The seven I AM statements of Jesus

Joined
Jul 29, 2018
Messages
70
Likes
110
#3
Paul said "by the grace of God I am what I am" (in 1st Corinthians)

15:10 But by the grace of God I am what I am: and His grace which [was bestowed] upon me was not in vain; but I laboured more abundantly than they all: yet not I, but the grace of God which was with me.

He also said "I also think I have the Spirit of God":

7:40 But she is happier if she so abide, after my judgment: and I think also that I have the Spirit of God.

Does that mean Paul claimed to be God?

No, of course it did not mean that. Because that much is made clear in many other of his statements.

Yet, even so, someone could (if they REALLY wanted to) try to make an erronious claim that Paul therefore claimed to be God, because look, Paul said at least both these things and made many other "I am statements".

Not that Paul (who was the born again babe student of Christ) could be compared with Christ (The Lord/Master and Teacher) obviously. But just to make a point that if someone says I am it does not necessarily mean they are "claiming to be God".

So why is there such a bias in the minds of Christians, whenever Jesus used the words "I am", to it having to mean that He was claiming to be God, when Jesus himself made other statements in which he was clearly making a point of giving God a status higher/greater than that of his own?

Should not All of Christ's Words to us be believed and accepted just as He said them?
 





Last edited:
Joined
Mar 15, 2017
Messages
5,128
Likes
7,748
#4
Paul said "by the grace of God I am what I am" (in 1st Corinthians)

15:10 But by the grace of God I am what I am: and His grace which [was bestowed] upon me was not in vain; but I laboured more abundantly than they all: yet not I, but the grace of God which was with me.

He also said "I also think I have the Spirit of God":

7:40 But she is happier if she so abide, after my judgment: and I think also that I have the Spirit of God.

Does that mean Paul claimed to be God?

No, of course it did not mean that. Because that much is made clear in many other of his statements.

Yet, even so, someone could (if they REALLY wanted to) try to make an erronious claim that Paul therefore claimed to be God, because look, Paul said at least both these things and made many other "I am statements".

Not that Paul (who was the born again babe student of Christ) could be compared with Christ (The Lord/Master and Teacher) obviously. But just to make a point that if someone says I am it does not necessarily mean they are "claiming to be God".

So why is there such a bias in the minds of Christians, whenever Jesus used the words "I am", to it having to mean that He was claiming to be God, when Jesus himself made other statements in which he was clearly making a point of giving God a status higher/greater than that of his own?

Should not All of Christ's Words to us be believed and accepted just as He said them?
If you do not wish to believe that Jesus is co-equal with God, you will be able to find those who will agree with you. This debate was going on some time before you and I arrived.

https://vigilantcitizenforums.com/threads/athanasius-vs-arius.4309/
 





Joined
Jul 29, 2018
Messages
70
Likes
110
#5
If you do not wish to believe that Jesus is co-equal with God, you will be able to find those who will agree with you. This debate was going on some time before you and I arrived.

https://vigilantcitizenforums.com/threads/athanasius-vs-arius.4309/
It ia worth considering that the "co-equal" (trinity - i.e. church) doctrine, that most Christians are taught as children is actually an interpretation of the scripture from long ago that simply gets passed down by the churches.

For a Christian it can certainly be very uncomfortable to even entertain the idea, that what has been thought about this issue for so long could not be correct in the end, especially since everyone else around have always accepted it (in one's family or church) etc.

But what if they are all wrong, what then? (Especially since they were supposed to have your back, right?) To deny the truth, would be to deny Christ's Words. So it has to come down to what is more important, being part of the group and adhering to what they say, or believing Christ. That is where I got with it, and so at that point started to read it for myself.

If we look at what Paul said here:

15:20 But now is Christ risen from the dead, [and] become the firstfruits of them that slept.
15:21 For since by man [came] death, by Man [came] also the resurrection of the dead.
15:22 For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.
15:23 But every man in his own order: Christ the firstfruits; afterward they that are Christ's at his coming.
15:24 Then [cometh] the End, when he shall have delivered up the Kingdom to God, even the Father; when he shall have put down all rule and all authority and power.
15:25 For He must reign, till He hath put all enemies under his feet.
15:26 The last enemy [that] shall be destroyed [is] death.
15:27 For He hath put all things under his feet. But when He saith all things are put under [him, it is] manifest that He is excepted, which did put all things under him.
15:28 And when all things shall be subdued unto him, then shall the Son also himself be subject unto Him that put all things under him, that God may be all in all.

