-- (), March 15, 1999

Answers

Chris,

Still going good? Heres another go from a few days back. Please forgive some of my sarcasim in this (it's like smoking, hard to quit).

****I'd like to try again at discussing Jesus' divinity. Here's how I see it: the most important proof texts for Jesus' divinity (John 1:1 and the "I AM" verses) require more than the ability to look up individual words in the Greek (as I am glad you are willing to do). ****

First, I do not deny Jesus divinity, I just dont think He is The Father  part of a trinity. We all posses some divinity. Its just that Jesus was a Perfect Son. As He said  Son, not HIS Father and our Father. Since youve already read the site I gave to reasoning this line of thinking is not true I really see no point, but will go into it further anyway. Now if we really follow the logic presented you have to say all these others presented at this site are also God, but you dont  which is correct. Yet you persist in this line of reasoning with ONE verse  to make it fit the trinity.

If your going to use your line of reasoning for this one, why dont you use it everywhere it occurs and not just this one?

****These verses actually require some firsthand familiarity with Greek grammar, regarding how "the" is used, and the grammar of ego eimi or "I am" in context.****

Yes, in context. Which include more than just language but also, when and who He was speaking to. And, why. Also, we have to remember who Jesus was speaking to. Ironic thing is, He was speaking to the scholars of His day. Who didnt understand. Who are just as veiled as those today. As the Bible said they were.

****Thus, since you do not have this familiarity with Greek grammar (not that my own knowledge of it is too spiffy either!), you are going with what you *do* know, and the verses you do know point away from interpeting these verses as saying Jesus is equal in divinity to Yahweh.****

Jesus never says that He is equal to His (and our) Father. Quite the contrary. Pointing away from the trinity?

****That is my understanding of this part of our discussion. I think I know a solution, though. There is a way of showing that the "I AM" in John has to be part of a significant pattern through the whole gospel, and that it has been used to show Jesus' divinity. ****

Still, if you ignore Jesus said He was the Bright and Morning Star. And, ignore that stars ARE angels. Thats in the Bible. Yours too. I cant believe I am is what you say until you can prove Jesus didnt say He was star/angel or at least He didnt call The God  His God.

****This essay/talk has nothing to do with "I AM," but it does show that John is an EXTREMELY SOPHISTICATED gospel, with MANY HIDDEN MEANINGS THAT WERE REALLY INTENDED. That's a very significant point to make. ****

I do love your wording. Many hidden. Even though Paul tells us 1 Cor 1:25  mysteries are revealed.

Really ***intended***. But, its never actually written. Dont you find that odd?

Red flags go up in my mind every time this is done. It draws me to conclude, again, there seems to be no Biblical references to back these doctrines up that the CC promotes. Except in other writings of men.

There is proof Jesus was/is an/The Angel. He was/is a created being.

****With that in mind, let's look at this business of the I AM's. What I would like to do is work backwards through the Gospel of John, so that we can see this subtle pattern in the whole Gospel. Let's start with this end-scene, and notice Peter's threefold acceptance of Jesus: ****

Your wording (mine Im sure is too you) is so much fun. work backwards, startend.... Get the picture? Boy, what smiles we both are getting :>).

John 21:12 Jesus said to them, "Come and have breakfast." Now none of the disciples dared ask him, "Who are you?" They knew it was the Lord. [Notice the issue of Jesus' identity is raised: this is important.]

And who did He say He was? God? His Father? Equal to His Father? Or Son?

****Now, we have to ask, why this threefold acceptance? What is John writing about here? Well, it is to make up for Peter's threefold *denial* earlier: ****

Yes, so? What is your point? Are we bound to apply this number 3 to everything? Does this prove the triune god? Because of an overlay of understanding? Come-on. This reasoning is lacking in common sense I think.

John 18:3 So Judas, procuring a band of soldiers and some officers from the chief priests and the Pharisees, went there with lanterns and torches and weapons.

4 Then Jesus, knowing all that was to befall him, came forward and said to them, "Whom do you seek?" 5 They answered him, "Jesus of Nazareth." Jesus said to them, "I am he." Judas, who betrayed him, was standing with them. [The Greek there does not, in fact, say "I am he." It says purely "I AM." Let's see what happens next. ****

So, why is he added? These men are looking for Jesus not God? Is Jesus saying Hes God and not who they are looking for? Now your making an implication the Bible itself is changed to make a falsehood.

****] 6 When he said to them, "I am he," they drew back and fell to the ground. [Look at that! Again, it is not "I am he, " in the Greek, it is "I AM," and the words cause them to fall back to the ground!****

Yet, again, its added in what YOU are referencing. Again, who is being asked for? Not God. And, why add he here and not everywhere? Because it dont fit the trinity.

****7 Again he asked them, "Whom do you seek?" And they said, "Jesus of Nazareth." 8 Jesus answered, "I told you that I am he; so, if you seek me, let these men go." [Again, the Greek is "I AM," and this is the third one, and he doesn't say it again here. After this, we go into Peter's three denials (formed by saying "I AM NOT") in the rest of this chapter. ****

Again, look at more than the context of language. Who is asking what? Where are they? AND, yet again he IS added. Why? According the reasoning your laying out here, Jesus would have to be telling all these, that He is The GOD, but He is not. He is not there, it too was added. You add it here, yet, you accuse someone because they believe it should ALSO be added somewhere else  who logic is right? Thats the question. You believe yours, and say begotten God does not mean what it says. I believe mine cause it fits with what I do know. The Bible.

The Bible, imho, was/is written in everyday language, not the language of scholars (and sophistication) as you are following. Its for the common people. The scribes and Pharisees couldnt understand  yet they WERE scholars. Does this tell us anything about True understanding? A child can understand Father and Son.

What this shows is that the I AM's are part of a deliberate structure of threes, which hooks into the three acceptances at the end of John, the three denials in John 18, and these three "I AM's" in John 18. ****"I AM" is what the Jews understood God's name to be****

The Jews new full-well The Gods NAME was YHWH. The Jews didnt believe Just what Jesus said He was  the Son of God. Not The GOD. They were making an excuse. They were sating He was equal to The God, but what did Jesus actually say?

****You will die in your sins unless you believe that I AM.****

But this is not even in the text your quoting from. He is added. If it was supposed to read I am why is he added???????????

25 They said to him, "Who are you?" Jesus said to them, "Even what I have told you from the beginning. [Notice the issue of His identity. At the end of the Gospel, where Peter *accepts* Jesus three times, it says they *know* who Jesus is.]

Yes they did know! AND, what did Peter tell Jesus when he asked? Mat 16:16

And we all become: Romans 9:26 and, "It will happen that in the very place where it was said to them, `You are not my people,' they will be called `sons of the living God.'" [1]

1. 26 Hosea 1:10

39 They answered him, "Abraham is our father." Jesus said to them, "If you were Abraham's children, you would do what Abraham did,

40 but now you seek to kill me, a man who has told you the truth which I heard from God; this is not what Abraham did.

Is Jesus saying He is God? No. He is telling these, what He heard from God, just as Abraham did.

42 Jesus said to them, "If God were your Father, you would love me, for I proceeded and came forth from God; I came not of my own accord, but he sent me.

And, here were told Jesus came forth and was sent?

45 But, because I tell the truth, you do not believe me.

And, what has He been telling them? That He was The God? No. Hes been telling them He was the Son of The God.

46 Which of you convicts me of sin? If I tell the truth, why do you not believe me?

47 He who is of God hears the words of God; the reason why you do not hear them is that you are not of God."

48 The Jews answered him, "Are we not right in saying that you are a Samaritan and have a demon?" [The Jews don't know what to make of all this. They say Jesus has a demon: that's one way of dealing with such a strange teacher, but Jesus will not let them off this easily.]

