Did Jesus say he was God???

[Shermana]

Muffed already knows all of this, and so he can take proof for an inerrant book, which is the Word of God, now if you believe that then it will naturally follow that what Muffed pointed out guarantees what the Bible says is true and thus Christ is God.

Even if you took the Bible as inerrant, those verses do not show that Christ is "God", we have debunked thoroughly this interpretation of what the text says numerous times in this thread. We have shown that Jesus says "I have been" in John 8:58, and that the actual name is "I shall be". We have shown that John 1:1c is "and the word was a god" (like in Acts 12:22's anathrous Theos), we have shown that the "I am" statements do not prove his "Divine identity", we have shown that Philo's Logos Theology was likely what John had in mind to his intended readers.

PS Those links on the issue are filled with questionable and dubious logic that seem to brush over and sidestep issues like the DSS version of Jeremiah being shorter and the near concensus of Ephesians and Pastorals being forgeries, or the earliest Church Fathers (and DSS authors) considering the Apocrypha and Enoch and Shepherd of Hermas to be Canon, those links and the subject of Biblical inerrancy would make a great thread topic on their own.

Look at statements like this:

However, orthodox Christians through the ages have claimed that the Bible is without error in the original text

Perhaps the LATER orthodox Institutional Christians may have said this. As if none of the Early Church Fathers disagreed. As if Justin Martyr never accused the Jews of altering their text. As if there wasn't competing manuscript sets. As if there's no issues with the Septuagint and Masoretic. As if Jerome didn't notice manuscript differences. As if Iraneus didn't count less generations (72) in Luke than the later manuscripts would attest (77). I wouldn't doubt if Baker was a KJV-onlyist either who thought the Textus Receptus was perfect. Statements like this demonstrate indisputable dishonesty on the parts of these modern "Authorities".

 

[Dirty Penguin]

You might wish to at least look at the first and last items on the list which give logical reasons why the Bible should be considered accurate. You can see the last fellow has written a book on logic.

And it has been shown that the list is taken out of context. Each and everyone of the quotes listed have nothing to do with Yeshua claiming to be "God".

Muffed already knows all of this, and so he can take proof for an inerrant book, which is the Word of God, now if you believe that then it will naturally follow that what Muffed pointed out guarantees what the Bible says is true and thus Christ is God.

The "bible" itself is not inerrant nor is it the word of "God". The book is a compilation of various scriptures and letters assembled by a particular group of people with a particular set of beliefs with a certain agenda. Many of the scriptures have been modified in some way over time. I would hardly call this the word of "God". Additionally you will find that many of the scriptures of the day aren't even listed in the bible due to said group canonizing what they felt were appropriate to be assembled. Basically...The "word of God" was decided upon by men. Let's not forget that there are basically 73 book in the Catholic version of the bible and 66 in the protestant version. Which do you suppose is the actual word of "God"?

Anyway, Muffed was working with a given --as far as conservative Christians are concerned--Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy -- if you don't believe, so be it.

Muffled is working from flawed logic and presuppositions.

How Accurate is the Bible?


Alleged Errors in the Bible -- Part 1

Alleged Errors in the Bible - Part II

Alleged Errors in the Bible -- Part III

Alleged Errors in the Bible -- Part IV


Alleged Errors in the Bible

See Shermana's post (http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/2744429-post5781.html). The links you provided are irrelevant to the thread topic.

 

[InChrist]

At His first coming Jesus did not come as King of Kings and Lord of Lords or to proclaim that He was God. He came in humility to live as the second Adam in human flesh and die for the sins of the world. Yet, His words and His life demonstrated that He was God in the flesh, who came to redeem His creation. As others have pointed out His many I am statements show this to be true. The scriptures are clear that there is only ONE Savior and no one other than God could be the Savior or save anyone.


The I AM statements of Jesus
I Am statements of Jesus

In chapter one of Hebrews it is clearly shown that the Son is called God by God His Father, the Son has the same glory as God His Father and is the express image of God, the creation of heaven and earth were the work of the Son, the Son does not grow old or change because He is eternal, the Son is not an angel as the Watchtower teaches, but is to be worshiped by the angels.

