I AM That I AM: What Does It Really Mean?

[Mr GLee]

"Two is company, three's a crowd" is a proverb, but not a biblical one. The Trinity doesn't violate the command about calling no man on earth you Father, because believers in the Trinity only call one of the three Persons of the Godhead "Father".

Hi Thanks I would offer.

Not a salvation issue I looked at it that way for some time . Three is the most popular

The Father empowered by His Holy Spirit worked his Spirit in and with the Son of man Jesus in order to both reveal his will and empower him to do it to the good pleasure of the eternal will of Father. (Philippians 2)

He lovingly commanded believers to murmur not or complain not. Jesus did the will of the Father with delight. Some like Jonah kicked and was dragged and wanted to die hoping God was a racist.

Two is the number word that denotes Christ is working Again Three is a crowd

The prophecies , that spoke of the three days and nights promised three demonstrations, three hidden purposes .

Genesis 3:15 And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.

The dynamic dual the one witness God has spoken

Again below bruise heel crush head. . work of two.

Isiah 53:5 But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed. All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way; and the Lord hath laid on him the iniquity of us all. He was oppressed, and he was afflicted, yet he opened not his mouth: he is brought as a lamb to the slaughter, and as a sheep before her shearers is dumb, so he openeth not his mouth.He was taken from prison and from judgment: and who shall declare his generation? for he was cut off out of the land of the living: for the transgression of my people was he stricken. And he made his grave with the wicked, and with the rich in his death; because he had done no violence, neither was any deceit in his mouth. Yet it pleased the Lord to bruise him; he hath put him to grief: when thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin, he shall see his seed, he shall prolong his days, and the pleasure of the Lord shall prosper in his hand.

Cross prophecy death , represented by a tree.

Genesis 40:19 Yet within three days shall Pharaoh lift up thy head from off thee, and shall hang thee on a tree; and the birds shall eat thy flesh from off thee.

Deuteronomy 21:22 And if a man have committed a sin worthy of death, and he be to be put to death, and thou hang him on a tree days (Three the end of a matter )

Then the final the tomb the demonstration of faith the unseen things of God.

Tomb representation of faith eternal (not seen

Job 21:31-33King James Version Who shall declare his way to his face? and who shall repay him what he hath done?
Yet shall he be brought to the grave, and shall remain in the tomb.

Three denotes the end of a matter. On the third day the glory of God departed. the beginning of the usage

 

[Arial]

You sound like you think you know Koine better than the majority of the translators. What's worse, you sound like you think you know the way Jewish people's thinking processes worked back then.

Truth is, you don't seem to understand the middle voice nor the aorist tense, and certainly not the aorist tense in the middle voice. Just how do you think the word γενέσθαι should have been translated, there? The language of Jesus' statement, there, the progression of his argument in the conversation, doesn't suggest any reference to the future. You are forcing something that doesn't fit.

Look through your list of the 37 occurrences there. "Is coming" is not even one of them. "To come" or "to become" only shows up when context demands it. Look at all the differences between them. You have no basis for your vehement claim except to support your thesis.

Strange thing is, even with whatever you want it to say, the word, "before", still places Christ as previous to Abraham. So your noise is all about whether the common Christians' use of I AM is valid, I think.

It changes nothing, Trevor. The point remains that before Abraham existed, Christ IS, or WAS, or WILL BE, or whatever —he is before Abraham.

And the Septuagint doesn't suggest, in Exodus 3:14, any future tense, just as John 8:58 does not.

Did you see his post #27. It seems he is making the text say that Jesus came before Abraham's second coming, and this second coming of Abraham is what we await. However when I suggested that was what he was saying and ask him about it, there was no response to that particular question and my assumption.

 

[LeviR]

You sound like you think you know Koine better than the majority of the translators. What's worse, you sound like you think you know the way Jewish people's thinking processes worked back then.

Truth is, you don't seem to understand the middle voice nor the aorist tense, and certainly not the aorist tense in the middle voice. Just how do you think the word γενέσθαι should have been translated, there? The language of Jesus' statement, there, the progression of his argument in the conversation, doesn't suggest any reference to the future. You are forcing something that doesn't fit.

Look through your list of the 37 occurrences there. "Is coming" is not even one of them. "To come" or "to become" only shows up when context demands it. Look at all the differences between them. You have no basis for your vehement claim except to support your thesis.