49 Jesus answered, "I have not a demon; but I honor my Father, and you dishonor me.

50 Yet I do not seek my own glory; there is One who seeks it and he will be the judge.

51 Truly, truly, I say to you, if any one keeps my word, he will never see death." [Imagine a human being saying that to you. We are used to hearing it, but it was *beyond* revolutionary at the time. Imagine me walking up to you an saying, "Jamey, if you do what *I* say, you will be immortal." You'd say, "You're nuts!" and that's just what the Jews now say:]

Again, reference the Angels covenant. And, then tell me what the True meaning of this is?

52 The Jews said to him, "Now we know that you have a demon. Abraham died, as did the prophets; and you say, 'If any one keeps my word, he will never taste death.'

53 Are you greater than our father Abraham, who died? And the prophets died! Who do you claim to be?" [They want to know Jesus *identity*. That's what they're asking about, and what all this is building towards.]

54 Jesus answered, "If I glorify myself, my glory is nothing; it is my Father who glorifies me, of whom you say that he is your God.

Odd, Jesus says His glory is nothing. Of course you say, this is His humanity. Right? Right.

55 But you have not known him; I know him. If I said, I do not know him, I should be a liar like you; but I do know him and I keep his word.

56 Your father Abraham rejoiced that he was to see my day; he saw it and was glad." [Can you imagine how this must have sounded? This was just a human being (so it seemed) saying that Abraham, who lived centuries ago, rejoiced to see my day and was glad.] 57 The Jews then said to him, "You are not yet fifty years old, and have you seen Abraham?" 58 Jesus said to them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I am." [This is the third "I AM" in the scene, it is the climax, and it shows that it is a three-set of I AM's that shows the set is related to the three I AM's later, the three denials (I AM NOT), and the threefold acceptance of Jesus at the end.] 59 So they took up stones to throw at him; but Jesus hid himself, and went out of the temple. [That is how the whole scene ends. The Jews finally see what Jesus is talking about. They realize that He's referring to that scene in Exodus when God named Himself "I AM." The penalty for blasphemy was stoning, and so they try to kill Him.]

I believe your interpretation of this to still be veiled as the Jews were then. As this verse says the Jews said  Jesus did not say He was His Father  NOR some part of a mysterious trinity. Its just not there. Thats the veil Moses spoke of and in the discussion of this, weve already had. However, I still dont believe you see the True connection. Of course, its referenced in your own Bible  the NAB, or at least in the copy I have.

Moses didnt see The God, he saw an angel, that Angel was the Son. Thats in the verses already given.

Then you deny Jesus statement in verse 54;  my glory is nothing; it is my Father who glorifies me, of whom you say that he is your God by putting in humanity.

By saying this is His humanity. Thereby further separating His True role in The GODs purpose. Lets further confuse this issues by asking you these questions.

How can Jesus be The God if He says; your God and my God.

Who did Moses directly talk to?

How can Daniel say LORD of my Lord?

John 1:18 says begotton God not begotton Son  not in the Greek anyway. Correct grammar or not.

John 20:17 My God and your God

[Eph 1:3] Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us in Christ with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places,

Notice, God and Father of. Not part of.

Rev 3:4

[Mark 15:34] And at the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, "Elo-i, Elo-i, lama sabach-thani?" which means, "My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?"

Forsaking Himself? Another part of Himself? Strawman or just plain overlayed confusion?

Knowledge of Greek grammar, while helpful, is not needed for understanding the English presented in The Bible to us, as a whole  from my limited understanding of it thus far (my dad doesnt even reference Greek words, yet he and I have the same understanding  a common mans understanding  not scholarly.). Again, who did Jesus preach to? And, who Truly understood?

A good dictionary of both English and Greek may be useful, as your suggesting, but not necessary  except for debating :>).

Your reasoning for I am still does not fit with Jesus being an/The Angel. Nor any of the verses above. Please finish that debate before trying to prove this one  preferably with something you do agree with. If you cant understand that one, how on earth am I supposed to believe this reasoning from you? When my theory of Perfect relationship of Father/Son fits and the trinity doesnt? Mine also fits with this, of course I dont follow your overlay. You cant prove one, then prove the other and hammer them together to make it fit.

You add he after 99% of the I ams, but leave it off on **one** verse  to prove the trinity. Yet the church accuses the Unitarians, Bible Students and, yes, the JWs of changing, because they dont??? Then you add all these verses referencing Peters I am not, which really I see no relevance to I am. The word not is there, the word he is not in any, yet you still, conveniently add it where it makes more sense, yet leave he out when it doesnt fit the trinity. Why? So it will fit with The GOD speaking with Abraham, even though it doesnt.

What kind of logic is this ???

If there were a trinity  as defined  three-in-one  then how does these fit? My belief is it doesnt. And, it dont. Its just not there, imho.

Jamey

-- Jamey (jcreel@hcsmail.com), March 23, 1999.

-- anonymously answered, March 25, 1999

Chris, I know most here are not interested, however, this is a valid argument to the trinity whether your scholars say or not. And, unlike the scholars you seem to pull from  I do agree with it. Its up to us to make up our own mind and Christ will finish our teaching when He returns for those who have a honest heart.

