Do you need to believe Jesus is God to be saved?

[Free]

Greetings again Free,

There is much repetition in our posts, so I would like to briefly reaffirm my position and leave it at that. I accept "I am he" as the correct translation, part of the theme of whether Jesus is the Christ.

But that doesn’t address the issues for you in John 8:58.

First, in verse 23, Jesus stated that he was from above; a claim that is repeated many times in John. Second, Jesus is answering the question of identity and origin, which is similar to Ex 3:14. Third, Jesus contrasts Abraham’s coming into existence with his own timeless existence; something John has already stated repeatedly in his prologue. Fourth, “he” isn’t in the Greek. Fifth, adding “he” to the English would have Jesus saying nonsense. Sixth, the Jews tried to stone Jesus, which was the penalty for blasphemy, so they clearly recognized Jesus’s claim to be the I Am.

Those are things your position has to account for and so far it seems unable to.

As one Hebrew scholar stated, that when the RV margin gives an alternative to the "I Am" of Exodus 3:14 it states "or, I will be", it is not allowing both "I Am" AND "I will be", it is actually only allowing one or the other. I accept "I will be" and this speaks of God's impending deliverance of Israel out of Egypt.

You put far too much weight on the marginal note of the RV, which is odd since the RV has “I AM.” “I Am” is a much stronger statement of who God is—absolute, timeless, changeless—rather than “I will be” which communicates very little, if anything, about who he is.

 

[Vinny37]

Many claim that they are saved but do not believe that the Lord is God come in the flesh

Short answer, No, not to be ‘saved’. For that type of salvation, did Peter on the Day of Pentecost delve into trinitarianism and invite folk to say a creed? Christian salvation is seeing and welcoming Jesus (Jhn.1:12) as God’s risen messiah. Explicating Christ usually comes later.

If you mean, [Do you need to believe Jesus is God?], well personally I think [Jesus is God] is too blunt a statement to be of much use, but that believing him to be deific is getting to better understand him.

“Let me say again, that unqualified talk of Jesus being God, erodes the biblical revelation in various ways. Try out these syllogisms. We note that Jesus was ignorant as to the precise time for his return (Mt.24:36). So, Jesus was/‌is God; Jesus was ignorant; therefore God was/‌is ignorant? But the text says that the father wasn’t ignorant, therefore was/‌is the father not God? We note that Jesus slept (Lk.8:23). So, Jesus was asleep; Jesus was/‌is God; therefore God was/is asleep? No! Is it not axiomatic that what we can biblically say about Jesus, can be different to what we can biblically say about God?” (https://archive.org/details/the-fathers-gone-global-exploring-gods-heart-231212 p75).

I think that NT data, sometimes written in theological shorthand, pans out as Jesus being the permanent temporal mode of the uncreated eternal second person of deity. Jesus is the incarnate mode of the noncarnate son.

 

[TrevorL]

Greetings again Free,

But that doesn’t address the issues for you in John 8:58.

We have a different perspective on the whole sequence of events leading up to John 8:58 and this includes their attempt to arrest him in John 7, their attempt to discredit him in the incident with the woman taken in adultery, then the argument about the true seed of Abraham. They would realise that Jesus was claiming to be the Christ, the anti-typical Isaac, and that the following statement alluded to the sacrifice of Isaac:
John 8:56 (KJV): Your father Abraham rejoiced to see my day: and he saw it, and was glad.
Genesis 22:14 (KJV): And Abraham called the name of that place Jehovahjireh: as it is said to this day, In the mount of the LORD it shall be seen.

But the Pharisees and Sadducees deliberately muddied the waters by saying:
John 8:57 (KJV): Then said the Jews unto him, Thou art not yet fifty years old, and hast thou seen Abraham?
Jesus had disabled their ability to stir up the volatile crowd to cast the the first stone in the earlier incident and the common people could see through their subterfuge and their desire to discredit Jesus and his teaching.

You put far too much weight on the marginal note of the RV, which is odd since the RV has “I AM.”

It is interesting that AB Davidson was on the RV panel and he gives an exposition in support of "I will be". He may have insisted on the addition of the marginal note, but not allowed to alter the main text due to the strong opinion of the Trinitarians.