Strange thing is, even with whatever you want it to say, the word, "before", still places Christ as previous to Abraham. So your noise is all about whether the common Christians' use of I AM is valid, I think.

It changes nothing, Trevor. The point remains that before Abraham existed, Christ IS, or WAS, or WILL BE, or whatever —he is before Abraham.

And the Septuagint doesn't suggest, in Exodus 3:14, any future tense, just as John 8:58 does not.

Whatever you think best.

 

[LeviR]

Did you see his post #27. It seems he is making the text say that Jesus came before Abraham's second coming, and this second coming of Abraham is what we await. However when I suggested that was what he was saying and ask him about it, there was no response to that particular question and my assumption.

Trinitarians act as if there is no ambiguity in the text. This verse has been argued as to the true meaning for a long time.
Anyone who claims no ambiguity is an intellectually dishonest person.

The verb is in the prolonged form. Which means it takes the subject, in this case Abraham, and extends it to a prolonged period of time. “To become”

Believe whatever you like.

 

[Arial]

Trinitarians act as if there is no ambiguity in the text. This verse has been argued as to the true meaning for a long time.
Anyone who claims no ambiguity is an intellectually dishonest person.

The verb is in the prolonged form. Which means it takes the subject, in this case Abraham, and extends it to a prolonged period of time. “To become”

Believe whatever you like.

Claiming that one has found the truth of the matter---through the whole counsel of God applied to it---is not the same thing as claiming no ambiguity. There is no ambiguity in God, so there is no ambiguity in what he means.

Since we do not need to know foreign languages and their tenses, to glean the truths put forth in Scripture, your argument doing so is moot. A child with rudimentary language skill would see that there is something strange about the way Jesus said "Before Abraham was, I am." One of the keys then to understanding it is to find out why he said it in that way. If we then pay attention to the entire conversation that preceded it, we see what he has been saying and who he was saying it to. And when we see immediately after, the response to that odd statement by the ones who heard it, was to try and kill him, we see all those things must be a clue as to why Jesus made such an odd comment in the odd way in which he did it.

And perhaps, if we have been reading the Bible, we will remember the Exodus story and think, "Oh, I AM is the name of God given to Moses by God himself." And remembering that, we realize those teachers of the Law, must have concluded that when he said "I am" and at the same time placed his existence before that of Abraham, they thought he was equating himself with God, and therefore being God. And they were right. That is what he was doing.

 

[Arial]

@LeviR
Are you expecting the second coming of Abraham?

 

[LeviR]

@LeviR
Are you expecting the second coming of Abraham?

Gal 3:26 - For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus.

Gal 3:27 - For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ.

Gal 3:28 - There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neithermale nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.

Gal 3:29 - And if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.

When is the seed of Abraham to inherit the promises?

{edit}

Abraham and his seed are to inherit the promises when they are all raised from the dead together and COME with Christ who is also heir with them. And come when he does to their inheritance.

{edit}

 

[makesends]

I would not expect you to know the true gospel, because no Trinitarian does.

You realize this is both arrogant and condescending, don't you, besides being false? Arrogant, because none of us —you included— understands the gospel in worthy fashion, EVEN IF YOU HAVE IT RIGHT, and we don't.

 

[LeviR]

You realize this is both arrogant and condescending, don't you, besides being false? Arrogant, because none of us —you included— understands the gospel in worthy fashion, EVEN IF YOU HAVE IT RIGHT, and we don't.

God made promise to Abraham and his descendants that they would inherit the land Abraham was instructed to walk. Abraham walked that promised land as a stranger and sojourner until he died. He has never therefore COME to his promised inheritance. It must COME at a future time when all of his seed COME also to inherit the land promised to Abraham and his descendants.
Christ is also heir to the same promise, as he is the main heir through whom all others can be heirs with him.
When Christ COMES to claim his inheritance, all the spiritual seed of Abraham, including Abraham himself, COME with him.
These all are the NEW JERUSALEM, body of Christ, that will descend from heaven and reign with Christ over their inheritance.

Welcome to the gospel of the kingdom of God as preached by Jesus.

