Now, you're projecting.
What is Jesus saying here?
- Thread starter Bright Raven
- Start date
Right Divider
Body part
No, I'm not.
Yes, you are.
Derf
Well-known member
I'm not sure I understand your statement. Are you saying "I" (Derf) cannot make such a statement? Or nobody can make such a statement? I agree with the first, but disagree with the second, as Jesus made that statement. The reason He can make such a statement is what we're trying to figure out. If He said "before Abraham I was", it would suggest that there is not continuity in His being between then and the time of the event related in the passage. So something more is needed to relate the truth of His continued existence. He could say, possibly, "Before Abraham I was, I am, and I will be," but that's confusing, too, since it puts Abraham in the future.
He gets double mileage from His statement by saying "Before Abraham was, I am," because He asserts both His continuity of being from before Abraham until the present, as well as identifying Himself with the one who spoke from the burning bush.
I think you are as guilty of this as you accuse me of being. But I'm looking at things this way because the scriptures were not supportive of the ideas being presented to me as doctrine, and they seem to be supportive of this new (to me) way of looking at them. I admit I could be wrong. But if I'm wrong, there's another category out there that hasn't yet been described to me. Yours has been, and it has come up short.
This is what I'm trying to do. But in doing so, we don't want to make a passage say more than it is intended to say. To make a claim that "I AM" somehow means that Jesus is outside of time, or that He experiences time as a continual now, or some such, as both Calvinists and Arminians are wont to do, is doing exactly what you are telling me NOT to do.
Derf
Well-known member
Hi Bright Raven. I think you are pretty clear on what Jesus is saying there. But He made it more clear with other passages.
Here are a couple verses we studied this past Sunday:
[Jhn 17:3 KJV] And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.
[Jhn 17:5 KJV] And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was.
They tell us, from Jesus own lips, that He was sent from God, and that He had a relationship with God before the world was created.
Couple that with this verse:
[1Co 15:45 KJV] And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam [was made] a quickening spirit.
Which tells us that Jesus (being referred to here as "the last Adam") came after the first Adam, yet the first Adam came after the world "was" (was created).
How then can Jesus say He had glory with the Father before the world was created? It's the same as Jesus saying He existed before Abraham "was", even while He would acknowledge that He wasn't yet 50 years old (John 8:57). There are two conflicting statements that can only be resolved by admitting Jesus existed prior to His human birth. And if He existed prior to that, of what form or nature was He? It couldn't have been human, as Adam was the first Adam, and Jesus was the last Adam (as a human). Was He an angel? Hebrews tells us He wasn't:
[Heb 1:5 KJV] For unto which of the angels said he at any time, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee? And again, I will be to him a Father, and he shall be to me a Son?
[Heb 1:6 KJV] And again, when he bringeth in the firstbegotten into the world, he saith, And let all the angels of God worship him.
If Jesus, before He was called Jesus, was not human, nor angel, what was He? If He shared in God's glory before humans were created, and was not an angel, what does that leave? God? That's all I can think of. But if there is only one God, that must mean He is God, yet not the same person as the Father. That makes (at least) two persons in the one God (or "Godhead").
I don't think it's wrong for you to struggle with this concept. But I hope you will allow the scriptures to speak to you.
Lon
Well-known member
Disagree. He is standing if front of them. You are making a point of contest, it seems, for a theological construct. Simply read the scriptures. None of us needs to be so entwined with our theology ideas, that God cannot change them. Our sole focus is to be His and His faithfully. Simply follow the text where it leads.
It is a timeless statement "Before...Am."
It is grammar that is leading me. He literally says 'Before....Am.' Literally. How could I be guilty of the same? I'm explaining the grammar and adhering to it. It is this clear.
You mean grammar?