Kind regards
Trevor

 

[JLB]

The Greek text analysis on Bible Hub doesn't say that. It uses a different, earlier, manuscript that say . You're using the KJV which is based based on the Textus Receptus. It came later. You can read all of the Trinitarian commentaries about this who admit 1 Timothy 3:16 with either accidentally or deliberately altered. I am not aware of any modern Bible's that say otherwise. We are focused on truth, not dogma, and/or tradition.

https://biblehub.com/text/1_timothy/3-16.htm

All commentary and opinion that rejects what the scripture plainly says.

You can't twist what the word Theos means.

Theos = God

You are trying to twist the Theos into mean man.

 

[JLB]

If I didn't refute it then please respond proving otherwise.

You only denied what the scripture says.

That's not refuting; that's denial.

 

[Runningman]

You can't twist what the word Theos means.

Theos = God

You are trying to twist the Theos into mean man.

We are not seeing this the same way it seems. My perspective is that of one with the truth giving you the information you need. It seems you think I am trying to twist the word theos when I can't even find the word theos in 1 Timothy 3:16 aside from the in TR which came over 1,000 years after the original documents.

Here is the original version of 1 Timothy 3:16 supported by the best manuscripts.

1 Timothy 3
16By common confession, the mystery of godliness is great:
He appeared in the flesh,
was vindicated by the Spirit,
was seen by angels,
was proclaimed among the nations,
was believed in throughout the world,
was taken up in glory.

 

[Runningman]

You only denied what the scripture says.

That's not refuting; that's denial.

Your presentation of what you believe the truth is in Scripture is itself not Scripture.

There are too many exceptions in John's writings for Jesus to be a literal pre-existent being known as the Word.

For starters, beginning in John 1:1, there are two uses of the word for god present in the Greek. Most English translations I've seen, for some reason, do not capture this accurately; I suspect for dogmatic purposes because a literal translation of John 1:1 is an argument against the Trinity.

The first usage of God in John 1:1 is ton Theon which literally means the God. The second usage of god is theos which means god. The reason John wrote it this way, using two different usages of god in John 1:1, is because he is showing awareness that the God and god are distinct and are not the same person.

A literal translation of John 1:1, assuming that Jesus was a pre-existent being in some form or fashion, would be that the Word was a god. If we assume Jesus is not a pre-existent being then the Word becomes a quality of God and is, therefore, godly, but nevertheless a non-person thing. Using theos to describe something or someone that is godly is a valid usage of the word theos. You can check this in 2 Cor. 1:12, 7:9-11 for some examples.

With that being said, a literal translation of John 1:1 doesn't support the idea that the definitive God is the Word, but rather a god or something godly.

So did Jesus pre-exist? Arguably, no. There are no clear examples of Jesus saying or doing anything in the Old Testament. There are no stories about what he was doing exactly before the world existed. Even under different names, there are no examples of a being called the Word who was with God in Genesis or any of the other statements about God creating. There are no stories about a "God the Son" sitting at God's right hand in the Old Testament. Jesus didn't sit down at God's right hand until after he was born, died, resurrected, and was taken to heaven as a man in Mark 16:19.

With that being said, there isn't any evidence that John's narrative, beginning in John 1:1, is literal. However, there are many examples of God using words, in creation or otherwise, as a thing that personification was applied to. Here are some examples of poetry in Psalms and one from Isaiah that calls God's word an it:

Psalm 33:6
By the word of the LORD the heavens were made, and all the stars by the breath of His mouth.

Psalm 107:20
He sent forth His word and healed them; He rescued them from the Pit.

Psalm 147:15
He sends forth His command to the earth; His word runs swiftly.

Isaiah 55:11
so My word that proceeds from My mouth
will not return to Me empty,
but it will accomplish what I please,
and it will prosper where I send it.

In addition to all of that, we can't even use the Greek definition of the Word to make a direct link to Jesus because logos in the Greek means a word, speech, divine utterance, analogy.

