Colossians2:9 demystified.

 "Fulness of Deity" - Col. 2:9 

  Col. 2:9 - "For in him [Jesus] the whole fulness [Gr. pleroma] of deity [theotes]  dwells[1]  bodily" - RSV. 

     The word theotes appears only this once in the entire New Testament [NT] (and never in the ancient Greek translation of the Old Testament [OT]).  It has been rendered in various trinitarian translations as follows: "Godhead" - KJV, ASV, NEB, REB, MLB; "deity" - RSV, NASB, NRSV, NIV, NAB, CBW, Mo, By; "divinity" - JB, NJB.  It should be remembered also that "Godhead" as found in the older English Bibles (such as KJV) had a different meaning than it has come to have in modern English.  "In older English ['Godhead'] was a synonym for divinity"[2]   -  p. 221, Vol. 2, A Dictionary of the Bible, Hastings, 1988 printing;  and p. 362, An Intermediate Greek-English Lexicon, Liddell and Scott, Oxford University Press, 1994 printing.

  

     Theotes simply does not literally mean "godhead," and the use of "godhead" by the KJV translators was not intended as some would understand it today.[3]     Actually, the heavenly Father, alone, is the closest thing to a literal "Godhead" to be found  anywhere in the inspired Scriptures - see  1 Cor. 11:3.

     Col. 2:9 is also rendered by noted trinitarian scholars with these translations of theotes: "The full content of divine nature" - TEV and GNB (also see Barclay); "God's whole being" - Beck (NT); "God's nature" - AT; "Yet it is in [Christ] that God gives a full and complete expression of himself (within the physical limits that he set himself in Christ)." - Phillips; "In him resides all the fulfillment of the divine" - Lattimore.

                                             *   *   *   *   * 

     The trinitarian argument that Col. 2:9 proves that Jesus is God overlooks the common understanding of "fulness of ..." and "filled with ..." by those who used those common phrases in New Testament times.  For example, the person who became "filled with Holy Spirit" (Eph. 5:18) was greatly influenced by that spirit, but he certainly did not become the Holy Spirit.

     And having "the fulness" of someone or something could similarly mean being greatly influenced by that person or thing.  The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology says:

  

"Just as a person can be full of pain, joy, love, and virtue, he can also be said to be filled with God ..., i.e. possessed and inspired by God." - Vol. 1, p. 734.[4]   

     Surely we wouldn't expect anyone who is "filled with" God or who receives the "fulness of" God to actually be God!  Nor would we expect anyone who has the "fulness of" Christ to actually be Christ!   In fact it clearly shows that he is NOT the person with whom he is "filled"!

   

     So, when we read Eph. 1:22, 23 - "the church, which is his body, the fulness of him who fills all in all" - we do not think that all real Christians are actually Christ.  The New Oxford Annotated Bible (1977) tells us in a footnote for this scripture:

  

"the Church, as the fulness of Christ, is the complement of his mystic [figurative] person;  he is the head, the Church is his body."

     The noted trinitarian NT Greek scholar, W. E. Vine, explains:

"Fill, Fill Up": "... (a) of the members of the Church, the Body of Christ, as filled by Him", Eph. 1:23 (`all things in all the members'); ... in 3:19, of their being filled ... `with' all the fulness of God; of their being 'made full' in Him, Col. 2:10." - p. 426, An Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words.

     Yes, at Eph. 3:19 we actually see Paul expressing the thought "that you [Ephesian Christians] may be filled with all the fulness of God" - RSV.  And at Eph. 4:13 we find - "until we all attain ... to the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ" - RSV

.

     Even the trinitarian reference work, the New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology, commenting about the word "fullness" at Col. 2:9 ("In his [Jesus'] body lives the fullness of divinity" - JB), tells us:

  

"this fullness which is described in Col. 1:15-18 is entirely related to Christ's cross (v. 20), death (v. 22), and resurrection (v. 18).  For this reason believers also have this fullness in him (2:10)." - Vol. 1, p. 740, Zondervan, 1986. - See AT, CBW, NAB (especially 1991 ed.).

  "Outside the NT the word occurs in Ignatius in a sense which is clearly influenced by the NT, and apparently in the meaning of the Divine fulness, as going forth and blessing and residing ["dwelling"] in the Church [the congregation]" - p. 1, Vol. 4, A Dictionary of the Bible, James Hastings, ed., Hendrickson Publ., 1988.

     For exactly the same reasons that we don't allow such figurative language to persuade us that all true Christians actually are (or may become) God or Christ, we should not let it persuade us that Christ is actually God!

     The Bible tells us how essential to eternal life it is to know God and Jesus (John 17:3 and 2 Thess. 1:8, 9).  Therefore, if one "knows" Jesus as God and "knows" God as three (or two) persons and such "knowledge" turns out to be false, then he is certainly not on the road to eternal life!

  

     And as we saw above, if Christians can be "filled with"  God  and receive the "fulness of" God,  we know by this very wording that they are not God!   And we know that those Christians  who had the "fulness of" Christ  could not actually be Christ!   The very wording itself shows that someone else  is "filling" (or influencing) the person who is being "filled" (influenced).  In fact it clearly shows that he CANNOT be the person (or thing) with whom he is "filled"!