God, who at various times and in various ways spoke in time past to the fathers by the prophets, has in these last days spoken to us by His Son, whom He has appointed heir of all things, through whom also He made the worlds; who being the brightness of His glory and the express image of His person, and upholding all things by the word of His power, when He had by Himself purged our sins, sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high, having become so much better than the angels, as He has by inheritance obtained a more excellent name than they.
For to which of the angels did He ever say: “You are My Son, Today I have begotten You”?
And again:

“I will be to Him a Father, and He shall be to Me a Son”?

But when He again brings the firstborn into the world, He says:

“Let all the angels of God worship Him.”
And of the angels He says:

“ Who makes His angels spirit and His ministers a flame of fire.”

But to the Son He says:
“Your throne, O God, is forever and ever; A scepter of righteousness is the scepter of Your kingdom. You have loved righteousness and hated lawlessness; Therefore God, Your God, has anointed You with the oil of gladness more than Your companions.”

And:

“You, LORD, in the beginning laid the foundation of the earth, And the heavens are the work of Your hands. They will perish, but You remain; And they will all grow old like a garment; Like a cloak You will fold them up, And they will be changed. But You are the same, And Your years will not fail.”
But to which of the angels has He ever said:

“Sit at My right hand, Till I make Your enemies Your footstool”?

Are they not all ministering spirits sent forth to minister for those who will inherit salvation?

Hebrews Chapter1


All the apostles and disciples who gave up their lives for Christ realized that He was God, as did Thomas when He said, “My Lord and my God.” , which is literally translated, the Lord of me and the God of me. As it was with Thomas, so it is with every born again believer the moment they put their trust in Christ as Savior the Holy Spirit reveals the truth that Jesus is God.

 

[Shermana]

At His first coming Jesus did not come as King of Kings and Lord of Lords or to proclaim that He was God. He came in humility to live as the second Adam in human flesh and die for the sins of the world. Yet, His words and His life demonstrated that He was God in the flesh, who came to redeem His creation. As others have pointed out His many I am statements show this to be true. The scriptures are clear that there is only ONE Savior and no one other than God could be the Savior or save anyone.

His words do not demonstrate such at all. His actions and words demonstrate that he and the Father are two separate beings. The scripture also says that G-d SENDS saviors. Obadiah 1:21 for example. As others have pointed out, the "I am" statements are grossly distorted, mistranslated, and do not correlate to what the name actually means, which is "I shall be", as Aquila and Theodotion's septuagints demonstrate.

The I AM statements of Jesus
I Am statements of Jesus

And of course, completely ignoring the issue that the name itself is "I shall be", not "I am", and that "I am" in John 8:58 should be translated as "I have been", and assuming that any use of "I am" other than that somehow also means the same thing. I am always entertained when I am reading someone who thinks that Jesus saying "I am" means "I am G-d". Am I frustrated when dealing with those who refuse to acknowledge the actual grammar? I am! Did I declare myself to be G-d in those last few sentence by your logic?

In chapter one of Hebrews it is clearly shown that the Son is called God by God His Father, the Son has the same glory as God His Father and is the express image of God, the creation of heaven and earth were the work of the Son, the Son does not grow old or change because He is eternal, the Son is not an angel as the Watchtower teaches, but is to be worshiped by the angels.

Too bad that the actual translation is "G-d is thy throne" (Even CARM admits this is a "legitimate translation"). Since Hebrew has no Vocative case, and this is a quote from Psalms, the translation of "O G-d" is clearly bogus, even if its very common.

God, who at various times and in various ways spoke in time past to the fathers by the prophets, has in these last days spoken to us by His Son, whom He has appointed heir of all things, through whom also He made the worlds; who being the brightness of His glory and the express image of His person, and upholding all things by the word of His power, when He had by Himself purged our sins, sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high, having become so much better than the angels, as He has by inheritance obtained a more excellent name than they.
For to which of the angels did He ever say: “You are My Son, Today I have begotten You”?
And again:

“I will be to Him a Father, and He shall be to Me a Son”?

This quote does not back the case whatsoever and if anything proves that he was the incarnation of the Logos, the firstborn and highest of the angels.

