How To Get To Heaven When You Die

[TrevorL]

Greetings again Darrell, (Part 2 of 2)

[Post#38]

Jesus declares Himself God by calling Himself I am time and time again: Joh 8:58 Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am. (KJV). I am is God's name.

You need to consider ALL the “I AM” passages in John’s Gospel, and many of them have “I am he”. I believe that Exodus 3:14 should be translated “I will be” as per Tyndale’s translation.

You need to consider the Historical and Cultural context in which Christ makes this statement. While modern exegetes might try to diminish the import of the statement, the first century Jew did not, hence their murderous rage at this "blasphemy."
John 10:33 (KJV): The Jews answered him, saying, For a good work we stone thee not; but for blasphemy; and because that thou, being a man, makest thyself God.

I gave a reasonably thorough exposition of my understanding of the “I AM” passages of John’s Gospel in the “Trinity” thread Page 15 #148. I also expounded why I consider the proper translation of Exodus 3:14 should be “I will be” in the “Trinity” thread Page 4 #37, Page 5 #41. I also spoke of the development of the Yahweh Name, and its focus in Jesus. It is interesting that you quote John 10:33 as this is in the midst of the passage John 10:30-36 which clearly teaches that Jesus is the Son of God, please refer the “Trinity” thread Page 1 #8, Page 2 #13 and Page 4 #40. Both the Jews of Jesus’ day and the Trinitarians of today ignore the teaching of Jesus here concerning the OT teaching regarding the word “Elohim”. An understanding of Elohim wrt judges is a good introduction to an understanding of Elohim wrt the Angels.

I have had a brief read through the rest of your Posts, but the above is sufficient for now. There are quite a few subjects and to properly answer all that you state would need a wider range of discussion. You base many of your comments on your established theology and mindset. Many of the Scriptures that you use on these other subjects have a different meaning to my theology and mindset. Your quoting of many Scriptures in support of your theology and mindset may give you a warm feeling that your ideas are true, but these verse have a different impact upon me. If you are not happy with some of the material that I have presented in the “Trinity” thread please mention this, especially if you think that I should reconsider any of these. Also a full discussion on the Trinity is not appropriate on this thread. “Xfrodobagginsx” added some Trinity “proof texts” possibly because of some of my Posts on other threads. Please reconsider the full implications of Revelation 1:1. Also I am not in favour of Posting on this thread as it reminds me of my visit to a Baptist Church where the preacher tried to scare us against the fires of hell and if you accept Jesus you will go to heaven. “Xfrodobagginsx” refreshes this thread for this purpose often enough.

Kind regards
Trevor

 

[Martin Marprelate]

I also expounded why I consider the proper translation of Exodus 3:14 should be “I will be” in the “Trinity” thread Page 4 #37, Page 5 #41.

'YHWH appears in the imperfect and, thus, it is sometimes translated in the future: "I will be who I will be." The imperfect in Hebrew actually can appear in any tense, past, present or future. It is rather to be understood as uncompleted action. And that fits our story. God is ever-being and ever-acting.'
John D. Currid: Exodus Vol 1.

You need to consider ALL the “I AM” passages in John’s Gospel, and many of them have “I am he”.

Would you kindly tell me which ones? Thank you. One of the most striking "I AM" passages is in Mark 6:50, where all the translations give "It is I," but the Greek is Ego eimi.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

The historian Edward Gibbon could be called an independent witness as he was writing from a historical perspective. He may have been biased towards heaven going as he was most probably CofE or something similar

Edward Gibbon was strongly anti-Christian. It was not possible in the 18th Century to be as forthright as a Richard Dawkins, but if you read his book you will find that his favourite Emperors were Marcus Aurelius and Diocletian, who persecuted Christians, and Julian the Apostate.

 

[TrevorL]

Greetings Martin,

'YHWH appears in the imperfect and, thus, it is sometimes translated in the future: "I will be who I will be." The imperfect in Hebrew actually can appear in any tense, past, present or future. It is rather to be understood as uncompleted action. And that fits our story. God is ever-being and ever-acting.'
John D. Currid: Exodus Vol 1.

Have you considered Exodus 3:12 and Exodus 6:1-8 that appear to define Yahweh and Ehyeh as future, speaking of God's purpose to act on Israel's behalf and deliver them from Egypt. I mentioned much more on the Yahweh Name in the "Trinity" thread.

Would you kindly tell me which ones? Thank you. One of the most striking "I AM" passages is in Mark 6:50, where all the translations give "It is I," but the Greek is Ego eimi.

The following is what I wrote in the Trinity thread. I would prefer that you navigate your way to the "Trinity" thread, rather than my copying the material here.

