John 8:56-59

[Matthias]

“Now here is something very obvious that they never told me in church (or at a theological college). This expression from Jesus’ lips ‘I am’ (Greek ego eimi) occurs throughout the Gospel of John and in no other text can it mean I AM the God of the Old Testament.“

(Greg Deuble, They never told me this in church!, p. 170)

Full disclosure: I’m very well connected with the author. We work in the same ministry.

He’s making the same point that Dr. Young (a trinitarian) made about the “I am” sayings of Jesus.

Readers shouldn’t just accept that it is “very obvious” on the say so of trinitarian and non-trinitarian scholars. Remember what your parents (probably) told you: Do your homework. (Your parents might or might not have said please, I’ll cover for them just in case.)

 

[Matthias]

If Jesus wants to shock unbelieving Jewish monotheists - and there is nothing in the conversation that suggests they’ve gotten his goat - ego eimi doesn’t do it. (He uses the common phrase frequently and no one is shocked, or even mildly surprised, when he does.)

If Jesus truly wants to shock believing and unbelieving Jewish monotheists, it isn’t the common ego eimi but the divine ego eimi ho hown (Exodus 3:14) that would do it.

The Messiah isn’t the God of Jewish monotheists, he is the Son of the God of Jewish monotheists.

To a Jewish monotheist ego eimi ho hown is their God and Father, Yahweh; the Messiah’s God and Father - the one and only true God.

For a Jewish monotheist (Jesus of Nazareth) who is claiming to be Yahweh’s promised Messiah, claiming to be his own God and Father would have made no sense to him, nor would it have made any sense - and certainly wouldn’t be speaking plainly, as Barclay said he was - to his unbelieving Jewish monotheist listeners. The man clearly would have to be a lunatic, and this man is no lunatic.

Was he “hinting”? -> throwing away any thought that Jesus was speaking plainly to the unbelievers.

No. He wasn’t hinting. He was pressing his Messianic claim.

He said ego eimi - “I am“ not “I was” (an important point Barclay rightly alerts his readers to) - and he is the Messiah before - not in time but in position / authority - his great ancestor, Abraham.

Abraham saw the day of the Messiah long in advance of the actual day of the Messiah and rejoiced. Jewish monotheists literally saw it in their day, in the 1st century; some believed and rejoiced, most didn’t believe and rejected.

It’s the devil, not the God of Jewish monotheism, who wants Jewish monotheists (and Gentiles) not to believe. Those who don’t believe are deceiving themselves when they claim the God of Jewish monotheism as their God. The god of this world, Jesus points out, is really the father (“the father of lies”) whom they are following and serving.

Such is the understanding of believing Jewish monotheists.

 

[APAK]

I often ask trinitarians (and binitarians and unitarians) this question: Is it reasonable for a Jewish monotheist to read the writings of Jewish monotheists through the prism of Jewish monotheism?

I very seldom receive a direct answer to the question.

A followup question along the same line of thinking can be asked: Is it reasonable for trinitarians to read the writings of Jewish monotheists through the prism of post-biblical trinitarian doctrine, creeds and dogma?

I’m grounded in and by the constraints of history. I can’t be persuaded by anyone who says “Moses the Nicene Christian ...” or “Isaiah the trinitarian ….” - that’s historical revisionism.

I can’t be persuaded by anyone who says “Jesus the trinitarian …” or “John, Paul and Peter the Nicene Christians …” - that’s more historical revisionism.

What gets my attention and causes me to (re)think are trinitarian theologians and scholars who allow people living in biblical times to be what they actually were. Men like Edmund Fortman and Harold Brown do that, and they have my attention.

How we got from the Jewish monotheism of primitive Christianity to the trinitarianism of 4th century Christianity isn’t difficult to trace. Anyone who denies that history has no chance whatsoever of persuading me. Dr. Brown’s crucial question about the validity of the gradual shift that occurred is where it’s still possible that a trinitarian might persuade me. That’s where I spend my time considering and reconsidering trinitarianism.

I’m shining a spotlight on where trinitarians could / should focus if they really want to try to reach me. Do they want to? No.