That's just verse 1. When the foundation is properly understood then we can look at the rest of John's story. John's story keeps in step with what John said in 1 John 1:1-3, which, in summary, says that in the beginning of Jesus' ministry the Word of Life was an it, a thing, that was revealed or manifested in a man with whom the disciples had fellowship.

 

[JLB]

We are not seeing this the same way it seems. My perspective is that of one with the truth giving you the information you need. It seems you think I am trying to twist the word theos when I can't even find the word theos in 1 Timothy 3:16 aside from the in TR which came over 1,000 years after the original documents.

Here is the original version of 1 Timothy 3:16 supported by the best manuscripts.

1 Timothy 3
16By common confession, the mystery of godliness is great:
He appeared in the flesh,
was vindicated by the Spirit,
was seen by angels,
was proclaimed among the nations,
was believed in throughout the world,
was taken up in glory.

What is your claim that the capitalized "He" refers to?

Man or God?


Again, Theos in the Greek refers to God, not man.

 

[Runningman]

What is your claim that the capitalized "He" refers to?

Man or God?

That's not my claim. It's virtually unanimous and no modern Bibles use the NKJV or KJV versions anymore. A lot has happened since textus receptus was created. There is newer, better, information available.

Again, Theos in the Greek refers to God, not man.

He refers to a man.

 

[Free]

Greetings again Free,

We have a different perspective on the whole sequence of events leading up to John 8:58 and this includes their attempt to arrest him in John 7, their attempt to discredit him in the incident with the woman taken in adultery, then the argument about the true seed of Abraham. They would realise that Jesus was claiming to be the Christ, the anti-typical Isaac, and that the following statement alluded to the sacrifice of Isaac:
John 8:56 (KJV): Your father Abraham rejoiced to see my day: and he saw it, and was glad.
Genesis 22:14 (KJV): And Abraham called the name of that place Jehovahjireh: as it is said to this day, In the mount of the LORD it shall be seen.

But the Pharisees and Sadducees deliberately muddied the waters by saying:
John 8:57 (KJV): Then said the Jews unto him, Thou art not yet fifty years old, and hast thou seen Abraham?
Jesus had disabled their ability to stir up the volatile crowd to cast the the first stone in the earlier incident and the common people could see through their subterfuge and their desire to discredit Jesus and his teaching.

Okay, but you didn’t actually address the contextual problems for your position, not the least of which are 1) that Jesus clearly stated he is from above, 2) you have Jesus speaking nonsense, and 3) the Jews tried to stone Jesus, which is the penalty for blasphemy.

The additional contextual problems start right at John 1:1 and continue through the end of the gospel, which Thomas clearly declaring that Jesus is his Lord and his God. Numerous time Jesus states that he is from above and not from earth, yet no Arian anti-Trinitarian in these discussions has even acknowledged that fact, never mind tried to provide any sort of substantive response.

It is interesting that AB Davidson was on the RV panel and he gives an exposition in support of "I will be". He may have insisted on the addition of the marginal note, but not allowed to alter the main text due to the strong opinion of the Trinitarians.

And, yet, the Jews tried to stone Jesus for clearly saying “I am.”

 

[TrevorL]

Greetings again Free,

Okay, but you didn’t actually address the contextual problems for your position, not the least of which are 1) that Jesus clearly stated he is from above

I find no conflict with the context, but the whole context is a development in John 7 and 8. Everything about Jesus is from above, his conception, birth, education. When they beheld him, he was a human and humans do not descend from heaven. Jesus was not a human who had a FULL DEITY, God the Son somehow hidden within him.

2) you have Jesus speaking nonsense

This is most probably evidence that you do not understand what Jesus said. You need to be specific.

3) the Jews tried to stone Jesus, which is the penalty for blasphemy.

If "I AM" is the tipping point for them to accuse him of blasphemy, and then stone him, why the delay, why were they restrained when Jesus stated the same words in John 8:24, hidden to some extent by the KJV "I am he"?

The additional contextual problems start right at John 1:1

John 1:14 states that "The Word was MADE flesh", but you want to say that a human child was born and somehow God the Son also entered into Jesus. No, Jesus was conceived and born with God the Father his father, and Mary his mother. As such Jesus is The Son of God by conception/birth, not God the Son. Jesus is the only begotten of the Father John 1:14, and how this was achieved is revealed in Matthew 1:20-21 and Luke 1:34-35.

