Jesus' I AMs

[Odë:hgöd]

.
Before coming into the world as a creature, God's son was a divine being known as
the Word (John 1:1a)

The Word is translated from the Greek noun logos (log'-os) which basically refers to
something spoken as opposed to something written, viz; logos refers to voice, i.e.
speech.

God's spoken words first appear in the Bible at Gen 1:3 where it says:

"Let there be light"

So we could legitimately paraphrase John 1:2 to read like this:

"All things were made by God's voice; and apart from His voice was not any thing
made that was made."

Thus it's seen that God preferred to command the cosmos into existence instead of
cogitating it into existence.

"By the voice of God the heavens were of old" (2Pet 3:5)

God's speech is more than sound and syllables; it is an extension of Himself, i.e.
His speech is charged with an energy so powerful that it can make inert objects
become alert with consciousness; e.g. John 1:4

"In God's voice was life"

Seeing as how the words that come out of God's mouth are no less divine than
Himself, then I think it's valid to concur that His speech is a sentient being.

Please don't ask me how God's voice is a sentient being because it is just too far
beyond the capability of my below-average IQ to comprehend.

So then, when Jesus said "I am the life" I think it safe to paraphrase him as: "I am
that life", i.e. the life in God's voice; and seeing as how the life in God's voice is an
extension of Himself, then we certainly cannot refuse to recognize The Word as
more than just a divine being, instead, as the supreme of all beings.
_

 

[Albion]

.
Before coming into the world as a creature, God's son was a divine being known as
the Word (John 1:1a)

The Word is translated from the Greek noun logos (log'-os) which basically refers to
something spoken as opposed to something written, viz; logos refers to voice, i.e.
speech.

God's spoken words first appear in the Bible at Gen 1:3 where it says:

"Let there be light"

So we could legitimately paraphrase John 1:2 to read like this:

"All things were made by God's voice; and apart from His voice was not any thing
made that was made."

Thus it's seen that God preferred to command the cosmos into existence instead of
cogitating it into existence.

"By the voice of God the heavens were of old" (2Pet 3:5)

God's speech is more than sound and syllables; it is an extension of Himself, i.e.
His speech is charged with an energy so powerful that it can make inert objects
become alert with consciousness; e.g. John 1:4

"In God's voice was life"

Seeing as how the words that come out of God's mouth are no less divine than
Himself, then I think it's valid to concur that His speech is a sentient being.

Please don't ask me how God's voice is a sentient being because it is just too far
beyond the capability of my below-average IQ to comprehend.

So then, when Jesus said "I am the life" I think it safe to paraphrase him as: "I am
that life", i.e. the life in God's voice; and seeing as how the life in God's voice is an
extension of Himself, then we certainly cannot refuse to recognize The Word as
more than just a divine being, instead, as the supreme of all beings.
_

Your view of the Second Person of the Trinity makes him an appendage of God or one of God's attributes, which is a denial of the Trinity.

None of the persona of the Trinity are less than God and simply something owned or operated BY God. And by the way, all three are referred to in Scripture by personal pronouns ("He,""Him.") This would not be the case if the references were only to some quality of God or action taken by Him.

 

[Odë:hgöd]

.

a denial of the Trinity.

Post No.1 describes the logos as " the supreme of all beings." Well; unless there is
more than one supreme of all beings out there, then I think we have to concede
that the voice of God is a legitimate element of the Trinity.
_

 

[Odë:hgöd]

.
Continuing from post No.1

• 1John 1:1-2 . .That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which
we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon, and our hands have
handled, of the Word of life-- for the life was manifested, and we have seen it, and
bear witness, and show unto you that eternal life, which was with the Father, and
was manifested unto us.

So the life that's in God's voice is a sentient being who always was, always is, and
always shall be. That (almost) makes perfect sense because if God always was,
always is, and always shall be; then of course His voice would be no different in
that respect.

The part that's difficult to grasp is how God's voice is a sentient being when the
human voice is just noise; and the moment it speaks words, they fade away to
nothing and can't be recalled with any more ease than recalling the ring of a bell or
the toot of a horn, i.e. spoken human words are DOA (dead on arrival) and that's
because the human voice isn't a sentient being.