If we look at and believe what Jesus said (without trying to change it to fit the accepted doctrines of church). What did He say? Did Christ say that he was co-equal with God, or that His Father was greater than him?

In John, Christ says publicly "My Father is greated than I"

I find the piece form 1 Corinthians above to also be in line with this.

But to hopefully answer your question above, for me it is not (at least not any longer) about wanting to believe either this way or that way. Its beyond that, it's about wanting to believe God and wanting to believe Christ. To know and believe the Truth. There are many people in the world saying things about Christ. But those things are not Christ's Words, they are words about Christ. And therein lies a big difference. Christ said, "If ye continue in my Word, then are ye my disciples indeed. And ye shall know the Truth, and the Truth shall make you free. "
 





Joined
Mar 15, 2017
Messages
5,128
Likes
7,748
#6
It ia worth considering that the "co-equal" (trinity - i.e. church) doctrine, that most Christians are taught as children is actually an interpretation of the scripture from long ago that simply gets passed down by the churches.

For a Christian it can certainly be very uncomfortable to even entertain the idea, that what has been thought about this issue for so long could not be correct in the end, especially since everyone else around have always accepted it (in one's family or church) etc.

But what if they are all wrong, what then? (Especially since they were supposed to have your back, right?) To deny the truth, would be to deny Christ's Words. So it has to come down to what is more important, being part of the group and adhering to what they say, or believing Christ. That is where I got with it, and so at that point started to read it for myself.

If we look at what Paul said here:

15:20 But now is Christ risen from the dead, [and] become the firstfruits of them that slept.
15:21 For since by man [came] death, by Man [came] also the resurrection of the dead.
15:22 For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.
15:23 But every man in his own order: Christ the firstfruits; afterward they that are Christ's at his coming.
15:24 Then [cometh] the End, when he shall have delivered up the Kingdom to God, even the Father; when he shall have put down all rule and all authority and power.
15:25 For He must reign, till He hath put all enemies under his feet.
15:26 The last enemy [that] shall be destroyed [is] death.
15:27 For He hath put all things under his feet. But when He saith all things are put under [him, it is] manifest that He is excepted, which did put all things under him.
15:28 And when all things shall be subdued unto him, then shall the Son also himself be subject unto Him that put all things under him, that God may be all in all.

If we look at and believe what Jesus said (without trying to change it to fit the accepted doctrines of church). What did He say? Did Christ say that he was co-equal with God, or that His Father was greater than him?

In John, Christ says publicly "My Father is greated than I"

I find the piece form 1 Corinthians above to also be in line with this.

But to hopefully answer your question above, for me it is not (at least not any longer) about wanting to believe either this way or that way. Its beyond that, it's about wanting to believe God and wanting to believe Christ. To know and believe the Truth. There are many people in the world saying things about Christ. But those things are not Christ's Words, they are words about Christ. And therein lies a big difference. Christ said, "If ye continue in my Word, then are ye my disciples indeed. And ye shall know the Truth, and the Truth shall make you free. "
John 10

“Most assuredly, I say to you, he who does not enter the sheepfold by the door, but climbs up some other way, the same is a thief and a robber. 2 But he who enters by the door is the shepherd of the sheep. 3 To him the doorkeeper opens, and the sheep hear his voice; and he calls his own sheep by name and leads them out. 4 And when he brings out his own sheep, he goes before them; and the sheep follow him, for they know his voice.5 Yet they will by no means follow a stranger, but will flee from him, for they do not know the voice of strangers.” 6 Jesus used this illustration, but they did not understand the things which He spoke to them.
 





Joined
Mar 14, 2017
Messages
2,081
Likes
2,317
#7
If you do not wish to believe that Jesus is co-equal with God, you will be able to find those who will agree with you. This debate was going on some time before you and I arrived.

https://vigilantcitizenforums.com/threads/athanasius-vs-arius.4309/
The diff groups that existed didn't cut the mustard. Arius was saying the Logos was created..and the other side was saying the Logos is eternal therefore Jesus is God.
This is what happens when dumb people get hold of deeply mystical ideas from the east.

