Does "Ego Eimi" (I am) relate to the claim of being God?

In the trinity thread, when I asked, I was told that "Ego Eimi" (I am) was a claim of Godhood, because 'I AM' relates to God talking to Moses
(That would be Exodus 3:14).This confuses me to some degree. First of all, in the Septiguent, Exodus 3:14 is translated from the Hebrew to be "Ho On" rather than "Ego Eimi".Second of all, the literal translation of Exodus 3:14 is not so much 'I am', but 'I will be what I will be', (Or in some sense, trust me and stop asking stupid questions).Is that the soul basis of the concept of the trinity? Trying to associate the words "I am" (ho on in the septigaunt) with the words
"I am" in a different sense (Ego eimi) from a different part of the Bible, both of which are taken from another language to begin with? I am quite sure Jesus didn't speak Greek to everyone.It is not like John did not use the term 'Ho On' for God, when specifically refering to God. (see the 'I am the alpha and the omega' passage). This shows that "Ho on" and "ego Eimi" are not used in the same manner in John.What is the justification for making "ho on" synonomous with "ego Eimi"? Is there anything else that justifies the Trinity other than this?I think this should go in Bible Study.Edited by ramoss, : No reason given.

Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.

Yes, we believe that because of the added phrase before "Before Abraham came into being, I am"He is the pre-existing God as a man. Before Abraham existed He as the eternal ever existing and self existing God is the great I AM. The same God Who appeared to Moses in the burning bush.As the bush burned and was not consumed this was a typology of God incarnating as a man. As the flame mingled with the bush and both were preserved so God mingled with man in Jesus Christ. He is the I AM. I'll look into that. The intent is clear though. Before Abraham the father of the nation existed God is the I AM standing there in Jesus the Son of God, the Son of Man. Yea, that sounds like Jesus too. Trust Him and stop asking stupid questions, and making stupid criticisms. No, it is not the "sole basis" of the concept of the Trinity. At least no one I ever knew said that that passage was the sole basis of the belief in the three-one God.Would you prefer it be the sole basis for convenience sake? You're being too complicated here.Before Abraham was, Jesus Christ is the I AM.Whatever your complaint with the Greek or the Aramiac or the Hebrew you have Christ refering to something only God could be. That is existent before Abraham and present at that moment with the Jewish crowd in John chapter 8. Sorry. All that John records as Jesus' talk in John 8 exactly underscores John's prologue. That is that the Word was with God, the Word WAS GOD, and the Word became flesh (See John 1:1,2,14)John emphasizing that Christ is God become a man includes the teachings and words of Jesus which highlight that aspect of His person. The prologue of John sets the tone. The recorded words of Jesus in the same gospel confirm the prologue.So Christ is the pre-existent I AM of the Old Testament, even existing before Abraham was. And now He tabernacles among men in His incarnation. Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

I wrote: I take that back a little. It is not an altogether stupid point.An honest question is Okay in the study of the NT.

Not only does Jesus say that before Abraham came into being He is the I AM. He also says that the Father loved Him before the foundation of the world. I take that to mean before the creation of the universe:"Father, concerning that which You have given Me, I desire that they also may be with Me where I am, that they may behold My glory, which You have given Me, for You loved Me before the foundation of the world." (John 17:24)The Father loved the Son before the foundation of the world. The Son calls for the believers the Father has given to Him to be where He is, in the Father and in the glory of the Divine Being.Christ also prays that He had the divine glory not only before Abraham but before the world was:"And now, glorify Me along with Yourself, Father, with the glory which I had with you before the world was." (John 17:5)Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

Something to note is that Jesus is completely absent in the Old Testament however. The attempt is made to insert Jesus into the Old Testament after the fact, but he is never mentioned beforehand. The connection of Jesus before the New Testament can only be made if you come to the conclusion that he is God in advance.

