Warning to Trinitarians and Deity of Christ Believers!

[julio14335]

TEACH THEM BROTHER...

[julio14335]

I AM JULIO, BUT I IM WHAT YOU CALL ME

[1Shawndra]

Great video, brother :)

[1Shawndra]

Those darn context deleters lol. I want to share this video in TheLivingTruthFellowship Group. I hope you might poke your head in to see what people had to say :).

[egwpisteuw]

All you have to do is tie the I AM statments of Jesus back to the OT references via syllogism and you see that each one is a delcaration that Jesus = Yahweh.

You need to repent and put your faith in Jesus Christ, the Great I AM, Yahweh. This is the ONLY object for the faith that saves.

[Jerz1983]

@egwpisteuw LMAO, if Jesus is GOD/YAHWEH y when the guards came he prayed to god to pass up his cup? Y on the cross he said abb abba father y have u forshakened me? And y before ascending into heaven he told the, not to touch and "I go to MY FATHER, and your father, MY GOD and your God" He also said, "these words which I speak ARE NOT MINES, BUT THE FATHER GAVE THEM TO ME" LMAO, I can go on and on, but its evident that Jesus is the son and not the father Yahweh

[egwpisteuw]

@Jerz1983 ---->if Jesus is GOD/YAHWEH...

You can't use scripture to refute scripture, that violates the law of non-contradiction--you need to harmonize scripture with scripture as Jesus Himself said:

...the Scripture cannot be broken John 10:35

[Jerz1983]

@egwpisteuw Smh this aint even worth responding to. I can post tons and tons of biblical evidence proving that Jesus is not the father. But I dont need to, seeing as tho, jesus made it clear that he isnt

[HeroOfChristArchives]

@Jerz1983

Just ignore @egwpisteuw as he has ignored this video's rebuttal at 9:22.

[HeroOfChristArchives]

@egwpisteuw

Other considerations worth emphasizing:

• Contrary to God, Jesus is not omniscient. (Matt 24:36; Mark 13:32)

• Contrary to God, Jesus is not immutable. (Luke 2:52; Hebrews 5:8)

• God is greater than men (Job 33:12), including Jesus. (John 14:28)

• God alone is intrinsically good (αγαθον), but not Jesus. (Mark 10:18)

• God's understanding is infinite (Psalm 147:5), but Jesus' is not. (Luke 2:52)

• God knows all (1 John 3:20), but Jesus was taught by the Father. (John 8:28)

[HeroOfChristArchives]

@egwpisteuw

Additional considerations:

• God is not a man (Numbers 23:19), but Jesus is a man. (1 Timothy 2:5)

• God is immortal (Romans 1:23), but Jesus died. (Mark 15:37, Romans 8:34)

• Jesus' authority derives from God; it is not merely assumed. (Matthew 28:18)

• Jesus is eternally subordinate to God the Father. (1 Corinthians 11:3, 15:28)

• Unlike God (James 1:13), Jesus was tempted in every way. (Hebrews 4:15)

• Jesus sought God's will, not his own. (Luke 22:42; John 5:30, 6:38)

[egwpisteuw]

I AM (ἐγὼ εἰμι) the good shepherd; the good shepherd lays down His life for the sheep. John 10:11

Yahweh is my shepherd (Psalm 23:1)

Jesus is the Shepherd

Yahweh is the Shepherd

Jesus = Yahweh, the Great I AM

[HeroOfChristArchives]

@egwpisteuw

The sole biblical perspective concerning the ontology and interrelationship of God the Father, His son Jesus, and His Holy Spirit is Subordinationism, which maintains that the begotten son is functionally (John 4:34, 5:19, 5:30, 6:38), relationally (John 14:28; 1 Corinthians 11:3, 15:28), and ontologically (Mark 10:18, 13:32) subordinate to the unbegotten Father from whom the Spirit proceeds. (John 14:16)

[egwpisteuw]

God is light, and in him is no darkness at all 1 John 1:5

Then Jesus again spoke to them, saying, "I AM (ἐγὼ εἰμι) the Light of the world; he who follows Me will not walk in the darkness, but will have the Light of life." John 8:12

God = Light

Jesus = Light

Jesus = God, the Great I AM

[HeroOfChristArchives]

@egwpisteuw

A) There is one God. (Deuteronomy 6:4; Isaiah 45:5; Mark 12:29; John 17:3)

B) That God is only one person, the Father. (Malachi 2:10; 1 Corinthians 8:6)

C) God is not a man. (Numbers 23:19; Hosea 11:9; Job 9:32; Hebrews 8:2)

D) Jesus is a man. (Acts 2:22; Acts 13:38; Romans 5:15-17; 1 Timothy 2:5)

E) Thus, Jesus is not God (Matthew 19:17, 24:36; Mark 10:18, 13:32; Luke 2:52, 18:19), but God's servant (Isaiah 42:1; Matthew 12:18; Acts 3:13, 3:26, 4:27, 4:30)