Thomas clearly declaring that Jesus is his Lord and his God

Yes, but the title "The Son of God" is greater that being called "God", a word also applied to Angels and Judges.
John 20:30–31 (KJV): 30 And many other signs truly did Jesus in the presence of his disciples, which are not written in this book: 31 But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name.

And, yet, the Jews tried to stone Jesus for clearly saying “I am.”

I suggest we have exhausted our different perspectives here.

Kind regards
Trevor

 

[Runningman]

Greetings again Free,

I find no conflict with the context, but the whole context is a development in John 7 and 8. Everything about Jesus is from above, his conception, birth, education. When they beheld him, he was a human and humans do not descend from heaven. Jesus was not a human who had a FULL DEITY, God the Son somehow hidden within him.

I would also take into consideration that in John 3:13 Jesus said, "No one has ascended into heaven except the One who descended from heaven—the Son of Man."

He didn't specify when this ascending into or descending from heaven as a human occurred, but I would add that since the Bible never says the "Son of God" came down from heaven that it's in regards to a prophetic fulfillment of Jesus existing as a man in God's plan and foreknowledge and then the plan being brought about on earth.

It seems Paul is in agreement with Jesus being a "heavenly man" in 1 Cor. 15:48,49.

 

[Free]

I find no conflict with the context, but the whole context is a development in John 7 and 8. Everything about Jesus is from above, his conception, birth, education. When they beheld him, he was a human and humans do not descend from heaven. Jesus was not a human who had a FULL DEITY, God the Son somehow hidden within him.

No, that is not the whole context. The whole context includes the entirety of John and the rest of the NT, at a minimum. What we first see in John's gospel is his introduction to the person of Jesus, the Son of God come in human flesh, the preincarnate Word. The is absolutely essential for everything else John states about who Jesus is as the Son of God.

And his gospel is very consistent. Remember, he was with Jesus first for around three years prior to writing his gospel, some 60 years later. So, what John writes about Jesus is largely based on what Jesus revealed about himself. These are both things Jesus said about himself and what John wrote about him:

Joh 3:13 No one has ascended into heaven except he who descended from heaven, the Son of Man.
…
Joh 3:16 “For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life.
Joh 3:17 For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him.
…
Joh 3:31 He who comes from above is above all. He who is of the earth belongs to the earth and speaks in an earthly way. He who comes from heaven is above all.

Joh 5:17 But Jesus answered them, “My Father is working until now, and I am working.”
Joh 5:18 This was why the Jews were seeking all the more to kill him, because not only was he breaking the Sabbath, but he was even calling God his own Father, making himself equal with God.

Joh 6:38 For I have come down from heaven, not to do my own will but the will of him who sent me.
…
Joh 6:62 Then what if you were to see the Son of Man ascending to where he was before?

Joh 8:23 He said to them, “You are from below; I am from above. You are of this world; I am not of this world.

Joh 12:44 And Jesus cried out and said, “Whoever believes in me, believes not in me but in him who sent me.
Joh 12:45 And whoever sees me sees him who sent me.
Joh 12:46 I have come into the world as light, so that whoever believes in me may not remain in darkness.
Joh 12:47 If anyone hears my words and does not keep them, I do not judge him; for I did not come to judge the world but to save the world.

Joh 13:3 Jesus, knowing that the Father had given all things into his hands, and that he had come from God and was going back to God,

Joh 16:27 for the Father himself loves you, because you have loved me and have believed that I came from God.
Joh 16:28 I came from the Father and have come into the world, and now I am leaving the world and going to the Father.”
Joh 16:29 His disciples said, “Ah, now you are speaking plainly and not using figurative speech!
Joh 16:30 Now we know that you know all things and do not need anyone to question you; this is why we believe that you came from God.”
Joh 16:31 Jesus answered them, “Do you now believe?