John 8:58 "Jesus said to them: "Most truly I say to YOU, Before Abraham came into existence, I have been." This verse has caused some to say that here, Jesus is making a claim to being God because he is applying the identity of Jehovah as revealed at Exodus 3:14 to himself. Is this the case? Let's see. With regard to the use of "ego eimi" by Jehovah at Isaiah 43:10, as well as Jesus' use of "ego eimi" at this verse, please see the comments on John 13:19 below. Some translations, like the King James, translate this verse as ".... Before Abraham was, I am." They say that it is the same as Exodus 3:14 where in the KJ translation, and others, Jehovah said ".....God said unto Moses, I AM THAT I AM.......I AM hath sent you." They say that this is the very same title. Is this the case? Well, even the King James translators knew that John 8:58 was not a direct claim by Jesus to Exodus 3:14. This is evident by the fact that they used small capital letters in the Exodus "I AM," and did Not use small capital letters in the John "I am." But there is much more to it than that. The Greek at John 8:58 is "ego eimi." It can be properly translated in the English as "I am," like at John 9:9. (Which by the way was spoken by the former blind beggar man...was he claiming to be God?) And at 1Chronicles 21:17 where David said (in the LXX) "ego eimi," or "I am." (Was David claiming to be God as well?) Also due to the sentence structure of John 8:58, it can also be correctly translated as "I have been." (see below for more on this) Some object to the translation of John 8:58 as "I have been." So we naturally ask the question: "Is the NWT alone in it's rendering of John 8:58 as "I have been?" We provide a list below that has renderings similar to the NWT from 40 different Bibles at John 8:58: The Living New Testament: "The absolute truth is that I was in existence before Abraham was ever born." The Bible A New Translation. Moffatt: "I have existed before Abraham was born." The 20th Century New Testament: "before Abraham existed I was." The New Testament, An American Translation Goodspeed: "I tell you I existed before Abraham was born." New Believers Bible, New Living Translation: "I existed before Abraham was even born." The Book, New Testament: The absolute truth is that I was in existence before Abraham was ever born." The Living Bible: "I was in existence before Abraham was ever born." The Four Gospels, Lattimore: "Truly, truly I tell you, I am from before Abraham was born." The New Testament, From the Peshitta Text, Lamsa: "Before Abraham was born, I was." An American Translation, In The Language of Today, Beck: "I was before Abraham." New Testament Contemporary English Version: "I tell you.that even before Abraham was, I was, and I am." The Living Scriptures (Messianic Version): "I was in existence before Abraham was ever born." The Unvarnished New Testament: "Before Abraham was born, I have already been." New American Standard Version (margin 1960-1973 editions): Or, "I have been." The New Testament, Klist & Lilly: "I am here-and I was before Abraham." The New Testament in the Language of the People, C.B. Williams: "I existed before Abraham was born." (the above translation was done by the teacher of Julius Mantey. Mantey wrote in the introduction to this Bible "[this] translation is the most accurate and illuminating translation in the English language."yet he later condemned the NWT which conveys the same basic thought at this verse as Williams.) The New Testament, Noyes: "From before Abraham was, I have been." The Complete Bible, An American Translation Goodspeed: "I tell you I existed before Abraham was born." A Translation of the Four Gospels, Lewis: "Before Abraham was, I have been." The Syriac New Testament, Murdock: "Before Abraham existed I was." The Curetonian Version of the Four Gospels, Burkitt: "Before Abraham came to be, I was." The Old Georgian Version of the Gospel of John, Blake & Briere: "Before Abraham came to be, I was." Nouvum Testamentum AEthiopice, Platt, Lepzip: "Before Abraham was born, I was." The New Testament Or Rather the New Covenant, Sharpe: "I was before Abraham was born." The 20th Century New Testament 1904: "Before Abraham existed I was already what I am." The New Testament, Stage: "Before Abraham came to be, I was." The Coptic Version the New Testament in the Southern Dialect, Horner: "Before Abraham became, I, I am being." The Documents of the New Testament, Wade: "Before Abraham came into being, I have existed." The New Testament in Hebrew, Delitzsh: "Before Abraham was, I have been." The New Testament in Hebrew, Salkinson & Ginsberg: "I have been when there had as yet been no Abraham." The New Testament of Our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ, Swan: "I existed before Abraham was born." The New Testament (in German) Pfaefflin: "Before there was an Abraham, I was already there." The Authentic New Testament, Schonfield: "I existed before Abraham was born." Biblia Sagdrada, Roman Catholic: "Before Abraham existed, I was existing." The New Testament of Our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ, Noli: "I existed before Abraham was born." The Concise Gospel and The Acts, Christianson: "I existed even before Abraham was born." A Translators Handbook to the Gospel of John, Nida: "Before Abraham existed, I existed, or.I have existed." The Simple English Bible: "I was alive before Abraham was born." The Original New Testament, Schonfield: "I tell you for a positive fact, I existed before Abraham was born." The Complete Gospels Annotated Scholars Version, Miller: "I existed before there was an Abraham." So as we can prove, there are many, many translations that translate John 8:58 similar to the NWT, but not exactly as the NWT. This has caused some to imagine then, that these variations actually distract from the NWT! Never let this be the case! The point that the above translations indicate and prove, is that Jesus' words at John 8:58 were not dealing with the question of identity, but rather of time. To learn more about the reason for this translation, please see below. However, we will ask another question with regard to our identity question: "Is the Greek at John 8:58, the same Greek found at Exodus 3:14?" The Greek at Exodus 3:14 in the LXX ( The Septuagint, meaning the 70, which is the Hebrew-Aramaic scriptures translated into Greek) is "ego eimi ho on." Literally meaning, "I am the being," or "I am The One who is." In the second part of the verse (translated as "I AM hath sent me unto you" in the KJ) the Greek words translated "I AM" in the KJ are "ho on" literally "the being." Notice as well that Jesus did NOT say "Before Abraham was, "the being." So then, according to the Bible, if John 8:58 were a claim to Exodus 3:14, as Trinitarians imagine, then Jesus would have had to say, "ego eimi ho on," But according to the Greek TEXT Jesus said "ego eimi", NOT "ego eimi ho on." Remember, the LXX at Exodus 3:14 does NOT say "ego eimi ho ego eimi" or "I AM THE I AM." It does however say "ego eimi ho on." The fact is: "Jesus did NOT say "EGO EIMI HO ON." Period. Now, we will continue this thought and take it a step further. Evidence shows that John wrote his Gospel account in the year 96 C.E. Some 63 years AFTER Jesus' actual words. He penned his words in the then common GREEK. However, the actual language Jesus spoke was probably Hebrew or Aramaic. Therefore, Jesus NEVER spoke the GREEK words "ego eimi." Thus, an illusion to Exodus 3:14 is out of the question from this simple point as well.

And, Chris illusion here is correct. The writer is referring to trinitarians from his standpoint.

Jamey

-- Jamey (jcreel@hcsmail.com), March 25, 1999.

Within the context of the passage, this "I am" is a question of "time", not a question of "name." Read the whole thing, imho.

-- Jamey (jcreel@hcsmail.com), March 28, 1999.

Chris,

Here we go again :>).

You are good! As all catholics are on this - you had 1600 years to prepare right? BIG GRIN

Back to the original question of Jesus being an angel. Please reconcile my original question with 'your' "I am".

***And as for the original question of Michael, who is fighting Satan in Revelations - Jesus or Michael? ***

Who leads The Gods army?

Jamey

-- Jamey (jcreel@hcsmail.com), March 29, 1999.

Why hasn't someone replied to this? Was it replied to in another thread?

-A Trinitarian who needs help.

-- Bump (answers@please.com), February 27, 2005.

it was replied to a LONG LONG time ago, however, chris, the member who responded, decided that he didnt want anyone to be able to read his posts and so deleted ALOT of the information from the forum, the responses from this thread included.

-- paul h (dontSendMeMail@notAnAddress.com), February 27, 2005.

Does anyone have the time to go over this or point me to some valid rebuttal of some sort?

I'm Catholic and really need the help here! This is the only problem I'm having, and there seems to be some valid points here...it's driving me crazy!

-- Former Bumper (answer@please.com), February 28, 2005.

Paul--
Pardon my saying but I also gave that verse and the meaning a post about 3 years ago. It's so far back it's probably lost. (I recall John Gecik was very happy about what I wrote.)

In a nutshell; this verse tells us Jesus Christ declared to His enemies among the Jews that He is God. They reacted violently to His words, and even wanted to stone Jesus for blaspheming. The sense in which all of them took the words ''I am,'' is unmistakeable. Only God can say that. Since Jesus is God the Eternal Son, He flatly told them the truth.

In the OT, Moses asked Yahweh; the Lord-- upon being commanded to tell the Israelites about Him--

They're sure to ask me your NAME. What name will I tell them? (I'm paraphrasing here.) God replied clearly --''Tell them I AM sent you.'' He gave Moses His holy name as ''I AM''.

All Israelites of Christ's day realised that I am is the sacred name of the Lord. So on this occasion they couldn't believe Jesus would dare say it. Because they didn't realise who Jesus is. He IS GOD-- I Am. They saw it as blasphemy and wanted to kill Him.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), February 28, 2005.

Well, that's a decent reply as far as the use of "I AM" in the Scripture but what about all the other points here? I'm suppose to ignore them because we can defend one verse?

What about how "Ego Eimi" is used in other verses, and that "Ego Eimi Ho On" would be a more clear idenifying statement.

-- Former Bumper (answer@please.com), February 28, 2005.

What about them?

It happens that the verse as we see it is not some esoteric or senseless doctrinal applicaton, but self-explained. Jesus and His Almighty Father are One. He [The Holy Trinity] is called Yahweh, ''I am.'' The Jews understood Jesus very well, when he said I AM. What you make of it in Greek is altogether irrelevant, isn't it?

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), February 28, 2005.