    

     Therefore, those Christians who are "filled with"  or have the "fulness" of God are not God!  Those Christians who are "filled with" or have the "fulness" of Christ are not Christ!   Those men and women who are "filled with" or have the "fulness" of  the Holy Spirit are not the Holy Spirit!!   And even if we interpret Col. 2:9 as meaning that Christ has the fullness of "Godhood" in him, it still cannot mean Christ is God!!

............................................

                                                Notes

1.          What about things and persons "dwelling" in us?  Does this mean we are those things or persons?  Of course not!  Compare "dwell" at Ro. 7:20 (sin `dwells' in people); 8:9,11 (holy spirit `dwells' in us);  1 Cor. 3:16 (holy spirit "dwelling" in Christians);  Eph. 3:17 (Christ "dwells" in our hearts);  2 Tim. 1:5 (faith "dwelt" in her);  2 Pet. 3:13 (righteousness "dwells").  Actually, the word "dwell" shows we cannot be those things or persons who "dwell" in us!

       It  is similar to the term "image of ...."  If someone is the image of something or someone else, then he cannot be that person or thing.  For example, men being the image of God (Gen. 1:26; 1 Cor. 11:7; 2 Cor. 3:18) proves, in itself, that none of them actually is God!  No one and no thing actually are their own images!  Therefore, when scripture tells us that the resurrected, heaven-dwelling Jesus Christ is "the image of God," it is certain that he is not God! -  2 Cor. 4:4; Col. 1:15.  [Also "reflection" or "refulgence" in Heb. 1:3, RSV, NRSV, NJB, AT, MLB, GNB, CBW, NAB (`70), NAB (`91).]

2.         "Divinity" is a word with various meanings and levels of meanings: "divinity ...  1. a being divine  2. a god  3. theology - the Divinity: God."  - Webster's New World Dictionary, 1973.

3.          "Godhead" has various meanings in modern English besides that of "the nature of God esp. when regarded as triune".   In Webster's 3rd  New International Dictionary (Unabridged) the #1 definition is "1: the quality or state of being divine" - 1962 ed.  And the derivation of the word "godhead" shows that it originally meant "godhood" not "godhead":  "fr[om] god + -hed, -hede - hood (akin to ME -hod, -had - hood)" - Webster's 3rd  New Int.

     "divine ... 1a: of or relating to God: proceeding from God ... b: of or relating to a god: having the nature of a god .... 2a: devoted or addressed to God: religious, holy, sacred ... 3a: Supremely good or admirable ... b: having a sublime or inspired character" - Webst. 3rd New Int.

4.          Even in modern English idiom we say things like: "He is full of the Devil."  But we don't intend to say he literally is the Devil or even equal to the Devil in the fullest sense.  We merely mean that he may, in some respects, show certain "devil-like" or "devil-influenced" qualities!  (Cf. Jn 6:70 and Mark 8:33 footnotes in NIVSB.)

Posted by Elijah Daniels

The theory of everything that came to nothing?

 

John 8:58 demystified.

 A certain group of Judean Jews had decided to kill Jesus. They said to Jesus,

(8:53) " 'Surely you are not greater than our father Abraham, who died?' ... (:54) Jesus answered, 'If I glorify myself, my glory is nothing; it is my Father who glorifies me, of whom you say, "He is our God"; (:55) and you have not come to know him, but I know him; and if I say that I do not know him I shall be a liar like you, but I do know him, and keep his word. (:56) Your father Abraham rejoiced to see my day; and he saw it and was glad.' (:57) The Jews therefore said to him, 'You are not yet fifty years old, and have you seen Abraham?' (:58) Jesus said to them, 'Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was born, I AM.' (:59) Therefore they picked up stones to throw at him; but Jesus hid himself, and went out of the temple." - John 8:53-59 New American Standard Bible (NASB).


Some trinitarians claim that Jesus was declaring himself to be Jehovah God because he said "I AM" (ego eimi [eyw eimi] in the original NT Greek) at John 8:58.

Their reasoning goes like this: Exodus 3:14 in some English Bible translations has Jehovah God revealing himself as "I AM WHO I AM" and "I AM." So, they say, Jesus' statement at John 8:58 shows him revealing himself by the same exclusive title (name? description?) as Jehovah ("I AM" at Exodus 3:14) and, therefore, he is Jehovah God!

Furthermore, some of these trinitarians say, the Jews understood perfectly that Jesus was claiming to be Jehovah when he used those two words because they immediately took up stones to kill him. [1]
But these Jews of Judea had already decided beforehand to kill Jesus! (John 7:1, 25) They needed no further incentives. Nothing that Jesus said or did at this point would have made any difference to them.

If the Jews had really understood the phrase "I AM" (ego eimi) to mean the speaker was claiming to be Jehovah and that they should therefore kill him, they would have immediately stoned Jesus at John 8:24 or :28. (The actual Greek in the ancient Bible manuscripts is identical to John 8:58, ego eimi, but many English Bible translations properly add "he" so that it can be understood as "I am he" in English.)

We know that even his disciples didn't believe Jesus was God simply because he said ego eimi, for he identified himself to them with these same words at John 6:20 (usually rendered into English as "It is I"), and their reaction was certainly not that of those who had come into the presence of God! - Cf. the parallel Matt. 14:27. 