Joh 17:3 And this is eternal life, that they know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom you have sent.
Joh 17:4 I glorified you on earth, having accomplished the work that you gave me to do.
Joh 17:5 And now, Father, glorify me in your own presence with the glory that I had with you before the world existed.
...
Joh 17:8 For I have given them the words that you gave me, and they have received them and have come to know in truth that I came from you; and they have believed that you sent me.
...
Joh 17:13 But now I am coming to you, and these things I speak in the world, that they may have my joy fulfilled in themselves.
...
Joh 17:23 I in them and you in me, that they may become perfectly one, so that the world may know that you sent me and loved them even as you loved me.
Joh 17:24 Father, I desire that they also, whom you have given me, may be with me where I am, to see my glory that you have given me because you loved me before the foundation of the world.

(All ESV.)

It is without question that Jesus thought he preexisted, that he was with the Father and came down from heaven. I really don't know how anyone can dispute that based on a plain reading of the text. To deny that means you have to deny the clear teaching that Jesus returning to the Father.

This is most probably evidence that you do not understand what Jesus said. You need to be specific.

I pointed out the issue already with specificity, on the previous page. For anyone, including Jesus, to say "Before Abraham was, I am he," makes no sense. To say, "Before Abraham was," is a question of time and existence, specifically the coming into existence of Abraham. For Jesus to respond with "I am he," doesn't provide any appropriate parallel or contrast; grammatically it makes no sense.

However, to say "I am" is significant because it speaks of timeless existence. That is to compare and contrast like to like--time and existence with time and existence. As I pointed out previously, Jesus contrasts the coming into existence of Abraham (genesthai) with his own timeless existence (eimi). This is exactly what John did in the prologue, where “was” (en, the imperfect of eimi) in verse 1 speaks of timeless existence, and “became” (egeneto) in verse 14 speaks of entering into time.

If "I AM" is the tipping point for them to accuse him of blasphemy, and then stone him, why the delay, why were they restrained when Jesus stated the same words in John 8:24, hidden to some extent by the KJV "I am he"?

It could be that they thought he was just referring to himself as the Messiah, and he may have been, but it could also be both. They then asked who he was, so they were looking for clarification, which ends with them wanting to stone Jesus. But, they wouldn't have stoned him for simply claiming to be the Messiah.

John 1:14 states that "The Word was MADE flesh", but you want to say that a human child was born and somehow God the Son also entered into Jesus. No, Jesus was conceived and born with God the Father his father, and Mary his mother.

Those aren't mutually exclusive. It's both. John is absolutely clear about this, particularly in verses 1 and 18.

As such Jesus is The Son of God by conception/birth, not God the Son. Jesus is the only begotten of the Father John 1:14, and how this was achieved is revealed in Matthew 1:20-21 and Luke 1:34-35.

Yes, those speak of the incarnation, but the Son of God is from eternity. What son do you know of that doesn't have the exact same nature as his father? Please name just one.

This is why the writer of Hebrews says the Father says the Son is Yahweh (1:10-12). It's why Paul twice shows the timelessness of Jesus, with the implication of his divine Sonship, not his humanity, in 1 Cor 8:6 and Col 1:16-17. It's why Paul clearly states the preexistence of the Son in Phil 2:6-8, which is absolutely key for understanding both Jesus's preexistence and the incarnation. Those all happen to be perfectly consistent with everything John states in his prologue and the rest of his gospel, but that should surprise no one.

Yes, but the title "The Son of God" is greater that being called "God", a word also applied to Angels and Judges.
John 20:30–31 (KJV): 30 And many other signs truly did Jesus in the presence of his disciples, which are not written in this book: 31 But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name.

Why didn't you address what Thomas clearly stated to Jesus--"the Lord of me and the God of me"? Thomas didn't simply state that Jesus was the Son of God, which still carries the same implication, but that Jesus was his Lord and his God. The Jews understood that Jesus's claim to be the Son of God was a claim to be equal to the Father (John 5:18; 10:33-38).

I suggest we have exhausted our different perspectives here.

Not at all. There is much that you have not addressed.

 

[Free]

I would also take into consideration that in John 3:13 Jesus said, "No one has ascended into heaven except the One who descended from heaven—the Son of Man."

He didn't specify when this ascending into or descending from heaven as a human occurred, but I would add that since the Bible never says the "Son of God" came down from heaven that it's in regards to a prophetic fulfillment of Jesus existing as a man in God's plan and foreknowledge and then the plan being brought about on earth.