It doesn't matter at any rate. It simply matters if we are following Him and are rendering the grammar correctly. I don't need to make you like me, theologically. WE need to be like Him wherever He leads. It means we are both in need of malleability. We both need to be conformed to His image. Faith comes by hearing AND hearing the word of God. On this, I only insist that grammar rules are followed and understood because He conveyed Himself to us this way. I am glad for discussion on these boards because it is an opportunity to read and show scripture within its grammatical context where I also get corrected.Again, it does mean that. He didn't 'have' to say "before Abraham was" to convey "I AM." He specifically chose to do so and we HAVE to deal with the why and it is this plain, grammatically because the contrast is stark. John 8:59 59 So they picked up stones to throw at him, but Jesus hid himself and went out of the temple.
keypurr
Well-known member
I told you the answer to that ten years ago.
keypurr
Well-known member
Trevor I have hope for you, the others not so much.
Right Divider
Body part
Lon
Well-known member
Nope. This IS the Unitarian/Arian mistake. You guys do not seem to grasp context. There is a large difference between texts and you missed it. Fact.
Skipping texts is proof-texting. You are proof-texting OUT OF CONTEXT! It IS the reason theologies aren't orthodox. You simply must be a grammarian to participate in these discussions. If not, it is all for nothing. Nobody but a grammarian is 'capable.' There really shouldn't be Unitarians and Arians. They are grammatically sub par positions.
So much for confirmation bias from the amateurs hour. You CAN believe what you want to believe but you at least SHOULD know where your ability ends, and the rest of our's excels. ALL Unitarians are subpar grammatically and I'm convinced did less than well in school in Language Arts. IF you did lousy or mediocre at best, in school, in these subjects, you should never proffer your less than Godly-honorable ad hoc opinions. This is flat out horrible for grammar. Sorry. Fact.
Lon
Well-known member
Its mutual, but I'm not the usurper. You are, and without the where-with-all. Why do you guys all think platitudes are enough? Why even argue these points with Trinitarians? Isn't it because of YOUR contentious nature(s)? Isn't it?
I'm not the one with burden of proof. You are and vastly behind. Arians/Unitarians have had centuries, yet all scholars, with few oddball exceptions, are triune. Glad you think you are smarter than the rest of us. Your arrogance IS showing and I'm completely unconvinced with any Unitarian argument and unimpressed with Unitarian prowess and ability to bring the game. Its NFL watching intramural. This isn't rude, it is short and to the point. You won't be convinced. We cannot be convinced and so it is about scripture: 2 Timothy 2:23 and Titus 3:9 While it is pointless to argue, it is important to reject any teaching that LITERALLY demotes the Lord Jesus Christ. Thomas said "You are my Lord AND my God." You and the rest of your group? Nope. That is YOU demoting Him. You will stand before Him for it. I do have to say that, at least. While anything against the Son of Man can be forgiven, Luke 12:8-10, it is yet something you have to be necessarily forgiven for. You'd rather travel where angels fear to tread with loose nonacademic theories than honor him as Thomas did. Think about that awhile. You Arians/Unitarians are very prideful and willful. -Lon
Lon
Well-known member
Sure there would be and without any kind of problem understanding He was standing there with them, at the time. Do you see that?
No, it doesn't. It simply puts Himself in the context of those times but this part is speculative. What is clear, is that 'before' - 'Am.' It is, grammatically, a statement of existence that transcends then and His now. Because the statement transcends both times, it must be seen in that light.
And by mixing verbs from past ended, to 'am' both 'before Abraham "Am,' and His now "Am" as well as expressing His deity else there'd be no stones picked up (we absolutely agree on this one).
Well, 'my' idea is the vast majority of Christendom and very bright men, many brighter than I. I always realize my prowess as well as my shortcomings and so do lean when I need to, but I have taught Language Arts (English) and have a few languages under my belt. Wycliffe Bible Translators told me they'd take me and send me to some of their more difficult languages for translation work. I'm not a slouch. I do grasp grammatical constructs and know what they mean.
It isn't an assumption, it is express in the text. : "Before" (a verb of past tense that all rules applied, means you have to use past tense with yourself normally).
Example: Before I was married, I 'was' a single man. If I said, "Before I was married, I am a single man" it breaks rules of grammar and doesn't make sense unless there is a purposeful expression breaking the time constraint of the statement.
