No. Hebrew has no capital letters.
When the ending is -ai then the word usually refers to the Divine. When the ending ends in -ee (as in the Genesis example I gave) then the meaning is “My master” and is usually referring to a person.
Zev Steinhardt
Jesus was a gay man, a gay man indeed.
That’s helpful in enabling us to make the distinction, Diogenes, but we’re looking at the contents of old manuscripts here, and I’m sure I don’t need to remind you that neither Masoretic Hebrew nor the uncial codices distinguised majuscule and minuscule letters (along with spacing between words, punctuation, and a host of other characters – there seems to be a great deal of similarity between a typical scribe and a 133+ |-|@XoR stylistically! 
mac’soul: In Moses’s first encounter with YHVH, he says, “If they ask who sent me, what shall I tell them?” And God answers, “Tell them ‘I AM’ sent you.” At a slightly later time, God pronounces His Name to be “I AM THAT I AM.”
If you’ve ever studied Spanish, you’re familiar with the two ways of saying “I am” in that language. In “La Bamba,” for example, occurs the line “Yo no soy marinero, soy capitan!” which illustrates the point. The verb form by itself means “I am” with the emphasis on what it is that you are. The nominative pronoun “Yo” is used to place emphasis on the “I” – “I am the boss around here; you aren’t!” (Actually the distinction between ser for permanent/identity use and estar for present state of being means that there are four ways to construct “I am” but that’s beside the point for this discussion.)
Koine Greek was like this, except for using the pronoun slightly more often than Spanish would. And because the long form construction ego eimi was used to translate the Torah phrase, the pious Greek-speaking Jew of the Disaspora would carefully use either eimi* by itself or a circumlocution to avoid referring to himself by the Divine Name.
When Jesus says "I am the Bread of Life, " or “I am the Good Shepherd” or “I am the Vine; you are the branches,” in the Gospel according to John, it’s invariably rendered ego eimi in the original – and for any person familiar with the Torah, this would have to conjure up the memory of the revealing of the Divine Name. (I could have had a similar effect by beginning this discussion, "It all depends on what the definition of “I am” is! :D) And, as Jersey notes, Jesus makes the ultimate claim of identity to God in “Before Abraham was, I AM.” (BTW, in addition to these uses, there are number of cases where Jesus is cited as saying, “When [event X occurs], then you will know that I am he.” The problem with this translation is that the “he” is supplied to provide an English sense – what Jesus’s main clause is, is “then you will know that I am”)
Now, it can be argued, and has been, that John was “backwritten” with theological themes including the logos role and the ensuing identity with God intentionally inserted – but working with the evidence before us, the man Jesus as depicted in the Gospels laid “claim to being equal to God” as the Pharisees accused Him of. Dismiss the evidence of the Gospels, and you have very little picture of who this Jesus that got Paul so wrought up was.
<<Anyone else heard anything on this theory of the origin of the Trinity in Christian thought?>>
No and I think it’s a load of _rap, too (he, he). I simply marvel at the extreme lengths Christians and scholars have gone to to try and convince themselves and the world that the miraculous conception and the crucifixion/resurrection actually took place. Is there any other religion that has as much research and publication dedicated to this? Are they afraid of something?
My brother, a fundie, in an attempt to “save” his little brother, recently sent me a book published just recently called “The Case for Christ”. Why do people feel compelled to convince others of their beliefs? I don’t see Buddhists and Hindus doing it. And I can’t recall seeing Muslims riding around on bicycles in black slacks, white shirts, and ties, knocking on doors. Only Christians start crusades and feel compelled to go uninvited into other countries to “spread the word”.
I recently began attending church a year ago after a 30 yr hiatus (for personal reasons) I think it was during one of the songs where I was listening to all the praise the lords, the lord is king, the lord is my shepherd, the lord sacrificed his life, the lord is my savior, I’m a sinner, I can’t do anything on my own, (ie. I ain’t squat without “the Lord”);; or, maybe it was listening to the pastor talk about how vitally important is was for me to “believe” that Jesus was crucified and resurrected. And all I could think about was that Christianity is definitely a cult, that this is brainwashing without the isolation/deprivation.
But, I rationalize that if people are gaining solace and peace from it then what’s the harm. Most were born into it and don’t know anything else. But they are still so "blind that they cannot see"and unaware that they must first recognize that love, god, and happiness reside within us all and it is our birthright to be happy.
It is a “sin”, IMO to teach people were are sinful by nature and must worship something outside of us in order to feel good about ourselves and then made to live in fear of eternal damnation for not following a particular path. How about we are born perfect and through domestication and society we become perverted? We “go to sleep”. Again, IMO, the “awakening” is reclaiming what we were born with. Brahma’s task.