[egwpisteuw]

Then Yahweh said to Moses, "Behold, I will rain bread from heaven for you" Ex 16:4

"I AM (ἐγὼ εἰμι) the living bread that came down out of heaven; if anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever; and the bread also which I will give for the life of the world is My flesh." John 6:51

So Jesus said to them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you have no life in yourselves. John 6:53

Salvation is by faith in Yahweh = I AM = Jesus

[egwpisteuw]

'See now that I, I AM (ἐγώ εἰμι - Septuagint), And there is no god besides Me; It is I who put to death and give life. I have wounded and it is I who heal, And there is no one who can deliver from My hand. Deut 32:39

You are my witnesses," declares the LORD, "and my servant whom I have chosen, so that you may know and believe me and understand that I AM (ἐγώ εἰμι - Septuagint). Before me no god was formed, nor will there be one after me. Isaiah 43:10

Jesus = I AM = Yahweh!!

[HeroOfChristArchives]

@egwpisteuw

Still not addressing Jeff's hermeneutic beginning at 9:22? Your cowardice and incessant eisegesis (subjective interpretation) are utterly pathetic.

@egwpisteuw said: "See now that I, I AM (εγω ειμι)... Deut 32:39"

Yeah? What about it? You're only proving that you can't translate Greek.

"See now that I, even I, am He, and there is no god with me. I put to death, and I keep alive; I wound, and I heal. And from out of my hand there is no deliverer."

(Deuteronomy 32:39)

[egwpisteuw]

@HeroOfChristArchives ---->Still not addressing...

Your immediate need is salvation not further debate. The Lord is calling you through me. You need to put your faith in Jesus Christ, the One who is fully God and Man. He is the ONLY object of faith that saves.

[HeroOfChristArchives]

@egwpisteuw said: "The Lord is calling you through me"

Expound this exact doctrine from the sixty-six canonical writings"

'Holy Trinity' — The monotheistic formulation of three distinct υποστασες (hypostases: "persons, subsistences") — 'God the Father', 'God the Son', and 'God the Holy Spirit' — mysteriously coexisting in unity as coequal, coeternal, and consubstantial (ομοουσιον: "same substance") in one ουσια (ousia: "being, essence").

You've hitherto failed to evince the dogma.

[HeroOfChristArchives]

@egwpisteuw said: "Isaiah 43:10"

"Ye are my witnesses," says YHWH, "and my servant whom I have chosen, so that ye know and give credence to me, and understand that I am He. Before me there was no god formed, and after me there is none." (Isaiah 43:10)

Encountering the words εγω ειμι means absolutely nothing.

"Others said, 'This is he', and others, 'He is similar to him.' But he himself said, 'I am he.' (εγω ειμι)"

(John 9:9)

So, along this line of reasoning, a blind man is God.

[12345soccerguy]

So you don't believe Jesus is YHWH who is omnipresent? or just want to prove a verse wrong (the misconception) that has been misinterpreted? what about the verse in revelation that says Jesus is the first and the last, as YHWH is, doesn't that prove Jesus is God?

[abbyguy]

2of2

"For inasmuch as the Word of God was man from the root of Jesse, and son of Abraham, in this respect did the Spirit of God rest upon Him, and anoint Him to preach the Gospel to the lowly. But inasmuch as He was God, He did not judge according to glory, nor reprove after the manner of speech."

I really think you should re-think your interpretations lest you offend God.

[abbyguy]

Part 1 of 2

Polycarp and Irenaeus were both Church fathers and they thought of Christ as divine. Irenaeus was a direct disciple of John the Apostle, do you not think that if he taught such things maybe we should too?

Irenaeus stated in his book "Against Heresies" Call Jesus God?

"Jesus Christ was not a mere man, begotten from Joseph in the ordinary course of nature, but was true God, begotten of the Father Most High, and true man, born of the Virgin."

[HeroOfChristArchives]

@egwpisteuw

Your entire argument is itself an utter misconstruction. Even if Jesus preexisted his human lifetime, consider this. Enoch, the seventh from Adam, was born prior to the deluge. Scripture records him being "taken" from Earth, being spared from death by God. He was born many generations before Abraham, and is never recorded having died. Does this make him God? Of course not. What about the angels? They preexist Abraham, and are called אלהים in Scripture. Does this make them God? Nope.

[HeroOfChristArchives]

γενεσθαι – 2nd aorist, infinite, middle deponent of γινομαι

This conjugated form occurs in John 8:58 and elsewhere, denoting futurity:

"Do not be troubled, for this must come to pass (γενεσθαι)" (Matthew 24:6)

"Now, I have told you before it comes to pass (γενεσθαι)..." (John 14:29)

"...one of these must become (γενεσθαι) a witness with us..." (Acts 1:22)

"...the things which must soon happen (γενεσθαι), and..." (Revelation 1:1)

Greek γενεσθαι doesn't always denote futurity, but it can.

