What is Jesus saying in John 8:58 and what is he not saying?

oatmeal

Well-known member
You understand what oatmeal means by his stonewalling against the question, "By the word 'God', when you say, 'Jesus is not God', do you mean God the Father?" So do I.

I replied to your question a few minutes ago.

Sorry for the delay, I do not notice all posts that concern me. In fact, I answered your question a few minutes ago, because I first noticed this post a few minutes before that.

I noticed it because I thought I should make sure I read, as a minimum, all the posts addressed to me and endeavor to accurately reply to them.
 

oatmeal

Well-known member
Greetings again 7dengo7, Well it is pretty obvious to me (and everyone else) that when oatmeal says 'Jesus is not God', he does not “mean God the Father”. He rejects your claim that Jesus is God, and one way to express this is God the Son. Jesus is the Son of God, not God the Son.

Kind regards
Trevor

Yes, that is correct. You do understand what I am saying
 

Bright Raven

Well-known member
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
Yes, that is correct. You do understand what I am saying

That's what he means and it is incorrect. Jesus is the Creator of all things:

​​​​​​ [h=1]Colossians 1:15-19 King James Version (KJV)[/h]
15 Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature:

16 For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him:

17 And he is before all things, and by him all things consist.

18 And he is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all things he might have the preeminence.

19 For it pleased the Father that in him should all fulness dwell;

Who does that make Him?
 

oatmeal

Well-known member
Continuation of my post #8 for Lon:

I Am (ego eimi)

From my personal in-depth study of the 'I Am' trinity 'proof':
http://examiningthetrinity.blogspot.com/2009/09/i-am-part-1.html

Dr. Walter Martin, the much-heralded trinitarian “cult-buster,” has been quoted as publicly declaring that

“there is no rule or precedent in Greek syntax to allow a present [tense] to equal a perfect [tense].” (Cf. KOTC, p. 89.)

However, A Grammar of New Testament Greek, by J. H. Moulton, Vol. III (by Nigel Turner), p. 62, Edinburgh, 1963, comments specifically on this meaning at John 8:58:

“The present [tense] which indicates the continuance of an action during the past and up to the moment of speaking is virtually the same as perfective [perfect tense], the only difference being that the action is conceived of as still in progress.... It is frequent in the NT: Lk 2:48, 13:7... John 5:6, 8:58 (eimi), 14:9 ... 15:27” - T&T Clark, 1963.

G. B. Winer (“the great Greek grammarian of the 19th century” - Wallace) also tells us:

Sometimes the Present includes also a past tense (mdv. 108), viz. when the verb expresses a state which commenced at an earlier period but still continues, - a state in its duration as, Jno. xv. 27 [Jn.15:27]..., viii. 58 [Jn 8:58].” - A Grammar of the Idiom of the New Testament, Andover, 1897, p. 267.

Blass and Debrunner also list the following as NT instances of present tense verbs indicating the duration of an act up to and including the present: Lk 13:7; 15:29; Jn 8:58 (eimi);15:27 (este); 2 Cor. 12:19. - p. 168 (#322), A Greek Grammar of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, University of Chicago Press, 1961.

Trinitarian A. T. Robertson also agrees with this understanding of the Greek present tense. He calls it “The Progressive Present” and tells us that such a present tense verb often

“has to be translated into English by a sort of ‘progressive perfect’ (‘have been’)...”
- p. 879, A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of Historical Research.

Even A Manual Grammar of the Greek New Testament by trinitarians Dana and Mantey confirms this understanding:

“b. The present [tense] approaches its kindred tense, the perfect, when used to denote the continuation of existing results [D&M’s emphasis in italics]. Here it refers to a fact which has come to be in the past, but is emphasized as a present reality, as we say, ‘I learn that you have moved’ (that is, information has come to me in the past which I now possess). ....