The hindus and the sufis explained these concepts much much better.
In hinduism the Logos (known as Vishnu) is eternal, is the universal spirit (the consciousness of all things) existing eternally with Brahman (the Essence/God).
The whole of creation(brahma) and dissolution (shiva) are a constant process.
In hinduism there isnt just one creation but endless creations/realities.
The reality of God is far far far beyond our comprehension...what 'exists' is infinite realities coming and going to their source (vishnu).
Also Vishnu incarnates in special people..but in realiy vishnu is in all of us.

From a neutral perspective hinduism is far superior to christianity on every level/ There is nothing theological or mystical you have that hinduism doesnt have. But what allows me to be a muslim in light of these facts is that hinduism, original name Dharma...IS islam, it is the same idea that islam has existed from the beginning and been corrupted by many but always renewed.


As for the statements Jesus made, none of them are word for word match for "I AM that I am"
saying 'before Abraham was born I AM" refers to the eternal state pre-manifestation of the Logos (or Vishnu). There is nothing in this that suggests he is God.


Here are the quotes of Krishna in the Bhagvad Gita where the Logos/vishnu speaks through him

I am the Fragrance of earth, the Brilliance of fire. I am the Life Force in all beings, and I am
the Austerity of the ascetics


O Arjuna! I am the Fluidity in water, the Light in the sun and in the moon. I am the mystic
syllable Om in the Vedic scriptures, the Sound in ether, the Virility in man.
I am the Fragrance of earth, the Brilliance of fire. I am the Life Force in all beings, and I am
the Austerity of the ascetics.
Know, O Arjuna, that I am the eternal Seed of being; I am the Intelligence of the intelligent,
the Splendour of the resplendent.
I am the Strength of the strong, of them who are free from attachment and desire; and,
O Arjuna, I am the Desire for righteousness.
Whatever be the nature of their life, whether it be pure or passionate or ignorant, they are
all derived from Me. They are in Me, but I am not in them.


The ignorant think of Me, who am the Unmanifested Spirit, as if I were really in human
form. They do not understand that My Superior Nature is changeless and most excellent.
I am not visible to all, for I am enveloped by the illusion of Phenomenon. This deluded
world does not know Me as the Unborn and the Imperishable.
I know, O Arjuna, all beings in the past, the present and the future; but they do not know
Me.


but remember the subtle truth that God is Immanent throuh the Logos..as it says in the NT "the Father reveals Himself THROUGH the Son (the logos).

As long as you understand that God is Immanent in the Logos yet HE is Trancendent and the logos is His expression not His Essence, you won't mistake the logos for God theoretically. From the mystical perspective though, the logos is God...albeit it is akin to a prism and light, it reveals God's attributes but it isn't any of them by it's own power. it is transparent..
that matches everything the NT teaches me about God.

You do not understand the NT, it is more my book than it is yours tbh.
 





Last edited:
Joined
Mar 14, 2017
Messages
2,081
Likes
2,317
#8
don't get me wrong hinduism is fucked now, but there are still people within it who 'get it' better than the ones who don't. The Advaita Vedanta branch are monothiests who reject other 'dieties'. I even have one book where the author dedicates a chapter to condemning polythiesm. It made me laugh considering there is a ready made religion for those people called islam and if they like the mystical side then they would make good sufis (it's also why islam spread from sufism in india in the first place).
 





Joined
Mar 15, 2017
Messages
5,128
Likes
7,748
#9
The diff groups that existed didn't cut the mustard. Arius was saying the Logos was created..and the other side was saying the Logos is eternal therefore Jesus is God.
This is what happens when dumb people get hold of deeply mystical ideas from the east.

The hindus and the sufis explained these concepts much much better.
In hinduism the Logos (known as Vishnu) is eternal, is the universal spirit (the consciousness of all things) existing eternally with Brahman (the Essence/God).
The whole of creation(brahma) and dissolution (shiva) are a constant process.
In hinduism there isnt just one creation but endless creations/realities.
The reality of God is far far far beyond our comprehension...what 'exists' is infinite realities coming and going to their source (vishnu).
Also Vishnu incarnates in special people..but in realiy vishnu is in all of us.

From a neutral perspective hinduism is far superior to christianity on every level/ There is nothing theological or mystical you have that hinduism doesnt have. But what allows me to be a muslim in light of these facts is that hinduism, original name Dharma...IS islam, it is the same idea that islam has existed from the beginning and been corrupted by many but always renewed.