[HeroOfChristArchives]

Trinitarians, אהיה אשר אהיה is translated, "I will be what I will be" with אהיה denoting continuity, as in Exodus 3:12 with אהיה עמך being translated, "I will be with you." Also, Exodus 3:14 ends with the phrase אהיה שלחני אליכם and is translated, "'I will be' has sent me unto you." This Hebrew phrase is rendered ο ων απεσταλκεν με προς υμας in the Greek Septuagint (LXX), with ο ων (NOT εγω ειμι) translating אהיה. Greek ο ων means "He who is," hence εγω ειμι ο ων, "I am He who is." (Exodus 3:14)

[MrSavedbylove]

@HeroOfChristArchives He will be what he will be right? i often wonder how a culture that has different idea can really understand a culture with a totally different ideology? Hebrew language is concrete and their culture reflects it too. when it comes to naming, it's not the same concept the western world use, a name is not only an identity but it shows an attribute of something or a circumstance. God has no name as an identity, he can be called a name based on his action or attribute....

[MrSavedbylove]

@MrSavedbylove if we need mercy from him, we call him "God of mercy", if we need a child, we call him "God that gives offspring" which is actually my name (chukwunenye). it amuses me when this discussion comes up. names like elshaddai, elohim,etc are the names of God and these are his attributes, these names are according to how we know the creator the same with the one the writers of torah claimed was his name, i know moses didn't write the Pentateuch, why would he write about his death. lol

[HeroOfChristArchives]

@MrSavedbylove

I could not have stated that any better myself. Thank you for your reply.

I do believe, however, that Moses contributed to the writing of the Torah.

I also believe that YHWH spoke to Moses face-to-face. (Exodus 33:11)

[HeroOfChristArchives]

So, they're attempting to derive some correlation from the occurrences of εγω ειμι at John 8:58 and Isaiah 41:4, 43:10, 46:4? Using this twisted illogic, I could cite Hosea 11:9 as evidence that Jesus is not a man. After all, the expression θεος εγω ειμι και ουκ ανθρωπος translates, "I am (εγω ειμι) God and not a man." This God, YHWH, is consistently presented throughout the Tanakh as being 100% God and 0% man. Yet, these trinitarians expect us non-trinitarians to believe that God became a man!?

[59Disciple]

just a thought is it because possible thatJesus existed before Abraham because God had predesinated Jesus, Perhaps all believers may be predestinated.(a fore plan of God)

I am really trying to find the truth,the thing is people on all sides say look this is the simplicity that is in Christ yet all the simplicitys are differnt and they all condem others to hell,vey sad,and very difficult for people trying to learn the truth, the trininty always has confused me their is no simplicity in that .

[egwpisteuw]

Appeals to the Septuagint are not convincing. The Septuagint is a translation and translations are not inspired. The Hebrew of Ex 3:14 has אהיה אשר אהיה (ehyeh asher ehyeh) and אהיה (ehyeh), i.e., the exact same form of the verb היה (hayah).

The Septuagint uses two DIFFERENT forms of the verb εἰμι: ἐγώ εἰμι ὁ ὤν and ὁ ὤν "I AM the Being One" and "the Being One" which is different than the Hebrew.

Jesus was quoting the Hebrew in John 8:58 not the Septuagint translation.

[TheGenuineChristian]

@egwpisteuw You don't know jack about Hebrew, so why you talking about Hebrew in the first place confuses me.

Ehyeh is qal imperfect (usually indicates an incomplete action [unfinished action], e.g. it goes on into the future) and it is first person form of the verb הָיָה (transliterated: hayah) "I will be." A qal is a basic verb stem in Hebrew that uses an active voice.

[TheGenuineChristian]

@egwpisteuw In Hebrew the roots היה (hayah) and הוה (havah) are used interchangeably, for example the past and future tenses are conjugated הָיִיתִי hayiti ("I was"), הָיִיתָ/הָיִית hayita/hayit ("you [m./f.] were"), הָיָה/הָיְתָה hayah/haytah ("he/she was") and אֶהְיֶה ehyeh ("I shall be"), תִּהְיֶה/תִּהְיִי tihyeh/tihyi ("you [m./f.] will be"), יִהְיֶה/תִּהְיֶה yihyeh/tihyeh ("he/she will be") respectively but the imperative is הֱוֵה hevéh, "be!"

[TheGenuineChristian]

@egwpisteuw Just like almost all translation translate אֶהְיֶה in Exodus 3:12 as "I WILL BE" they should have done the same for Exodus 3:14 as "I WILL BE." You're just some messy quoting things you heard. You knowledge is a joke.