Now, this sentient eternal being we've been examining isn't merely academic
doctrine; it's a supernatural presence.

• 1John 5:11-12 . .God has given us eternal life, and this life is in His son. He who
has the Son has the life; he who does not have God's son does not have the life.

The eternal life spoken of in that verse, and in 1John 1:1-2, is of course the self
same life that Jesus spoke of when he said: "I am the life". (John 11:25 and John
14:6)

If I could take some liberties here, I might paraphrase 1John 5:11-12 to read like
this:

"God has given us His voice, and this voice is in His son. He who has the Son has
this voice; he who does not have God's son does not have this voice."

God's voice, a.k.a. His son, a.k.a. eternal life, isn't aboard Jesus' followers by
means of a physical presence, rather, a spirit presence.

• Rom 8:9-10 . .You are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if indeed the Spirit of God
dwells in you. But if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he does not belong
to him.
_

 

[Albion]

.


Post No.1 describes the logos as " the supreme of all beings."

That there is only one God isn't the issue.

Well; unless there is
more than one supreme of all beings out there, then I think we have to concede
that the voice of God is a legitimate element of the Trinity.
_

You're right to point out that there are some inconsistencies in the post I replied to. However, this follow-up you've given us doesn't solve the problem because in it you appear to be saying, again, that the Logos is merely the voice of God and, further, that this is "an element" of God. The Trinitarian nature of God has been omitted (or denied).

 

[Odë:hgöd]

.
• John 14:6 . . I am the way

The Greek word translated "way" is somewhat ambiguous. It can not only indicate a
route-- a path, a road, or a trail --but also progress.

For example, it takes roughly five months for people afoot to complete the entire
route of the Pacific Coast Trail from Campo California to Washington State's border
with Canada.

Resourceful hiker trash report their daily progress on social media platforms like
FaceBook and YouTube. Successful thru hikers-- those who complete the journey
--publish one final progress report when they reach their ultimate destination: the
Canadian border.

That's the sort of progress report that Jesus announced on the cross when he said
"It is finished." His crucifixion was trail's end, and he capped the journey by
crossing the border, viz: by rising from the dead.

People who have come to faith in Christ, do not need to retrace his steps because
they already did. God-- by means of some strange procedure that I do not
understand at all --reckons them crucified, died, buried, and resurrected along with,
and in, His son. (Rom 6:3-11, Gal 2:20, and Col 3:2-3)
_

 

[Odë:hgöd]

.
• John 11:25 . . I am the resurrection.

People in the Christian resurrection will be immortal. (1Cor 15:51-54)

At the time Jesus made that statement, he wasn't immortal. We can be sure of that
because had he been, then it would've been very difficult for the Romans to
execute him on the cross. He's immortal now (Rom 6:9 and 1Tim 6:16) but he
wasn't then. So; there's apparently more to the resurrection that he spoke of than
immortality.

Christ was not only a human life, but he was also a divine life.

• John 1:1 . . In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was God.

• John 5:26-27 . . For as the Father has life in himself, so he has granted the Son
to have life in himself.

• 1Cor 15:45 . .The first man, Adam, became a living soul. The last Adam, a life
giving spirit.

• 1John 1:1-2 . . That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which
we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked at and our hands have touched
this we proclaim concerning the Word of life. The life appeared; we have seen it
and testify to it, and we proclaim to you the eternal life, which was with the Father
and has appeared to us.

So, when the life of Jesus' mortal body expired on the cross, his eternal aspect was
unaffected because eternal life is immune to death, i.e. it cannot end nor can it be
killed. This characteristic is true of his followers too. Though their bodies pass
away, their eternal aspect will never pass away.

• John 10:27-28 . . My sheep listen to my voice; I know them, and they follow me.
I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish

• John 11:25-26 . . He who believes in me will live, even though he dies; and
whoever lives and believes in me will never die.