{{{{{{Indented here is the original opening message of this thread. Mr. Chavez, your effort may resurface one day.}}}}}

Dear Jamey,

I'd like to try again at discussing Jesus' divinity. Here's how I see it: the most important proof texts for Jesus' divinity (John 1:1 and the "I AM" verses) require more than the ability to look up individual words in the Greek (as I am glad you are willing to do). These verses actually require some firsthand familiarity with Greek grammar, regarding how "the" is used, and the grammar of ego eimi or "I am" in context. Thus, since you do not have this familiarity with Greek grammar (not that my own knowledge of it is too spiffy either!), you are going with what you *do* know, and the verses you do know point away from interpeting these verses as saying Jesus is equal in divinity to Yahweh. That is my understanding of this part of our discussion. I think I know a solution, though. There is a way of showing that the "I AM" in John has to be part of a significant pattern through the whole gospel, and that it has been used to show Jesus' divinity.

Before I get into this, though, it may help if you read something that *seems* unrelated. It's another essay by Scott Hahn, located at: http://www.ewtn.com/library/answers/4thCup.TXT

This essay/talk has nothing to do with "I AM," but it does show that John is an EXTREMELY SOPHISTICATED gospel, with MANY HIDDEN MEANINGS THAT WERE REALLY INTENDED. That's a very significant point to make.

With that in mind, let's look at this business of the I AM's. What I would like to do is work backwards through the Gospel of John, so that we can see this subtle pattern in the whole Gospel. Let's start with this end-scene, and notice Peter's threefold acceptance of Jesus:

John 21:12 Jesus said to them, "Come and have breakfast." Now none of the disciples dared ask him, "Who are you?" They knew it was the Lord. [Notice the issue of Jesus' identity is raised: this is important.] 13 Jesus came and took the bread and gave it to them, and so with the fish. 14 This was now the third time that Jesus was revealed to the disciples after he was raised from the dead. [Notice the reference to three. This will be significant.] 15 When they had finished breakfast, Jesus said to Simon Peter, "Simon, son of John, do you love me more than these?" He said to him, "Yes, Lord; you know that I love you." He said to him, "Feed my lambs." [This is Peter's first acceptance of Jesus (in this scene).] 16 A second time he said to him, "Simon, son of John, do you love me?" He said to him, "Yes, Lord; you know that I love you." He said to him, "Tend my sheep." [This is Peter's second acceptance of Jesus.] 17 He said to him the third time, "Simon, son of John, do you love me?" Peter was grieved because he said to him the third time, "Do you love me?" And he said to him, "Lord, you know everything; you know that I love you." Jesus said to him, "Feed my sheep. [This is Peter's third acceptance of Jesus.] 18 Truly, truly, I say to you, when you were young, you girded yourself and walked where you would; but when you are old, you will stretch out your hands, and another will gird you and carry you where you do not wish to go." [This is the end of the scene with Peter.]

Now, we have to ask, why this threefold acceptance? What is John writing about here? Well, it is to make up for Peter's threefold *denial* earlier:

John 18:15 Simon Peter followed Jesus, and so did another disciple. As this disciple was known to the high priest, he entered the court of the high priest along with Jesus, [Jesus is about to be crucified] 16 while Peter stood outside at the door. So the other disciple, who was known to the high priest, went out and spoke to the maid who kept the door, and brought Peter in. 17 The maid who kept the door said to Peter, "Are not you also one of this man's disciples?" He said, "I am not." [Peter's first denial, and the Greek is as simple as the English: I AM NOT.] 18 Now the servants and officers had made a charcoal fire, because it was cold, and they were standing and warming themselves; Peter also was with them, standing and warming himself. . . [Now we'll jump down a few verses:] 25 Now Simon Peter was standing and warming himself. They said to him, "Are not you also one of his disciples?" He denied it and said, "I am not." [Peter's second denial: I AM NOT] 26 One of the servants of the high priest, a kinsman of the man whose ear Peter had cut off, asked, "Did I not see you in the garden with him?" 27 Peter again denied it; and at once the cock crowed. [Peter's third denial]

O.K., now, this whole quotation was all from the second part of John 18. This quotation contains three denials (expressed as "I AM NOT") which is part of a structure, in which Peter will later make up for it with the three *acceptances* of Jesus that I discussed at the beginning. So, in this light, let's look at the *first* part of John 18, that is, what occurs *right* before these three denials take place:

John 18:3 So Judas, procuring a band of soldiers and some officers from the chief priests and the Pharisees, went there with lanterns and torches and weapons. 4 Then Jesus, knowing all that was to befall him, came forward and said to them, "Whom do you seek?" 5 They answered him, "Jesus of Nazareth." Jesus said to them, "I am he." Judas, who betrayed him, was standing with them. [The Greek there does not, in fact, say "I am he." It says purely "I AM." Let's see what happens next.] 6 When he said to them, "I am he," they drew back and fell to the ground. [Look at that! Again, it is not "I am he, " in the Greek, it is "I AM," and the words cause them to fall back to the ground!] 7 Again he asked them, "Whom do you seek?" And they said, "Jesus of Nazareth." 8 Jesus answered, "I told you that I am he; so, if you seek me, let these men go." [Again, the Greek is "I AM," and this is the third one, and he doesn't say it again here. After this, we go into Peter's three denials (formed by saying "I AM NOT") in the rest of this chapter.]

What this shows is that the I AM's are part of a deliberate structure of threes, which hooks into the three acceptances at the end of John, the three denials in John 18, and these three "I AM's" in John 18. "I AM" is what the Jews understood God's name to be, in extra-biblical writing, in the fact that Yahweh itself means "The one who Is," and in this very important scene where Moses asks God His name:

Exodus 8:13 Then Moses said to God, "If I come to the people of Israel and say to them, 'The God of your fathers has sent me to you,' and they ask me, 'What is his name?' what shall I say to them?" 14 God said to Moses, "I AM WHO I AM." And he said, "Say this to the people of Israel, 'I AM has sent me to you.'" [I'll just note in passing that this is three mentions of "I AM"]

So this is the structure that John has used in his Gospel. We need to keep that structure in mind when we turn now to John 8:

John 8:24 I told you that you would die in your sins, for you will die in your sins unless you believe that I am he." [Jesus is speaking to the Jews. They must believe in Him or they will die in their sins. The Greek, again, is not "I am he," but "I AM." You will die in your sins unless you believe that I AM.] 25 They said to him, "Who are you?" Jesus said to them, "Even what I have told you from the beginning. [Notice the issue of His identity. At the end of the Gospel, where Peter *accepts* Jesus three times, it says they *know* who Jesus is.] 26 I have much to say about you and much to judge; but he who sent me is true, and I declare to the world what I have heard from him." 27 They did not understand that he spoke to them of the Father. 28 So Jesus said, "When you have lifted up the Son of man, then you will know that I am he, and that I do nothing on my own authority but speak thus as the Father taught me. [This is the second "I AM," which is what the Greek says. This verse contains the kind of subordination which leads *you* to believe Jesus cannot be equal to Yahweh, and me to think subordination is not inferiority, just as Jesus is not less than his parents when, as a boy, the the Gospel of Luke says He is obedient to them in all things, and Jesus is not inferior to the apostles when He washes their feet, etc. But anyway, let's keep tracing out the I AM's in this chapter. We have two I AM's already.] 29 And he who sent me is with me; he has not left me alone, for I always do what is pleasing to him." 30 As he spoke thus, many believed in him. 31 Jesus then said to the Jews who had believed in him, "If you continue in my word, you are truly my disciples, 32 and you will know the truth, and the truth will make you free." [Now, they *already* believe in Him, it says, but He seems to be setting them up for some deeper truth they will hear-- that is you *will* (future tense) know the truth, and it will set you free.]