Before we examine this "proof" in detail, we should understand that the name "Jehovah" in English (or "Yahweh" in one suggested Hebrew form) is the only personal name of God (see Ex. 3:15 and Ps. 83:18). This name is declared by God to be his very own name thousands of times in the Bible (see #3068 in Strong's Concordance or the New American Standard Exhaustive Concordance, or Gesenius' Hebrew-Chaldee Lexicon to the Old Testament, or many others). Being a personal name (like "Jesus," "John," "Mary," etc.) this name belongs to a single individual. This single person who is God is not the Holy Spirit. He is not the Son of God. He is the Father alone! (Is. 63:16; Is. 64:8, ASV; Deut. 32:6, ASV; Ps. 89:26, 27 [cf. Heb. 1:5 and Ps. 2:7, ASV].)

He is never called "the Son," "the Firstborn," "Only-begotten," "High Priest of God," the "Messiah" or "Christ" as Jesus is.

It is obvious that the one person with the personal name of Jehovah cannot be the Messiah (who has the personal name "Jesus"). Merely study the following scriptures (preferably in a Bible that honestly translates God's personal name as "Jehovah" [ASV, NWT, KJIIV, Young's Literal Translation of the Holy Bible, and Byington's The Bible in Living English] or "Yahweh" [Jerusalem Bible, NJB, and Rotherham's The Emphasized Bible] in all the 6900 places it's found in the original manuscripts instead of the mistranslated "LORD" found in nearly 7000 places in many translations).

These are some of the scriptures which show the relationship of Jehovah to the Messiah: Psalm 110:1 (compare Acts 2:33-36 and Eph. 1:17, 20); Micah 5:4; Psalm 2:1, 2 (compare Acts 4:25-27); Psalm 2:7 (compare Acts 13:33; Heb. 5:5); Is. 53:10 (all Christian organizations recognize that all of Is. 53 refers to the Messiah). These all clearly show that Jesus is not Jehovah.

Let's examine, then, the "I AM" (ego eimi) "evidence" which trinitarians say somehow disproves this often-repeated, clearly-taught scriptural knowledge of the only true God and of Jesus Christ (John 17:3).

The words ego eimi formed a phrase that was in very common use by first century Christians and Jews and in New Testament scriptures. It was certainly not understood (by Jews or Christians) as declaring one's Godhood! If it could have been understood that way, we can be sure the Jews would have never applied it to themselves (as they did so frequently)!

Notice, for example, how the former blind man (John 9:9) actually identifies himself by saying "ego eimi," but none of the other Jews present, even for a moment, understood him to be claiming to be Jehovah! 

And Jesus earlier ( in John 6:20 mentioned above) clearly identified himself by saying to his frightened disciples: ego eimi. None of his disciples considered that to mean that Jesus was claiming to be God. In fact, most trinitarian-translated Bibles render Jesus’ words identifying himself here as “It is I.” E.g., ASV; AMP; CJB; DARBY; DRA; ESV; GNT; GNV; HCSB; ISV; JB; KJV; KJ21; TLB; MEV; MLB; MOUNCE; NAB; NASB; NCV; NEB; NET; NIV; NKJV; NLV; NRSV; REB; RSV; WEB; and WE.

It is simply impossible that the Jews would say Jesus was claiming to be the Almighty God. It is virtually certain, instead, that one of three things was meant by the phrase "before Abraham came into being ego eimi" spoken by Jesus at John 8:58:


(1) "Even before Abraham was born, I was (the Christ)."

(2) "I existed before Abraham was born."("I was"; "I existed"; "I have been")

(3) "I came into existence before Abraham was even born."


This paper will examine why Jn 8:58 cannot mean "I am God" or its equivalent and why one of the three other interpretations listed above must be what was originally intended. 


Why Stones? 

As for the charge that the Jews were going to stone him because he claimed to be God, we should be aware that the Jews stoned people for many offenses. For example, a person pretending to be a "wizard" was to be stoned to death according to the Law (Lev. 20:27 - KJV, RSV, ASV, LB). Today's Dictionary of the Bible, 1982 ed., tells us:

"Wizard, a pretender to supernatural knowledge and power .... such a one was forbidden on pain of death to practice his deceptions ... Lev. 20:26, 27." - p. 654.


We also know that some of the Jews wanted Jesus killed for blasphemy because he admitted to being the Messiah (Christ) - see Matt 26:59-68 and footnotes for Matt 26:65 and Luke 22:71 in The NIV Study Bible, Zondervan Publ., 1985.

"But powerful forces in the Jewish congregation, jealous of his popularity, incensed by his denunciation of some of them, and bitterly critical of his disregard for formalism, his willingness to violate some of the minor laws of the Jews, and his heretical claim that he was the Son of God, repudiated him, conspired to kill him, saw him crucified, and after his death, persecuted his followers." - The Portable World Bible, Viking Press, p. 230.


It was even forbidden for others to say that Jesus was the Messiah - John 9:22. And, in fact, that was obviously why Stephen was stoned to death.

At Acts 7:55-58, Stephen looked up into heaven "and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing at the right hand of God, and he said, 'Behold, I see the heavens opened and the Son of man [synonymous with the Messiah, not God] standing at the right hand of God.' But they [the Jews] ... cast him out of the city, and stoned him." - RSV.