“To say that this use is ‘present for perfect’ (Gildersleeve: Syntax, p. 87) is not accurately representing the case. It does approach quite closely the significance of the perfect [tense], but stresses the continuance [D&M’s emphasis] of results through present time which the perfect [tense] would not do, for the perfect stresses existence of results but not their continuance. To say [manthano auton elthein], ‘I learn that he has gone,’ has a force which is approximated only by ... ‘I have learned that he has gone’.

“c. Sometimes the progressive present [tense] is retroactive in its application, denoting that which has begun in the past and continues into the present. For the want of a better name, we may call it the present of duration. This use is generally associated with an adverb of time [as ‘from the beginning’ in Jn 15:27 and ‘before Abraham came into existence’ in John 8:58 which both act as ‘adverbs of time’ - RDB], and may best be rendered by the English perfect. [Examples of this usage as given by Dana and Mantey are Jn. 15:27 (literally in the NT Greek: ‘from beginning with me you are’ and usually rendered into English as: ‘you have been with me from the beginning’ - RSV); Lk. 13:7; 2 Cor. 12:9 - RDB].” - pp. 182, 183, The Macmillan Company, 30th printing, 1965. [material in brackets has been added by me]

Kenneth L. McKay wrote in his, A New Syntax of the Verb in New Testament Greek, An Aspectual Approach:

"Tense...4.2.4. Extension from Past. When used with an expression of either past time or extent of time with past implications (but not in past narrative, for which see 4.2.5), the present tense signals an activity begun in the past and continuing to the present time: Luke 13:7...Lu 15:29....Jn 14:9 [Tosouton khronon meth muoon eimi]..have I been with you so long...? ; Ac 27:33...Jn 8:58 [prin Abraam ego eimi], I have been in existence since before Abraham was born...."

Perhaps even more surprising is this admission by hyper-trinitarian NT Greek scholar, Daniel B. Wallace:

A. Extending-from-Past Present (Present of Past Action Still in Progress)
1. Definition
The present tense may be used to describe an action which, begun in the past, continues in the present. ....

.... It is different from the progressive present in that it reaches back in time and usually has some sort of temporal indicator, such as an adverbial phrase [such as ‘before Abraham came into existence’], to show this past-referring element. Depending on how tightly one defines this category, it is either relatively rare or fairly common.

2. Key to Identification
The key to this usage is normally to translate the present as an English present perfect. [And the presence of a ‘temporal indicator, such as an adverbial phrase, to show this past-referring element.’] Some examples might not fit such a gloss, however. [Wallace’s examples include Luke 13:7; Luke 15:29; John 5:6; 1 Jn 3:8.] - pp. 519-520, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics, Zondervan, 1996. [As in all other cases, bracketed material and emphasis are added by me.]

Some NT Greek Grammars which acknowledge the "durative" or "progressive" present tense wherein the present tense verb [such as eimi] is understood to be continuing and, hence, may be properly rendered into English as a present perfect tense [such as "I have been"]:

Blass & DeBrunner, A Greek Grammar of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, #322.

Brooks & Winberry, Syntax of New Testament Greek, p. 84.

Ernest De Witt Burton, Syntax of Moods and Tenses in N.T. Greek, #17

Dana & Mantey, A Manual Grammar of the Greek New Testament, p. 182-183

William W. Goodwin, Greek Grammar, p. 270, #1258, 1900 ed.

Kenneth L. McKay, A New Syntax of the Verb in New Testament Greek

C. F. D. Moule, An Idiom Book of N.T. Greek, p. 8

J. H. Moulton (Nigel Turner), A Grammar of New Testament Greek, Vol. 3, p. 62

Wesley J. Perschbacher, NT Greek Syntax, p. 284-285

A. T. Robertson, Grammar of the Greek NT in Light of Historical Research, pp. 879-880

Herbert Weir Smyth, A Greek Grammar For Colleges, #1885

Gerald L. Stevens, NT Greek, p.78

Daniel B. Wallace, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics, p. 519

G. B. Winer, A Grammar of the Idiom of the New Testament, p. 267.

Richard Young, Intermediate New Testament Greek, pp. 111-112

Brooks/Winbery, Syntax of New Testament Greek, pp. 84-85
..........................

