What does it "REALLY" mean that Jesus Christ is the Son of God?
- Thread starter bluto
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
Why do you think some translators chose to capitalize the phrase (“ego eimi”) in English and some translators chose not to capitalize the phrase?
I don't really read Hebrew all that well [ = ) ], but I'm not really seeing a difference between the letters where it spells out "I am that I am" as compared with the rest of the letters in the verse, do you? (I mean, as far as "capitalization" goes):
https://biblehub.com/interlinear/exodus/3-14.htm
John 8 - https://www.blueletterbible.org/kjv/jhn/8/1/ss1/s_1005001
In this 8th chapter alone, the "I am" shows up SEVEN times:
1) "I am" (the Light of the world) - v.12
2) "I am" (One that beareth witness of Myself...) - v.18
3) "I am" (from above) - v.23
4) "I am" (not of this world) - v.23
5) (for if ye believe not that) "I am" - v.24
6) (then shall ye know that) "I am" - v.28
7) (before Abraham was) "I am" - v.58
[v.59] "Then they took up stones to cast at Him" (why do you suppose that is??)
No. And we see from Jesus’ statements that he doesn’t say “I am that I am”.
In verse 24 the context is “I am the Son of Man.“
The entire conversation (John 8:31-59) must be considered. It was heated. He told them Abraham was not their father, God is not their Father, and their father is the devil. They were angry. When their anger boiled over they became violent.
Robert Young (who gave us Young’s Concordance) writes on John 8:58 in Young’s Concise Commentary,
”’I am he’ is a claim to be the Messiah and implies neither divinity nor preexistence: ‘Before Abraham’s coming, I am he,’ that is, the promised Messiah. The simple phrase ’I am’ is used by Jesus 15 times, and in every case (but the present, John 8:58) it is rendered in the Common Version ‘I am he’ or ‘It is I.’ See Matt. 14:27; Mk. 6:50; 14:62; Lk. 21:8; 22:70; 24:39; John 4:26; 6:20; 8:24, 28; 13:19; 18:5, 6, 8.”
More blatant contradiction of Scripture and the truth. And anyone who does not have the doctrine of Christ is AN ANTICHRIST.
And God said unto Moses, I AM THAT I AM: and he said, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, I AM hath sent me unto you. (Exodus 3:14).
Jesus said: I said therefore unto you, that ye shall die in your sins: for if ye believe not that I AM [he,] ye shall die in your sins. (Jn 8:24) [Note: "he" is in italics and does not belong in the Greek text]
Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I AM. (jN 8:58)
All these Scriptures have already been posted, and either ignored or disregarded.
What a revelation, telling Jesus is not God then. This is your agenda ever since you have started it wrong using no scripture instead of a belief of a certain man. You cannot hold the two nature of Christ, the human and the divine. Same thing with Eternal Fire.
Well, well, well Mattathias, the truth comes out as to who your learning "Jewish monotheism" from. The following is what Andrew Perry believes, you know the same guy you want us to read regarding Jewish monotheism and is a "Christadelphian?" Here is what he says;
"This is the first in a series of podcasts dealing with how to interpret John 1:1-18. This famous Prologue to John’s gospel is unique in the New Testament. It is routinely read in light of Nicene-controvery-era concerns: the eternality and full deity of Christ, a multi-personal God, the pre-human Jesus as “involved in” the Genesis creation, the “incarnation” of the eternal Logos, wherein a divine nature gains a “complete human nature, rational soul and body.” Part of the interest of this passage stems from the fact that such things are not clearly taught in most of the rest of the New Testament; hence, this passage is viewed as a gold mine for trinitarian and “high christology” purposes.
But according to my guest in this new interview, Christadelphian independent scholar Dr. Andrew Perry, common interpretations of this passage are off track. In his view, yes, “the Word” is Jesus, but it is the man Jesus, not an alleged pre-human Son. And “the beginning” mentioned is the beginning of Jesus’s earthly ministry, not the time of the Genesis creation, although the author does clearly allude to the Genesis creation. In Dr. Perry’s view, Jesus is the second “God” mentioned in John 1:1, but here and in John 20:28 Jesus should be understand as the “God” over the new creation which God accomplished through him. (James 1:18)"
You know, I've heard and talked with Unitarians that actually believe that John 1:1 is about the new creation. They quote 2 Corinathians 5:17 to back up their claim. "Therefore if any man is in Christ, he is a new creature; the old things passed away; behold, new things have come." Also, the words at John 1:1 that say, "In the beginning" does not refer to the Genesis beginning, but beginning with Jesus we become new creations just like Him. The following is the site I took this information from. https://trinities.org/blog/podcast-287-dr-andrew-perry-on-john-1/
And for those of you that are not familar with what Christadelphians believe, please read the following. https://www.gotquestions.org/Christadelphianism.html You also have in your post the following statement:
"The hound of Jewish monotheism." You need to change one word, "The WOLF of Jewish monotheism." This is really sad that you would fall for this guys "heretical" and "unbiblical" teachings. PS: Do your homework guys, and check everything someone says, ala Acts 17:11. Eventually the truth will come out.