"I AM" is certainly the name of God and amounts clearly to His deity, but 'before' in the context also demands that His statement remains true on the expressed level as well OR the Lord Jesus Christ broke grammatical rule without purpose, a mistake because the verb agreement isn't there. I simply cannot believe that. Whatever you believe of 'my' position credence, it is at the very least, grammatically tenable to what is expressed in scripture. Just to be clear, my and most say God is relational to, unrestricted by, time. Omnipotence itself, necessitates God is timeless and "Omnipotent" is a Biblically given word (Almighty and one of His names). Because of this, many Open Theists deny His omnipotence too which is a necessity to maintain Open Theology, but it isn't a practical theology at that point. The argument is that things are out of His control by choice, but its a slippery problematic slope with all kinds of troubling theological challenges accompanying it.
I DO acquiesce I do not have all the answers and so appreciate burdens upon me for this discussion. Open Theists bring up good points and questions, but I don't believe the answers given are tenable by scriptural givens. So, I wrestle, like you do. Some of this, we have to wait and ask Him. You know, while we get in a lot of discussions on TOL that separate 'us' and 'them' I don't see this as one of them. Its trying to answer an honest question with all of us doing our limited best to give our best attempt at an answer. In this particular, I do believe the grammar of the text demands it be true on all levels. That could be a mistake 'if' I AM is simply His name, but it seems to me "Before Abraham was..." set the sentence up for specific needed interpretation, one of which, to understand, demands a timelessness to 'before Abraham was.' In Him -Lon
Lon
Well-known member
It wasn't a very good answer. He and other Unitarians just don't understand grammatical rules. I have to have a bit of grace, but certainly don't have a lot of patience for purposefully obtuse ignorance. It really bothers me when it is this incredibly willful. While not everybody does well in Language Arts, those DO tend to listen to correction from their teachers. These ones simply will not listen NOR be corrected. So, if someone really had an honest ability to listen, and the humility to learn, I've an incredible amount of patience. For the rest it is a LOT of longsuffering. How do you treat someone who really doesn't have the ability to grasp? Somehow, in scripture, people often disregard grammatical rules and use the very scriptures, out of context, to say 'the man without the Spirit, cannot understand the things of the Spirit' and think themselves wise for it. The scripture is there to remind us we cannot 'rationalize' people into grace, but it doesn't mean just any ol' student grasps grammar correctly 'when it comes to the Bible' suddenly. It never meant that. God gave us His words with clear grammatical rules."answer"
Greetings again Lon,
Kind regards
Trevor
Fair enough. I cannot accept the Trinity and I have been in the present environment for many years. I was brought up from a child to believe that there is One God, God the Father and that our Lord Jesus Christ is the Son of God. The Trinity was always that strange doctrine that the Churches taught, but few of them understood as it appeared ambiguous, contradictory and impossible.
Perhaps we may have to wait till then.
Kind regards
Trevor
Lon
Well-known member
It is. It isn't a doctrine of 'knowing it all' but a doctrine eschewing overt assumption that CLEARLY tramples other scriptures in the process. You and Modalists are exact opposites on Biblical scripture, trampling each other's 'proof texting' but never grasping both of you 'rationalize' scriptures. That is fine, in and of itself, but if it tramples any scripture, like most of the book of John, then it is clearly problematic. The Triune position IS the mediating position that will not commit to heresy. If that puts us in 'contradictory' stance, it is because of a complete unwillingness to dismiss or discount and teaching from scripture. Imho, it is the ONLY honest position. The rest, and clearly, trample scripture. The Triune position is not, therefore, the 'polished' position, but we don't slap veneer on junk to make it look good and call it God-honoring. The only God-honoring position is the one that makes one humble before their God.
While I appreciate you being indoctrinated from an early age, I encourage you to think long through these issues. The Unitarian position tramples clear scriptures and robs Jesus of His attributes. One cannot 'rob' another of His rightful claims without serious repercussion. While sins against the Son are forgivable, they are yet things that necessarily have to be forgiven for. It is no small thing to go against the majority of us, who really do have good grades and grasps of texts, either. There is nothing dubious or dishonest in the Triune stance. It is all on the table in clarity, whether it all makes perfect sense or not, it doesn't matter. It matters if it is wholly Biblical and tramples no scripture. John 20:28 says TO JESUS, "My Lord and my God." Any position missing that just isn't honest. It is this clear. I about half agree with Arians because 'arian' is in our name, we simply believe scripture doesn't balk at equivocation of Jesus as God SO neither should there be Unitarians balking either. It is simply this scripturally clear.
