What does it "REALLY" mean that Jesus Christ is the Son of God?

TheDivineWatermark · Aug 11, 2020

It is my understanding that neither Hebrew nor Greek uses capitalization.

Mattathias · Aug 11, 2020

Why do you think some translators chose to capitalize the phrase (“ego eimi”) in English and some translators chose not to capitalize the phrase?

TheDivineWatermark · Aug 11, 2020

Mattathias said:

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??)

Mattathias · Aug 11, 2020

TheDivineWatermark said:

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.”

Nehemiah6 · Aug 11, 2020

Mattathias said:

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.

fredoheaven · Aug 11, 2020

Mattathias said:

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.

bluto · Aug 11, 2020

Mattathias said:

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

Mattathias · Aug 11, 2020

fredoheaven said:

Jesus is elohim/theos, fred.

See my posts. I use the same scripture you do.

The man Jesus Christ.

That’s right.

Mattathias · Aug 11, 2020

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.

Mattathias · Aug 11, 2020

Nehemiah6 said:

Neither ignored nor disregarded by me.

fredoheaven · Aug 11, 2020

Mattathias said:

Then you are no longer a monotheist.

fredoheaven · Aug 11, 2020

Mattathias said:

Sorry, I found no truth in here. Christ is the truth!

bluto · Aug 11, 2020

Mattathias said:

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

Mattathias · Aug 11, 2020

Mattathias said:

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.

Mattathias · Aug 11, 2020

fredoheaven said:

Believing that, I believe him.

Mattathias · Aug 11, 2020

Mattathias said:

I commented on this in another thread. Barclay and Gilbert give us insight on the incident.

Mattathias said:

“Abraham your father rejoiced to see my day, and he saw it and was glad.“

(Jesus, John 8:56)

Jesus didn’t say that he and Abraham met in person. He said that Abraham saw his day.

“All the previous lightening flashes pale into significance before the blaze of this passage. When Jesus said to the Jews that Abraham rejoiced to see his day, he was talking language that they could understand. The Jews had many beliefs about Abraham which would enable them to see what Jesus was implying. There were altogether five different ways in which they could interpret this passage.

(a) Abraham was living in Paradise and able to see what was happening on earth. Jesus used that idea in the Parable of Dives and Lazarus (Luke 16:22-31). That is the simplest way to interpret this saying.

(b) But that is not the correct interpretation. Jesus said Abraham rejoiced to see my day, the past tense. The Jews interpreted many passages of scripture in a way that explains this. ‘By you all the families of the earth shall bless themselves,’ and said that when the promise was made, Abraham knew that it meant that the Messiah of God was to come from his line and rejoiced at the magnificence of the promise.

(c) Some of the Rabbis held that in Genesis 15:8-21 Abraham was given a vision of the whole future of the nation of Israel and therefore had a vision beforehand of the time when the Messiah would come.

(d) Some of the Rabbis took Genesis 17:17, which tells how Abraham laughed when he heard that a son would be born to him, not as a laugh of unbelief, but as a laugh of sheer joy that from him the Messiah would come.

(e) Some of the Rabbis had a fanciful interpretation of Genesis 24:1. There the Revised Standard Version has it that Abraham was ‘well advanced in years. The margin of the Authorized Version tells us that the Hebrew literally means that Abraham had ‘gone into days.’ Some of the Rabbis held that to mean that in a vision given by God Abraham had entered into the days which lay ahead, and had seen the whole history of the people and the coming of the Messiah.

From all this we see clearly that the Jews did believe somehow Abraham, while he was still alive, had a vision of the history of Israel and the coming of the Messiah. So when Jesus said that Abraham had seen his day, he was making a deliberate claim that he was the Messiah. He was really saying: I am the Messiah Abraham saw in his vision...

To us these ideas are strange, to a Jew they were quite normal, for he believed that Abraham had already seen the day when Messiah would come.

The Jews, although they knew better, chose to take this literally...”

(William Barclay, The Gospel of John, Vol. 2, pp. 34, 35, 36)

So, Jesus is claiming to be the Messiah. As children of Abraham they should have believed him. They didn’t.

”The Jews said to him, ‘You are not yet fifty years old, and have you seen Abraham?’”

(John 8:57)

As I pointed out, Jesus didn’t say that he had seen Abraham. He said that Abraham had seen the Messianic age, long before the Messianic age actually arrived. The Jews, as they so often did, misunderstood him. In their anger and continued rejection of his messianic claim, they thought he was a madman claiming to be a contemporary of Abraham.

“Jesus said to them, ‘Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was born, I am.’”

(John 8:58)

The unbelieving Jews thought Abraham was superior to Jesus. The opposite is true. Jesus was destined to be the Messiah reinforces his Messianic claims to be greater than Abraham; he was destined to be the Messiah promised by God before Abraham was born.

“Jesus has been emphasizing his Messianic claim. He does not say that before Abraham was born the logos existed, he says ’I am.’ It is Jesus the Messiah, Jesus the man whom the Father had consecrated to the Messianic work who speaks. Just before this he had spoken of ‘my day,’ which Abraham saw (John 8:56), by which we must understand the historical appearance of Jesus as Messiah. Abraham had seen this, virtually seen it in God’s promise of a seed (Gen 12:3; 15:4-5) and had greeted it from afar (Heb 11:13). And now it is this one who consciously realizes the distant vision of Abraham who says, ‘Before Abraham was born, I am.’ Jesus, therefore, seems to affirm that his historic personality existed before Abraham was born. If that be the case, then its existence before Abraham must be thought of as ideal.”

(G. H. Gilbert, The Revelation of Jesus: A Study of the Primary Sources of Christianity, 214, 215)

Dino246 · Aug 11, 2020

Mattathias said:

So what does this mean in English, Mattathias?

Mattathias · Aug 11, 2020

fredoheaven said:

I’m a Jewish monotheist.

Mattathias · Aug 11, 2020

Mattathias said:

“Jesus was a first-century Jewish monotheist.”

(N.T. Wright, Jesus and the Victory of God)

Mattathias · Aug 11, 2020

Mattathias said:

“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.

What does it "REALLY" mean that Jesus Christ is the Son of God?

Well-known member

Banned

Well-known member

Banned

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Banned

Banned

Banned

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Banned

Banned

Banned

Senior Member

Banned

Banned

Banned