Stephen was stoned, not because he claimed to be God, nor because he claimed Jesus was God (quite the contrary, in fact, as his quoted statement clearly shows: Jesus "standing at the right hand of God") but because he was proclaiming Jesus to be the Messiah (Christ)! See The NIV Study Bible footnotes for Acts 7:56 and Mk 8:31.


The New American Bible, St. Joseph edition, tells us in a footnote for Acts 7:55 -

"Stephen affirms to the Sanhedrin that the prophecy Jesus made before them has been fulfilled (Mk 14:62)." 


And Mk 14:61-64 shows Jesus declaring he is the Christ and that the Jews will see him (the son of man) at the right hand of God. This "blasphemy" of claiming to be the Messiah (whom the Jews never considered to be God) caused the Jews to condemn Jesus to death - see footnotes for Mk 14:61, 63 in The NIV Study Bible.[2]

The trinitarian The Interpreter's Dictionary of the Bible also tells us about the Messiah expected by the Jews at this time:


"The figure of the 'Son of Man' ... was, moreover, in accord with ... that of a pre-existent, heavenly angelic being who, at the end time, will appear at the side of God as judge of the world." - p. 364, Vol. 3, Abingdon Press, 1962. 


Therefore, when Jesus claimed, at John 8:58, to have lived long before his first century human existence, the Jews could have perceived him as a false prophet, or a self-proclaimed "wizard," or, more likely, as one claiming to be the Christ or Messiah (the Son of Man) and tried to stone him because of that.


"I Was the Christ" 

The Gospel writers have clearly shown Jesus applying the term ego eimi to himself and meaning "I am the Christ." Mark 13:6 shows Jesus saying, "I am he [literally just ego eimi alone, 'I AM']" - NEB. The parallel account at Luke 21:8 agrees. But the other parallel account by Matthew shows what Jesus actually meant by the "absolute" ego eimi in those parallel accounts of Mark and Luke: "I am the Messiah" - Matt. 24:5 - NEB.

So we see Jesus using the "absolute" ego eimi at Mark 13:6 and Luke 21:8 (see any interlinear). And Matthew explains that Jesus means "I am the Messiah"! Also see John 8:24, Living Bible - "I am the Messiah," C. B. Williams - "I am the Christ," and see Jn 4:26; 13:19 (esp. Living Bible, and translations by C. B. Williams and Phillips.) Notice how Jesus admitted to being the Messiah when the Jews decided to kill him: "'Are you the Christ, the Son of the Blessed One?' 'I AM [ego eimi],' said Jesus." - Mark 14:61-62. Again the 'absolute' ego eimi ("I am") as used by Jesus means "I am the Christ" and spurs the Jews to condemn him to die!
In fact, even some trinitarian scholars have admitted that they believe that Jesus' statements at John 8:56 and 8:58 are statements proclaiming himself to be the Messiah. Trinitarian scholar William Barclay admits in his popular Daily Study Bible Series:

"So when Jesus said that Abraham had seen his day, he was making a deliberate claim that he was the Messiah. He was really saying 'I am the Messiah Abraham saw in his vision.' " - p. 35, The Gospel of John, Vol. 2, 1975, The Westminster Press. (Cf. footnote for Jn 8:56 in The New Oxford Annotated Bible, 1973 ed., Oxford University Press.) 


The footnote for John 8:58 in the very trinitarian Holy Bible: Easy-to-Read Version says:


"...it can also mean 'I am he (the Christ).' " - World Bible Translation Center, 1992. 


And famous trinitarian scholar Robert Young (Young's Analytical Concordance to the Holy Bible) in explaining John 8:58 tells us that Jesus was proclaiming himself by these words (ego eimi) to be "the promised Messiah." - Young's Concise Critical Bible Commentary, p. 61, 1977 ed., Baker Book House.

When we really analyze the "parallel" (according to some trinitarians) uses of ego eimi by Jesus found in the Gospel of John "which culminate in the 'I Am' of John 8:58," we find they all (and we should start with the very first such instance at Jn 4:26) show Jesus' identity (as "Jesus" or "the Christ")! If these are really "parallel" uses of ego eimi by Jesus, as many trinitarians insist, then 8:58 should be understood as "I am [or 'have been'] the Christ"!


[The phrase "I, I am" {ego eimi} occurs many other times in the New Testament, and; is often translated as "I am he" or some equivalent ("I am he" in Mark 13:6; Luke 21:8; John 13:19; 18:5, 6, 8; "it is I" in Matt 14:27; Mark 6:50; John 6:20 and; "I am the one I claim to be" in John 8:24, 28.).

It is obvious that these translations are quite correct, but it is interesting that the phrase is translated as "I am," ONLY once i.e. in John 8:58. If the phrase in John 8:58 were translated "I am he" or "I am the one" (like all the others), it would be easier to see that Christ was speaking of himself as the Messiah of God (as indeed he was), spoken of throughout the Old Testament. - From a post by alanwcorrie on 'TrinityQuestion'.]
Surely if even the highly trinitarian scholars who translated the Living Bible and CBW can interpret the "absolute" ego eimi at John 8:24 as "I am the Messiah (Christ)" - cf. 8:28, LB, CBW, then it would not only be proper but maybe even probable that it should be so translated again at John 8:58: "Even before Abraham was born, I am the Messiah. Therefore [since he claimed to be the Messiah] they picked up stones to throw at him."