No perhaps, We are both guaranteed spots before Him. Without doubt, we'll both be there. No question.
Greetings again Lon,
John 20:28–31 (KJV): 28 And Thomas answered and said unto him, My Lord and my God. 29 Jesus saith unto him, Thomas, because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed: blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed. 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.
This is John's summary of why John wrote his Gospel Record. Even if a Trinitarian accepts verse 31, they usually have a different perspective on the phrase “the Son of God” and cannot think outside the concept of “God the Son”, rather than the Biblical revelation concerning the Son of God.
Briefly considering the two terms that Thomas uses when he addresses Jesus. Trinitarians rarely distinguish between the two OT words which are translated “Lord” in most English versions, but these are clearly distinguished in the following:
Psalm 110:1 (KJV): The LORD (YHWH) said unto my Lord, Sit thou at my right hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstool.
Do Trinitarians distinguish these two words, and do they apply the second “Lord” to their explanation of John 20:28, or claim that Thomas was addressing Jesus as Yahweh. Possibly they do not know the difference, or if they do, they are happy to hide behind the ambiguity.
Also the word “God” has a wide range of meaning in various contexts. If discussing the OT word “Elohim” I prefer to start at Genesis 1:26, Psalm 8:5, Psalm 82:6 and John 10:30-36. I would suggest that an understanding of Yahweh and Elohim form the basis for a correct understanding of the One God, Yahweh, God the Father and our Lord Jesus Christ the Son of God. The Trinity is based on Greek philosophy concepts.
Kind regards
Trevor
To me those that argue the Trinity dwell on some of the ambiguous Scriptures and ignore most of the relevant Scriptures where the subjects of the One God, God the Father and Jesus, the Son of God are simply and clearly taught.
My understanding of the One God, the Father in my youth was consolidated in my late teenage years when I attended a Young People’s weekend and I was taught aspects of the Yahweh Name and what we call God Manifestation. Since then these ideas have been expanded and consolidated. I started a thread on “The Yahweh Name” on May 11, 2018 and it only had a few responses, and the last post is May 15, 2018.
John 20:28 seems to be your favourite text, and I doubt that you want to really discuss this. I anticipate that you view that the two terms “Lord” and “God” simply state the Trinity. The following is a brief response on how I understand this, and this may be different to other Unitarians. Firstly I doubt that Trinitarians give much thought to what John states immediately afterward, in verse 31.
John 20:28–31 (KJV): 28 And Thomas answered and said unto him, My Lord and my God. 29 Jesus saith unto him, Thomas, because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed: blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed. 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.
This is John's summary of why John wrote his Gospel Record. Even if a Trinitarian accepts verse 31, they usually have a different perspective on the phrase “the Son of God” and cannot think outside the concept of “God the Son”, rather than the Biblical revelation concerning the Son of God.
Briefly considering the two terms that Thomas uses when he addresses Jesus. Trinitarians rarely distinguish between the two OT words which are translated “Lord” in most English versions, but these are clearly distinguished in the following:
Psalm 110:1 (KJV): The LORD (YHWH) said unto my Lord, Sit thou at my right hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstool.
Do Trinitarians distinguish these two words, and do they apply the second “Lord” to their explanation of John 20:28, or claim that Thomas was addressing Jesus as Yahweh. Possibly they do not know the difference, or if they do, they are happy to hide behind the ambiguity.
Also the word “God” has a wide range of meaning in various contexts. If discussing the OT word “Elohim” I prefer to start at Genesis 1:26, Psalm 8:5, Psalm 82:6 and John 10:30-36. I would suggest that an understanding of Yahweh and Elohim form the basis for a correct understanding of the One God, Yahweh, God the Father and our Lord Jesus Christ the Son of God. The Trinity is based on Greek philosophy concepts.