But when He again brings the firstborn into the world, He says:

“Let all the angels of God worship Him.”
And of the angels He says:

King David is "worshiped". Do you know what "worship" means? This means that he is the Highest of the Angels. "Worship" means to physically bow down to. King David even worshiped Saul. The commandment is to Worship G-d AND SERVE him only. The serve him only part often gets confused with the "Worship" part. Meanwhile, Joshua worships an Angel in the desert, and the Israelites also worship King David in 1 Chronicles 29:20. Here is CARM's hilarious (and dubious) attempt to dispel the concept, and they step on the same landmines all the others do, showing their complete disregard for context and language in the process:

1 Chron. 29:20, is Jesus worshipped the same way David was? | Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry

“ Who makes His angels spirit and His ministers a flame of fire.”

This quote means nothing to proving Jesus was G-d.

But to the Son He says:
“Your throne, O God, is forever and ever; A scepter of righteousness is the scepter of Your kingdom. You have loved righteousness and hated lawlessness; Therefore God, Your God, has anointed You with the oil of gladness more than Your companions.”

Again, it should read, since it's a quote from Psalms and Hebrew has no Vocative case, "G-d is thy throne". Here CARM admits its gramatically possible, but says it "Doesn't make sense", but of course "G-d is my fortress" makes sense.

Heb. 1:8 and Psalm 45:6, "God is thy throne." | Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry

And:

“You, LORD, in the beginning laid the foundation of the earth, And the heavens are the work of Your hands. They will perish, but You remain; And they will all grow old like a garment; Like a cloak You will fold them up, And they will be changed. But You are the same, And Your years will not fail.”
But to which of the angels has He ever said: “Sit at My right hand, Till I make Your enemies Your footstool”?

This merely means that Yashua is a special angel that none of the other angels have received the blessing of sitting at the right hand.

Are they not all ministering spirits sent forth to minister for those who will inherit salvation?

Hebrews Chapter1

This proves that the angels under Jesus (Jesus had angels of his own) are subordinate.

All the apostles and disciples who gave up their lives for Christ realized that He was God, as did Thomas when He said, “My Lord and my God.” , which is literally translated, the Lord of me and the God of me. As it was with Thomas, so it is with every born again believer the moment they put their trust in Christ as Savior the Holy Spirit reveals the truth that Jesus is God.

The issue of John 20:28 has been thoroughly discussed multiple times in this thread. For starters, it appears to a later on. Each time, when shown that it clashes with the ending of Matthew and Luke (where did the Disciples first meet Jesus? Here or Galilee or Jerusalem?), no one dared attempt to explain the contradiction. Also, it can simply mean an exclamation of "OMG" from Thomas among other things.

The original version of John likely ended at 20:10, as demonstrated here.

http://historical-jesus.info/jnorig.html

If anyone would like to explain the complete contradiction and clash of the endings of John 20:28 with Matthew and Luke (where did they meet Jesus exactly? Galilee, Jerusalem, or the mountains)?

 

[Muffled]

nice back flip...

why have you forsaken me?
is a question right?
when one questions they don't know the answer because they either
1 thought they knew
2 they just don't know

3. The question is rhetorical because He does know the answer.

 

[Muffled]

Not only did I list the verse and the translation I gave you all the link to the online Torah where I got it. It's not my translation and it if directly from the Jews. It's not from Christians translating Jewish scriptures. This is the most direct one can get. It is from those who read these scriptures in temple everyday. While Exodus 3:14 is a good one it is obvious that "God" told Moses what his name was and what he should tell the people in 3:15.


(Exodus 3:14)
http://bible.ort.org/books/torahd5.asp?action=displaypage&book=2&chapter=3&verse=14&portion=13


Vayomer Elohim el-Moshe eheyeh asher eheyeh vayomer koh tomar livney Yisra'el eheyeh shlachani aleychem.

'I Will Be Who I Will Be,' replied God to Moses. [God then] explained, 'This is what you must say to the Israelites: 'I Will Be sent me to you.' '


Exodus 3:15
http://bible.ort.org/books/torahd5.asp?action=displaypage&book=2&chapter=3&verse=15&portion=13



Vayomer od Elohim el-Moshe koh tomar el-beney Yisra'el Adonay Elohey avoteychem Elohey Avraham Elohey Yitschak ve'Elohey Ya'akov shlachani aleychem zeh-shemi le'olam vezeh zichri ledor dor.