33 They answered him, "We are descendants of Abraham, and have never been in bondage to any one. How is it that you say, 'You will be made free'?" 34 Jesus answered them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, every one who commits sin is a slave to sin. 35 The slave does not continue in the house for ever; the son continues for ever. 36 So if the Son makes you free, you will be free indeed. 37 I know that you are descendants of Abraham; yet you seek to kill me, because my word finds no place in you. 38 I speak of what I have seen with my Father, and you do what you have heard from your father." [Jesus shows that He is using a lot of double meanings in this scene, and the Jews are having a hard time following Him. In the first instance, "Father" means God the Father; with "father" in reference to the Jews, however, Jesus means the Devil, although Jesus is willing to leave this unclear for now. It's His style of teaching, rather like the parables, where he wants you to work at finding the truth and understanding.]

39 They answered him, "Abraham is our father." Jesus said to them, "If you were Abraham's children, you would do what Abraham did, 40 but now you seek to kill me, a man who has told you the truth which I heard from God; this is not what Abraham did. 41 You do what your father did." They said to him, "We were not born of fornication; we have one Father, even God." [Again, Jesus leaves it unclear who the Jews' true father is. He likes to wait before revealing the truth.] 42 Jesus said to them, "If God were your Father, you would love me, for I proceeded and came forth from God; I came not of my own accord, but he sent me. 43 Why do you not understand what I say? It is because you cannot bear to hear my word. 44 You are of your father the devil, and your will is to do your father's desires. He was a murderer from the beginning, and has nothing to do with the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks according to his own nature, for he is a liar and the father of lies. [Finally, Jesus reveals who they belong to.]

45 But, because I tell the truth, you do not believe me. 46 Which of you convicts me of sin? If I tell the truth, why do you not believe me? 47 He who is of God hears the words of God; the reason why you do not hear them is that you are not of God." 48 The Jews answered him, "Are we not right in saying that you are a Samaritan and have a demon?" [The Jews don't know what to make of all this. They say Jesus has a demon: that's one way of dealing with such a strange teacher, but Jesus will not let them off this easily.]

49 Jesus answered, "I have not a demon; but I honor my Father, and you dishonor me. 50 Yet I do not seek my own glory; there is One who seeks it and he will be the judge. 51 Truly, truly, I say to you, if any one keeps my word, he will never see death." [Imagine a human being saying that to you. We are used to hearing it, but it was *beyond* revolutionary at the time. Imagine me walking up to you an saying, "Jamey, if you do what *I* say, you will be immortal." You'd say, "You're nuts!" and that's just what the Jews now say:] 52 The Jews said to him, "Now we know that you have a demon. Abraham died, as did the prophets; and you say, 'If any one keeps my word, he will never taste death.' 53 Are you greater than our father Abraham, who died? And the prophets died! Who do you claim to be?" [They want to know Jesus *identity*. That's what they're asking about, and what all this is building towards.]

54 Jesus answered, "If I glorify myself, my glory is nothing; it is my Father who glorifies me, of whom you say that he is your God. 55 But you have not known him; I know him. If I said, I do not know him, I should be a liar like you; but I do know him and I keep his word. 56 Your father Abraham rejoiced that he was to see my day; he saw it and was glad." [Can you imagine how this must have sounded? This was just a human being (so it seemed) saying that Abraham, who lived centuries ago, rejoiced to see my day and was glad.] 57 The Jews then said to him, "You are not yet fifty years old, and have you seen Abraham?" 58 Jesus said to them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I am." [This is the third "I AM" in the scene, it is the climax, and it shows that it is a three-set of I AM's that shows the set is related to the three I AM's later, the three denials (I AM NOT), and the threefold acceptance of Jesus at the end.]

59 So they took up stones to throw at him; but Jesus hid himself, and went out of the temple. [That is how the whole scene ends. The Jews finally see what Jesus is talking about. They realize that He's referring to that scene in Exodus when God named Himself "I AM." The penalty for blasphemy was stoning, and so they try to kill Him.]

I thought this might be a good approach, Jamey, because it doesn't require knowledege of Greek grammar, just a willingness to look up the individual words in a Greek dictionary. You can trace the structure through the whole Gospel.

{{{{{End of restoration}}}}}

-- The Thread Restorer (Thread@Restoration.com), February 28, 2005.

{{{{{Other messages that were deleted now follow, indented, dated, "anonymized," and made more readable.}}}}}

Hello. You write, regarding I AM: *****Since you've already read the site I gave to reasoning this line of thinking is not true I really see no point, but will go into it further anyway. Now if we really follow the logic presented you have to say all these others presented at this site are also God, but you dont which is correct. Yet you persist in this line of reasoning with ONE verse  to make it fit the trinity. If your going to use your line of reasoning for this one, why dont you use it everywhere it occurs and not just this one? ******

Actually, its not just ONE verse with I AM that I am discussing; it is SIX verses. Also, I guess I have to explain why that site was very bad scholarship as was apparent at a glance. Its nothing personal to him or you, I just have to do this because you are putting stock in the writers analysis of Greek. (Just in the tiny section of the site you sent me to, he wrote illusion when he meant allusion (a mistake no Greek scholar would make) and he said it makes no difference about ego eimi because Jesus spoke Aramaic. But obviously John was guided by the Holy Spirit in translating Jesus words into Greek! When I made this point before, you made the comment that we dont have the original manuscript John wrote. That makes no difference whatsoever. You and I both agree that we have a faithful transmission of Johns original text. Otherwise you would not believe in the Bible.)

Anyway, the writers comments on the use of ego eimi are actually rather helpful to my case. He shows that the use of ego eimi was extremely RARE, not only in the NT but even in the Greek translation of the OT (the Septuagint). In them all, the WHOLE Bible, the writer only found two other uses! One of the uses, I dont even believe him about. I mean the one in 1 Chronicles 21:17. I looked that verse up and theres no way that I can see that the sentences could have been translated I am, in a way that I Am would end the sentence/phrase as Jesus pronouncements do.

1 Chronicles 21:17 (English-RSV)

And David said to God, "Was it not I who gave command to number the people? IT IS I who have sinned and done very wickedly. But these sheep, what have they done? Let thy hand, I pray thee, O LORD my God, be against me and against my father's house; but let not the plague be upon thy people."

In other words, this very clearly says It is I WHO, and does not at all hearken back to Yahewehs self-proclaimation, which is purely I AM.

Thus the ONLY other case in the WHOLE Bible is John 9:9, with the blind beggar man. The beggar is identifying himself (ego eimi can mean It is I, and Jesus DOES use that double meaning in the scenes you and I are talking about. I very happily agree about that. That is the reason why the RSV and NIV translators translated one side of the meaning of ego eimi, while the NAB translators translate the other side, as I discuss later in this post. It is very much like a pun.) Jesus often uses double meanings, like when he says I can tear down this temple in three days and rebuild it, and everyone thinks he means the Jewish temple, when in fact Jesus means his body. (I could give many other examples, like when He speaks of the Jews father and they think He means Abraham but He means the devil.) In John, Jesus uses ego eimi in the It is I sense (or I am he) but also as an allusion to I AM in Exodus, as we see in the intentionally ungrammatical Before Abraham was born, I AM! and in the clearly intended structure of threes that I have shown in the Gospel of John. Three acceptances at the end, to make up for three denials earlier on, which occurred IMMEDIATELY after three I AMs.

You wrote: ***Still, if you ignore Jesus said He was the Bright and Morning Star. And, ignore that stars ARE angels. Thats in the Bible. Yours too. I cant believe I am is what you say until you can prove Jesus didnt say He was star/angel or at least He didnt call The God  His God.***

I addressed this issue of the Morning Star two days ago on another thread. (I just saw your response and will get to it later.) I definitely agree that Jesus called the Father my God, and I discuss the fact below.