[egwpisteuw]

@TheGenuineChristian ----->Just like almost all translation translate אֶהְיֶה in Exodus 3:12 as "I WILL BE" they should have done the same for Exodus 3:14 as "I WILL BE."

Nonsense. No one translates it that way: bible . cc/exodus/3-14 . htm

Nor should they. It's imperfect tense. While the imperfect tense can be used for future tense, it also simply denotes incomplete action which is the sense in Ex 3:14. "I AM who I AM" Incomplete ongoing action.

This is how the (cont)

[TheGenuineChristian]

@egwpisteuw

You're full of air.

Exodus 3:12 "וַיֹּאמֶר כִּֽי־אֶֽהְיֶה" Notice אֶֽהְיֶה

KJV "I will be"

NKJV "I will be"

NIV "I will be"

ESV "I will be"

NASB "I will be"

And so on.

You got nothing but hot air.

[egwpisteuw]

@TheGenuineChristian Is your position that the Hebrew imperfect tense is ALWAYS to be taken as future?

[TheGenuineChristian]

@egwpisteuw It is my position that within two verse it should be consistent. Furthermore there is no connection between Exodus 3:14 and John 8. That is just a heretical attempt to make a human into the Creator.

[egwpisteuw]

@TheGenuineChristian ---->It is my position that within two verse it should be consistent.

Why? That is not the meaning being conveyed in the Hebrew. The Septuagint translators did not have a dog in the fight, and transated ἐγώ εἰμι ὁ ὤν I AM the Being ONE. That is the essence of what is being conveyed. It is parallel to "who is, and who was, and who is to come" in Rev 1:8, continuous action without terminus a quo nor terminus ad quem.

[TheGenuineChristian]

@egwpisteuw Alright, I'll explain this only once. It should be properly translated as 'I will be what I will be" for he is about to call out his people and be there God in a way he wasn't before; they will be given the 10 Mitzvot, the Ark of the Covenant, he will show them his power through the signs he will preform in Egypt and beyond. This is what is meant by 'I will be.' The Septuagint is nothing but an interpretation and ἐγώ εἰμι is used as a verb for ὁ ὤν. No connect to John 8.

[egwpisteuw]

@TheGenuineChristian------>Sep­tuagint is nothing but an interpretation

But it is useful as an impartial witness as to how those who were fluent in Hebrew and Greek understood the Hebrew text in the pre-christian era. The Septuagint translators cleary understood it to be continuous action and not future.

[egwpisteuw]

@TheGenuineChristian ---->No connect to John 8

Then why did the Jews seek to put Jesus to death in John 8:59:

58Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was born, I AM.” 59Therefore they picked up stones to throw at Him

[HeroOfChristArchives]

@egwpisteuw asked: "Then why did the Jews seek to put Jesus to death...?"

This was already explained to you in this video by Jeff (@ProveYourFaith).

I recommend watching this video before responding to my comment.

[egwpisteuw]

@HeroOfChristArchives ---->in this video

What video?

The explanation is simply that Jesus was claiming to be God again just as he did in John 10:30:

John 10:33 The Jews answered Him, “For a good work we do not stone You, but for blasphemy; and because You, being a man, make Yourself God.”

[HeroOfChristArchives]

@egwpisteuw asked: "What video?"

Oh my. This video, i.e. the one you're currently viewing to reply to me.

Jeff begins explaining at 9:22 WHY those Jews sought to stone Jesus.

Again, I recommend watching *this* video before responding to my comment.

[egwpisteuw]

@HeroOfChristArchives ---->WHY those Jews sought to stone Jesus...

Because He was claiming the be the I AM of Exodus 3:14.

[HeroOfChristArchives]

@egwpisteuw said: "He was claiming to be the I AM of Exodus 3:14"

Your oversight was previously refuted. The expression appearing in Exodus 3:14 is ο ων, different from the expression appearing in John 8:58, εγω ειμι. You're applying subjective interpretation (eisegesis) to Jesus' words instead of objectively interpreting (exegesis) them. You've been reproved for this before. Stop reading your private interpretations into these passages. Watch this video to begin learning the truth.

[egwpisteuw]

@HeroOfChristArchives ---->The expression appearing in Exodus 3:14 is ο ων, different from the expression appearing in John 8:58, εγω ειμι.

Do you really think Jesus was speaking Greek and quoting the Septuagint in John 8:58?

[HeroOfChristArchives]

@egwpisteuw asked: "Do you really think Jesus was speaking Greek and quoting the Septuagint in John 8:58?"

Your question is misdirected, and irrelevant. You apparently conjecture that John 8:58, in the preserved Greek, is corrupted, OR you surmise that the Gospel of John was not authored in Greek. Which is it? You'll need to accept the facts. Greek εγω ειμι is neither a name, nor a title, nor a declaration of godhood, and certainly not a reference to Exodus 3:14 where ο ων is used.