God then said to Moses, 'You must [then] say to the Israelites, 'YHVH, the God of your fathers, the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, sent me to you.' This is My eternal name, and this is how I am to be recalled for all generations.


This is how the Jews render their scripture. Don't confuse the Septuagaint rendering with how the Jews understand their own scripture. As you can plainly see.....They render 3:14 as (I will be). Even in the Septuagint this is consistent throughout the OT...UNTIL you get to 3:14 where THEY conveniently render it as "I AM".....This is theological bias on their part and it's deceptive, dishonest and inconsistent translating.

The "I am" expressed by Yeshua in the Greek NT has absolutely nothing to do with the Hebrew OT rendering regardless of what some apologists would have you to believe. The context of John 8 has nothing to do with Exodus.

According to my reading of the definition of the word, either translation is correct, however in the context of God's eternality "I will be" is totally irrelevant. God always is. That is His nature and "I am" expresses His nature as a name should. So then are Hebrew scholars trying to state that Yahweh was created some time after the statement was made when he was speaking in the present?

I can see your problem with this. You think that the name JHVH (v15) serves to identify God better than AHYH (v14). However when communicating His identification to people He prefers AHYH. THe JHVH does not communicate anything to people because it has no meaning in Hebrew or in English either.

 

[Muffled]

No offense to anyone reading this, but this one especially goes to the one using so much? Really!? "Will be and Are" do not have the same definition as far as I know:sorry1: Please feel free to correct me if I am wrong.

You are wrong. The English tends to emphasize the futuristicy of "I will" but in Hebrew it simply means an on-going present. English does not have a word for that so "I will" is used to try to convey the concept, even though it is misleading. "I am" in english implies only the immediate present in English but I am satisfied that as a translation the concept of currency into the future can be covered by "I am."

The translation in John undergoes the same problem. The verb can be transated as "I was" which appears to be contextual with Jesus talking about previous existence, however it is also reasonable to transalte it as "I am" because Jesus is claiming continuity.

 

[Muffled]

How could Jesus be God when "all authority hath been given unto me"? Wouldn't God already have the power?

Yes God already has the power. He does not give it to anyone else. The fact is that in giving it to Jesus, He is being consistent in not giving it to anyone else.

God spoke through the prophets but He never gave His authority to any of them. How then can Jesus communicate His authority to the people? He can't give Himself the authority becasue all authority comes from God. So for communication purposes God must give Jesus the authority even though as God He already has it.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

According to my reading of the definition of the word, either translation is correct, however in the context of God's eternality "I will be" is totally irrelevant. God always is.

How is it irrelevant? It's not even being seen as "time" like Greek and English translation which is how John 8:58 is. In every translation (English) "eyeh" is expressed as (to be) or (will be). Jews have rendered it consistently throughout the OT. The difference now is the English from part of the Septuagint rendering breaks at 3:14 in their translation and renders it (I am) but then after that contiunes to render the word to mean (to be or will be) in other areas of the OT. In fact if you look at the Septuagint they render it as (ego eimi ho on) - (I am The Being). Yeshua expresses this in a totally different way because the context of what he said trumps the usual translation. This is why in plenty of bibles as well as Aramaic and in Coptic translations John 8:58 is rendered as (I was or I have been).

See Also:
Strong's Number 1961 Hebrew Dictionary of the Old Testament Online Bible with Strong's Exhaustive Concordance, Brown Driver Briggs Lexicon, Etymology, Translations Definitions Meanings & Key Word Studies - Lexiconcordance.com


Strong's Number 834 Hebrew Dictionary of the Old Testament Online Bible with Strong's Exhaustive Concordance, Brown Driver Briggs Lexicon, Etymology, Translations Definitions Meanings & Key Word Studies - Lexiconcordance.com

So then are Hebrew scholars trying to state that Yahweh was created some time after the statement was made when he was speaking in the present?

Not at all. Eyeh Asher Eyeh is just as eternal (per se) as Ego Eimi Ho On in Exodus 3:14. Time is not really expressed here. But as you can see from this the (ego eimi) in 3:14 is followed by (ho on) which is lacking in John 8:58 which we can clearly see does not mean the same thing as in 3:14. Yeshua expresses time ("before Abraham was").