Eternal life is available right now, in this life, before people pass on.

• John 5:24 . . I tell you the truth, whoever hears my word and believes Him who
sent me has eternal life and will not be condemned; he has crossed over from
death to life.

• John 5:25 . . I tell you the truth; a time is coming, and has now come, when the
dead will hear the voice of the Son of God and those who hear will live.

But there's a catch. Christ is the resurrection. Therefore people cannot have eternal
life a la carte as it can only be had by having Christ too seeing as he is, in some
mysterious way, the very existence of eternal life even as his Father is the very
existence of eternal life.

• 1John 5:11-12 . . God has given us eternal life, and this life is in His son. He who
has the Son has the life; he who does not have the Son of God does not have the
life.
_

 

[Odë:hgöd]

.
The 10th chapter of John begins with what appears to be a community stockyard
where large numbers of sheep from all over are penned when they aren't out to
pasture; probably during winter when grasses might be scarce.

It also appears that more than one shepherd is keeping sheep there; and then in
Spring, when the weather begins warming and grasses are greening up, the
shepherds come to round up their flocks and move them out to pasture.

One of the shepherds in this story stands out. He apparently has a vested interest
in his sheep because he bought and paid for them out of his own pocket whereas
the other shepherds are seasonal wranglers, i.e. employees.

The exceptional shepherd in the story is personal with his sheep, and has even
given each individual head a pet name; and the sheep have somehow memorized
their own names, which makes it easier for Mr.Exceptional to cull his sheep from
the stockyard without inadvertently taking another man's sheep by mistake.

Mr.Exceptional's sheep not only know their own names, but they are familiar
enough with the timbre of his voice to recognize it from among all the other
shepherds. This suggests to me that this particular shepherd continually communes
with his sheep along the trail to pasture and also when they're settled down for the
night too. I wouldn't be surprised if he sang to his sheep like cowboys sometimes
do to calm the nerves of the cattle under their care.

Then the scene shifts to the outdoors, a ways off from the stockyard. The sheep are
bedded down for the night under circumstances where the only way that predators
can get to the sheep is past Mr.Exceptional himself, i.e. over his dead body, so to
speak. The location could be a cave, or a small box canyon with high walls:
anything would do just so long as there is only one way in and one way out.

• John 10:11 . . I am the good shepherd. A good shepherd lays down his life for the
sheep.

The thing to note is that the quality of Mr.Exceptional's dedication, his competency,
and his reliability is so high that he can confidently guarantee that any, and every,
sheep seeking shelter in his stronghold is 110% safe from all alarm.

• John 10:9 . . I am the gate. Whoever enters through me will be saved

Were Mr.Exceptional a so-so shepherd; then he wouldn't dare say "will be" saved;
no, he'd have to tone it down a bit and say "can be" saved. That would leave him
some room for error. But when he says "will be" saved, he's claiming a 0.0% failure
rate. This shepherd is one tough cookie!
_

 

[Odë:hgöd]

.
• John 6:48-49 . . . I am the bread of life. Your fathers ate the manna in the
wilderness, and they died.

Manna was very nourishing but limited; it didn't sustain Moses' people indefinitely
even though it was God-given and miraculous.

Psalm 78:24-25 is commonly translated to say that the manna was angels' food,
but in none of the other fifteen places where the Hebrew word appears is it
translated to indicate celestial beings. It usually speaks of strength, valiance,
and/or superiority.

I think we can safely paraphrase Ps 78:25 to say that manna was powerful food;
and indeed it was because it's common to develop deficiency diseases when people
eat only one kind of food at every meal day after day; especially vegans. But
according to Deut 8:4, the people apparently enjoyed exceptional health.

• John 6:50-51a . .This is the bread which comes down from heaven, that a man
may eat of it and not die. I am the living bread which came down from heaven; if
any one eats of this bread, he will live forever;

Jesus chose a good comparison. Up till that moment, the Jews knew of no foods
superior to manna.

• John 6:51b-52 . . And the bread which I shall give for the life of the world is my
flesh. The Jews then disputed among themselves, saying: How can this man give us
his flesh to eat?