[egwpisteuw]

@HeroOfChristArchives ---->Which is it?

Neither. Here is the way I see it:

1. Jesus spoke Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek fluently.

2. The conversation which terminates in John 8:58 was in either Aramaic or Hebrew

3. Jesus alluded to Ex 3:14 in the Hebrew original

4. The Apostle John translated the conversation into Greek 50 years (or so) later under the inspiration of God the Holy Spirit and included it in his Gospel.

5. The Septuagint has no bearing whatsoever on John 8:58

[HeroOfChristArchives]

@egwpisteuw said: "Jesus spoke Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek fluently"

Your claim is baseless, as it's not founded on evidence, but wild speculation.

@egwpisteuw said: "The conversation which terminates in John 8:58 was in either Aramaic or Hebrew"

This is plausible, given the disputants, but the passage is preserved in Greek.

@egwpisteuw said: "Jesus alluded to Exodus 3:14 in the Hebrew original"

No "Hebrew original" exists, and you have not proven that Jesus quoted from 'Exodus'.

[egwpisteuw]

@HeroOfChristArchives ---->No "Hebrew original" exists

I mean Ex 3:14 in the Hebrew OT. Jesus had this in mind when he spoke John 8:58. He did not have Ex 3:14 in the Septuagint in mind.

----->but the passage is preserved in Greek

Agreed, John 8:58 is preserved and inspired in the Greek only. However that does not mean that John 8:58 can be compared to Ex 3:14 in the Septuagint.

[HeroOfChristArchives]

@egwpisteuw said: "Jesus had (the Hebrew of Exodus 3:14) in mind when he spoke John 8:58"

Your reasoning is circular. You must first prove that Jesus quoted 'Exodus'.

@egwpisteuw said: "John 8:58 can (not) be compared to Exodus 3:14 in the Septuagint."

Correct, they cannot be compared, but rather contrasted to evince that, on linguistic grounds, it's plainly obvious that Jesus did not reference 'Exodus'.

[egwpisteuw]

@HeroOfChristArchives --->Correct, they cannot be compared, but rather contrasted to evince that, on linguistic grounds....

I think you have to analyze it at a higher level:

1. Exodus 3:14 is a statement of continuous existence in Hebrew אהיה אשר אהיה (I AM who I AM)

2. The Septuagint captures this sense nicely ἐγώ εἰμι ὁ ὤν (I AM the Being One)

3. John 8:58 includes this thought of continous existence πρὶν Ἀβραὰμ γενέσθαι ἐγὼ εἰμί (before Abraham was, I AM)

(cont)

[HeroOfChristArchives]

@egwpisteuw said: "אהיה אשר אהיה (I AM who I AM)"

The Hebrew-to-English translation is irrelevant. First, prove that Jesus actually quoted Exodus 3:14. Afterwards, prove that he applied it to himself.

@egwpisteuw said: "εγω ειμι ο ων (I AM the Being One)"

First, why are you capitalizing "I AM" as if it's a name or designation of God? Second, why are you falling back on the Septuagint translation after having just asserted that the Septuagint has no bearing whatsoever on John 8:58?

[egwpisteuw]

@HeroOfChristArchives ----->why are you falling back on the Septuagint translation after having just asserted that the Septuagint has no bearing whatsoever on John 8:58?

The Septuagint is useful to understand what the Hebrew of Ex 3:14 means--it expresses the continuous nature of the thought--but it is not inspired text and Jesus certainly never went to the Septuagint for the OT. Thus the Septuagint has some limited usefulness...

[TheGenuineChristian]

@HeroOfChristArchives He's falling back to the Septuagint because gave him a Hebrew education on the Hebrew side of Exodus 3:14. He's one of those silly heretics that will continue pushing his ignorance no matter how many times and in how many ways he's proved to be a rambler of ignorance.

[HeroOfChristArchives]

@egwpisteuw said: "John 8:58 includes this thought of continuous existence πριν Αβρααμ γενεσθαι εγω ειμι (before Abraham was, I AM)"

Again, why are you capitalizing "I AM" as if it's a name, title or designation? Moreover, I agree that John 8:58 does express continuousness, but not eternality. This is your eisegesis, your underlying presupposition and your hermeneutic partiality. You're reading eternality into this text, because you presuppose that Jesus quoted 'Exodus' (he didn't).

[egwpisteuw]

@HeroOfChristArchives ----->I agree that John 8:58 does express continuousness, but not eternality.

All you have to do is paraphrase the thought: "I existed before Abraham was born but I was born after Abraham died."

Who ever made such a statement? It is a parallel statement to both Ex 3:14 and Rev 1:8 "I am the Alpha and the Omega," says the Lord God, "who is and who was and who is to come, the Almighty."

(cont)

[HeroOfChristArchives]

@egwpisteuw said: "All you have to do is paraphrase the thought..."