I can see your problem with this. You think that the name JHVH (v15) serves to identify God better than AHYH (v14).

No. That's not what I think. I think 3:15 is severely overlooked as the commandment from "God" to Moses wasn't complete in 3:14 but clarified in 3:15.

Exodus 3:14-15
I Will Be Who I Will Be, replied God to Moses. [God then] explained, This is what you must say to the Israelites: I Will Be sent me to you. God then said to Moses, 'You must [then] say to the Israelites, 'YHVH, the God of your fathers, the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, sent me to you.' This is My eternal name, and this is how I am to be recalled for all generations.

[youtube]J84zSeKaDkU[/youtube]
This is my Name -

If you've watched the video you can clearly see how 3:13, 3:14 and 3:14 are put into context. In fact he outright says how context is important here.

However when communicating His identification to people He prefers AHYH. THe JHVH does not communicate anything to people because it has no meaning in Hebrew or in English either.

They're both pretty much the same. (See video above) so I'm not too sure you know what you're talking about.

 

[Pineblossom]

Jesus never made any comment that he was YHWH - to do would have meant instant death.

What he did say was that he was a son of the Father - as are we all.

 

[URAVIP2ME]

Jesus never made any comment that he was YHWH - to do would have meant instant death.
What he did say was that he was a son of the Father - as are we all.

Yes, Jesus never made any comment that the Tetragrammaton YHWH applied to him.

Psalm [110v1] KJV mentions two [2] LORD/Lord's.
Where 'LORD' is in all capital letters is where the Tetragrammaton YHWH stood for God's personal name which translated into English is: Jehovah.

Where 'Lord' is Not in all capital letters stands for God's Son as Lord.
God's Son's name translated into English is: Jesus.

 

[starlite]

All the apostles and disciples who gave up their lives for Christ realized that He was God, as did Thomas when He said, “My Lord and my God.” , which is literally translated, the Lord of me and the God of me. As it was with Thomas, so it is with every born again believer the moment they put their trust in Christ as Savior the Holy Spirit reveals the truth that Jesus is God.

There is no objection to referring to Jesus as “God,” if this is what Thomas had in mind. Such would be in harmony with Jesus’ own quotation from the Psalms in which powerful men, judges, were addressed as “gods.” Of course, Christ occupies a position far higher than such men. Because of the uniqueness of his position in relation to Jehovah, Jesus is referred to as “the only-begotten god.” Isaiah 9:6 also prophetically describes Jesus as “Mighty God,” but not as the Almighty God. All of this is in harmony with Jesus’ being described as “a god,” or “divine,” at John 1:1.

Reasoning From the Scriptures p. 213 par. 2

 

[starlite]

The I AM statements of Jesus
I Am statements of Jesus

In chapter one of Hebrews it is clearly shown that the Son is called God by God His Father, the Son has the same glory as God His Father and is the express image of God, the creation of heaven and earth were the work of the Son, the Son does not grow old or change because He is eternal, the Son is not an angel as the Watchtower teaches, but is to be worshiped by the angels.

who being the brightness of His glory and the express image of His person,

So what could God have meant when he said to his son, in his prehuman existance, “Let us make man in our image [or, shadow, semblance], according to our likeness.”? Since God’s Son stated that his Father is “a Spirit,” this rules out any physical likeness between God and man. (Joh 4:24) Rather, man has qualities reflecting, or mirroring, those of his heavenly Maker, qualities that positively distinguish man from the animal creation. Though in the image of his Creator, man was not made to be an object of worship, or veneration.

When on earth as a perfect man, Jesus reflected his Father’s qualities and personality to the fullest extent possible within human limitations, so he could say that “he that has seen me has seen the Father also.”

 

[InChrist]

There is no objection to referring to Jesus as “God,” if this is what Thomas had in mind. Such would be in harmony with Jesus’ own quotation from the Psalms in which powerful men, judges, were addressed as “gods.” Of course, Christ occupies a position far higher than such men. Because of the uniqueness of his position in relation to Jehovah, Jesus is referred to as “the only-begotten god.” Isaiah 9:6 also prophetically describes Jesus as “Mighty God,” but not as the Almighty God. All of this is in harmony with Jesus’ being described as “a god,” or “divine,” at John 1:1.