Kind regards
Trevor
Lon
Well-known member
We (I) don't ignore them. It is why I'm half Arian. I do see those scripture YET whatever conclusion I come to MUST incorporate "My Lord and my God." It simply must. There is no way to not do that without robbing Him of His rightful claims. I definitely don't want to be the one that dishonors the Son.
Right. The only two groups that get involved in Spiritualizing terms are Messianic Judaized Christians and others who do it because their theology rests upon the obscure points of scripture. We are interested in names, but we have many Systematic Theology books, very thick, that go over these. You could pick up one of those and see what we believe.
It doesn't undo the text. It is a Unitarian smoke-screen NOR does it challenge, in any way, Thomas' words, in clarity. I simply believe Unitarians are no great grammarians. Proper grammar rules are a lot like proper math equations: they are clear and straightforward. It is frankly, impossible to undo Thomas' words NOR do I want to. It is robbery of the Savior and I believe He'll hold it accountable. To many, He is going to say "depart, I never knew you." These are people that claim/think they do know Him.
Apples to oranges. One passage is Greek, the other Hebrew and one must know more than a veneer to interpret correctly. I have a year of Hebrew and two years of Greek. So while you say 'Trinitarians rarely' the problem is, there are very few Unitarians that know either Greek or Hebrew. I have to say "Unitarians rarely..." They just never put in this kind of intensive study. They'll run to commentaries and books and online resources, but that's an ad hoc education.
I was going to say something similar, but the simple answer is 'ask a Jew.' Next? As I've said, we have many Systematic Theologies among other Theological works that explain, in great detail, our position. The names of God is one section.
Greetings again Lon,
Kind regards
Trevor
I suggest that you have avoided my understanding of the “Lord” portion of John 20:28 based upon Psalm 110:1. If you look at my thread on “The Yahweh Name” I encountered Apple7. On a few other threads I had a thorough discussion on Psalm 110:1 and he went to extraordinary lengths to unsuccessfully inject the Trinity into Psalm 110:1 and the many NT citations and expositions of this verse.
Yes, I am interested in the Name and Titles of God and have added the thread on the Yahweh Name and suggested in my previous thread what I would consider with the title Elohim.
Kind regards
Trevor
Lon
Well-known member
I've often seen well-meaning Trinitarians arguing even against their own 'arian' part, so understand some of your frustration. It makes them often, at least functionally tritheists. Because of that, there is often confusion on just and exactly where we agree and where we disagree. The thrust of our disagreements are about the nature of 'the only begotten' Son. Even Keypurr, who has admitted the Lord Jesus Christ is 'the exact image of the Father,' at least grasps where Christ is incredibly unique AND with claims to deity. Yet, for us, there can only ever be one God. A word search on names is fine, but context drives and must drive theological concepts and a strict adherence to Biblical expression is necessary for a wholly Biblical theology stance. There is One God. Even Isaiah says the Messiah will be "Almighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace." God all-wise, purposefully obscured lines and the Son is honored just as the Father and the two are 'one.' Yes, there is prayer that we'd be so in sync, we'd be like Him, but that is an aim, not a dismissal of His and the Father's oneness, especially when He tells Philip "You see me? Then you've seen Him." That just doesn't happen on a grammatical and essential level and demands Unitarian constructs be seen to fall short. There is no other possible in that scenario. It is 'waving' away a necessity of question as if it didn't mean anything further. It HAS to mean something further. The text and context demands: "How?" "How have we seen the Father?" Scripture is replete with identity being one and the same, in name, deeds, and claim, between Father and Son. Even 'exact image' means 'identical.' There is simply no getting away from the equivocations EXCEPT as we are both Arian: There is only one God, and Jesus is not the Father, has 'a god' whatever that means (we see it meaning 'Father' to Him). With some qualification for disagreement, however, we do agree that the Father is not the Son (is not the Spirit) while maintaining that the lines get blurred, not by us (we didn't write the Bible) but by the Bible itself. IF that is the case (and I assert it is demonstrable) then the BEST theology is the one that embraces that in the fullest sense without AND making sure: there is no damage to any text. As I said, for all of us, preserving God's truth, no matter if it is wholly grasped (we are finite beings), is the most god-honoring position.