As for the statements Jesus made, none of them are word for word match for "I AM that I am"
saying 'before Abraham was born I AM" refers to the eternal state pre-manifestation of the Logos (or Vishnu). There is nothing in this that suggests he is God.


Here are the quotes of Krishna in the Bhagvad Gita where the Logos/vishnu speaks through him

I am the Fragrance of earth, the Brilliance of fire. I am the Life Force in all beings, and I am
the Austerity of the ascetics


O Arjuna! I am the Fluidity in water, the Light in the sun and in the moon. I am the mystic
syllable Om in the Vedic scriptures, the Sound in ether, the Virility in man.
I am the Fragrance of earth, the Brilliance of fire. I am the Life Force in all beings, and I am
the Austerity of the ascetics.
Know, O Arjuna, that I am the eternal Seed of being; I am the Intelligence of the intelligent,
the Splendour of the resplendent.
I am the Strength of the strong, of them who are free from attachment and desire; and,
O Arjuna, I am the Desire for righteousness.
Whatever be the nature of their life, whether it be pure or passionate or ignorant, they are
all derived from Me. They are in Me, but I am not in them.


but remember the subtle truth that God is Immanent throuh the Logos..as it says in the NT "the Father reveals Himself THROUGH the Son (the logos).

As long as you understand that God is Immanent in the Logos yet HE is Trancendent and the logos is His expression not His Essence, you won't mistake the logos for God theoretically. From the mystical perspective though, the logos is God...albeit it is akin to a prism and light, it reveals God's attributes but it isn't any of them by it's own power. it is transparent..
that matches everything the NT teaches me about God.

You do not understand the NT, it is more my book than it is yours tbh.
I remember as a child there was a boy at our school who would act one way in front of his friends and another in front of his parents. A phrase that his mum used one parents evening stayed with me "My John would have never done that".

You may well prefer the Hindu Vishnu to the Biblical Logos of John 1:1. It might fit better with your other beliefs, but be aware that despite your preferences, Jesus may turn out to be someone other than you expect.
 





Joined
Mar 14, 2017
Messages
2,081
Likes
2,317
#10
I remember as a child there was a boy at our school who would act one way in front of his friends and another in front of his parents. A phrase that his mum used one parents evening stayed with me "My John would have never done that".

You may well prefer the Hindu Vishnu to the Biblical Logos of John 1:1. It might fit better with your other beliefs, but be aware that despite your preferences, Jesus may turn out to be someone other than you expect.
to me the Logos is far far bigger than what it is for you
to me, the logos is manifesting in infinite realities, something truely universal and yet something in all of us...and the Logos chose Jesus as the one to incarnate in and reveal itself at that time, and will return through Jesus again.
to you, the logos is Jesus and it is Jesus who personally created the world....white Jesus.
 





Joined
Mar 15, 2017
Messages
5,128
Likes
7,748
#11
to me the Logos is far far bigger than what it is for you
to me, the logos is manifesting in infinite realities, something truely universal and yet something in all of us...and the Logos chose Jesus as the one to incarnate in and reveal itself at that time, and will return through Jesus again.
to you, the logos is Jesus and it is Jesus who personally created the world....white Jesus.
"to you, the logos is Jesus and it is Jesus who personally created the world....white Jesus."

Seriously?!
 





Joined
Jun 4, 2017
Messages
2,731
Likes
3,175
#12
Paul said "by the grace of God I am what I am" (in 1st Corinthians)

15:10 But by the grace of God I am what I am: and His grace which [was bestowed] upon me was not in vain; but I laboured more abundantly than they all: yet not I, but the grace of God which was with me.

He also said "I also think I have the Spirit of God":

7:40 But she is happier if she so abide, after my judgment: and I think also that I have the Spirit of God.

Does that mean Paul claimed to be God?

No, of course it did not mean that. Because that much is made clear in many other of his statements.

Yet, even so, someone could (if they REALLY wanted to) try to make an erronious claim that Paul therefore claimed to be God, because look, Paul said at least both these things and made many other "I am statements".

Not that Paul (who was the born again babe student of Christ) could be compared with Christ (The Lord/Master and Teacher) obviously. But just to make a point that if someone says I am it does not necessarily mean they are "claiming to be God".

So why is there such a bias in the minds of Christians, whenever Jesus used the words "I am", to it having to mean that He was claiming to be God, when Jesus himself made other statements in which he was clearly making a point of giving God a status higher/greater than that of his own?