Capitalization
Even most trinitarian Bible translations deny any connection between God's statement at Exodus 3:14 and Jesus' reply to the Jews at John 8:58. They do this through the modern English usage of capitalizing personal names and exclusive titles. For example, "Word" at Jn 1:14; "Lamb" at Jn 1:36 and Rev 5:8; and "Son" at Jn 8:36.

Nearly all the trinitarian Bible translations (24) that I have checked have capitalized the words in question at Ex. 3:14 ("I AM;" or "I Will Be;" or "I Will Become;" etc.) to show their interpretation that this is a title or name of God. However, most of those same translations do not capitalize the words in question at John 8:58 ("I am;" "I was;" or "I have existed;" etc.): KJV; Douay Version; RSV; NRSV; ASV; NIV; NEB; REB; MLB; LB; NLV; The New Testament in the Language of the People (CBW); Young's Literal Translation of the Holy Bible; Rotherham; Beck; and Byington.

Therefore, the vast majority of trinitarian-translated Bibles obviously show Ex. 3:14 as giving a title or name for God (as properly indicated by the use of capitalization in English), but they do not show the same understanding for John 8:58 (nor Isaiah's uses of "I am" by God [3])! All those trinitarian scholars above, therefore, are saying (by not capitalizing "am") at Jn 8:58 that Jesus did not claim the same name or exclusive title that God used at Ex. 3:14.

Even though Bible text compilers add the punctuation and capitalization that they personally prefer, the basic Greek texts as compiled by trinitarians Westcott and Hort, and the trinitarian United Bible Societies, the Nestle text, and even the Received Text by the Trinitarian Bible Society (1976) do not capitalize ego eimi at John 8:58 ! (As compared to the capitalized "Alpha and Omega" title at Rev. 1:8, for example.) 

Cross-References in Trinitarian Reference Bibles


Some trinitarian editors and publishers of trinitarian Bibles have added cross-references to the original translations. That is, they have superscripts and notes which refer one scripture to one or more other scriptures. The reference may indicate an actual quote from the OT found in the NT. Or it can indicate a similar meaning, event, or even just similar wording found in other scriptures. For example, in the New American Standard Bible (NASB), Reference Edition, Foundation Press, 1975, the trinitarian NT editors chose John 1:1; 17:5, 24 as all the references for John 8:58. Not one reference to Ex. 3:14 or Isaiah or any other OT scripture where God says "I am"! Obviously these trinitarian scholars did not accept the extremely poor "I AM" evidence! (The trinitarian OT editors, however, did choose this approach at Ex. 3:14.) And the very trinitarian Revised Standard Version, American Bible Society, 1971 ed. also has only Jn 1:1; 17:5, 24 as references for John 8:58! (In this case the trinitarian OT editors also did not refer Ex. 3:14 or verses in Isaiah, etc. to Jn 8:58!) These trinitarian scholars, therefore, did not accept the "I AM" argument as valid!

Other Translations
Some of those trinitarian translators go even further than merely not capitalizing at John 8:58 and further clarify the probable meaning in English and thereby refute the deceptive "I AM" interpretation of a few trinitarians.

These translations (most by trinitarians) render ego eimi at John 8:58 as:

(1) “I HAVE BEEN”[4] - alternate reading in 1960 thru 1973 reference editions of NASB
(2) “I HAVE BEEN” - The New Testament, G. R. Noyes
(3) “I HAVE BEEN” - “The Four Gospels” According to the Sinaitic Palimpsest, A. S. Lewis
(4) “I HAVE ALREADY BEEN” - The Unvarnished New Testament
(5) “I HAVE EXISTED” - The Bible, A New Translation, Dr. James Moffatt
(6) “I EXISTED” - The New Testament in the Language of Today, 1964 ed., Beck 
(7) “I EXISTED” - An American Translation, Goodspeed
(8) “I EXISTED” - The New Testament in the Language of the People, Williams 
(9) “I EXISTED” - New Simplified Bible 
(10) “I WAS IN EXISTENCE” - Living Bible 
(11) “I WAS ALIVE” - The Simple English Bible 
(12)“I WAS” - Holy Bible - From the Ancient Eastern Text, Lamsa
(13)“I WAS” - Young’s Literal Translation of the Holy Bible, 1st ed. (Also see Young’s Concise Critical Commentary, p. 61 of “The New Covenant.”).
(14) “I WAS” - The Syriac New Testament, Jas. Murdock 
(15) “I WAS” - H. T. Anderson 
(16) “I WAS” - Twentieth Century New Testament
(17) "I EXISTED" - New Living Translation (NLT)

 Additional (found in an on-line post):
The Living New Testament: 

"The absolute truth is that I was in existence before Abraham was ever born." 

The 20th Century New Testament: 
"before Abraham existed I was." 

Parker, P.G. Clarified N.T.: 
Jesus answered, before Abraham existed, I existed. 

Cotton Patch Version (1970): 
To this Jesus replied, I existed before Abraham was born. 

Good News for the World (1969) 
Jesus answer, I tell you the truth. I already was before Abraham was born. 

New Believers Bible, New Living Translation: 
"I existed before Abraham was even born." 

The New Testament, Kleist and Lilly: 
"I am here-and I was before Abraham." 

Wakefield, G. N.T. (1795) 
Jesus said unto them: Verily verily I say unto you, before Abraham was born, I am He. 