Reasoning From the Scriptures p. 213 par. 2

There may not be an objection from the Watchtower perspective, but I believe there is from the biblical perspective and I do not believe Thomas considered Jesus to be another god or a god. You are correct in the scriptures reference is made to other gods and sometimes powerful men were called "gods", but other "gods" of any sort were ALWAYS false gods or mere men in comparison with the One True God. So you are either saying you believe there other gods or that Jesus was a false god and I don't see that either lines up with scripture.

Isaiah 9:6 does call Jesus "Mighty God" and Isaiah 10:21 calls Jehovah "Mighty God"

And it shall come to pass in that day
That the remnant of Israel,
And such as have escaped of the house of Jacob,
Will never again depend on him who defeated them,
But will depend on the LORD, the Holy One of Israel, in truth.
21 The remnant will return, the remnant of Jacob,
To the Mighty God.

The phrase Mighty God is translated from the word Elohim. It is a very common name for God in the OT, used over 2,500 times. It literally means "strong one"and its plural ending in Hebrew indicates fulness of power. OT verses such as: Deuteronomy 10:17, Isaiah 54:5,Jeremiah 32:57, Nehemiah 2:4 and others portray Elohim as the powerful and sovereign Governor of the universe. The scriptures apply this name and position to Jehovah and Jesus or the Father and the Son.

If you read Isaiah 40:3 which is a prophetic reference to John the Baptist (For this is he who was spoken of by the prophet Isaiah, saying: “ The voice of one crying in the wilderness: ‘ Prepare the way of the LORD; Make His paths straight.’” Matthew 3:3) announcing the ministry of Jesus Christ to Israel you will see that the terms Yahweh and Elohim are applied to Jesus.

The voice of one crying in the wilderness:

“ Prepare the way of the LORD (Yahweh);
Make straight in the desert
A highway for our God (Elohim). Isaiah 40:3

 

[InChrist]

So what could God have meant when he said to his son, in his prehuman existance, “Let us make man in our image [or, shadow, semblance], according to our likeness.”? Since God’s Son stated that his Father is “a Spirit,” this rules out any physical likeness between God and man. (Joh 4:24) Rather, man has qualities reflecting, or mirroring, those of his heavenly Maker, qualities that positively distinguish man from the animal creation. Though in the image of his Creator, man was not made to be an object of worship, or veneration.

When on earth as a perfect man, Jesus reflected his Father’s qualities and personality to the fullest extent possible within human limitations, so he could say that “he that has seen me has seen the Father also.”

I agree that humans are not made in the image of God in a physical sense, but rather it is the immaterial aspects of humanity...mental, moral, and social which are in God's image, which distinguishes humans from animals, as you said. I believe the eternal Father could have simply meant what He said to His eternal Son "Let Us make man in our image."

 

[harun abdul azeeze]

Allah - there is no deity except Him, the Ever-Living, the Sustainer of [all] existence. Neither drowsiness overtakes Him nor sleep. To Him belongs whatever is in the heavens and whatever is on the earth. Who is it that can intercede with Him except by His permission? He knows what is [presently] before them and what will be after them, and they encompass not a thing of His knowledge except for what He wills. His Kursi extends over the heavens and the earth, and their preservation tires Him not. And He is the Most High, the Most Great. (surat al-baqara 255)

Abu Musa narrated (رضي الله عن&#1607: The Messenger of Allah (صلى الله عليه وسل&#1605 said, “Indeed, Allah Almighty and Exalted does not sleep and it is not befitting that He sleep. He lowers and raises the scale. The deeds of the night are raised to Him before the deeds of the day, and the deeds of the day are raised to Him before the night. His veil is light. [In the hadith narrated by Abu Bakr the word is “fire” instead of light]. If He were to remove the veil, the splendor of his countenance would consume His creation as far as can be seen.”

[Sahih Muslim, Book 1, Number 0343]


"Allah is the creator of all things" az-zumar 39.62

The soul the body the heavens and earth and everything between them is created by Allah.So therefore we cannot be anything like him as we are his creation and he is not created.