Zenmaster is right. And, IMHO, Jesus’s teaching were subverted and the gospels altered. The resurrection was symbolic. I’d be extremely surprised to see a Christian denomination that teaches the “I am god” concept. That goes against the grain of wanting you to believe you are a sinner and need Jesus to save you. Christians taking biblical text out of context is classic “christianity”. Ask Oral Roberts, he communes directly with god. Or, go ask David Koresh. Oh, that’s right, he’s unavailable for comment.
Thank you, now I remember. it seemed to me like there was an adonai distinction but I wasn’t positive it was the capitalization. Thanks for the help.
Poly,
You are correct. I don’t know how much is being read into those distinctions and how much was actually intended by the gospelers. I’d be interested to know if there is any non-NT use of the capital kappa to indicate “Lord” in Koine (contemporary with the NT that is).
I guess we don’t even know for sure that the capitalizations were not made by copyists rather than the authors. It’s possible, I think.
In any case, as has been shown, the direct identification of Jesus with the Divine can be shown in the NT, including at least one gospel, without reference to the title of Lord. So if macabre is looking for some direct claim in the Christian Bible it is there.
If you are refering to the Mormons, they are not Christians.
So far ZEN-M hasn’t really given a cite for his Trinity rant…did you read that in the Watchtower?
I coulda swore they believed in Christ… wouldn’t that make them Christians…
Not to hijack the OP , but Mormonism is a polytheistic religion. They believe Jesus was a God, not God himself. They also believe in a bastardized version of trinity. They actually believe they can become gods themselves in the next life.
Quote/ "The reason Mormonism is not Christian is because it, like any other cult, denies one or more of the essential doctrines of Christianity. Of the essential doctrines (Jesus is God in flesh, forgiveness of sins is by grace alone, and Jesus rose from the dead physically), Mormonism distorts two of them: the person of Jesus, and His work of salvation.
Mormonism teaches that God the Father has a body of flesh and bones (D. & C. 130:22) and that Jesus is a creation. It teaches that he was begotten in heaven as one of God’s spirit children (See the Book, Jesus the Christ, by James Talmage, p. 8). This is in strict contrast to the biblical teaching that he is God in flesh (John 1:1, 14), eternal (John 1:1, 2, 15), uncreated, yet born on earth (Col. 1:15), and the creator all (John 1:3; Col. 1;16-17). Jesus cannot be both created and not created at the same time. Though Mormonism teaches that Jesus is god in flesh, it teaches that he is “a” god in flesh, one of three gods that comprise the office of the Trinity (Articles of Faith, by Talmage, pp. 35-40). These three gods are the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost. This is in direct contradiction of the biblical doctrine that there is only one God (Isaiah 44:6,8; 45:5). "
By whose definition? Are you God, that you should judge whom He calls and whom He does not?
JFTR, I have seen Mormons behaving in non-Christian manners, and Mormons behaving in quite Christian manners. And the same goes for evangelicals, Catholics, and any other group you care to name. I personally think that a large part of LDS doctrine is seriously wacko – but that does not stop me from accepting them as my brothers and sisters.
Because they, like us, “believe in their heart and confess with their lips that Jesus Christ is Lord.” Just like the UFMCC, the JWs, the Copts, and everything inbetween. And if that was a good enough definition to satisfy St., Paul, it works for me.
<<If you are refering to the Mormons, they are not Christians.>>
Guess what? I wasn’t referring to Mormons. I was referring to Moonies, who are Christians. I should know, I was lectured enough by my brother who was one.
I am a Pentecostal, and in my faith I (should say believe but am going to say know) that Jesus is God manifested in the flesh.
btw
Joh 10:30 I and my Father are one.
(please dont associate me with of any kind with Al Sharpton) Thank you
One more to add…
And you can tell by the reactions the Jews had to him - They knew he was claiming to be God:
Good grief hilltopper, have you ever hit your nose jerking your knee that hard/quickly?
Too late, you already hijacked it. If you want to continue the hijack, be aware that this discussion comes up routinely, and I have yet to see the one-trick Anti-Mormons do a very good job (or even make an honest argument). Take it to a different thread and invite us over if you want to discuss it.
As for the LDS (and my personal) understanding of the divinity of Jesus, He is God the Son. And He was from the foundation of the world. In addition to the Biblical quotes listed here, it is corroborated by extra-biblical LDS scripture as well.
Artemius- the status of Mormons as Christians is arguable- I won’t say that they aren’t but I will say that the LDS Church’s definition of God is vastly different from that of the Bible.
However, as far as Moonies go, they go far beyond even the Mormon differences- God sent Son #1 Jesus to marry a pure woman & redeem humanity by starting a perfect family which would spread worldwide. Jesus failed & thus only accomplished spiritual salvation by His Death & Resurrection. Soooooo, God now sends the Lord of the Second Advent (which Rev. Syn Myung Moon, after years of hinting, has finally publically pronounced is himself) to finish the redemptive mission that Jesus failed to complete.