I thought I would briefly revisit your question concerning John 8:58 from Post #117 and my brief response in Post #120 Page 12. I would like to state that the following is a work in progress. It is taking up the various places in John’s Gospel where the phrase “I am” occurs and testing the Trinitarian claim. I am not sure if I have found every relevant occurrence. We need to determine if Jesus and John are connecting all or some of these with Exodus 3:14. Principally we need to determine if the “I am” of John 8:58 is directly connected with Exodus 3:14 or has some other meaning.

John 1:20-23 (KJV): 20 And he confessed, and denied not; but confessed, I am (S# 1510) not the Christ. 21 And they asked him, What then? Art thou Elias? And he saith, I am (S# 1510) not. Art thou that prophet? And he answered, No. 22 Then said they unto him, Who art thou? that we may give an answer to them that sent us. What sayest thou of thyself? 23 He said, I am the voice of one crying in the wilderness, Make straight the way of the Lord, as said the prophet Esaias.
John 3:28 (KJV): Ye yourselves bear me witness, that I said, I am not the Christ, but that I am sent before him.
The Apostle John records these words of John the Baptist when the representatives of the Jews questioned him. This was not just an idle inquiry, but part of their role to examine if a prophet spoke with Divine authority. They also felt challenged because here was a new prophet who seemed to be working independently of the Scribes and Pharisees and the Sanhedrin Council. Please note the phrases “I am not the Christ” and “I am not” (Elijah). In my opinion, neither of these are connected with Exodus 3:14, but is possibly the start of a theme that John draws attention to by recording various “I am” passages. In other words it is the question of who a person actually is, and it is usually the authorities who want to determine their status.

John 4:25-26 (KJV): 25 The woman saith unto him, I know that Messias cometh, which is called Christ: when he is come, he will tell us all things. 26 Jesus saith unto her, I that speak unto thee am (S# 1510) he.
Here is Jesus confession that He is the Christ, but note this is similar to the language that John the Baptist used. The translators of the KJV have added he in italics to connect Jesus’ answer to say that Jesus is here claiming to be the Christ. They are suggesting by this that Jesus is not claiming to be the “I am” of Exodus 3:14, even though the “I am” of John 4:26 is identical to John 8:58 in the original Greek. In other words the phrase “I am” is a simple expression in this context, but seems a bit awkward in English, requiring the addition of he.

John 6:20 (KJV): But he saith unto them, It is (S# 1510) I; be not afraid.
This is in a different order and I am not familiar enough with Greek to comment except to say that I do not think Jesus is appealing to Exodus 3:14 here. He was comforting them by his words and the familiar tone of his voice.

“I am” occurs in John 6:20, 35, 41, 48, 51, :7:28, 29, 33, 34, 36, 8:12, 16, 18, 23, 24, 28, and each of these describe in one way or another who Jesus is, but it is the last two of these, John 8:24,28 that may be connected to John 8:58, as they are in the same context and spoken at the same time.

John 8:23-28 (KJV): 23 And he said unto them, Ye are from beneath; I am from above: ye are of this world; I am not of this world. 24 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. 25 Then said they unto him, Who art thou? And Jesus saith unto them, Even the same that I said unto you from the beginning. 26 I have many things to say and to judge of you: but he that sent me is true; and I speak to the world those things which I have heard of him. 27 They understood not that he spake to them of the Father. 28 Then said Jesus unto them, When ye have lifted up the Son of man, then shall ye know that I am he, and that I do nothing of myself; but as my Father hath taught me, I speak these things.
Now again the KJV translators have added the he in both occurrences, and this gives the impression that they did not believe that Jesus was claiming here a connection with Exodus 3:14. It speaks in the first of his claim to a Divine origin as the Son of God v23, and in the second that he was the Son of Man v28. Rather than having some claim to independent Deity, he rather states his absolute dependence upon God His Father, “I do nothing of myself”.

John 8:58 (KJV): Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am.
Despite the context and usage of the phrase in John 8:28, the translators here with exactly the same original words have translated this as “I am” and not “I am he. They thus leave wide open the suggestion that this connects with Exodus 3:14. In my opinion the same phrase occurring in John 8: v24 and v28 qualifies how we should understand John 8:58, spoken at the same time to the same audience. My conclusion is that when Jesus says “I am” in John 8:58, he is claiming to be the Son of God and the Son of Man.

John 9:9 (KJV): Some said, This is he: others said, He is like him: but he said, I am he.
This is the blind man speaking and again the translators have added the he to give the proper sense in the English. This particular usage here for the blind man again demystifies the expression in the Greek “I am” to show that it is not automatically a reference to what at first may seem to be the obscure words of Exodus 3:14.

In addition to this it is my belief that Exodus 3:14 should be translated with the future tense “I will be”. Therefore I have serious doubts that Exodus 3:14 is in any real way connected with John 8:58, unless it can be shown that “I am” of John 8:58 is a fulfillment of “I will be” of Exodus 3:14. This would not make Jesus God the Son, but the Son of God.