You mean, resort to eisegesis. I'll stick to the Greek text itself, thanks.

@egwpisteuw said: "(John 8:58) is a parallel statement to Exodus 3:14..."

The parallel exists only in your mind. This is why you've provided no legitimate evidence to substantiate your assertion. You have failed to engage the rebuttal presented by Jeff in this video (beginning at 9:22), leading me to conclude that you don't have an answer.

[egwpisteuw]

@HeroOfChristArchives @TheGenuineChristian

Jesus as the Great I AM of Ex 3:14 is a major theme of John's Gospel. The epicenter being that unless your faith is in Jesus Christ as God, the Great I AM, then you cannot be saved:

Therefore I said to you that you will die in your sins; for unless you believe that I AM, you will die in your sins." John 8:24

[12345soccerguy]

@egwpisteuw Yes, you are right, Jesus is who he is, the great Lord, Yahweh. It's that simple, but i can see you are trying to compromise ignorance, God bless.

[HeroOfChristArchives]

@egwpisteuw said: "...major theme of John's Gospel... unless your faith is in Jesus Christ as God, the Great 'I AM', then you cannot be saved"

You are quite obviously a biblical illiterate, not knowing the Scriptures.

"These things have been written that ye may believe that Jesus is the CHRIST, the SON OF GOD, and that believing ye may have life in his name"

(John 20:31)

"Who is he who is overcoming the world, if not he who is believing that Jesus is the SON OF GOD?" (1 John 5:5)

[egwpisteuw]

@HeroOfChristArchives --->that ye may believe that Jesus is the CHRIST, the SON OF GOD

Exactly, and if you would believe this you would be saved. Son of God = God, just as Son of Man = Man, Jesus Christ is the God-Man, and this is the ONLY object of faith that saves.

[HeroOfChristArchives]

@egwpisteuw said: "Jesus Christ is the God-Man..."

This expression is foreign to both the Bible and to the lips of Jesus.

@egwpisteuw said: "...this is the ONLY object of faith that saves."

"Correspondingly, baptism now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a good conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ, who has gone into heaven and is at the right hand of God, with angels, authorities and powers subjected to him." (1 Peter 3)

[egwpisteuw]

@HeroOfChristArchives ----->You have failed to engage the rebuttal presented by Jeff in this video (beginning at 9:22)

The answer is that you misinterpret the sciptures because you have not been born again through faith in Jesus Christ as Yahweh, God the Son. You are still a natural man:

But a natural man does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually appraised. 1 Cor 2:14

[egwpisteuw]

@HeroOfChristArchives (cont) John the Baptist said of Him: "After me comes a Man who has a higher rank than I, for He existed before me." John 1:30---and Jesus was six months younger than John

God is the One who is every tense of "to be." He was, is, and will be--He simply IS--the Being One--no terminus a quo and no terminus ad quem...

This is the thought expressed in John 8:58.

[TheGenuineChristian]

@egwpisteuw What a bunch of cow dung. All that is expressed in John 8:58 is pre-existence, nothing more.

Ernest De Witt Burton: "The Present Indicative, accompanied by an adverbial expression denoting duration and referring to past time, is sometimes used in Greek, as in German, to describe an action which, beginning in past time, is still in progress at the time of speaking."

You really need to stop pushing your heresy because it smell like cow dung.

[HeroOfChristArchives]

@egwpisteuw said: "John the Baptist said of (Jesus)... John 1:30"

ουτος εστιν υπερ ου εγω ειπον οπισω μου ερχεται ανηρ ος εμπροσθεν μου γεγονεν, οτι πρωτος μου ην

"This is on behalf of whom I said, 'Behind me comes a man who has been in front of me, [a man] that was ahead of (πρωτος) me.'" (John 1:30)

Greek πρωτος means "first in order, foremost" as in the following passages:

"Whoever desires to be first (πρωτος) among you, let him be your servant."

(Matthew 20:27; Mark 10:44)

[egwpisteuw]

@HeroOfChristArchives (cont) However, the Septuagint is not inspired, thus a direct comparision of John 8:58 in Greek to the Greek Septuagint on the level of verbal plenary inspiration is not valid.

[HeroOfChristArchives]

{Continued}

@egwpisteuw said: "John translated the conversation into Greek"

You mean, John wrote down his recollections in Greek. If true, this corroborates my position, as εγω ειμι is neither a name, nor a title, nor a declaration of godhood, and certainly not a reference to Exodus 3:14 where ο ων occurs.

@egwpisteuw said: "The Septuagint has no bearing whatsoever on John 8:58"

Correct, since Jesus was not referencing 'Exodus', nor quoting any passage from the Hebrew scriptures.

[TheGenuineChristian]

@egwpisteuw Because a human not yet of fifty years old was claiming to pre-exist Abraham and that he still exists to that current day. Is your reasoning skills really that poor? I guess so, otherwise you wouldn't be a heretic (Trinitarian).