The Curetonian Version of the Four Gospels, Burkitt & The Old Georgian Version of the Gospel of John, Blake & Briere: 
"Before Abraham came to be, I was." 

The New Testament Or Rather the New Covenant, Sharpe: 
"I was before Abraham was born." 

The New Testament, Stage: 
"Before Abraham came to be, I was." 

The Documents of the New Testament, Wade: 
"Before Abraham came into being, I have existed." 

Noli, M.F.S. N.T. (1961) 
Jesus answered them: Well, well, I tell you, I existed before Abraham was born.

The Concise Gospel and The Acts, Christianson: 
"I existed even before Abraham was born." 

The Original New Testament, Schonfield: "I tell you for a positive fact, I existed before Abraham was born." 

The Complete Gospels Annotated Scholars Version, 
Miller: "I existed before there was an Abraham." 

Swann, G. N.T. (1947) 
Jesus said to them, verily, verily I say unto you, I existed before Abraham was born 

International English Version (2001) 
"I was alive before Abraham was born"  
http://robertangle.com/ruminations/2012/01/john-858-various-english-translations-that-recognize-jesus-did-not-say-i-am/

It's interesting to see that even the paraphrase Bible, the Living Bible (also published as The Word and The Book), which often takes great liberties with the literal text in order to better bring out trinitarian interpretations, denies an " 'I' AM' = God" interpretation for John 8:58. It brings out, instead, the obvious intended meaning of John 8:58 as: "the absolute truth is that I was in existence before Abraham was ever born!" ' not "I was God before Abraham...."



The point is that numerous trinitarian scholars would not ignore a popular 'Jesus is God' proof if it were not in doubt.

Even the oldest English translations do not render this as "I am":

Joh 8:58 Se hælend cwæð to him. ic was [was] ærþam þe abraham was [was] - Anglo-Saxon Gospels, Manuscript 140, Corpus Christi College circa 1000 by Aelfric.

Joh 8:58 Se hælend cwæð; to heom. Ic wæs ær þonne þe abraham wære. - Anglo-Saxon Gospels, Hatton Manuscript 38, Bodleian Library circa 1200 by unknown author.

Old English for “I am” - “Ic (or ‘Ich’) eom.” See John 8:18, 28 for example.


It's a basic part of every Jehovah's Witness' faith that Jesus (who is their King and Savior) was the very first creation by God (Col. 1:15 ASV; Rev. 3:14 ASV; and Prov. 8:22 NIV, JB) and that he then acted as God's workman (Prov. 8:30 ASV, JB, NIV) and made everything else that has come into existence - so God created everything through Jesus (1 Cor. 8:6 and Hebrews 1:2).

Therefore, since God spoke to Jesus in the beginning and said, "Let us make man in our own image" - Gen. 1:26, JB, it's certainly no surprise to find Jesus telling the Jews that he existed before Abraham existed!

Why have these respected trinitarian scholars so translated ego eimi at John 8:58 whereas most of the time they have translated ego eimi as "I am" in other verses? Certainly they know how important this verse (as interpreted by a few trinitarians, at least) is in the catalog of "proofs" of the trinity! Why have they not, therefore, rendered it in a "trinitarian" way?

One reason for this refusal of so many trinitarian scholars to join the ranks of the "I AM" tradition is that the context of John 8:58 simply does not allow for the "Name of God" interpretation.

"I Existed Before Abraham Was Born."
Those Jews had asked how Jesus could have possibly known Abraham who had died nearly 2000 years before. Jesus¡¯ reply was obviously an explanation that he had been in existence even before Abraham had been born and was not merely an explanation of identity.

It is ludicrous to interpret this verse with the understanding that Jesus is using the personal name ("Jehovah") or an exclusive title (such as "Most High" - Luke 6:35; Luke 1:32; Ps. 83:18 ASV, KJV) to identify himself: "Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was born, Jehovah." Or, "Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was born, the Most High." So, the immediate context simply does not allow a "title of God" interpretation for the use of ego eimi in this verse![5]

The Jews had angrily implied that Jesus was a liar for claiming to be older than his apparent years. "You're not even 50 years old and yet [you say] you have seen Abraham!" Jesus' most likely response, then, would have been about his age --- his actual existence 1900 years before being born in Bethlehem (so that he actually could have "seen Abraham"). Therefore he would have said: "Before Abraham was even born, I existed."

It would be more appropriate (although still clearly false), in light of the context, to show that the person whom the crowd is trying to identify at John 9:9 is claiming this "title" (ego eimi), for that is his reply to those who were questioning his identity (not his earlier existence) - see John 9:9 in any Interlinear New Testament.

Some other uses of ego eimi which may be found in any interlinear Greek-English New Testament are Matt. 26:22, 25; Acts 22:3; Acts 26:29; Acts 27:23. Also, if you have the Greek Septuagint Bible you might examine these uses of ego eimi: 2 Kings (2 Samuel in Hebrew scriptures) 2:20; 15:26; Is. 6:8.