The Jews misunderstood Jesus to mean cannibalism. Well; he laid that idea to rest
with this statement:

• John 6:61-62 . . Aware that his disciples were grumbling about this, Jesus said to
them: Does this offend you? What if you see the Son of Man ascend to where he
was before?

In other words; in order for people to successfully cannibalize Jesus' body, it would
have to be accessible where they could cut into it with a knife and fork. Were he to
depart for heaven, which he eventually did; people would lose access to his body
and thus find it impossible to comply if true that his teaching spoke of cannibalism.
So we can rule out a literal meaning of his words right off the bat.

Jesus' teachings were somewhat cryptic.

• John 6:63 . .The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing. The words I have
spoken to you are spirit and they are life.

Spirit words oftentimes contain hidden meanings not easily discerned by human
intelligence.

• 1Cor 2:13-15 . .We speak, not in words taught us by human wisdom but in words
taught by the Spirit, expressing spiritual truths in spiritual words. The man without
the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God, for they are
foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually
discerned.

Jesus' spirit words were not well-received by the audience that day.

• John 6:66 . . From this time many of his disciples turned back and no longer
followed him.

Well; no surprise there. The reason they gave up on Jesus was simply because they
were listening to his spirit words with human ears instead of hearing them with ears
provided by God; ergo:

• John 6:63-65 . .There are some of you who do not believe. This is why I told you
that no one can come to me unless the Father has enabled him.

In order to get in on the Father's enabling, people must first be confident that
Jesus' teachings are reliable.

• John 6:67-69 . . You do not want to leave too, do you? Jesus asked the twelve.
Simon Peter answered him: Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of
eternal life. We believe and know that you are the Holy One of God.

That was easily the wisest decision Peter ever made. Though he didn't have a clue
what Jesus was talking about at first, our guy was confident that Jesus was the
voice of God. That's a really, really good place to start with Christ.

• John 12:49 . . I have not spoken of myself; but the Father which sent me, He
gave me a commandment, what I should say, and what I should speak.
_

 

[Odë:hgöd]

.
• John 15:1 . . I am the true vine

A religion that incorporates father confessors resembles the true vine; but a setup
like that, though structured like the true vine is, nevertheless, an impersonation of
the real McCoy.

Still speaking to the branches of the true vine; Jesus says:

• John 15:3 . . Now you are clean through the word which I have spoken unto you.

The Greek word translated "clean" doesn't indicate sinless perfection. Katharos
(kath-ar-os') speaks of hygiene, i.e. bathed, washed, purified, purged, and/or
sanitized; which is accomplished by means of the genuine father confessor.

• 1 John 1:9 . . If we confess our sins, He is faithful and just to forgive us our sins,
and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.

Sill speaking to the branches of the true vine; Jesus says:

• John 15:4a . . Abide in me, and I in you.

The abiding about which Jesus spoke is all the same as fellowship, which is
intimately associated with the hygiene instructed by 1 John 1:9

• 1 John 1:3-7 . .That which we have seen and heard declare we unto you, that you
also may have fellowship with us: and truly our fellowship is with the Father, and
with his Son Jesus Christ. And these things write we unto you, that your joy may be
full.

. . .This then is the message which we have heard of him, and declare unto you,
that God is light, and in Him is no darkness at all. If we say that we have fellowship
with Him, and walk in darkness, we lie, and do not the truth: But if we walk in the
light, as He is in the light, we have fellowship one with another, and the blood of
Jesus Christ His son cleanses us from all sin.

Sill speaking to the branches of the true vine; Jesus says:

• John 15:4b-6 . . As the branch cannot bear fruit of itself, except it abide in the
vine; no more can you, except you abide in me. If a man abide not in me, he is
cast forth as a branch, and is withered; and men gather them, and cast them into
the fire, and they are burned.

In a nutshell; when a branch fails to keep itself cleaned up, then it dries up; i.e. it
becomes yard debris which in that day ranchers disposed by means of a bonfire.
Needless to say; a yard-debris Christian has pretty much permanently lost their
fellowship with God while down here on the earth.