[egwpisteuw]

@TheGenuineChristian ---->Because a human not yet of fifty years old was claiming to pre-exist Abraham...

Yes, AND that He was claiming to be the I AM who spoke to Moses in Exodus 3:14.

[egwpisteuw]

@TheGenuineChristian (cont) Septuagint translators took it:

ἐγώ εἰμι ὁ ὤν

I am the being one

No future tense.

[TheGenuineChristian]

@egwpisteuw Didn't you just say "The Septuagint is a translation and translations are not inspired."? You're a joke. LOL.

[egwpisteuw]

@TheGenuineChristian Do you think the Septuagint is inspired, translations are inspired, or both?

[TheGenuineChristian]

@egwpisteuw Didn't you just say "The Septuagint is a translation and translations are not inspired."? You're a joke. LOL. 

[ProveYourFaith]

@egwpisteuw What do you think being means? To be, to exist maybe? Would that be contrary to those other Gods who do have being who do not exist?

[egwpisteuw]

You are ignoring the reaction of the hearers, the Jews, those who were from the same cultural and linguistic milieu as Jesus:

58Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was born, I AM.” 59Therefore they picked up stones to throw at Him

They knew this was a reference to Ex 3:14

God said to Moses, "I AM WHO I AM"; and He said, "Thus you shall say to the sons of Israel, 'I AM has sent me to you.'

The Jews understood it, why don't you?

[tudungsenduk]

Gen 21:12 For in Isaac a seed (Jesus) shall be called to thee.

John 8:58 Before Abraham was I shall come.

eimi read as "shall come/go".

Try to explore on the words "prin and ginomai" with Gen 21:12 in mind.

Insha Allah you will find the answer.

[TruthAtlas]

It's so hard to get straight answers from the Trinitarian fog that has clouded Christian research. Preach it brother!

[TheTrinityDelusion]

The absurdity of the Trinitarian Jn 8:58 interpretation is that one is to suppose, just for the occasion of intepreting this verse, that the words "I am" are not everyday language to a Koine Greek speaker, just as they are in English, but are the invocation of some kind of special terminology to indicate that one is God. And then when you move on to another passage, like John 9:9, you are to forget this claim and suppose these words are everyday normal speech.

[TheTruthPastor]

Great Job! Real strong too! Tell them the truth, this may be their only chance to escape the lies, before they face the Almighty Father, of our Messiah who defeated sin and Satan in humanity!

[Scripturesinspired]

(A) I appreciate your sincerity and your video's and the way you explain your beliefs to all of us, and although i do not agree with unitarianism i have an open mind and verify all possibilities. Like you, I don't believe the bible teaches that YHWH is a trinity, cause it doesn't!

(B) I do believe that Jesus is "the son" of YHWH but understand according to scripture that he pre-existed, this is where my beliefs differ from yours.

(C) When i read John 8:58 and it's context...(To be continued)

[Scripturesinspired]

(C) Continued.

When i read John 8:58 and it's context, i understand that Jesus is talking about his pre-human existence, and this is why.

(D) Verse 57 in most bibles (except Jewish New Testaments) say: Then the Jews said to him, you are not yet 50 and you have seen Abraham? Jesus responds by saying" before Abraham was (ginomai) I am.

(E) I don't believe Jesus was claiming this title for himself but i believe that he was referring to himself as the one who said these words...(To be continued)

[Scripturesinspired]

(F) Let's not forget how Exodus 3 starts out. Verse 2 says that "the angel of Yahweh appeared to him (Moses) in a flame of fire" So i understand this was Jesus and in John 8:58 Jesus claimed to be the one who pronounced the words in Exodus representing his Father as Yahweh's mediator therefore claiming pre-existence.

(G)Jn8:56 Jesus was revealing himself as the Messiah saying that Abraham foresaw his day, coming to the world as our savior but Jews misunderstand and turn it around...(Continued)

[Scripturesinspired]

(H) so although the words "I am" where pronounced in Exodus way after Abraham's existence Jesus used them in Jn 8:58 to teach the Jews that before being a man he was in existence

(I) the word ginomai #G1096 according to concordances does mean as you said " to become, to come into existence, to arise, to exist... but as far as i see it, is not used in connection to resurrect as in " to re-become or to re-exist or to re-arise.

Please meditate and pray on this and respond if you will. Yah bless you

[ProveYourFaith]

@Scripturesinspired

(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.

(Act 13:33 KJV) God hath fulfilled the same unto us their children, in that he hath raised up Jesus again; as it is also written in the second psalm, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten the

When Jesus was begotten it was as he was brought into the world.

[ProveYourFaith]

@Scripturesinspired

(Joh 8:56 KJV) Your father Abraham rejoiced to see my day: and he saw it, and was glad.

