring who he is. If I inserted (was or have been) they would not break Strong's rule.

Strong's Lexicon
1510. eimi i-mee' the first person singular present indicative; a prolonged form of a primary and defective verb; I exist (used only when emphatic):--am, have been, X it is I, was

1869: " From before Abraham was, I have been." The New Testament, by G. R.
Noyes.

1981: "I was alive before Abraham was born!" The Simple English Bible.

1984: " Before Abraham came into existence, I have been." New World
Translation of the Holy Scriptures.


There's nothing wrong with these renderings. They adhere to the rule. What does not adhere to the rule is the common interpretation.

Blue Letter Bible
5774 Tense - Present

The present tense represents a simple statement of fact
or reality viewed as occurring in actual time. In most cases
this corresponds directly with the English present tense.

Some phrases which might be rendered as past tense in English
will often occur in the present tense in Greek. These are
termed "historical presents," and such occurrences dramatize
the event described as if the reader were there watching the
event occur. Some English translations render such historical
presents in the English past tense, while others permit the
tense to remain in the present.

John 8:53 Art thou greater than our father Abraham, who died? and the prophets died: whom makest thou thyself?

I like it rendered this way because you can see their faces and the anger they had with him. Mind this is BEFORE 8:58;

"Are you greater than our father Abraham, who died? Are you greater than the prophets, who died? Who do you think you are?"

It was all about their beloved Abraham to them. He didn't invoke the name of God. He, to them, came off as being disrespectful to their "father" Abraham. Also remember it was back in John 8:37 where Yeshua reveals to us that they wanted to kill him. From 37 to 44 is what probably angered them to the point of no return. Imagine calling them "children of the devil".....

Abraham died. If Jesus existed (He did not exist as Jesus) then He died and is not greater than Abraham but Jesus speaks with God's voice who was there with Abraham but did not die. What He did with the body who can say since God can materialize it and dematerialize it at will but that still would not identify Jesus as God simply because He was there. It takes the statement of Jesus "I Am" to declare who he is.

Not really any evidence to back this interpretation up though! Was Yeshua there before Abraham? As the scripture show...YES.....Was he God? As the scripture show....NO......

I'll try to give some quotes from him that expresses his pre-existance. The pre-existance was separate from God.

John
3:34 For he whom God hath sent speaks the words of God: for God gives not the Spirit by measure.

If he is God then why send instead of come? So God comes speaking the word of God because he gives not the spirit to himself by measure??? Makes no sense

John 6:38
For I came down from heaven, not to do mine own will, but the will of him that sent me.

If God came not by his own will then who's will? Who sent God? Makes no sense. Yeshua while in heaven was not in the flesh (John 6:38) and so before coming here, "if" he is in spirit he reveals to us that his will is seperate from God. And if God is spirit (from what Yeshua said) and Yeshua was not in human form before coming here then they are not the same.

John
8:38 I speak that which I have seen (with) my Father:

Well, this one is self explanatory

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

Yea, self explanatory here as well.

Matthew 28:18
And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven.........

If he is God then why would he need to be given power? Who gave God the power? Makes no sense.

The Jews picked up stones to stone Him for blasphemy but as far as I know there is no injunction against declaring pre-existence but there is one against proclaiming that you are Jehovah if you aren't truly Jehovah. Namely that you should not take the name of God in vain.

Well he certainly was not taking the name of God in vain and as I said..back in 37 is where they wanted to kill him which was well before 58. They certainly didn't think he was God when he spoke in verse 42 saying;

John 8:42
Jesus told them, "If God were your Father, you would love me, because I have come to you from God. I am not here on my own, but he sent me.

In order to be sent there must be a sender.

 

[Muffled]

Why can't John 17:3 stand on its own? Do we need to over analyze what Yeshua was "trying" to say but didn't make clear so he must have meant this instead?

I don't think so.

I think John 17:3 speaks for itself and is one......(just one OF) the clearest verses where Yeshua defines his role.... You are the ONE true God and I am the messiah (the messenger, the prophet, the servant, the student, the mouthpiece, the ambassador who speaks for you) whom you've sent.......

I mean, at this point in his prayer, if he is God he would have truly known this which, to me, would have made this statement (john 17:3) moot.

This verse amongst a few others are so plainly clear cut. It's amazing how some can look right at it and still say he is God.....

I think we have truly hit the brick wall and crashed through it with this thread.....we're going to keep it going to no end I guess.

No verse ever stands on its own but you haven't let it lie fallow either because you elicit your own meaning from it.

A prayer defines a role? that is news to me. Now if Jesus were to say I am going to tell you just what my relationship with the Father is all about that would be different. Even when Jesus does state that He and the Father are one it is not because He is defining His role but because He is ansering a question.

On the contrary this prayer is not private, it is shared with disciples or it would not be reported in scripture. It is for the benenfit of the Disciples that Jesus addresses God this way. Bear in mind that the physical mind must make contact with the spiritual mind.

You always say it is clear when you can't prove your point. On the other hand even if this verse were to vaguely suggest that Jesus were not God there are still those other verses that powerfully say that He is and it is the preponderance of evidence for His Godship that outweighs the vague suggestions that He might not be.

Nah! There is no brick wall for me. I enjoyed the Greek and Hebrew study and my latest rendition of the AHYH is: "I am who I am." I have been discussing this with a person who has Hebrew as his native tongue but he gets very evasive about YHVH.

 

[Popeyesays]

Muffled,

Then who was Jesus praying to in the Garden of Gethsemane? He said "If it be Thy wil take this cup from me." That seems an honest prayer to God on His own behalf.

Regards,
Scott