****I do love your wording. Many hidden. Even though Paul tells us 1 Cor 1:25  mysteries are revealed.****

Several times now I have given you a long list of mysteries in the NT, and asked you to unravel them, and you have never done so. Your criticism of the idea of mystery makes no sense to me for as long as you do not unravel these NT mysteries. If they are not mysteries, then you should be able to explain them all to me with great ease. By saying they are revealed Paul does not mean that we RATIONALLY understand all of them. Indeed, the Trinity has been very much revealed in my heart in many different ways, but only partly in my RATIONAL mind.

You quote me as saying Really intended about things in the Gospel of John (where I referred to subtle things in the text), and then you say:

**** But, its never actually written. Dont you find that odd? Red flags go up in my mind every time this is done. It draws me to conclude, again, there seems to be no Biblical references to back these doctrines up that the CC promotes. ***

With this I AM post, I thought that I had come up with a way of explaining some of the Jesus=omnipotent God proof-texts in a way that would not require knowledge of Greek, and might be helpful to you, given your lack of study of the language (which is totally fine, of course). Instead, though, you turn my intentionally limited approach around and say that there are no clear texts on Jesus divinity! Jamey, my friend in Christ, there is no question whatsoever that the Word is not called God in John 1:1 but rather a god as the JWs say. When Thomas kneels down at the end of the Gospel of John and calls Jesus My Lord and my God, theres no ambiguity whatsoever. Im sorry you have accepted completely incorrect scholarship from JW websites that give so few references and that do not bear out on what references they give. I just cant in good conscience let it be said that the depiction of Jesus divinity is some vague, difficult thing, merely because I used an approach that could help someone who didnt know Greek.

You quoted me: Now, we have to ask, why this threefold acceptance? What is John writing about here? Well, it is to make up for Peter's threefold *denial* earlier:

Then you wrote: ****Yes, so? What is your point? Are we bound to apply this number 3 to everything? Does this prove the triune god? Because of an overlay of understanding? Come-on. This reasoning is lacking in common sense I think.*****

I never said that this three even implied the Trinity. I am giving the last in a series of three-patterns that occurs in the Gospel of John. Thus, just so I make this clear, first you constructed the straw man of saying that I mean this three to represent the Trinity, and then you said Come on about the straw man you yourself have constructed. I just want to make clear what has happened.

You quoted the Bible and then me: John 18:3 So Judas, procuring a band of soldiers and some officers from the chief priests and the Pharisees, went there with lanterns and torches and weapons. 4 Then Jesus, knowing all that was to befall him, came forward and said to them, "Whom do you seek?" 5 They answered him, "Jesus of Nazareth." Jesus said to them, "I am he." Judas, who betrayed him, was standing with them. [The Greek there does not, in fact, say "I am he." It says purely "I AM." Let's see what happens next.]

You write: So, why is he added? These men are looking for Jesus not God? Is Jesus saying Hes God and not who they are looking for? Now your making an implication the Bible itself is changed to make a falsehood.****

No, I am arguing that the translators of the NIV and RSV chose one of the two meanings of Jesus words. Jesus both says It is I and says I AM, by the same expression. (Its rather like a pun, except that it is two words involved.) The translators of the NAB translated the other of the two meanings. Different translations have different strengths. Sometimes the RSV does a better job than the NAB, sometimes vice versa. The original readers, who knew Ancient Greek, didnt have these issues, but we do. If it werent for the other I AMs, all forming two clear triads, I would not think this occurrence meant anything more than It is I, or I am he, but we do have the other occurrences. Lets look at the next one.

****] 6 When he said to them, "I am he," they drew back and fell to the ground. [Look at that! Again, it is not "I am he, " in the Greek, it is "I AM," and the words cause them to fall back to the ground!]

You write: Yet, again, its added in what YOU are referencing. Again, who is being asked for? Not God. And, why add he here and not everywhere? Because it dont fit the trinity.****

Jamey, why are they knocked to the ground? I am he is a rather mild thing to say. Why does it knock them to the ground? Doesnt I AM make MUCH more sense for such a dramatic result? :-)

***You. . .say begotten God does not mean what it says. ****

You have brought up this begotten God verse quite a few times and my friend in Christ I dont know what you are talking about. Please explain it very clearly, and slowly. (Ill discuss it again in a moment.)

***The Bible, imho, was/is written in everyday language, not the language of scholars (and sophistication) as you are following.****

The Gospel of John was written in Ancient Greek for people who knew Ancient Greek, and who knew the OT like the back of their hands. They would have picked up on allusions to the OT in a split-second. It is harder for us 2,000 years later, without their background. It requires more work.

****Odd, Jesus says His glory is nothing. Of course you say, this is His humanity. Right? Right.*****

Yes. Paul definitely describes Jesus kenosis in Phillipians, saying Jesus emptied Himself. This was so that He could be truly human. It is a mystery, and I use the word mystery without the slightest shame, embarassment, etc! :-) I use it happily, and will continue to do so for as long as you fail to unravel the several mysteries I have asked you about (and there are many more than those, which I can provide!)

****Lets further confuse this issues by asking you these questions. How can Jesus be The God if He says; your God and my God. *****

Because He truly became a human being and thus had to be able to worship. If He had been unable to worship, He would not have been true man. That makes perfect sense. It is not even the slightest problem to my position. On the other hand, your view makes no sense at all of the fact that the Bible repeatedly teaches monotheism, or of the fact that Jesus is worshipped. You say quite vaguely, my friend, when asked about Jesus nature He is a perfect Son, that He is an angel, and that he is a god (which you have only described as a mighty being), and whenever you are asked for more details on on his nature besides this, you do not provide them. You even have gotten offended when I have asked. I dont want to offend you, but I think it is perfectly reasonable to ask you what nature you ascribe to Jesus. For example, Jesus self-sacrifice made atonement for the sins of the entire world. That cannot be merely because He was a good and mighty angel who did his fathers will. Or to take another example, Jesus says that the crimes done to OTHER PEOPLE are actually done to Him. That is an enormous thing to say. I dont see how that could be the case though if Jesus is just a perfect Son and mighty angel (although it is indeed the case with God Himself). Moreover, both the atonement on the cross, and the fact that all our sins against one another are inflicted on Jesus Himself both these things are mysteries.

*****John 1:18 says begotton God not begotton Son  not in the Greek anyway. Correct grammar or not.****

O.K. this is that same reference from before, so lets figure this out together. First of all, what Bible are you referring to? You said at one point it is the CE, but I dont know what the CE is. Is that Catholic Edition? (Catholic Edition of what? Theres a CE of the RSV for example.) Whatever the CE is, Begotten God is GREAT for my case, and I welcome it with open arms! Jesus is both God and He is begotten. Ill have to use it among my proof texts the next time I argue for Jesus divinity! :>)

****Notice, God and Father of. Not part of. ***

Straw man argument: Trinitarians never refer to Jesus as part of God the Father. They are two separate Persons who are one in being.

*****Your reasoning for I am still does not fit with Jesus being an/The Angel. Nor any of the verses above. Please finish that debate before trying to prove this one  preferably with something you do agree with. If you cant understand that one, how on earth am I supposed to believe this reasoning from you?*****

... What I want you to do is to start a new thread, and write a short post giving just a few angel=Jesus texts, and explain them real clearly, O.K.? Well move on to other OT verses later. (Or if youd rather do this some other way, so long as it is limited, let me know.)