 

[Shermana]

There may not be an objection from the Watchtower perspective, but I believe there is from the biblical perspective and I do not believe Thomas considered Jesus to be another god or a god. You are correct in the scriptures reference is made to other gods and sometimes powerful men were called "gods", but other "gods" of any sort were ALWAYS false gods or mere men in comparison with the One True God. So you are either saying you believe there other gods or that Jesus was a false god and I don't see that either lines up with scripture.

Isaiah 9:6 does call Jesus "Mighty God" and Isaiah 10:21 calls Jehovah "Mighty God"

And it shall come to pass in that day
That the remnant of Israel,
And such as have escaped of the house of Jacob,
Will never again depend on him who defeated them,
But will depend on the LORD, the Holy One of Israel, in truth.
21 The remnant will return, the remnant of Jacob,
To the Mighty God.

The phrase Mighty God is translated from the word Elohim. It is a very common name for God in the OT, used over 2,500 times. It literally means "strong one"and its plural ending in Hebrew indicates fulness of power. OT verses such as: Deuteronomy 10:17, Isaiah 54:5,Jeremiah 32:57, Nehemiah 2:4 and others portray Elohim as the powerful and sovereign Governor of the universe. The scriptures apply this name and position to Jehovah and Jesus or the Father and the Son.

If you read Isaiah 40:3 which is a prophetic reference to John the Baptist (For this is he who was spoken of by the prophet Isaiah, saying: “ The voice of one crying in the wilderness: ‘ Prepare the way of the LORD; Make His paths straight.’” Matthew 3:3) announcing the ministry of Jesus Christ to Israel you will see that the terms Yahweh and Elohim are applied to Jesus.

The voice of one crying in the wilderness:

“ Prepare the way of the LORD (Yahweh);
Make straight in the desert
A highway for our God (Elohim). Isaiah 40:3

Isaiah 9:6 can also be read as "God is mighty", or "A mighty god", it's a long compound name that doesn't at all necessarily imply that the person will be G-d himself.. Also, the way of the LORD can be interpreted as "prepare the WAY of the LORD", as in prepare the way for the teachings of the LORD, which will be manifested through his messenger, it is not at all necessarily saying that the LORD will be materialized in an incarnation but that his "way" will be made through the Moshiach, his anointed one. Jesus says "These teachings are not my own but of the one who sent me", illustrating the concept.

As for other "gods" always being "false gods", this is simply not true. Angels are called "gods", this is clear from the Septuagint. Israelites are called gods. Many Trinitarians run away from the question of "What did Jesus mean in John 10:34". There is no god "After" the LORD, which means there is none like Him. And there are none "before" Him, which means there are none greater than Him. When He says "Thou shalt have no gods before me", that means one shall not place any other existing "god" before Him, or of greater importance. Even Paul says that there are beings that are truly "gods" with "as indeed there are many gods and many lords". Such an interpretation also ignores Psalms 136:2 where the LORD is called "god of the gods", and 95:3 "For the Lord is the great God, the great King above all gods.". The Septuagint translates "gods" as "Angels" such as in Psalm 8:5.

The phrase Mighty God is translated from the word Elohim. It is a very common name for God in the OT, used over 2,500 times. It literally means "strong one"and its plural ending in Hebrew indicates fulness of power

It's El Gibbor. Not Elohim. Have you read the Hebrew for the verse in question? You are on the right track at least of how "Elohim" can be used in the Majestic Plural sense, but it can also be used as a direct plural, one can tell by the verb conjugation.

And as for the "I am" statements, those are well discussed (and debunked) in numerous posts on this thread. Jesus said "I was", and the name itself is "I shall be".

 

[InChrist]

And she will bring forth a Son, and you shall call His name JESUS, for He will save His people from their sins.” Matthew 1:21

 

[waitasec]

And she will bring forth a Son, and you shall call His name JESUS, for He will save His people from their sins.” Matthew 1:21

and...?

 

[InChrist]

and...?

Jesus, the who is God the Son, came to earth to save His people from their sins.

Behold, the virgin shall be with child, and bear a Son, and they shall call His name Immanuel,” which is translated, “God with us.” Matthew 1:23