Except that you're not taking into account the context. Jesus says immediately before that, "If I have told you earthly things and you do not believe, how can you believe if I tell you heavenly things?" His point is that he knows about heavenly things because he is from heaven. Saying "no one has ascended into heaven" is the same as saying that no one has been in heaven, "except he who descended from heaven, the Son of Man." That "having descended" is an aorist particle in the active voice, which means it is speaking of a completed action, which was completed by Jesus, as the Son.

It seems Paul is in agreement with Jesus being a "heavenly man" in 1 Cor. 15:48,49.

In no way do those verses mean that Paul thought Jesus was a "heavenly man," as though he was merely a man that is in heaven with a spiritually renewed body. That would contradict what Paul says in 1 Cor 8:6, Col 1:16-17, and Phil 2:6-8.

 

[Runningman]

Except that you're not taking into account the context. Jesus says immediately before that, "If I have told you earthly things and you do not believe, how can you believe if I tell you heavenly things?" His point is that he knows about heavenly things because he is from heaven. Saying "no one has ascended into heaven" is the same as saying that no one has been in heaven, "except he who descended from heaven, the Son of Man." That "having descended" is an aorist particle in the active voice, which means it is speaking of a completed action, which was completed by Jesus, as the Son.


In no way do those verses mean that Paul thought Jesus was a "heavenly man," as though he was merely a man that is in heaven with a spiritually renewed body. That would contradict what Paul says in 1 Cor 8:6, Col 1:16-17, and Phil 2:6-8.

Or it means Jesus isn't God, but rather a man from heaven like the Bible says. Not literally pre-existing in heaven as a man, but in the foreknowledge of God. God is the Father and Jesus is the one He sent. There is no disharmony with this and what the rest of the Bible says.

John 17
1When Jesus had spoken these things, He lifted up His eyes to heaven and said, “Father, the hour has come. Glorify Your Son, that Your Son may glorify You. 2For You granted Him authority over all people,a so that He may give eternal life to all those You have given Him. 3Now this is eternal life, that they may know You, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom You have sent.

 

[Free]

Or it means Jesus isn't God, but rather a man from heaven like the Bible says. Not literally pre-existing in heaven as a man, but in the foreknowledge of God. God is the Father and Jesus is the one He sent. There is no disharmony with this and what the rest of the Bible says.

John 17
1When Jesus had spoken these things, He lifted up His eyes to heaven and said, “Father, the hour has come. Glorify Your Son, that Your Son may glorify You. 2For You granted Him authority over all people,a so that He may give eternal life to all those You have given Him. 3Now this is eternal life, that they may know You, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom You have sent.

I prefer to believe all that Jesus says and take all that the Bible reveals about God into account. That way, nothing gets taken out of context, like the above, which results in verses that clearly speak of Jesus’s humanity trumping and completely misinterpreting those that clearly speak of his deity.

That is why the doctrine of the Trinity is the best explanation, as verses which speak clearly of Jesus’s humanity do not override and reinterpret (misinterpret) those that speak clearly of his deity, or vice versa.

Jesus, as the Son, absolutely did eternally preexist in heaven as explicitly stated by Jesus, John, Paul, and the writer of Hebrews.

Perhaps you can answer: can you name one son that is not of the exact same nature as his father?

 

[TrevorL]

Greetings again Free,

What son do you know of that doesn't have the exact same nature as his father? Please name just one.

Perhaps you can answer: can you name one son that is not of the exact same nature as his father?

I appreciate your very thorough response, and the above question, repeated in your last statement to Runningman possibly is one of your key arguments. What I find difficult in your position on this, is did God the Father create another God, God the Son? My understanding of Matthew 1:20-21 and Luke 1:34-35 is that God the Father gave conception to a human, not a God, not a being with Divine Nature. Jesus was a child born, similar to other infants, and he had to learn wisdom and knowledge Luke 2:40,52. As a human he suffered and was crucified and died, and as a human God raised him from the dead. In what sense is Jesus "the only begotten of the Father"? When was he begotten?