Are you suggesting that Edward Gibbon's conclusion about the change from the teaching of the Kingdom of God on earth after the resurrection to a Kingdom in Heaven for immortal souls immediately after death is incorrect?

Kind regards
Trevor

 

[Martin Marprelate]

Hello Trevor,
First of all, I am not aware of a 'Trinity' thread. I have had a quick look, but I can't find it.
Second, thank you for confirming that the Lord Jesus never once said "I am He;" ego eimi autos. He says, "I AM." ego eimi. One of the glories of the KJV, NKJV and NASB is that they put added words in italics so that this is made plain to all.

Ego eimi is the phrase used by the Greek 'Septuagint' translation of the O.T. to render the Divine name, so there is an obvious significance in our Lord using it. In Greek, one does not have to use the personal pronoun; it would be sufficient simply to say "eimi." So when the Lord Jesus says, "I am the Way and the Truth and the Life," by using the words ego eimi He is making a very particular statement.

Also in John 8:58, Jesus does not say, "Before Abraham was, I was" (ego en. He says,"Before Abraham was, I AM." The Jews knew the significance of that statement even if you do not (v.59; cf. 10:31-33). Likewise in John 6:20, Jesus does not say, "It is I" (ego estin); He proclaims His divinity as He walks upon the water, declaring, "I AM."

With reference to the true meaning of YHWH, I have no knowledge of Hebrew, which is why I quoted an Old Testament scholar rather than making a pretence of personal expertise. May I ask you what your qualifications are to disagree with Currid? God does not change; He is what He was and what He will be. '"I an the Alpha and Omega, the Beginning and the End," says the Lord, who is and who was and who is to come, the Almighty' (Rev. 1:8). Compare that with the words of Christ later in the same book (22:13). "I am the Alpha and Omega, the Beginning and the end, the first and the last." I am aware of some differences in the various texts, but that makes no difference; Jesus is the I AM, God the Son.

Are you suggesting that Edward Gibbon's conclusion about the change from the teaching of the Kingdom of God on earth after the resurrection to a Kingdom in Heaven for immortal souls immediately after death is incorrect?

Yes I am, but more than that, I am saying that Gibbon is disqualified from being accepted in any of his pronouncements about Christianity since he was not a Christian and throughout his book (I've read it; have you?), seeks to cast Christianity in the worst light possible.

 

[Darrell C]

Greetings again Darrell, (Part 2 of 2)

[Post#38] I gave a reasonably thorough exposition of my understanding of the “I AM” passages of John’s Gospel in the “Trinity” thread Page 15 #148. I also expounded why I consider the proper translation of Exodus 3:14 should be “I will be” in the “Trinity” thread Page 4 #37, Page 5 #41. I also spoke of the development of the Yahweh Name, and its focus in Jesus. It is interesting that you quote John 10:33 as this is in the midst of the passage John 10:30-36 which clearly teaches that Jesus is the Son of God, please refer the “Trinity” thread Page 1 #8, Page 2 #13 and Page 4 #40. Both the Jews of Jesus’ day and the Trinitarians of today ignore the teaching of Jesus here concerning the OT teaching regarding the word “Elohim”. An understanding of Elohim wrt judges is a good introduction to an understanding of Elohim wrt the Angels.

I have had a brief read through the rest of your Posts, but the above is sufficient for now. There are quite a few subjects and to properly answer all that you state would need a wider range of discussion. You base many of your comments on your established theology and mindset. Many of the Scriptures that you use on these other subjects have a different meaning to my theology and mindset. Your quoting of many Scriptures in support of your theology and mindset may give you a warm feeling that your ideas are true, but these verse have a different impact upon me. If you are not happy with some of the material that I have presented in the “Trinity” thread please mention this, especially if you think that I should reconsider any of these. Also a full discussion on the Trinity is not appropriate on this thread. “Xfrodobagginsx” added some Trinity “proof texts” possibly because of some of my Posts on other threads. Please reconsider the full implications of Revelation 1:1. Also I am not in favour of Posting on this thread as it reminds me of my visit to a Baptist Church where the preacher tried to scare us against the fires of hell and if you accept Jesus you will go to heaven. “Xfrodobagginsx” refreshes this thread for this purpose often enough.

Kind regards
Trevor

Two things:

First, I am not sure how your post addresses the fact that we see in Scripture that the Jews understood, and wanted to kill Christ...because He "made himself God."

Secondly, the rejection of Hell in our own modern culture is due to a rejection of teaching that makes it clear that unbelievers will not be annihilated, but will spend eternity separated from God in the Lake of Fire.

You say...

Also I am not in favour of Posting on this thread as it reminds me of my visit to a Baptist Church where the preacher tried to scare us against the fires of hell and if you accept Jesus you will go to heaven

...and the only thing I can ask is...

...why would you have a problem with teaching someone the fires of Hell (gehenna) are real? That if one accept Christ they will not only go to Heaven but will escape that punishment?