---

Forbidden

Welcome to EvC.There's dBCodes on the left when the reply screen is up and a peek button at the lower right when the thread screen is up. They're very helpful. There's Bible researchers out there that would disagree with you (although I am not one of them). You should internet search for prophesies in the OT about Jesus. Buzzsaw is one of our members (and admin) who is into that sorta stuff. Hopefully he'll jump in here and show you what they've got.I don't think its all circular resoning like you assert.

Don't think you got what i meant exactly. I would contend that the authors of the New Testament books believed Jesus was God {or son of God if you prefer} and wrote him into the story that way.If one reads the Old Testament by itself, without looking into the New Testament, there is no real mention of Jesus, or certainly no mention of the prophecised messiah as being God himself as most Christians believe him to be today.Presently, the practise is to suggest he is using the New Testament, all the evidence that he is, can be found there. It is only by accepting the New Testament as an accurate portrayal of Jesus as God, that one can make the connection between Jesus and the God described in the Old Testament.Edited by DarkBoards, : No reason given.

---

Forbidden

That's false. A simple google search for OT prophesies of Jesus proves otherwise. sourceAnd this site has a list of some prophesies from the OT:

quote:

---

1. The Messiah would be preceded by a messenger
2. The Messiah would be born in Bethlehem
3. The Messiah would come from the tribe of Judah
4. The Messiah would enter Jerusalem on a colt
5. The Messiah would be betrayed by a friend
6. The Messiah would be sold for 30 pieces of silver
etc.

---

Certainly the Old Testament prophesizes a messiah, no?So what's your point then? That you have to believe the New Testament first before the Old Testament prophesizes the messiah? or that have to believe the New Testament first before the Old Testament actually means to say anything about Jesus? Well the connection can be made wether you believe the NT or not.If your point is that you have to believe that Jesus is God before you believe that the Old Testament prophesies about the messiah are talking about Jesus then my reply is: "Duh!?"You might have well posted that grass is green or the sky is blue.

The Old Testament prophetizes many messiahs. The question is "Does Jesus fulfill any of the prophecies?"So far I have not been able to find any support for that assertion. When I look at the passages used for that purpose invariably all I find is either quotemining or something so vague it could apply almost universally.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

You think he fulfills none?What about being preceded by a messenger or be from Bethlaham? The assertion that Jesus fulfills a prophecy? If not, which assertion? If yes, then I guess that answers my first question. Well what do you want? A passage that says "The Messiah will be Jesus of Nazareth."?It seems like you have something against Jesus fulfilling a prophecy in the Old Testament. Why is that?

Correct. Zero. That any Old Testament Prophecy is fulfilled by Jesus. That would be a good start, but would need to be qualified far more than just that statement. The prophesy would also have to be internally consistent. That is the problem with things like Isaiah 7 or Psalm 22. They only work as prophecy if you pick parts out and ignore all the parts that do not fit. I have nothing against it, just that every single example anyone has ever brought forward has not stood up to examination.If Jesus is the Messiah then Jesus is the Messiah whether any prophecies foretold his arrival or not, so why butcher up the Bible just to create false evidence that is not even needed?

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

If an example, of an OT prophecy fulfilled by Jesus, stood up to examination then it would offer credibility to the claim that Jesus is the Messiah. Or was that a rhetorical question?Also, as you said, some of the prophecies are pretty generic so why can you not say that he has fulfilled those and why maintain that he has fulfilled none? Just because they aren't Jesus-specific doesn't mean that Jesus doesn't fit the prophecy, like that he would come from Bethlehem, for example (assuming that you accept that as one of the prophecies).

I don't even accept that as prophecy, but only after the fact quotemining.But we are moving way away from the topic. If sometime you would like to start a thread on whether there was Messianic Prophesy I will once again be happy to respond to specific examples.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

The story about 'Being out of bethelam' is a story that is Matthew and Luke obviously wrote TO to try to make Jesus fullfill a 'prophecy'. The term 'out of bethelham' didn't mean literally born in bethlaham though.
It was a poetic way to say 'out of the house of david' , which originated in the town of Bethleham.The fact that Matthew and Luke do not agree on any of the details of the nativity shows it was written TO the saying, rather than a fullfilling of it.