NOTE: "Fellowship" is translated from the Greek word koinonia (koy-nohn ee'-ah)
which isn't redemption. It's more like association and/or partnership in a common
endeavor. And seeing as how it's futile to prune dead wood, then I think it's safe to
assume that yard-debris Christians have lost that benefit too.
_

 

[Odë:hgöd]

.
• Rev 22:16 . . I am the offspring of David

The Greek word translated "offspring" is genos (ghen'-os) which basically refers to
kin, viz: one's relatives.

Christ's kinship with David is quite a bit more specific in Rom 1:1-3 where it says:

"Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed of David according to the
flesh"

The Greek word translated "seed" in that passage is sperma (sper'-mah) which is a
bit ambiguous because it can refer to spiritual progeny as well as to biological
progeny; for example:

• Gal 3:29 . . If you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham's seed.

That seed is obviously spiritual progeny; whereas David's is biological because it's
"according to the flesh" i.e. his physical human body.

Seeing as Jesus' dad Joseph played no role in his son's conception, and his wife was
a virgin at the time, then Jesus' biological association with David defaults thru his
mother, i.e. Mary was biologically related to David; which places her baby in
David's tribe; the tribe of Judah. (Heb 7:14)

This fact may be somewhat insignificant to most Gentiles-- other than their interest
in Christ's connection to Abraham's promises --but Jesus' association with David is
extremely important to the Jews because in order to validate Jesus' right to rule
over the land of Israel, he absolutely must be biologically situated in the Davidic
dynasty: no getting around it. (2Sam 7:8-17 and Ps 89:3-4)
_

 

[Odë:hgöd]

.
• Mark 14:61-62 . . Again the high priest was questioning him, and saying to him:
Are you the Christ, the son of the Blessed?" And Jesus said: I am;

The connection between the Christ (a.k.a. Messiah) and the son of the Blessed
(a.k.a. God) wasn't something new and unusual. The connection was already well
known; not just among Judaism's elite, but also among ordinary pew warmers too.

So; how did they know? Who told them that Messiah would be the son of God
rather than just another nondescript son? For example:

"I said: You are all sons of the Most High." (Ps 82:6)

In a nutshell: It was believed that all kings of the Davidic dynasty were each in
their turn the son of God in a special way. For example David (Ps 89:27) Solomon
(2Sam 7:12-14) and all the others (Psalm 2 and Psalm 45)

NOTE: The Hebrew equivalent to Christ is mashiyach (maw-shee'-akh) which simply
means anointed-- i.e. divine appointment to a throne --and isn't limited to Jewish
monarchy, e.g. Cyrus (Isa 45:1)

So then, Jesus admitted that he was indeed the son of God; and by doing so laid
claim to the Davidic monarchy-- not only in the presence of the high priest, but also
Pilate; the Roman official governing Israel at that time.

• John 18:37 . . Pilate said: You are a king, then? Jesus answered: You are right in
saying I am a king. In fact, for this reason I was born.
_

 

[Odë:hgöd]

.
• Rev 22:16 .. I am the root of David

This hails way back to the eleventh and fifty-third chapters of Isaiah where there's
predicted that David's root will sprout a twig that ultimately becomes a branch.

The two chapters aren't very long; and I have to say they are very much worth the
reading because they tell so much about Christ's person, his purpose, his work, and
his future kingdom on earth.

• Rev 22:16 . . I am the bright morning star.

By comparing Isa 14:12, Luke 10:18, and Rev 2:26-28; it can be readily deduced
that the Bible's morning stars are persons wielding political power. But none are as
radiant as Christ because he's the signet promised to Zerubbabel in Hag 2:21-23.
In other words: Jesus wields the power of God so much so that he is in the position
of God as God.

• 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
_

 

[Pedrito]

=========================================================================

Three things:

=========================================================================

1. Recognition and Acknowledgement

Odë:hgöd’s attention to scholarship should be recognised and acknowledged, even if we may not all agree (for whatever reason) with every idea he presents.