When a trinitarian Grammar scholar or translator (whether paraphrase or more literal) translates the Greek text in a way that contradicts the usual trinity 'proof,' that is significant! (And although many of the Bibles listed in post #8 above are not paraphrase Bibles, it matters little as to the understanding of the trinitarian translator's understanding of said trinity 'proof.')

Most trinitarians will simply dismiss a non-Trinitarian scholar's translation or grammar studies, but since we are quoting mostly trinitarian scholars and translators, it should be taken seriously. And the more we find the more significant it is.

Thanks for the input
 

oatmeal

Well-known member
Jesus says he is I am, and he knows the Jews know God the Father says He is the I am.

Jesus says he is I am because he is God the Father who is the I am.


John 8:58 "Truly, truly, I tell you," Jesus declared, "before Abraham was born, I am!"

Exodus 3:14 God said to Moses, "I AM WHO I AM. This is what you are to say to the Israelites: 'I AM has sent me to you.'"

John 8:24 That is why I told you that you would die in your sins. For unless you believe that I am He, you will die in your sins."

John 8:28 So Jesus said, "When you have lifted up the Son of Man, then you will know thatI am He, and that I do nothing on My own, but speak exactly what the Father has taught Me.

John 4:26 Jesus answered, "I who speak to you am He."

Zechariah 12:10 "And I will pour out on the house of David and the inhabitants of Jerusalem a spirit of grace and supplication. They will look on me, the one they have pierced, and they will mourn for him as one mourns for an only child, and grieve bitterly for him as one grieves for a firstborn son.

John 13:19 I am telling you now before it happens, so that when it comes to pass, you will believe that I am He.



God the Father in the Old Testament says about Himself that "They will look on me, the on they have pierced."



John 18:6 When Jesus said, "I am he," they drew back and fell to the ground.



Do you not think that Jesus knew the Old Testament Scriptures? Do you not know that the 'I Am' statement is just for God the Father in the Old Testament?

This is God the Father speaking in the Old Testament:

Isaiah 48:12 [ Israel Freed ] “Listen to me, Jacob, Israel, whom I have called: I am he; I am the first and I am the last.

This is Jesus calling himself I am he and I am the first and the last.

John 18:6 When Jesus said, "I am he," they drew back and fell to the ground.

Revelation 22:13 I am the Alpha and the Omega, the First and the Last, the Beginning and the End.

Both God and His son refer themselves as shepherds, for that matter, David and other men of God were shepherds, does being a shepherd mean that all shepherds are God?
 

way 2 go

Well-known member
He did not say "I am God" in John 8:58.

Why do you pervert his statement, his words?

Jesus said that he is God but in a way that someone like yourself could deny it
and others would want to stone him .

Joh 8:57 Then the Jews said to Him, You do not yet have fifty years, and have You seen Abraham?
Joh 8:58 Jesus said to them, Truly, truly, I say to you, Before Abraham came to be, I AM!
Joh 8:59 Because of this, they took up stones that they might throw them on Him. But Jesus was hidden, and went forth out of the temple, going through the midst of them, and so passed by.
 

Wick Stick

Well-known member
What new evidence did you provide?

For that matter, what evidence did you provide?
I searched old Biblical manuscripts for potential irregularities in how the name of God was rendered here, both in Greek and Aramaic, and reported the results, as well as searching the early church father's commentaries on the verse and finding how far back the tradition linking it to Exodus goes.

I daresay it's the only actual evidence that anybody in this topic has provided so far. Everything else here is just... people's interpretations of verses, dialectical syllogisms, socratic questions, people publishing their opinions as if they had any weight behind them whatsoever, and a good bit of rhetoric.