IN GOD THE SON,
bluto
Jesus is elohim/theos, fred.
See my posts. I use the same scripture you do.
The man Jesus Christ.
That’s right.
I hope members of this site are intelligent enough to know that just because a person agrees with someone about one thing doesn’t mean that a person agrees with another person about everything.
I quote Roman Catholics, and agree with Roman Catholics on some things. I’m not a Roman Catholic.
I quote Southern Baptists, and agree with Southern Baptist on some things. I’m not a Southern Baptist. (Though that was the faith I was raised in.)
I quote United Methodists, and agree with United Methodists on some things. I’m not a United Methodist.
I quote Presbyterians, and agree with Presbyterians on some things. I’m not a Presbyterian.
I quote Episcopalians, and agree with Episcopalians on some things. I’m not an Episcopalian.
I quote Anglicans, and agree with Anglicans on some things. I’m not an Anglican.
I quote Christadelphians, and agree with Christadelphians on some things. I’m not a Christadelphian.
I could go on and on.
I quote people I agree with and people I disagree with
I am an Anabaptist. Anyone who tells you different isn’t telling you the truth.
I quote Roman Catholics, and agree with Roman Catholics on some things. I’m not a Roman Catholic.
I quote Southern Baptists, and agree with Southern Baptist on some things. I’m not a Southern Baptist. (Though that was the faith I was raised in.)
I quote United Methodists, and agree with United Methodists on some things. I’m not a United Methodist.
I quote Presbyterians, and agree with Presbyterians on some things. I’m not a Presbyterian.
I quote Episcopalians, and agree with Episcopalians on some things. I’m not an Episcopalian.
I quote Anglicans, and agree with Anglicans on some things. I’m not an Anglican.
I quote Christadelphians, and agree with Christadelphians on some things. I’m not a Christadelphian.
I could go on and on.
I quote people I agree with and people I disagree with
I am an Anabaptist. Anyone who tells you different isn’t telling you the truth.
So here you are Mattathias, quoting some "johnny come lately" i.e Andrew Perry a Christadelphian on Jewish monotheism who flat out denies the deity of Jesus Christ and you think it's okay? Do you not care for this man's soul and where he is going to spend eternity for denying the deity of Jesus Christ? Do you deny His deity Mattathais?
You also said above, " I could go on and on." Do you care about the souls of the Mormons or the Jehovah Witnesses who like the Christadephians are "cults." I know you don't like the word, but what are doing about their souls? How are you reaching out to them?
What I'm telling you is that everyone of these various religious denominations and cults believe there is one God, but that does not mean they have the right "GOSPEL" or the right Jesus. Galatians 1:6-9. I have a verse for you. Jeremiah 12:5, "If you have run with footmen and they have tired you out, Then how can you compete with horses? You better get yourself out the mess your in. And yes, I am praying for you that the Lord will open your eyes.
IN GOD THE SON,
bluto
So who were these Jews Jesus was speaking with? They were ex-disciples. Former followers who had turned against him. This wasn’t a friendly meeting gone bad. This was a contentious meeting from the start.
I spoke briefly about what Jesus said to them. I’ll speak briefly now about what they said to him. In v. 41 they said, “We were not born of fornication; we have one Father: God.” First, they implied that his mother became pregnant with him by an act of sexual activity outside the bond of marriage. Therefore, Jesus is a bastard child. His promiscuous mother was sexually immoral. Second, they make what might strike us initially as an unnecessary comment. The God of the Jews is the Father. Jesus himself is a Jew. His God is the Father. The comment may have served more than one purpose: Jesus is a Jew who has departed from the faith and his god is the devil, not the Father. Given the statements connection with the comment about fornication, it may be a denial of the miraculous begetting of Jesus by the Father.
They say he is a Samaritan. Jews viewed Samaritans with disdain. (If he was a Samaratin then his race was mixed. He isn’t one of them.) They said he was demon possessed. Then came the foolish question about Jesus seeing Abraham.
He corrected them. The angry ex-disciples were rebuffed. The time for talking was over. It was time to pick up stones to throw at him, with the intention to kill.
I commented on this in another thread. Barclay and Gilbert give us insight on the incident.
“Jesus was a first-century Jewish monotheist.”
(N.T. Wright, Jesus and the Victory of God)
“By nearly all accounts, at the end of the first century C.E., strict monotheism had long been one of the pillars of Judaism.”
(James D.G. Dunn, The Partings of the Ways Between Christianity and Judaism and Their Significance for the Character of Christianity)
Strict monotheism is Jewish monotheism. The terms are equivalent and interchangeable.
Jesus was a Jewish monotheist = Jesus was a strict monotheist.