Due to present time constraints, I will only respond to a few aspects, and also Runningman is answering some aspects.

No, that is not the whole context. The whole context includes the entirety of John and the rest of the NT, at a minimum. What we first see in John's gospel is his introduction to the person of Jesus, the Son of God come in human flesh, the preincarnate Word. The is absolutely essential for everything else John states about who Jesus is as the Son of God.

Yes, Jesus is the preincarnate Word, but not as a separate being, (a) God, not the second person of the Trinity. The Word is the Plan, Purpose of God, and a similar personification as found for Wisdom in Proverbs 8. The whole context in John's Gospel is the Divine origin of Jesus, a human, the Son of God by birth, character and finally resurrection.

I pointed out the issue already with specificity, on the previous page. For anyone, including Jesus, to say "Before Abraham was, I am he," makes no sense. To say, "Before Abraham was," is a question of time and existence, specifically the coming into existence of Abraham. For Jesus to respond with "I am he," doesn't provide any appropriate parallel or contrast; grammatically it makes no sense.

Even the expression "I AM" for John 8:58 is difficult, as this is awkward in English and does not make much sense. You are almost reading this as "I am the 'I AM' ". And John 8:24 translation "I am he" has a completely different sense and the KJV translators and most other translations recognised this and do NOT translate this as "I AM" and thus it is NOT an allusion to Exodus 3:14. You have not responded to my suggestion that Abraham rejoiced to see the day of Christ as a result of his experience in the offering of Isaac in Genesis 22. Jesus was in the plan and purpose of God before Abraham came on the scene, as he is the seed of the woman promised in Genesis 3:15. Jesus was not only before Abraham, but he is superior to him. The Pharisees who were opposing Jesus were the seed of the serpent, as Jesus pointed out earlier and were not true sons of Abraham.

Those aren't mutually exclusive. It's both. John is absolutely clear about this, particularly in verses 1 and 18.

Out of the two readings for John 1:18, I assume you are referring to the erroneous version.

Yes, those speak of the incarnation, but the Son of God is from eternity. What son do you know of that doesn't have the exact same nature as his father? Please name just one.

How can a "Son" be from eternity. It denies the meaning of the relationship between a father and a son.

Why didn't you address what Thomas clearly stated to Jesus--"the Lord of me and the God of me"? Thomas didn't simply state that Jesus was the Son of God, which still carries the same implication, but that Jesus was his Lord and his God. The Jews understood that Jesus's claim to be the Son of God was a claim to be equal to the Father (John 5:18; 10:33-38).

Actually John 10:30-38 is a key to unlock this word "God", because the word "Elohim" is applied to the Angels and Judges and especially the Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God.

Not at all. There is much that you have not addressed.

You certainly have not and will not convince me that "I AM" rather than "I will be" is the correct rendition of Exodus 3:14.

Kind regards
Trevor

 

[Runningman]

I prefer to believe all that Jesus says and take all that the Bible reveals about God into account. That way, nothing gets taken out of context, like the above, which results in verses that clearly speak of Jesus’s humanity trumping and completely misinterpreting those that clearly speak of his deity.

That is why the doctrine of the Trinity is the best explanation, as verses which speak clearly of Jesus’s humanity do not override and reinterpret (misinterpret) those that speak clearly of his deity, or vice versa.

Jesus, as the Son, absolutely did eternally preexist in heaven as explicitly stated by Jesus, John, Paul, and the writer of Hebrews.

I wouldn't be so sure about that because John 6 also says the manna came down from heaven and Jesus compared himself to it. The manna that fed the Israelites in the wilderness may have came from the sky, but that isn't to say it was sitting up in the heavenly grain stores since time eternal. The idea is that when something or someone comes from heaven, it can be a way of saying that God's plans manifested on earth. John the Baptist was sent by God, the water baptism was from heaven, the Son of Man descended from heaven, the manna descended from heaven, etc.

Perhaps you can answer: can you name one son that is not of the exact same nature as his father?

Plenty of people don't have the exact same nature as their father. Thinking of my father, we have many differences. More importantly, no matter how much we may or may not have in common we are not the same person. It's the same with the Son and Father.