Jarrod
 

7djengo7

This space intentionally left blank
Was Jesus making himself equal to God? No, he was not. John 5 tells us that what Jesus did and had was given to him,

John 5:

18 Therefore the Jews sought the more to kill him, because he not only had broken the sabbath, but said also that God was his Father, making himself equal with God.

19 Then answered Jesus and said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, The Son can do nothing of himself, but what he seeth the Father do: for what things soever he doeth, these also doeth the Son likewise.

20 For the Father loveth the Son, and sheweth him all things that himself doeth: and he will shew him greater works than these, that ye may marvel.

21 For as the Father raiseth up the dead, and quickeneth them; even so the Son quickeneth whom he will.

22 For the Father judgeth no man, but hath committed all judgment unto the Son:

23 That all men should honour the Son, even as they honour the Father. He that honoureth not the Son honoureth not the Father which hath sent him.

30 I can of mine own self do nothing: as I hear, I judge: and my judgment is just; because I seek not mine own will, but the will of the Father which hath sent me.

You're an outright Bible-despising, Christ-despising, lying anti-Christ, for John explicitly states that Jesus, by saying that God was his Father, was making himself equal with God, and you flat out, blatantly contradict this truth that John stated, by saying "No, he was not."

When you outright contradict explicit Gospel truth, as you've done here, why do you expect Christians to take your ravings seriously?
 

7djengo7

This space intentionally left blank
I searched old Biblical manuscripts for potential irregularities in how the name of God was rendered here, both in Greek and Aramaic, and reported the results, as well as searching the early church father's [sic] commentaries on the verse and finding how far back the tradition linking it to Exodus goes.

I daresay it's the only actual evidence that anybody in this topic has provided so far. Everything else here is just... people's interpretations of verses, dialectical syllogisms, socratic questions, people publishing their opinions as if they had any weight behind them whatsoever, and a good bit of rhetoric.

Jarrod

Well, at least you admit that you are inimical to thinking logically. You disqualify yourself from being taken seriously, by your anti-logic mindset. It's funny that you consider yourself to be presenting something you call "actual evidence" (why not just say "evidence"? why do you need to say "actual evidence"? what would you say is the difference between evidence and what you call "actual evidence"?), and yet you disparage logical argument ("just...dialectical syllogisms"). If you think you have "actual evidence" for some claim you'd like to make, then use your "actual evidence" as a premise(s) to make an argument--a "dialectical syllogism"--in which the claim you'd like to make functions as a conclusion. Go ahead. Try it. What are you waiting for, Professor? C'mon, start throwin' all that copious weight around that you boast of.
 

7djengo7

This space intentionally left blank
I can see that you are the sort of fellow who, when confronted with new evidence that contradicts what you have said, simply repeat what you first said.

There's not much point in continuing, then.

I can see that you are the sort of fellow who, in lieu of trying to think systematically and rigorously regarding fundamental questions of epistemology, prefers to go around meaninglessly chirping the word, "evidence".

If someone believes that the proposition, P, is true, he or she is an abject idiot to think that evidence can be contrary to P.

"simply repeat what you first said"

Because all you'd be doing is simply repeating your claim that you have presented what you call "evidence", you're right to say that there's not much point in your continuing in this thread.

When someone does not agree with you in your claim that what you call "evidence" is evidence, I can see why you'd prefer to take your leave, rather than to be called upon to try to defend your claim that what you call "evidence" is evidence. Surely you don't expect others to simply take your word for it that what you call "evidence" is evidence, right?
 

oatmeal

Well-known member
Jesus said that he is God but in a way that someone like yourself could deny it
and others would want to stone him .

Joh 8:57 Then the Jews said to Him, You do not yet have fifty years, and have You seen Abraham?
Joh 8:58 Jesus said to them, Truly, truly, I say to you, Before Abraham came to be, I AM!
Joh 8:59 Because of this, they took up stones that they might throw them on Him. But Jesus was hidden, and went forth out of the temple, going through the midst of them, and so passed by.