=========================================================================

2a. Inter-Language Translation and Understanding

When Jesus spoke, he was expressing Himself (at least in the main) in either Hebrew or Aramaic. The two languages are closely related, and have similar terminology and thought patterns.

Unfortunately (in some ways) our English translations are based on Greek translations of Jesus’ original Hebrew/Aramaic thoughts. Greek is a totally unrelated language which embraces terminology and thought patterns which are totally foreign to the original language used by Jesus. The Gospel writers (or the Greek translations of what they originally wrote) had/have the same problems.

As did the writers of the epistles, who were forced to express Hebrew thoughts in a language that was incompatible with those thoughts.

=========================================================================

2b. Cultural Understanding and its Lack

The majority of Christians are not of Hebrew background. I am numbered among them. The natural temptation is to look at the Greek scriptures (and to translate them) superficially, without considering the original Hebrew thought patterns behind them.

That can lead to misunderstandings and, at times, woeful translations.

=========================================================================

3. Case in Point – The Logos – “The Word”

Some hundreds of years BC, Hebrew scholars developed the Greek translation called the Septuagint, so that Jews scattered abroad who only spoke Greek would have the Holy Hebrew Scriptures in a form that they could understand. Those translators were faced with that significant linguistic dilemma.

For instance, the Septuagint uses the one Greek word “logos” to translate 17 different Hebrew words. Yes, seventeen. (You can look them up if you wish.) Yet our English translators chose to look no further than the superficial meaning of the Greek word itself.

The ideas expressed by Odë:hgöd display a depth of investigation and understanding that goes well beyond the norm.

Especially since one of those seventeen Hebrew words means “intelligence” and another implies it. And one means "voice".

=========================================================================

 

[Odë:hgöd]

.
• Matt 11:29a . . I am meek

( Moses was meek too. Num 12:3 )

Jesus would likely get challenged for his statement seeing as how he was very not
passive while evicting merchants from the Temple area. So, if meekness isn't the
opposite of anger and aggression, then what are we talking about here?

The Greek word translated "meek" is praus (prah-ooce') which means mild, defined
by Webster's as gentle in nature or behavior; i.e. temperate; viz: agreeable,
approachable, reasonable, calm, mellow, and self-controlled.

Well it appears to me that Jesus is the kind of man that picks his battles
carefully, and avoids getting all riled up over trifles, i.e. he's not bipolar, nor ready
to fight at the drop of a hat, nor does he consider every disagreement an act of war
to be won at any cost.

In other words; Jesus was temperate, self controlled, agreeable, reasonable,
approachable, patient, tolerant, not easily insulted, and lenient.

Non-temperate people could be characterized as moody, grudging, irritable,
emotional, thin-skinned, belligerent, militant, pugnacious, brawling, defensive,
confrontational, and reactive; around whom everybody has to walk on egg shells all
the time to avoid setting them off.

A man mellow in demeanor should never be assumed lacking in strength, courage,
conviction, or self confidence. Anybody who's studied the lives of Moses and Jesus
can easily testify that neither of those men were either timid, wimpy, or vacillating.

• Matt 11:29a . . . I am humble.

Jesus didn't have a problem with conceit; defined by Webster's as as excessive self
appreciation of one's own worth or virtue. In other words hubris; which often
indicates a loss of contact with reality and an overestimation of one's own
competence, accomplishments or capabilities.

We can trust Jesus' opinion of himself because he has been approved by a much
higher critic than even the best and the brightest among us.

• Matt 3:16-17 . . And Jesus, when he was baptized, went up straightway out of the
water: and, lo, the heavens were opened unto him, and he saw the Spirit of God
descending like a dove, and lighting upon him: and lo a voice from heaven, saying:
This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.

And again:

• Matt 17:4-5 . . Peter said to Jesus: Lord, it is good for us to be here. If you wish, I
will put up three shelters-one for you, one for Moses and one for Elijah. While he
was still speaking, a bright cloud enveloped them, and a voice from the cloud said:
This is my Son, whom I love; with him I am well pleased. Listen to him.
_

 

[Odë:hgöd]

.
• John 8:23-24 . . You are from below; I am from above. You are of this world; I
am not of this world.