If that’s Christian, so is Islam- which teaches that Jesus is Messiah (tho not Allah’s Son as that is a blasphemous concept) & a great prophet but that Mohammed is the completion of the prophets.
If your brother is trying to convert you to faith in Christ & not to join the Unification Church, he is not a Moonie.
Maybe a Methodist? a Mennonite? a Moldavian?
(yeah, the last one is a real group- they were kinda German pre-Methodists)
FriarTed,
Splitting hairs IMO, and you know it. They believe in the crucifixion/resurrection and the immaculate conception and salvation-pillars of the Christian faith. And, since my bro’ was a bonafide Moonie and you weren’t (I assume), then I respectfully defer to his position.
But the point still stands. Only those associated with that belief system (and its variants) feel compelled to impose their beliefs on others and judge you for not believing. For example, I don’t recall Buddhists burning witches at the stake, launching a crusades, coming in behind invading armies to spread the word of Buddhism, holing up in a compound and allowing men, women, and children to be burned to death by Federal agents, etc., etc. Of course, I realize I’m just being ignorant.
Since someone dragged Mormons into the discussion; I just shake my head everytime I think about the Mountain Meadow massacre. Just thought I’d throw that in.
Jesus + Holy Spirit + God = 1 dieity
Think of it as water. Water can be ice, steam and free flowing but it is still “water”
That is how God is. It is written in the bible that you can not see the Father except through me (Jesus)
Exodus says that Moses saw God…well he saw God’s butt anyway. He didn’t have to look through Jesus, though.
Anyway that’s not exactly what Jesus said. The quotation from John has Jesus saying “No one comes to the father but through me” (whatever that means). He didn’t say you couldn’t see the father.
Whatsall, your argument here only proves that the concept of the Trinity is not anywhere precluded by biblical text, not that it is a necessary belief, nor that the concept wasn’t borrowed from other religions of the time. The fact that some texts MAY be interpretted as so as to imply a Trinity does not mena that they SHOULD be interpretted this way.
There seems to be a concensus among posters on this thread that, as you say, the concept does not originate from anything said explicitly by Christ himself, nor from ANY biblical text. So, where DOES it come from? Where did it first appear in the development of early Church doctrine. It must have been early, since the concept is ubiquitous today throughout all Christian denominations (I think?)
Furthermore, since, there is nothing like it specifically, nor even analogous to it, in Jewish doctrines (which you admit), that at least narrows the range of time in which the concept was first developed (or, if you prefer, first became known).
There was a very good documentary on the History Channel last week about ‘Peter & Paul’ and their travels & ministries & conflicts within the early Church, particularly with regard to admission of Gentiles into their sect. This was at first opposed by some of the apostles. One thing that was clear though from the documentary: as the Church grew from an off-shoot of Judaism to a religion in its own right (and certain aspects of Jewish law discarded from Church traditions), the number of converts who were born Gentiles soon out-numbered those who were born Jews (like Jesus & all his disciples). The apostles travelled all throughout the Roman empire (and perhaps elsewhere too) to preach the Word. Many of their converts were followers of the indigenous Roman religions. Even in Jerusalem in Jesus’ time there were many Roman temples & shrines. So, there is a good chance that many theological concepts surrounding the worship of Roman deities were well-known to many early Christians. Greek, Egyptian, other relious traditions were also likely well-known. It is not inconceivable that apostles would choose to describe their God in terms that were intelligible & associated with mystical tradtions of other faiths besides Judaism. The concept of the Trinity had to come from somewhere. That doesn’t mean its necessarily wrong either. I don’t see the reason for its strong emphasis among Christianity.
To me a tri-une godhead sounds like a lot of hocus-pocus numerolgy, but that just my opinion. Mystical incomprehensible nonsense developed to bestow special powers on priests to divine the ineffible. (To me it reminds me of a famous saying by Nietsche that “philosophers are people who muddy the waters to make themselves appear deep.”)
I’m not trying to convince anyone that its untrue. I’m merely reporting what I have heard alleged regarding the possible origins of the concept and also stating my considered opinion of it.
Why isn’t it just as likely that the concept was simply added to show potential new converts that the Christian church contained revealed mystical wisdom that was just as powerful as the Roman traditions. Or, that the Roman concept of the Trinity was incomplete or a distortion of the true Trinity?
In other words, why is it so central to belief? Someone explain that to me.
What’s wrong with Jesus simply being the Messiah? Why the insistance in the belief in Jesus being God or the Holy Ghost (whatever that is) also being God, yet somehow also separate from God.
And, conversely, if its so central to belief, why is it nowhere stated explicitly in Scripture? What evidence do we have that it is not simply like many other accumulaed local traditions that the Church picked up over the centuries - just among the first local mystical traditions to be incorporated.