****Then you add all these verses referencing Peters I am not, which really I see no relevance to I am.****

In John 18, just about the only thing that happens is that Jesus says I AM three times, and then IMMEDIATELY afterwards Peter makes the denial expressed as I AM NOT three times. I think the connection hits us over the head! The ultimate self-revelation (and courage), versus the ultimate renunciation (and cowardice).

-- March 25, 1999.

The writer says: *******The Greek at John 8:58 is "ego eimi." It can be properly translated in the English as "I am," like at John 9:9. (Which by the way was spoken by the former blind beggar man...was he claiming to be God?) And at 1Chronicles 21:17 where David said (in the LXX) "ego eimi," or "I am." (Was David claiming to be God as well?)********

Just to guide folks a bit bewildered by all this :-) I already addressed these verses above.

Next, the writer's list of Bibles with a translation that he likes of John 8:58 falls into two categories:

1. Extremely loose translations (The Living Bible, The Book, The New Testament in the Language of the People, The Simple English Bible, etc.)

2. Extremely obscure translations (e.g., The Curetonian Version of the Four Gospels, The Coptic Version the New Testament in the Southern Dialect, etc.)

*******The point that the above translations indicate and prove, is that Jesus' words at John 8:58 were not dealing with the question of identity, but rather of time.*******

The writer does not understand what constitutes "proof" in scholarship. This too undermines his analysis of Greek. You cannot say, "This is my interpetation of the Greek. My proof is these other translations." (This is even leaving aside the fact that they are loose or obscure translations.)

******However, we will ask another question with regard to our identity question: "Is the Greek at John 8:58, the same Greek found at Exodus 3:14?" The Greek at Exodus 3:14 in the LXX ( The Septuagint, meaning the 70, which is the Hebrew-Aramaic scriptures translated into Greek) is "ego eimi ho on." Literally meaning, "I am the being," or "I am The One who is." In the second part of the verse (translated as "I AM hath sent me unto you" in the KJ) the Greek words translated "I AM" in the KJ are "ho on" literally "the being." Notice as well that Jesus did NOT say "Before Abraham was, "the being." So then, according to the Bible, if John 8:58 were a claim to Exodus 3:14, as Trinitarians imagine, then Jesus would have had to say, "ego eimi ho on," But according to the Greek TEXT Jesus said "ego eimi", NOT "ego eimi ho on." Remember, the LXX at Exodus 3:14 does NOT say "ego eimi ho ego eimi" or "I AM THE I AM." It does however say "ego eimi ho on." The fact is: "Jesus did NOT say "EGO EIMI HO ON." Period.*******

This too makes no sense. John and his readers knew the actual Hebrew OT itself. They were not at all straitjacketed into the Septuagint translators' decisions. They knew very well that the Hebrew in Exodus 3:14 said "I AM THAT I AM" as a repetition (hayah hayah), and that God then made clear a few words later that His name was the simple "hayah" (I AM).

******Now, we will continue this thought and take it a step further. Evidence shows that John wrote his Gospel account in the year 96 C.E. Some 63 years AFTER Jesus' actual words.*******

Jamey, if you happen to read this, I really hope you'll look at this section closely, as it will give you the clues you need that this isn't real scholarship. I don't in any way mean that harshly. I think of you as a very good guy searching for the truth, and one searching for it very nobly, too (IMHO), and the clues are all here that this website is not good scholarship. He wants us to try to think that John has not faithfully recorded what Jesus said because of the amount of time that has passed. (I will leave aside the issue that his date for John's Gospel is horribly late, and sounds like the kind of modernist scholarship that tries to maintain that John didn't actually write it.) Anyway, he is making the proposition that Jesus' words were not faithfully recorded, as that is the only reason for the writer to point out the passing of so much time. But you and I believe that the Bible is inerrant. You and I believe that John was guided by the Holy Spirit to write only what God wanted written. Look at what the writer says next: "[John] penned his words in the then common GREEK. However, the actual language Jesus spoke was probably Hebrew or Aramaic. Therefore, Jesus NEVER spoke the GREEK words "ego eimi." Thus, an illusion to Exodus 3:14 is out of the question from this simple point as well."

You see, my good dear brother in Christ? It's all right here to show that it's not real scholarship. The writer wants us to believe that Jesus could not be alluding to Exodus 3:14, and the writer's reasoning is that Jesus never spoke Greek! Really dig in and think that through, brother! :-) John translates Jesus into Greek, as guided by the Holy Spirit, and yet, the writer tells us, there can't be any allusion to Exodus 3:14 for this reason. But the NT is filled with allusions IN GREEK to things in the OT that are IN HEBREW. :>) You see, I want to be nice about this, and I've got no hard feelings with the guy, but you and I are really talking about something important. There are certain scholarly materials you and I have access to and ones we don't. We have to examine this writer's credibility on what is available to us, and it doesn't at all hold up, as we both can see. That's why I'm going through this. I honestly do it with love.

You write: ******And, illusion here is correct. The writer is referring to trinitarians from his standpoint.*******

My friend, the writer intended the word "allusion." He is talking about one book making reference to another, as scholars constantly do, and they constantly use the word "allusion" for this. When "allusion" is used, it is followed by the word "to," and then the book/verse in question, and that is just what happens here. The use of the word "to" after "illusion" (with an "i") is very rare (if it occurs at all). Everyone makes typos  I certainly make them! - but this doesn't look like one: it looks like he didn't know that the word he wanted was "allusion," and a Greek scholar wouldn't make that slip.

But why am I being so picky? :-) Because there's a lot of false scholarship in the world, which confuses honest folks. You have to pay attention to the main cues that it's not the real thing. I, personally, am definitely not a Greek scholar. I studied Ancient Greek pretty intensively for two years, with good professors, but I can do nothing with a Greek sentence without a Greek dictionary, a Greek grammar book, etc. With a dictionary and the Greek interlinear Bible on-line, I do O.K. (the Greek of the NT is simpler than the Attic Greek they teach us at school), but that certainly doesn't make me a Greek scholar. HOWEVER, my two years of Greek meant A LOT of reading long, (boring!) scholarly footnotes, consulting lexicons for translation, etc., and I do know what Greek scholarship looks like. And this isn't it, my friend. :-)

Again, I hope you are well. Please take all this in a good spirit.

-- March 27, 1999.

Hi, Jamey. Thanks for your response. Yes, the time is part of it, but look at what they ask Him about only five verses earlier:

53 Are you greater than our father Abraham, who died? And the prophets died! WHO DO YOU CLAIM TO BE?"

And Jesus doesn't answer right away. This is how He responds:

54 Jesus answered, "If I glorify myself, my glory is nothing; it is my Father who glorifies me, of whom you say that he is your God. 55 But you have not known him; I know him. If I said, I do not know him, I should be a liar like you; but I do know him and I keep his word. 56 Your father Abraham rejoiced that he was to see my day; he saw it and was glad."

Thus, Jesus specifically refrains from answering about His identity right away. This is how the scene continues (these are the very next verses):

57 The Jews then said to him, "You are not yet fifty years old, and have you seen Abraham?" 58 Jesus said to them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I am."

That is the last thing He says in this scene. His answer is both the issue of time, and the final answer to the question: "Who do you claim to be?" This interpretation makes sense of the Jews picking up stones to kill Him (the penalty for blasphemy), it makes sense of the other two I AM's in this scene as part of a triad (since the other two I AMs have no reference to time, and there ought to be some overarching reason all three are together, given the other clear triad of I AMs in John 18, with Peter's three denials, and then Peter's three acceptances at the end.)