Jesus had a tremendous advantage over his opponents. Before coming into the
world as the flesh of John 1:14, the Word was with God (John 1:1) which means his
religious training and his personal experience are far more reliable, and far more
advanced than theirs. Everything Jesus knew about the Father was given to him
straight from the horse's mouth, so to speak, rather than from Judaism's rabbis
who, even to this day, tend to disagree among themselves.

• John 3:31-34 . . He has come from above and is greater than anyone else. I am
of the earth, and my understanding is limited to the things of earth, but he has
come from heaven. He tells what he has seen and heard, but how few believe what
he tells them! Those who believe him discover that God is true. For he is sent by
God. He speaks God's words, for God's Spirit is upon him without measure or limit.

• John 8:26 . .He that sent me is true; and I speak to the world those things which
I have heard of Him.

NOTE: According to Matt 12:42, Luke 11:31, John 1:1-14, and Col 2:3; Christ's
wisdom trumps Solomon's, so beware of using proof texts from Solomon's thoughts
to moderate Christ's.
_

 

[Odë:hgöd]

.
• Matt 28:20 . . And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age.

I would've expected Jesus to say "I will be with you" but "I am with you" is better
because it assured Jesus' men that his departure forty days later would not cause
an interruption in their association, viz: Jesus' accompaniment with his men is
permanent and perpetual.

The Greek word translated "age" is aion (ahee-ohn') which is the very same word in
the beginning of chapter 24 at verse 3 which reads:

"As Jesus was sitting on the Mount of Olives, the disciples came to him privately.
Tell us-- they said --when will this happen, and what will be the sign of your coming
and of the end of the age?"

It's been construed by some that "the end of the age" spoken of in Matt 24:3 and
Matt 28:20 is the end of the world predicted at 2Pet 3:10 and Rev 21:1 but judging
by Jesus' attending comments, I'm pretty sure it's limited to the space of history
between when he was here last time till the day when he returns next time.

When Jesus made the promise in Matt 28:20, he had roughly 120 core supporters
(Acts 1:15) and several hundred rank and file (1Cor 15:6) yet he made the promise
to only the eleven apostles.

Anyway, in order for the Lord's promise to be valid, it had to include the apostles'
afterlife existence seeing as how they're all gone now and the end of the age is not
yet.

God made a similar promise to Jacob in the 28th chapter of Genesis which reads:

"I am with you and will watch over you wherever you go, and I will bring you back
to this land. I will not leave you until I have done what I have promised you."

That promise had to include Jacob's afterlife; which suggests an explanation for
Jesus' comment at Matt 22:31-32 where he said:

"But about the resurrection of the dead-have you not read what God said to you: I
am the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob. He is not the God
of the dead but of the living."
_

 

[Pedrito]

=========================================================================

From memory, I have had occasion in the past to highlight some superficial and illogical techniques used as attempts to invalidate information considered disquieting, and to diminish the credibility of people presenting that information.

=========================================================================

Without singling anybody out for particular attention, I would simply point out the following techniques observed in this thread:

1. Deliberate misquoting.

Original statement: the voice of God is a legitimate element of the Trinity

Accusation: you appear to be saying, again, that the Logos is merely the voice of God (emphasis as in original).

2. Assigning a dishonest meaning.

Original statement: the voice of God is a legitimate element of the Trinity

Accusation: and, further, that this is "an element" of God. The Trinitarian nature of God has been omitted (or denied).

Well, the word “element” means an inherent or essential part of something. Is not the Logos inherently part of the godhead?

Also, the accusation directly contradicts the plain statement, which includes the word “Trinity”.

=========================================================================

Readers, please be on the lookout for dishonest techniques. And be aware that other statements made by perpetrators, may not necessarily be trustworthy.

(And just how close does deliberate misquoting, and how close does the assignment of dishonest meanings, come to flaming?)

=========================================================================