That one should fear that punishment?


Matthew 10:28

King James Version (KJV)

28 And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell.


That is a healthy fear, my friend, and following the example set by Christ we should be capable of presenting the Biblical truth about it.

And that is all the time I have, and apologize for not getting down here to the lower depths of the BB, lol, but have been tied up in the Baptist section, and just busy with work right now.

So these two issues are set before you, that the Jews understood Christ's claim to Deity, and that fear of Hell is simply something that Scripture generates. The only remedy for that destiny is accepting Christ. So you present a position that, while growing ever popular in today's world, are clearly topics of debate.


God bless.

 

[TrevorL]

Greetings again Martin,

First of all, I am not aware of a 'Trinity' thread. I have had a quick look, but I can't find it.

The “Trinity” thread was closed in April 2014. I would prefer not to repeat most of what I stated in that thread.

Second, thank you for confirming that the Lord Jesus never once said "I am He;" ego eimi autos. He says, "I AM." ego eimi. One of the glories of the KJV, NKJV and NASB is that they put added words in italics so that this is made plain to all.

Yes, but what is necessary to convey an idea in one language is different in another language. Was the blind man wrong in saying “I am” and this is translated “I am he” in the KJV? Such an occurrence should create some caution.

Also the rest of the list provided shows that even when Jesus said “I am” the real sense in my opinion seems to be in English “I am he”. Perhaps the most significant of these wrt to John8:58 is John8:23-28 where the expression occurs twice as this is a record of the same discussion with the Pharisees and Scribes. Even the translators of the KJV rendered both of these earlier statements as “I am he”. Do you disagree with their translation here, especially when you consider the immediate context of each statement by Jesus? In other words is Jesus claiming to be the self-existent God especially in the second of these:
John8:28 (KJV): Then said Jesus unto them, When ye have lifted up the Son of man, then shall ye know that I am he, and that I do nothing of myself; but as my Father hath taught me, I speak these things.

Ego eimi is the phrase used by the Greek 'Septuagint' translation of the O.T. to render the Divine name, so there is an obvious significance in our Lord using it.

Could you please check your resources, as I do not think this is correct. The LXX certainly does render “ehyeh asher ehyeh” in the present tense and not the future tense. But the LXX is significantly different showing that John 8:58 is not a quote or allusion from the LXX.

In Greek, one does not have to use the personal pronoun; it would be sufficient simply to say "eimi." So when the Lord Jesus says, "I am the Way and the Truth and the Life," by using the words ego eimi He is making a very particular statement.

Let us test this with another example. Jesus says:
John10:11 (KJV): I am the good shepherd: the good shepherd giveth his life for the sheep.
Is this a claim or allusion to the Divine Name “I AM” or simply a claim to be the good shepherd, undoubtedly a unique position. God the Father’s plan and purpose is centred in and through our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God. The “I am” to me at least is simply a part of the verb “to be” and to put too much weight on every occurrence is very doubtful. The “I will be” as God’s Name is part of the simplicity and beauty of the Word of God, the revelation of the chracter and ways of God. Please also note that Jesus addresses God His Father as His Shepherd:
Psalm23:1 (KJV): The LORD is my shepherd; I shall not want.

Also in John8:58, Jesus does not say, "Before Abraham was, I was" (ego en. He says, "Before Abraham was, I AM." The Jews knew the significance of that statement even if you do not (v.59; cf.10:31-33). Likewise in John6:20, Jesus does not say, "It is I" (ego estin); He proclaims His divinity as He walks upon the water, declaring, "I AM."

I do not see an allusion to the Divine Name in these. You are quoting from the explanation of the Hebrew word “Elohim” concerning the judges in Israel in John 10:30-36, “unto whom the word of God came” and proves Jesus is the Son of God..

With reference to the true meaning of YHWH, I have no knowledge of Hebrew, which is why I quoted an Old Testament scholar rather than making a pretence of personal expertise. May I ask you what your qualifications are to disagree with Currid?

I searched my electronic resources and came up with a reference to one of his books "John D Currid, Ancient Egypt and the Old Testament, 1997” showing he is a recent or current scholar. Is he proficient and correct with his statements on the translation and interpretation of Hebrew? On the other hand I am not proficient at Hebrew, but I have other resources that I respect and could quote them to you. I mentioned Exodus3:12 and Exodus6:1-8 but you have not commented on these verses. Please note in Exodus6:1-8 the constant repeating of “I will” coupled with the Name Yahweh and God’s purpose to deliver Israel out of Egypt and bring them into the promised land.