Another reason for the different renderings of John 8:58 by these trinitarian scholars is based on NT Greek grammar. There are a number of reasons why a present tense verb in NT Greek (such as ego eimi) may be rendered properly in a different tense in English (see Introduction to the Gospel of John in The NIV Study Bible, 1985 ed.). It is difficult to say exactly which reason was used by the various translators of the trinitarian Bibles quoted above. However, it appears that the highly respected trinitarian scholar Dr. James Moffatt may have translated in accordance with the reason cited by the Watchtower Society in its footnote to John 8:58 in the 1969 edition of the Kingdom Interlinear Translation of the Greek Scriptures: "(ego eimi) [is] after the a'orist infinitive clause ['before Abraham to become'] and hence properly rendered in the perfect tense ['I have been']." - Also see subheading "Perfect Indefinite Tense" below. Moffatt also renders ego eimi at John 8:58 in the perfect tense: "I have existed."

Elijah Daniels 

The brain conjures reality?

 

Romans9:5 demystified

 6. Ro. 9:5

The final example in this study, while not strictly a "speaker-confusion" trick, is so closely related that it will be included in that category anyway. It is really a confusion of subjects rather than speakers that we find in some trinitarian interpretations of this scripture.

Ro. 9:5 - " ... Christ came, who is over all, God blessed for ever. Amen." - KJV.

This is the scripture that A Catholic Dictionary calls

"the strongest statement of Christ's divinity in St. Paul, and, indeed, in the N[ew] T[estament]."

The Jerusalem Bible (Roman Catholic) renders it, like the equally trinitarian KJV, in such a way as to make Christ appear to be God: "Christ who is above all, God for ever blessed! Amen."

And the very trinitarian The NIV Study Bible, 1985, in a note for Ro. 9:5, calls it:

"One of the clearest statements of the deity of Jesus Christ found in the entire NT, assuming the accuracy of the translation (see NIV text note)."

Highly-regarded trinitarian NT scholar, F. F. Bruce writes concerning Ro. 9:5:

"God who is over all be blessed for ever. The relation of these words to those which precede is disputed. RSV takes them as an independent ascription of praise to God, prompted by the mention of God's crowning his many blessings on Israel by sending them the Messiah (similarly NEB, GNB)."

Bruce then gives reasons for and against such an understanding and concludes with:

"It is, on the other hand, impermissible to charge [accuse] those who prefer to treat the words as an independent doxology with Christological unorthodoxy. The words can indeed be so treated, and the decision about their construction involves a delicate assessment of the balance of probability this way and that." – p. 176, The Letter of Paul to the Romans, Tyndale New Testament Commentaries, Revised Ed., Eerdmans Publ., 1985.

However, The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology is forced to acknowledge that even if such a trinitarian rendering of the Greek were accurate,

"Christ would not be equated absolutely with God, but only described as being of divine nature [see the DEF study.], for the word theos has no article. But this ascription of majesty does not occur anywhere else in Paul. The much more probable explanation is that the statement is a doxology [praise] directed to God." - Vol. 2, p. 80, 1986.

Trinitarian scholar John L. McKenzie also admits:

"Paul's normal usage is to restrict the noun [`God'] to designate the Father (cf 1 Co 8:6), and in Rm 9:5 it is very probable that the concluding words are a doxology, `Blessed is the God who is above all.'" – p. 318, Dictionary of the Bible, Macmillan Publ., 1979 printing.

The trinitarian United Bible Societies (UBS) makes the same admission:

"In fact, on the basis of the general tenor of his theology it was considered tantamount to impossible that Paul would have expressed Christ's greatness by calling him `God blessed for ever'." And, "Nowhere else in his genuine epistles does Paul ever designate ho christos [`the Christ'] as theos [`God' or `god']." - p. 522, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, United Bible Societies, 1971.

The UBS has therefore punctuated their NT Greek text in such a way as to show the separateness of Christ and God at Ro. 9:5.

We also find in the trinitarian The Expositor’s Greek Testament (Vol. two, p. 659): “I agree with those who would put a colon or a period at σάρκα [sarka - ‘flesh’], and make the words that follow refer not to Christ but to the Father.”  

Even A Catholic Dictionary admits the possibility that the scripture in question is really a doxology directed to God and not to Jesus:

"There is no reason in grammar or in the context which forbids us to translate `God, who is over all, be blessed for ever, Amen.'"

And this statement is from the very same trinitarian reference work that calls Ro. 9:5 "the strongest statement of Christ's divinity" in the entire New Testament!! If this is the "strongest" such statement, where does that put the rest of the trinity "proof"?

Illustrating the high probability that the last part of Romans 9:5 is directed as a doxology to the Father, not to Jesus, are these translations of Ro. 9:5 found in trinitarian Bibles where the statement in question is not directed to Jesus:

The Revised Standard Version (RSV), 1971 ed. - "... of their race, according to the flesh, is the Christ. God who is over all be blessed for ever. Amen." - See p. 165, So Many Versions? (SMV), Zondervan, 1983.

The New American Bible (NAB), 1970 ed. - "... from them [Israelites] came the Messiah (I speak of his human origins). Blessed forever be God who is over all!"

The New American Bible (NAB), 1991 ed. - "[From the Israelites], according to the flesh, is the Messiah. God who is over all be blessed forever, Amen."

The New English Bible (NEB), 1961 ed. - "... from them, in natural descent, sprang the Messiah. May God, supreme above all, be blessed forever!"

Revised English Bible (REB), 1989 ed. - "... from them by natural descent came the Messiah. May God, supreme above all, be blessed forever!"