Should not All of Christ's Words to us be believed and accepted just as He said them?
Neither example is a similar I AM statement, and the comparison is a crude one.

Paul is not claiming godhood-- obviously. He is referring to his (undeserved) station, more or less.

"... by the grace of God I am what I am, and His grace that [is] towards me came not in vain..."

"I am what I am.." --> a product of the Grace of God.

When Jesus made the I AM statement, he was referring to nothing other than His own existence. It's not even in the correct 'tense'--

".. Before Abraham was, I am."

A person would say (were it possible), Before Abraham was, I was too.

But being ETERNAL, He refers to Himself in the Everpresent Now---> I EXIST.
 





Joined
Mar 14, 2017
Messages
2,081
Likes
2,317
#13
Serious talk that. This is the archetypal image the Christians have of God..literally a white Jesus.
You can argue that Jesus was jewish/middle eastern and all but the image in your mind, the one you subconsciously connect with is white Jesus.
 





Joined
Apr 16, 2017
Messages
974
Likes
1,579
#16
Just for the fun of it I googled "accurate image of what jesus might have actually looked like"

Some of what I found

https://www.popularmechanics.com/science/health/a234/1282186/
https://www.livescience.com/61875-what-did-jesus-look-like.html
https://www.star-telegram.com/news/nation-world/world/article202574679.html

The image that Richard Neave came up with is probably closest I have seen to what I imagine in my mind.

In the end it's not the physical image of Jesus in our minds that is important though....
 





Joined
Mar 14, 2017
Messages
2,081
Likes
2,317
#17
and you know this how?
because it's an archetyptal collective image, it is deeply rooted after 2000 yrs of christianity from jews to romans to the whole of europe and then the colonised world. The language of christianity from aramaic to greek to latin to english/spanish/portuguese/french/german/dutch/belgian are all white. By the time Jesus came the people were mostly white in that region and only changed after arabisation of the entire region but by that point christianity was already latin.
 





Joined
Apr 16, 2017
Messages
974
Likes
1,579
#18
By the time Jesus came the people were mostly white in that region and only changed after arabisation of the entire region but by that point christianity was already latin.
Excuse my ignorance, but this sentence is confusing me. I'm not sure what you are trying to say. Could you re-word or elaborate please.
 





Joined
Mar 14, 2017
Messages
2,081
Likes
2,317
#19
these archetypes are a reality, they exist in our subconscious mind, are collectively shared, even if a person never met jesus and lived in africa or east asia the image associated with his name will exist. of course no one can disassociate Christianity with 'white people' anyway so by extention Jesus becomes white.
if he appeared in a dream to anyone he would be white, because it's the archetype that would make an appearance .

there is no chance any one of you think of Jesus without the archetype. These images of 'what Jesus may have looked like' are white.

@Todd that's a 'scientific' image if you will, that is contrary to the archetypal image...and i know you're selecting that image right now because you're thinking logically..but archetypes are not logical...

the image matters in the context of what i was saying ie that when I think of the LOGOS i think of a metaphysical reality, the universal consciousness etc..whereas when the ave christian thinks it, they are thinking 'white Jesus'. if he was arab or indian brown they would not give a shit about the man Jesus. it is their identification of their own religion/culture (judeo-christian) they associate with the logos...as Jesus.
they don't think of a universal aspect that surpasses every form/color/language etc...

for the sake of convenience it appeared as the jewish messiah, but that doesnt mean that is all it is. I am dead sure the logos has come on earth through people of every color at one point in time...and not necesserily playing the role of a religious leader.
to me it represents the ultimate archetype of every form.

if you read the Bhagvad Gita, Arjuna is shown the reality of 'vishnu' (again i have to emphasise this point, vishnu is the logos) and he sees infinite forms...something impossible to truely describe. not just life forms but planets/stars/galaxies, colours etc.

so yeh when i think of the logos i think in that sense..an infinite reality i call 'the expression of God'.
 





Joined
Mar 14, 2017
Messages
2,081
Likes
2,317
#20
Excuse my ignorance, but this sentence is confusing me. I'm not sure what you are trying to say. Could you re-word or elaborate please.
im saying, the region Jesus came into, was as they say in my language 'gorafied' (gora means white)..greek/roman culturural/religious influences...
although today people associate that region with arabs but even in the time of prophet Mohammad they spoke of the region of Sham (the arab levant) as 'rome' ie 'white'.