Exodus3:12 sets the context and usage of “ehyeh”. I like Tyndale’s translation, and it is also interesting giving “will be” as one word “wilbe”
Exodus 3:12-14 (Tyndale): 12 And he sayde: I wilbe with the. And this shalbe a token vnto the that I haue sent the: after that thou hast broughte the people out of Egipte, ye shall serue God vppon this mountayne. 13 Than sayde Moses vnto God: when I come vnto the childern of Israell and saye vnto them, the God of youre fathers hath sent me vnto you, ad they saye vnto me, what ys his name, what answere shall I geuethem? 14 Then sayde God vnto Moses: I wilbe what I wilbe: ad he sayde, this shalt thou saye vnto the children of Israel: I wilbe dyd send me to you.

Kind regards
Trevor

 

[TrevorL]

Greetings again Martin (Part 2) and Darrell,

God does not change; He is what He was and what He will be. '"I am the Alpha and Omega, the Beginning and the End," says the Lord, who is and who was and who is to come, the Almighty' (Rev. 1:8). Compare that with the words of Christ later in the same book (22:13). "I am the Alpha and Omega, the Beginning and the end, the first and the last." I am aware of some differences in the various texts, but that makes no difference; Jesus is the I AM, God the Son.

Revelation 1:8 needs to be considered, but I suggest that such statements are not what I would consider “first principle” type texts. If we agree on Revelation 1:1 then I will proceed. Our Sunday School Class considered the Vision of Revelation 1 and we used the title “The Vision of the Multitudinous Son of Man”. Of all the parts of the vision, the detail in Revelation 1:15 (KJV): “And his feet like unto fine brass, as if they burned in a furnace” is a figure that can be expounded using many verses in the OT prophets and elsewhere. Some other phrases need careful exposition.

Yes I am, but more than that, I am saying that Gibbon is disqualified from being accepted in any of his pronouncements about Christianity since he was not a Christian and throughout his book (I've read it; have you?), seeks to cast Christianity in the worst light possible.

I have read it only in part, as a reference book. We are now studying the Book of Revelation in our Senior Sunday School Class and when we consider the Seals etc we may rely on some of his history as we support “The Continuous Historic Interpretation”. Gibbon’s comments on the Millennium seem to fit my understanding of the gradual replacement of the Gospel of the things concerning the Kingdom of God and the Name of Jesus Christ Acts 8:5,12 and believer’s baptism with the present teaching and practice of the Catholic and Protestant Churches. Some of these apostate teachings were reversed in the Reformation by a few, but in general many wrong teachings survive. I have a few other resources that speak of the combination of some forms of Judaism with Greek Philosophy, and these teachings eroded and replaced the teaching of the Apostles to form the Apostate Church. Even the NT indicates some of the start of these influences. So I do not wholly rely on Gibbon, but treat him as a historian with his own perspective and possible agenda as you suggest.

So these two issues are set before you, that the Jews understood Christ's claim to Deity, and that fear of Hell is simply something that Scripture generates. The only remedy for that destiny is accepting Christ. So you present a position that, while growing ever popular in today's world, are clearly topics of debate.

The Jews recognised Jesus’ Divine claims, that he was the Christ the Son of the Living God, but they certainly did not think he was claiming to be the Second Person of the Trinity, God the Son. I believe that hell is a figure based upon the garbage dump outside Jerusalem, where the fire continually burnt and the worms continually consumed. What part of the immortal body and/or soul will be affected by worms? Is the immortal soul or spirit of the damned now feeling the flames of hell, or do these flames only affect the immortal body when it is combined with the immortal soul or spirit?

Kind regards
Trevor

 

[Martin Marprelate]

Greetings again Martin,

The “Trinity” thread was closed in April 2014. I would prefer not to repeat most of what I stated in that thread.

That is 18 months ago. I'm sorry, but I'm not going rooting about in the archives for your benefit.

Yes, but what is necessary to convey an idea in one language is different in another language. Was the blind man wrong in saying “I am” and this is translated “I am he” in the KJV? Such an occurrence should create some caution.

John 9:9 certainly tells us that we cannot take every occurrence of ego eimi as an allusion to the Divine Name. However, as I said before, and as you would know if you knew Greek, it is not necessary to use the Personal Pronoun, ego to say, "I am." There is clearly a significance to it. I pointed out two instances, John 6:20; 8:85, where our Lord uses ego eimi where it would have been more natural to say, ego estin and ego en respectively. Another instance is 8:24: 'Unless you believe that I am [He]you will die in your sins.' Now the point here is that He hasn't said who He is, save that He is the One whom to know is to know the Father (v.19) and the One who is 'from above' (v.23). Jesus is the I AM, and anyone who does not know that will die in his sins.

Do you disagree with their translation here, especially when you consider the immediate context of each statement by Jesus? In other words is Jesus claiming to be the self-existent God especially in the second of these:
John8:28 (KJV): Then said Jesus unto them, When ye have lifted up the Son of man, then shall ye know that I am he, and that I do nothing of myself; but as my Father hath taught me, I speak these things.