An American Translation (AT), 1975 printing - "... and from them physically Christ came - God who is over all be blessed for ever!"

Today's English Version (TEV), 1976 ed. - "Christ, as a human being, belongs to their race. May God, who rules over all, be praised forever!"

The Living Bible (LB) - "...Christ was one of you ... he who now rules over all things. Praise God forever!" - Tyndale House Publishers, 1971.

The Bible, A New Translation, (Mo) by Dr. James Moffatt, 1954 - "[From the Israelites] (so far as natural descent goes) is the Christ. (Blessed for evermore be the God who is over all! Amen.)"

New Life Version (NLV) - "Christ himself was born of flesh from this family and He is over all things. May God be honored and thanked forever." - Victor Books, 1993.

Not only can Ro. 9:5 be interpreted as having two different statements about two different subjects (1. Jesus came to earth as an Israelite, and, 2. Bless God who is over all.), but that is almost certainly the meaning intended by Paul (compare Ro. 15:5, 6; Ro. 16:27; 2 Cor. 1:3; Gal. 1:3-5; Eph. 1:3; 1 Tim. 1:16, 17).

Why, even the NIVSB, which called Ro. 9:5 "One of the clearest statements of the deity of Jesus Christ found in the entire NT" (see above), also gave the following in a footnote for Ro. 9:5 as proper alternate translations of this verse:

"Or Christ, who is over all. God be forever praised! Or Christ. God who is over all be forever praised!"

But some trinitarians have, instead, run these two separate statements of Jesus and God together in such a way as to give the impression that they both refer to the same subject: Jesus. The technique is identical with that of the "speaker confusion trick" we have been examining, and neither is acceptable as proper evidence for a "Jesus is God" faith!

[Added 4/2011 thanks to ‘Yahoel’ : “The use of the word eulogetos, ‘blessed,’ which never occurs in the New Testament in reference to Christ. If we refer eulogetos to God, our passage [Ro. 9:5] accords with the doxologies Rom. i. 25; 2 Cor. i. 3; xi. 31; and Eph. i. 3. …. [This] strongly favors the reference of the eulogetos to God. It alone seems to me most decisive.” (pp. 361-362) - Ezra Abbot, The Authorship of the Fourth Gospel. (emphasis added.)]

Posted by Elijah Daniels

1John5:20 demystified.

  1 John 5:20 "We are in him that is true, even in his Son, Jesus Christ. This is the true God, and eternal life." - KJV.

t is obvious that grammatically the word "this" (outos) could be referring to either the Father or Jesus in this particular scripture (see the footnote for 1 John 5:20 in the very trinitarian NIV Study Bible). But the fact that the true God (or "the true One") has just been identified as the Father of Jesus (1 Jn 5:20, TEV and GNB) makes it highly probable that "this is the true God" refers to the Father, not Jesus. The highly trinitarian NT scholar Murray J. Harris sums up his 13-page analysis of this scripture as follows: 

"Although it is certainly possible that outos refers back to Jesus Christ, several converging lines of evidence point to `the true one,' God the Father, as the probable antecedent. This position, outos = God [Father], is held by many commentators, authors of general studies, and significantly, by those grammarians who express an opinion on the matter." - p. 253, Jesus as God, Baker Book House, 1992.

Notice how this trinitarian scholar actually admits that the probability is that the Father (not Jesus) is being called the true God here. He even tells us (and cites examples in his footnotes) that New Testament grammarians and commentators (most of them trinitarian, of course) agree! 

So this single "proof" that the "true God" is a title for anyone other than the Father alone is not proof at all. The grammar alone merely makes it a possibility. The immediate context makes it highly improbable since (as in all other uses of the term) the true God (or the true one) was just identified as the Father ("We are in the one who is true as we are in his Son, Jesus Christ. He is the true God and this is eternal life." - NJB; and "We know that the Son of God has come and has given us understanding, so that we know the true God. We live in union with the true God - in union with his Son Jesus Christ. This is the true God, and this is eternal life." - TEV.). 

So the immediate context alone makes it probable that the true God is the Father in this scripture also. As we have seen, if we include the context of all the uses of the `true God,' it is certain that He is the Father alone (whose personal name is Jehovah - Ps. 83:18, Ex. 3:15).

To clinch John's intended meaning at 1 John 5:20, let's look another use of the term: John 17:1, 3, where, again (as in 1 Jn 5:20), he mentions Father, Son, and eternal life. 


At John 17:1, 3 Jesus prays to the Father: “Father, .... this is eternal life: that they may know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom you have sent.” - New International Version (NIV). Here the Father alone is not only very clearly identified as the only true [alethinos] God, but Jesus Christ is again pointedly and specifically excluded from that identification (“AND Jesus Christ whom you [the only true God] have sent”)! 

Notice how this respected trinitarian Bible has rendered John 17:1, 3 - “Father,....This is eternal life: to know thee who alone art truly God, and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent.” - New English Bible (NEB). 

So, the title “the true God” does not have to mean that there are no others who may be called “gods” or “a god” in a subordinate but righteous sense. It is, however, an exclusive title for God, the Most High, only true God, Jehovah. And clearly it refers exclusively to the Father! No one else is the God or the True God! (Compare Ps. 86:10; 2 Kings 19:19; Is. 37:16.) 


Posted by Elijah Daniels