 

[makesends]

God made promise to Abraham and his descendants that they would inherit the land Abraham was instructed to walk. Abraham walked that promised land as a stranger and sojourner until he died. He has never therefore COME to his promised inheritance. It must COME at a future time when all of his seed COME also to inherit the land promised to Abraham and his descendants.
Christ is also heir to the same promise, as he is the main heir through whom all others can be heirs with him.
When Christ COMES to claim his inheritance, all the spiritual seed of Abraham, including Abraham himself, COME with him.
These all are the NEW JERUSALEM, body of Christ, that will descend from heaven and reign with Christ over their inheritance.

Welcome to the gospel of the kingdom of God as preached by Jesus.

And where does that differ with what @Arial believes?

 

[Arial]

Gal 3:26 - For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus.

Gal 3:27 - For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ.

Gal 3:28 - There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neithermale nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.

Gal 3:29 - And if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.

When is the seed of Abraham to inherit the promises?

{edit}

Abraham and his seed are to inherit the promises when they are all raised from the dead together and COME with Christ who is also heir with them. And come when he does to their inheritance.

{edit}

You have made something that didn't make any sense, make even less sense.

 

[LeviR]

And where does that differ with what @Arial believes?

Who says Abraham and his spiritual descendants are not TO COME into their inheritance?

 

[Arial]

And where does that differ with what @Arial believes?

His disagreement was not with the word "was" as he has been proclaiming and head to do the most fantastic song and dance, that resulted in a truly anti biblical doctrine of Abraham returning that he had to backtrack from. I suspect he accidently said it right. His real problem with the passage, the one he would not confront and was trying to erase was the "I am". Turns out the dance didn't really erase anything.

 

[Arial]

Who says Abraham and his spiritual descendants are not TO COME into their inheritance?

I don't know. It wasn't me. But where is the passage in question discussing inheritance? John 8:58

 

[LeviR]

His disagreement was not with the word "was" as he has been proclaiming and head to do the most fantastic song and dance, that resulted in a truly anti biblical doctrine of Abraham returning that he had to backtrack from. I suspect he accidently said it right. His real problem with the passage, the one he would not confront and was trying to erase was the "I am". Turns out the dance didn't really erase anything.

Abraham will return to the land he was promised and instructed by God to walk. The land he walked but never possessed but is promised to possess.
Believe it or not. He is coming to his inheritance. That’s a promise.

 

[LeviR]

I don't know. It wasn't me. But where is the passage in question discussing inheritance? John 8:58

The reason the intellectually honest have sought to explain the verse is because they know the verb does not mean “was”, “ was born” or “existed”.

They know it means “ to become” , “ to come to pass” or “ to happen”.

 

[makesends]

His disagreement was not with the word "was" as he has been proclaiming and head to do the most fantastic song and dance, that resulted in a truly anti biblical doctrine of Abraham returning that he had to backtrack from. I suspect he accidently said it right. His real problem with the passage, the one he would not confront and was trying to erase was the "I am". Turns out the dance didn't really erase anything.

yep I noticed that

 

[makesends]

The reason the intellectually honest have sought to explain the verse is because they know the verb does not mean “was”, “ was born” or “existed”.

They know it means “ to become” , “ to come to pass” or “ to happen”.

An intellectually honest person would do a tad bit more research before making themselves an authority on the question. The best Greek authority I know of would not be so adamant.

 

[LeviR]

An intellectually honest person would do a tad bit more research before making themselves an authority on the question.

All one needs to do is to look at the form of the verb and how it is applied in other cases. If they do, they must agree that the verb does not mean “was”, “was born” or “existed”.
It’s as simple as that.
If one chooses to use it in another way then what is meant, he changes the entire meaning and makes the verse false.

 

[makesends]

All one needs to do is to look at the form of the verb and how it is applied in other cases. If they do, they must agree that the verb does not mean “was”, “was born” or “existed”.
It’s as simple as that.
If one chooses to use it in another way then what is meant, he changes the entire meaning and makes the verse false.

No. It is not as simple as that. Pardon me for how this sounds, but you don't know what you are talking about. An intellectually honest person would admit that there is always more to something than what he thinks he knows.


Consider what you yourself referenced —37 (36?) other cases where the same word is used differently, according to context. Then, on your own authority, you claim none of them was translated, "was". Precisely, but not quite accurately, as there were some that mean the same thing, or variances of it, such as, "came to be". (I don't have the concordance in front of me to show other translations/uses of that word, but this conversation has gone inane, and I don't need to prove anything here, but to mention that you are over your head.) And if some of them are translated different ways from each other, (and you didn't explain why that was), what makes you suppose that "was" is a bad translation?