I don't object to the 'He' in brackets, but do you acknowledge that it is no part of the Greek text? Also, who is the 'He'? The 'Son of Man' is the only antecedent. On the one hand the servant of Ezekiel, but on the other, the One to whom an everlasting dominion is given in Dan 7:14. Do not fail to realise the two natures of Jesus Christ: on the one hand the Suffering Servant, and one the other the One to whom all praise and all glory is due (Rev. 5:12. Compare 4:11 and note 19:9-10 and Psalm 145:13).

Could you please check your resources, as I do not think this is correct. The LXX certainly does render “ehyeh asher ehyeh” in the present tense and not the future tense. But the LXX is significantly different showing that John 8:58 is not a quote or allusion from the LXX.

Does ego eimi mean 'I am' or does it not? What other expression might our Lord have used to associate Himself with YHWH?

Let us test this with another example. Jesus says:
John10:11 (KJV): I am the good shepherd: the good shepherd giveth his life for the sheep.
Is this a claim or allusion to the Divine Name “I AM” or simply a claim to be the good shepherd, undoubtedly a unique position. God the Father’s plan and purpose is centred in and through our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God. The “I am” to me at least is simply a part of the verb “to be” and to put too much weight on every occurrence is very doubtful. The “I will be” as God’s Name is part of the simplicity and beauty of the Word of God, the revelation of the chracter and ways of God. Please also note that Jesus addresses God His Father as His Shepherd:
Psalm23:1 (KJV): The LORD is my shepherd; I shall not want.

You have this exactly wrong.
1. The LORD is my shepherd.
2. Jesus is the Good Shepherd, therefore
3. Jesus is the LORD. 'I and the Father are one' (John 10:30)

I do not see an allusion to the Divine Name in these. You are quoting from the explanation of the Hebrew word “Elohim” concerning the judges in Israel in John 10:30-36, “unto whom the word of God came” and proves Jesus is the Son of God..

I do not know what you are talking about. See above.

I searched my electronic resources and came up with a reference to one of his books "John D Currid, Ancient Egypt and the Old Testament, 1997” showing he is a recent or current scholar. Is he proficient and correct with his statements on the translation and interpretation of Hebrew? On the other hand I am not proficient at Hebrew, but I have other resources that I respect and could quote them to you. I mentioned Exodus3:12 and Exodus6:1-8 but you have not commented on these verses. Please note in Exodus6:1-8 the constant repeating of “I will” coupled with the Name Yahweh and God’s purpose to deliver Israel out of Egypt and bring them into the promised land.

Currid has written semi-technical commentaries on the whole of the Pentateuch . I was quoting from the one on Exodus. He is Associate Professor of O.T. studies at Reformed Theological Seminary in Jackson Mississippi. He should know Hebrew, I think. Who are these resources you speak of?

Exodus3:12 sets the context and usage of “ehyeh”. I like Tyndale’s translation, and it is also interesting giving “will be” as one word “wilbe”
Exodus 3:12-14 (Tyndale): 12 And he sayde: I wilbe with the. And this shalbe a token vnto the that I haue sent the: after that thou hast broughte the people out of Egipte, ye shall serue God vppon this mountayne. 13 Than sayde Moses vnto God: when I come vnto the childern of Israell and saye vnto them, the God of youre fathers hath sent me vnto you, ad they saye vnto me, what ys his name, what answere shall I geuethem? 14 Then sayde God vnto Moses: I wilbe what I wilbe: ad he sayde, this shalt thou saye vnto the children of Israel: I wilbe dyd send me to you.

Tyndale was a great linguist, but he would have understood that 'I am the LORD; I change not' (Mal. 3:6). which neatly coincides with 'Jesus Christ, the same yesterday, today and forever' (Heb. 13:8). See Currid's comments above.

Revelation 1:8 needs to be considered, but I suggest that such statements are not what I would consider “first principle” type texts.

Why not?

If we agree on Revelation 1:1 then I will proceed.

I agree that Rev. 1:1 is in the Bible. Why would you think the 1:1 is more important than 1:8? It is all the word of God.

It is one thing to use Gibbon's Decline and Fall to learn some secular history, but if you are going to use his work to draw any theological conclusions, then you are without question misleading your class with false teaching.

 

[Darrell C]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Darrell C View Post
So these two issues are set before you, that the Jews understood Christ's claim to Deity, and that fear of Hell is simply something that Scripture generates. The only remedy for that destiny is accepting Christ. So you present a position that, while growing ever popular in today's world, are clearly topics of debate.

The Jews recognised Jesus’ Divine claims, that he was the Christ the Son of the Living God, but they certainly did not think he was claiming to be the Second Person of the Trinity, God the Son.

That is a bit of a side-step, my friend. The point is Christ claiming to be God.

The Jews recognized His speech and intent, and thus sought to kill Him, for it was blasphemy in their minds for Christ to say He was God.