Moreover, my case is even stronger in another way, though it will take a second to explain. In Exodus 3:14, there are two I AM's right next to each other, and then a little delay, and then the third I AM:

Exodus 8:13 Then Moses said to God, "If I come to the people of Israel and say to them, 'The God of your fathers has sent me to you,' and they ask me, 'What is his name?' what shall I say to them?" 14 God said to Moses, "I AM WHO I AM." [These are the first two] And he said, "Say this to the people of Israel, [That is the slight delay] 'I AM [and that is the third] has sent me to you.'

That is just what we get in John 8, where the first two I AM's are close together (John 8:24, 28), and then a delay, and then the third "I AM" at John 8:58. Then the same thing happens at John 18. The first two I AMs are in 18:5 and 18:6, and then a slight delay, and then 18:8. So the pattern is the same in both cases as that in Exodus 8:13.

-- March 28, 1999. ****And as for the original question of Michael, who is fighting Satan in Revelations - Jesus or Michael? Who leads The Gods army?****

Michael leads the army (under the Father and Sons authority, of course, just as King David might lead an army under God). Here is the scene:

1 And a great portent appeared in heaven, a woman clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet, and on her head a crown of twelve stars; [This woman represents both Mary and the Church; there is plenty of polyvalent (or meaning-more-than-one-thing) symbolism in the Bible. For why she is Mary, keep reading.] 2 she was with child and she cried out in her pangs of birth, in anguish for delivery. 3 And another portent appeared in heaven; behold, a great red dragon, with seven heads and ten horns, and seven diadems upon his heads. [This is Satan of course] 4 His tail swept down a third of the stars of heaven, and cast them to the earth. And the dragon stood before the woman who was about to bear a child, that he might devour her child when she brought it forth; 5 she brought forth a male child, one who is to rule all the nations with a rod of iron, but her child was caught up to God and to his throne, [O.K., this is how we know the woman is Mary, because this child is Jesus. We know this because this a clear allusion to Psalm 2:2-9, which is a messianic prophecy, and the readers of this book would have recognized the messianic prophecy right away.] 6 and the woman fled into the wilderness, where she has a place prepared by God, in which to be nourished for one thousand two hundred and sixty days. 7 Now war arose in heaven, Michael and his angels fighting against the dragon; and the dragon and his angels fought, 8 but they were defeated and there was no longer any place for them in heaven.

O.K. So a few preliminary reasons why I do not think Michael is Jesus:

1. It would immediately mix the symbols. Jesus has just been depicted as a child two verses ago, and now He would have had to suddenly change into being a warrior. That is possible, but it is a jarring flow of symbolism, and less likely.

2. It would be beneath the power and dignity of the Son of God to actually have to fight in a battle after He has already assumed His glorious dignity in heaven (recall that Paul says that Jesus has already ascended into Heaven so that every knee shall bow and every tongue confess His glory). Such an immediate battle would be beneath Him, but it would be quite appropriate for the leader of the good angels: Michael.

3. Michael appears a few times in the OT, but to my knowledge, the only other place he appears in the NT is Jude 1:9. Lets look at it:

9 But when the archangel Michael, contending with the devil, disputed about the body of Moses, he did not presume to pronounce a reviling judgment upon him, but said, "The Lord rebuke you."

First, this shows that disputes with his fellow angel Satan are part of what Michael is all about, but theres something more important. Michael refrains from rebuking Satan in this scene, and leaves that job to the Lord. The thing is, Jesus is shown in the Gospels as rebuking devils quite freely, and not leaving the job to anyone else:

Mark 1:25 But Jesus rebuked him, saying, "Be silent, and come out of him!" 26 And the unclean spirit, convulsing him and crying with a loud voice, came out of him.

The same thing happens in the Gospel of Matthew:

Matthew 18 And Jesus rebuked him, and the demon came out of him, and the boy was cured instantly.

And for Jesus rebuking Satan himself:

Matthew 4:8 Again, the devil took him to a very high mountain, and showed him all the kingdoms of the world and the glory of them; 9 and he said to him, "All these I will give you, if you will fall down and worship me." 10 Then Jesus said to him, "Begone, Satan! for it is written, 'You shall worship the Lord your God and him only shall you serve.'"

Thus, virtually the only identifying characteristic of Michael in the NT  that he would not rebuke the Devil  is untrue of Jesus!

To my mind, then, all the evidence points away from Jesus as the archangel Michael, and this is even leaving aside all the stuff I already raised (like how the NT tells us not to worship angels, all sins done to other people are also done to Jesus, etc.)

Here is that messianic quotation I referred to:

Psalm 2:1 Why do the nations conspire, and the peoples plot in vain? 2 The kings of the earth set themselves, and the rulers take counsel together, against the LORD and his anointed, saying, 3 "Let us burst their bonds asunder, and cast their cords from us." 4 He who sits in the heavens laughs; the LORD has them in derision. 5 Then he will speak to them in his wrath, and terrify them in his fury, saying, 6 "I have set my king on Zion, my holy hill." 7 I will tell of the decree of the LORD: He said to me, "You are my son, today I have begotten you. 8 Ask of me, and I will make the nations your heritage, and the ends of the earth your possession. 9 You shall break them with a rod of iron, and dash them in pieces like a potter's vessel."

-- March 29, 1999.

-- The Thread Restorer (Thread@Restoration.com), February 28, 2005.

Thanks much...Catholics so rock!

-- Thankful Bumper (answer@please.com), February 28, 2005.

Ok, thinking about the Trinity here...

Is there a problem with Jesus having Two Natures? One human and one divine?

-- Thankful Bumper (answer@please.com), February 28, 2005.

Absolutely no problem at all. In fact, when we are regenerated we also possess two natures, the human nature and the divine nature.

The more we grow in the divine life, the more the divine nature is expressed through us.

There have been numerous heresies concerning the nature of Christ. For example, the Doecitists (sp?) believed that Christ did not possess human nature, but rather he was some kind of phantom with the divine nature only. Then you have the famous Arians who believed that Christ is human but not divine.

The correct and accurate teaching as revealed in the Scriptures is that Christ is both human and divine. Note: The mingling of the two natures does not produce a third nature. Rather, in the God-Man Jesus, both His divinity and humanity are completely preserved.

-- Oliver Fischer (spicenut@excite.com), February 28, 2005.

Oliver, you are not Catholic, are you? If not, you should have mentioned that to "Thankful Bumper." The reason I mention this is that I believe that the following words of yours partially conflict with Catholic doctrine:

"In fact, when we are regenerated we also possess two natures, the human nature and the divine nature. The more we grow in the divine life, the more the divine nature is expressed through us."

Correct me if I'm wrong, Oliver, but when you refer to being "regenerated," you are speaking of an effect of Baptism?

Well, at any rate, we Catholics know that we do not "possess two natures." We possess only a human nature. God alone possesses a divine nature. When we are baptized, we receive sanctifying grace (which can be lost but restored through Confession of mortal sins), and this grace is sometimes referred to as the soul's "participation in the divine life" -- without, however, taking on a "divine nature."

-- (Thread@Restoration.com), March 01, 2005.

agreed, oliver, there is no way to believe that human's have a divine nature without also taking on the belief that we are in some portion gods ourselves.

this is not the case. i think what you mean is that we have one nature which is of two different manifestations... the physical and the SPIRITUAL (note: not the DIVINE or Godly nature).

-- paul h (dontSendMeMail@notAnAddress.com), March 01, 2005.

In Hebrews 1:6 JW's point out and say that because of the word "become" it implies that at one point He wasn't greater than the angels. Also saying that Jesus during His time on earth the angels were greater than Him, because otherwise it would have been illogical to ask them for help.

My best guess at the word "become" is that in English it doesn't necessarily mean what it immediately appears. Much like the word "till" which doesn't mean an action took place after.

-- Still Thankful (answer@please.com), March 01, 2005.