“Have you ever read the Bible?” -> not a serious question to pose to someone with my background.

It’s like an echo of the unbelieving Jewish monotheists. They picked up stones and he turned and walked away.

Well said and right on target.

Trinitarians fall into different categories...those diehard creed-driven types, those ready to excommunicate you if you deviate from the historical set formulation and formal edicts and doctrines that enforce the Trinity model.

I think most on this site are mostly the 'ignorant' go along with the label of Trinity, as part of their upbringing and club religious politics. And above all, it gives them some sense of belonging and really false security. They can be persuaded by pointing out their words and turning them on their heads. They might shy away for awhile from discussion although I bet they are pondering on these new suspect ideas and possibly dangerous ones that counter their version of Christ.

 

[Matthias]

Well said and right on target.

Trinitarians fall into different categories...those diehard creed-driven types, those ready to excommunicate you if you deviate from the historical set formulation and formal edicts and doctrines that enforce the Trinity model.

I think most on this site are mostly the 'ignorant' go along with the label of Trinity, as part of their upbringing and club religious politics. And above all, it gives them some sense of belonging and really false security. They can be persuaded by pointing out their words and turning them on their heads. They might shy away for awhile from discussion although I bet they are pondering on these new suspect ideas and possibly dangerous ones that counter their version of Christ.

How quickly do people change their minds about such things? It’s not something that should be rushed. It took me a couple of decades to change mine.

The constraints of history. It was Church history that played a major role in my formation. Most people know little about it, have little if any interest in it, and perceive it to be “dry as dust” and irrelevant to their daily lives.

How many sermons does the average person hear in their lifetime about Church history? How many sermons on the history of the doctrine of the Trinity?

They don’t hear it in Church and they don’t read it at home.

Now let me speak with them about Jewish monotheism. Will they be more interested or less interested in hearing about that than they are Church history?

I’m looking for the few, for the exceptions, not for the many.

I’m not looking for any in forums marked “Christians Only”. My primary target audience is non-Christian. To reach them I need to go, and to be, where they are.

 

[APAK]

How quickly do people change their minds about such things? It’s not something that should be rushed. It took me a couple of decades to change mine.

The constraints of history. It was Church history that played a major role in my formation. Most people know little about it, have little if any interest in it, and perceive it to be “dry as dust” and irrelevant to their daily lives.

How many sermons does the average person hear in their lifetime about Church history? How many sermons on the history of the doctrine of the Trinity?

They don’t hear it in Church and they don’t read it at home.

Now let me speak with them about Jewish monotheism. Will they be more interested or less interested in hearing about that than they are Church history?

I’m looking for the few, for the exceptions, not for the many.

I’m not looking for any in forums marked “Christians Only”. My primary target audience is non-Christian. To reach them I need to go, and to be, where they are.

Well you have a real common area for discussion with Islam, they believe in the one God, although their God may be different as who the Judahites worshipped.

And then there are the large number of non-Christian humanists and techno-brainiacs you can appeal to their sense of humanity and 'superior' knowledge and logic of their reality, as if that were true. To know that that they cannot data mine or discover the source of life.. a more of an intellectual challenge.

 

[talons]

Well you have a real common area for discussion with Islam, they believe in the one God, although their God may be different as who the Judahites worshipped.

And then there are the large number of non-Christian humanists and techno-brainiacs you can appeal to their sense of humanity and 'superior' knowledge and logic of their reality, as if that were true. To know that that they cannot data mine or discover the source of life.. a more of an intellectual challenge.

Maybe this is odd comment but here it comes . I do pray in tongues and I have noticed a few words that I say as the Holy Spirit takes the utterance , Allah and Eli . I thought after my prayer time , "Why Allah ?" I did find that Arabic Christians use Allah also .

 

[APAK]

Maybe this is odd comment but here it comes . I do pray in tongues and I have noticed a few words that I say as the Holy Spirit takes the utterance , Allah and Eli . I thought after my prayer time , "Why Allah ?" I did find that Arabic Christians use Allah also .

That I did not know...thanks for letting me know that...I mean God is of a pagan origin although we do not associate paganism with the term. It really comes down to how and what we identify as our Creator God.