The Trinity need not be mentioned to address this point. The Trinity will be a reasonable conclusion when we understand that Christ did in fact claim an equality with God, which surpassed a spiritual connotation of Son-ship (meaning Him being the Son because He was such a good man, and was "adopted" from mankind, if you will).

Who indwells the believer, Trevor?

Can I suggest the Triune God?


John 14:16-18

King James Version (KJV)

16 And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever;

17 Even the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him: but ye know him; for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you.

18 I will not leave you comfortless: I will come to you.



John 14:23

King James Version (KJV)

23 Jesus answered and said unto him, If a man love me, he will keep my words: and my Father will love him, and we will come unto him, and make our abode with him.


Romans 8:9

King James Version (KJV)

9 But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his.


Revelation 3:20

King James Version (KJV)

20 Behold, I stand at the door, and knock: if any man hear my voice, and open the door, I will come in to him, and will sup with him, and he with me.


We see the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost all said to indwell. That indwelling has a point in time when it begins, which is when the Comforter is sent. "I will come to you," said Christ.

I believe that hell is a figure based upon the garbage dump outside Jerusalem,

The garbage Dump is used to describe the literal place Christ teaches, as well as other Apostles.

Gehenna refers to the Lake of Fire, the place of judgment for the wicked. And while the imagery given might seem absurd to you, the intent of the teaching, that literal destination for unbelievers...should not be. Not when it is taught so much in Scripture.

where the fire continually burnt and the worms continually consumed.

And that describes the unending nature of Hell. The earthly locale might not have actually been unending or eternal, but Hell is taught to be.

What part of the immortal body and/or soul will be affected by worms?

The resurrected body of the unbeliever, who will be resurrected in bodies suitable to eternal punishment.

And again, the "soul" is the person themselves, the body and the spirit which is not separated. That is the usual intent of "soul" when it is used in Scripture.

Is the immortal soul or spirit of the damned now feeling the flames of hell,

No, it is not until the end of the Millennial Kingdom that the dead are raised from Hades, their bodies recovered from the earth, the Great White Throne set up, and unbelievers, in their resurrected form...are cast into Hell.

But, we can say with a good amount of certainty, based on the story of Lazarus and the Rich Man, that Hades holds suffering which is both mental as well as physical. The man thirsted, and had concern that his brothers be evangelized so they would not come to that place of punishment.

Jewish tradition held that Sheol/Hades had two compartments, and the teaching of the Lord bears that out as a real possibility. I believe the Just were redeemed from Hades (also called by Jews " the Bosom of Abraham" and "Paradise") during Christ's time of death, while He was in the grave physically, but went to preach to the spirits in prison.

or do these flames only affect the immortal body when it is combined with the immortal soul or spirit?

I think we can, again, say that the spirits that go to Hades at this time...have a conscious and physical aspect, and that suffering is not imagined.

Keep in mind that the spiritual realm does not have to necessarily be a wispy existence without substance. I believe the spiritual realm is far more substantive than our own existence.

It is just a different realm, a different existence to which we cannot pass while we are tied to our physical bodies.

Kind regards
Trevor

Thanks for the response. I didn't respond to those issues directed at the other member, as I did not see them as being relevant to the focus.


God bless.

 

[TrevorL]

Greetings again Martin, (Part 1 of 2)

That is 18 months ago. I'm sorry, but I'm not going rooting about in the archives for your benefit.

That’s fine, it is your choice. I noticed that you have started another thread “The Trinity”. I have yet to decide if to engage by selecting a few items only. Your thread is different to the thread that “Steaver” started, in that Steaver did not start his thread to defend the Trinity, but my understanding was that he was claiming that any person that had The Spirit would of necessity accept the Trinity. His logic seemed to be “I believe the Trinity, I have the Spirit, therefore the Trinity must be correct”. In a sense I hijacked his thread by my attempt to disprove the Trinity.

John 9:9 certainly tells us that we cannot take every occurrence of ego eimi as an allusion to the Divine Name. However, as I said before, and as you would know if you knew Greek, it is not necessary to use the Personal Pronoun, ego to say, "I am." There is clearly a significance to it. I pointed out two instances, John 6:20; 8:85, where our Lord uses ego eimi where it would have been more natural to say, ego estin and ego en respectively. Another instance is 8:24: 'Unless you believe that I am [He]you will die in your sins.' Now the point here is that He hasn't said who He is, save that He is the One whom to know is to know the Father (v.19) and the One who is 'from above' (v.23). Jesus is the I AM, and anyone who does not know that will die in his sins.

Looks like my destiny is already mapped out unless I accept your reasoning.