(Joh 8:57 KJV) Then said the Jews unto him, Thou art not yet fifty years old, and hast thou seen Abraham?

He said Abraham seen his day he did not say he seen Abraham's day. This is the fact Jesus was the first born of the dead that was his resurrection which he was begotten. In John 1:14 that resurrection is called ginomai the same word which is used in John 8:58

[Scripturesinspired]

@ProveYourFaith ginomai in Jn1:14 / Jn8:58 G1096 γίνομαι ginomai Thayer Definition:1) to become, i.e. to come into existence, begin to be, receive being 2) to become, i.e. to come to pass, happen 2a) of events 3) to arise, appear in history, come upon the stage 3a) of men appearing in public 4) to be made, finished 4a) of miracles, to be performed, wrought 5) to become, be made This is the fact,this word has nothing to do with resurrection. Why are you misleading people to think so? Continued

[Scripturesinspired]

So it is clear that when Jesus said before Abraham was ( became/ came into existence /began to be/ appeared in history etc...) I am. # G1510 Thayer Definition:

1) to be, to exist, to happen, to be present

(am #G1510 Strong's) First person singular present indicative; a prolonged form of a primary and defective verb; I exist (used only when emphatic): - am, have been, X it is I, was.

In other words before Abraham existed, Jesus existed.

Again absolutely nothing to do with resurrection!!!

[Scripturesinspired]

@Scripturesinspired Abraham must of received some kind of revelation or vision about the coming day of the Messiah and rejoiced and how could Jesus describe Abraham's reaction if Jesus was not alive to see it? Jn 8:56 "Your father Abraham rejoiced to see my day: and he saw it, and was glad" this is why the Jew's said to Jesus, (well you could not have seen Abraham's reaction cause) your not even 50 years old! this is what led Jesus to say "before Abraham was/existed I am or i existed!

[Scripturesinspired]

So as you see the resurrection was not the topic of discussion in Jn8:56-58, rather it was the fact that Jesus declared knowing how Abraham reacted when he saw the day of the coming Messiah, so the Jews basically said your not even 50 and you saw Abraham? Who do you claim to be? So Jesus did not claim to be God but he did claim to pre-exist Abraham and thats how he could know how Abraham rejoiced and was glad because Jesus has been involved with humans from the beginning.

[ProveYourFaith]

@Scripturesinspired You missed the point he said "Your father Abraham rejoiced to see my day: and he saw it, and was glad." In this Jesus was saying he is above Abraham. They did not get what he said and thought he was claiming he seen Abraham in a vision. Jesus then once again said he was above Abraham by saying "before Abraham will come to be I will" then they made the connection he was claiming to be above Abraham.

[ProveYourFaith]

@Scripturesinspired No Jesus many times said Abraham lives unto God. He seen Jesus' day as did Elijah and Moses etc. Remember the mount of transfiguration?

[ProveYourFaith]

@Scripturesinspired Your makeing the same mistake over and over. In this video I show the error of those of your faith claiming Ego Emi is ho on!

Ego Emi = means I am something

ho on = means I exist as something I think therefore "I AM"

John 8:58 is not ho on it is Ego Emi!!!!

[Scripturesinspired]

@ProveYourFaith

G1510

εἰμί

eimi

i-mee'

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

Why do you come up with your own definition? it's plain and simple here no?

i am = i exist or i have been or i was, (straight out of the concordance)

[ProveYourFaith]

egō G1473 = I

εἰμι G1510 = am

ὁ G3588 = which

ὤν· G5607 = being, wast

Ex.3:14

και ειπεν ο θεος προς Μωυσην Εγω ειμι ο ων (I am the being [one]/I am he who is)· και ειπεν Ουτως ερεις τοις υιοις ισραηλ Ο ων (the being [one]/he who is) απεσταλκεν με προς υμας.

[ProveYourFaith]

@Scripturesinspired So the Resurrection from the dead is not an appearing on the scene it is not a rising one is not becoming or receiving being??? Of course ginomai can be used for the Resurrection.

[Scripturesinspired]

@ProveYourFaith Don't get me wrong i believe only in the monotheistic God Almighty (YHWH) but i see a overwhelming evidence in scripture that Jesus the son of YHWH has a pre-existence and a beginning. I quoted concordances to you that give the real meaning of these words of which in my opinion you are distorting to reenforce your beliefs, the facts are simple, ginomai is used 456 times in the KJV alone and not once does it mean resurrection. Look it up for yourself

[ProveYourFaith]

@Scripturesinspired

(Act 13:33 KJV) God hath fulfilled the same unto us their children, in that he hath raised up Jesus again; as it is also written in the second psalm, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee.

Jesus became the begotten son at his Resurrection!

The word ginomai Flesh which dwelt among us and we beheld his glory as the ONLY BEGOTTEN.

Jesus was ginomai when he was begotten!Resurrected!

[vanillamillz]

Good stuff.