I don't object to the 'He' in brackets, but do you acknowledge that it is no part of the Greek text? Also, who is the 'He'? The 'Son of Man' is the only antecedent. On the one hand the servant of Ezekiel, but on the other, the One to whom an everlasting dominion is given in Dan 7:14. Do not fail to realise the two natures of Jesus Christ: on the one hand the Suffering Servant, and one the other the One to whom all praise and all glory is due (Rev. 5:12. Compare 4:11 and note 19:9-10 and Psalm 145:13).

I accept that “He” is not there if we have a literal translation from Greek to English. I am not qualified to discuss the intracies of Greek. Also you weave your Trinity theology into your statements.

Does ego eimi mean 'I am' or does it not? What other expression might our Lord have used to associate Himself with YHWH?

I do not believe that YHWH is in the present tense, and so there is no real connection between the “I Am” and the “I Am he” statements mainly in John’s Gospel record.

You have this exactly wrong.
1. The LORD is my shepherd.
2. Jesus is the Good Shepherd, therefore
3. Jesus is the LORD. 'I and the Father are one' (John 10:30)

Nice syllogism, but I believe that Psalm 23, although a Psalm of David, reveals the mind (and in some instances the very words) of Christ during his pilgrimage and suffering.

Kind regards
Trevor

 

[TrevorL]

Greetings again Martin, (Part 2 of 2)

I do not know what you are talking about. See above.

I will quote the whole passage, but my explanation has been given in the Trinity thread (not your new Trinity thread). Yes, few Trinitarians are interested in Jesus’ answer, but are simply blinded by their Trinitarian proof-texts. “A text without a context is a pretext.”
John 10:30-36 (KJV): 30 I and my Father are one. 31 Then the Jews took up stones again to stone him. 32 Jesus answered them, Many good works have I shewed you from my Father; for which of those works do ye stone me? 33 The Jews answered him, saying, For a good work we stone thee not; but for blasphemy; and because that thou, being a man, makest thyself God. 34 Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods? 35 If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken; 36 Say ye of him, whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am the Son of God?

Currid has written semi-technical commentaries on the whole of the Pentateuch . I was quoting from the one on Exodus. He is Associate Professor of O.T. studies at Reformed Theological Seminary in Jackson Mississippi. He should know Hebrew, I think. Who are these resources you speak of?

Did he give a literal English translation of the LXX of Exodus 3:14, upon which you seem to base some of your case concerning John 8:58? I am saying that there are specialists in Hebrew, and there are those who have a reasonable grasp of Hebrew, and there are those with no Hebrew skills who simply follow the opinions of these with Hebrew skills. I have no Hebrew skills, but I listen to some who have skills and make my personal choice based on both their expositions and my reading of Scriptures and my limited language and other resources. Some of the Scripture that I base my conclusions upon are (and I repeat):

I mentioned Exodus3:12 and Exodus6:1-8 but you have not commented on these verses. Please note in Exodus6:1-8 the constant repeating of “I will” coupled with the Name Yahweh and God’s purpose to deliver Israel out of Egypt and bring them into the promised land.

Tyndale was a great linguist, but he would have understood that 'I am the LORD; I change not' (Mal. 3:6). which neatly coincides with 'Jesus Christ, the same yesterday, today and forever' (Heb. 13:8). See Currid's comments above.

But Tyndale translated ehyeh as “I wilbe” and there is also alternative renditions in the RV and RSV margins suggesting the possibility that ehyeh could be translated as “I will be”. I agree with Tyndale and the margins of the RV and RSV, and suggest that there is no real connection between Exodus 3:14 and John 8:58.

Why not?

Because Revelation 1:8 may suit your cause as a Trinitarian proof-text, but the whole vision is a summation and condensation of many similar visions in the OT. Once these are first understood, then Revelation 1:8 can then be properly understood. Could you give an explanation of why and when this Son of Man has “his feet like unto fine brass, as if they burned in a furnace”?

I agree that Rev. 1:1 is in the Bible. Why would you think the 1:1 is more important than 1:8? It is all the word of God.

Revelation 1:1 does not agree with the Trinity.

It is one thing to use Gibbon's Decline and Fall to learn some secular history, but if you are going to use his work to draw any theological conclusions, then you are without question misleading your class with false teaching.

I agree that there are limitations with any writer, bu he may be less biased than a Catholic or a Trintarian or a believer in Greek Philosophy.

Kind regards
Trevor

 

[xfrodobagginsx]

:godisgood:

 

[Darrell C]

Yes, few Trinitarians are interested in Jesus’ answer, but are simply blinded by their Trinitarian proof-texts. “A text without a context is a pretext.”


Because Revelation 1:8 may suit your cause as a Trinitarian proof-text, but the whole vision is a summation and condensation of many similar visions in the OT. Once these are first understood, then Revelation 1:8 can then be properly understood.

Hello Trevor, any reason why you have not responded to my own proof-texts?

Hey, I might be blind...but I have feelings too.




God bless.

 

[xfrodobagginsx]

Some good discussions here.