Your highly refined ability to read into scripture that which it does not say is noted
 

oatmeal

Well-known member
You're an outright Bible-despising, Christ-despising, lying anti-Christ, for John explicitly states that Jesus, by saying that God was his Father, was making himself equal with God, and you flat out, blatantly contradict this truth that John stated, by saying "No, he was not."

When you outright contradict explicit Gospel truth, as you've done here, why do you expect Christians to take your ravings seriously?

See, you are taking the position of Jesus Christ's enemies, for it is his enemies that conclude that God being the Father of Jesus makes Jesus equal with God.

That's too bad
 

oatmeal

Well-known member
I searched old Biblical manuscripts for potential irregularities in how the name of God was rendered here, both in Greek and Aramaic, and reported the results, as well as searching the early church father's commentaries on the verse and finding how far back the tradition linking it to Exodus goes.

I daresay it's the only actual evidence that anybody in this topic has provided so far. Everything else here is just... people's interpretations of verses, dialectical syllogisms, socratic questions, people publishing their opinions as if they had any weight behind them whatsoever, and a good bit of rhetoric.

Jarrod

When the weight of all scripture that makes it clear that Jesus is the son of God, not "God the Son" then any interpretation of John 8:58 that concludes that Jesus is God is in error.

Have you not read John 20:31?

31 But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name.
 

oatmeal

Well-known member
The Jews knew exactly what He was saying. Why did they pick up stones to throw at Him?

Yes, they may have, however that didn't mattter to them. They were hell bent on murdering him on any false charge they could drum up.

Thus, anything Jesus said, they looked to twist to be able to destroy him.
 

7djengo7

This space intentionally left blank
See, you are taking the position of Jesus Christ's enemies, for it is his enemies that conclude that God being the Father of Jesus makes Jesus equal with God.

That's too bad

You just called John, who penned the Gospel, an enemy of Jesus Christ.

What's too bad is that your lying father, the devil, has got blinders on you, so that you can't even read and understand the simplest Bible text. Here's what John said:

Therefore the Jews sought the more to kill him, because he not only had broken the sabbath, but said also that God was his Father, making himself equal with God.

Notice that it is John--and not the Jews who sought the more to kill Jesus--who is stating that Jesus
  • had broken the sabbath, [making himself equal with God]
  • said that God was his Father, making himself equal with God
It's John saying, "he not only had broken the sabbath, but said also that God was his Father, making himself equal with God"; if these Jews said that, or something similar, nevertheless, it is not recorded in the verse at hand. The verse is a record of what John said--it is not a record of what these Jews may, or may not, have said.

We do not read:

Therefore the Jews sought the more to kill him, because he not only had broken the sabbath, but said also that God was his Father, [causing the Jews to mistakenly think he was] making himself equal with God.

We do not read:

Therefore the Jews accused him of having broken the sabbath, and of making himself equal with God by saying that God was his Father.

No. Rather, we read:

Therefore the Jews sought the more to kill him, BECAUSE he not only had broken the sabbath, but said also that God was his Father, making himself equal with God.


John is stating exactly what Jesus did that triggered these Jews to seek to kill Jesus.

John is not telling us what these Jews thought; John is telling us what these Jews sought: viz., they sought to kill Jesus.

John is telling us the cause (notice the word, "because", in the text) of their seeking to kill Jesus: the fact that Jesus had broken the sabbath, and made himself equal with God by saying that God was his Father.

You're the lying, Satanic, Bible-despising, anti-Christ hypocrite who is siding with those in the passage who sought the more to kill Jesus; you, like they were, are in self-righteous, arrogant, Christ-blaspheming denial of the Gospel truth that Jesus is equal with God the Father.
 

oatmeal

Well-known member
You just called John, who penned the Gospel, an enemy of Jesus Christ.

What's too bad is that your lying father, the devil, has got blinders on you, so that you can't even read and understand the simplest Bible text. Here's what John said:



Notice that it is John--and not the Jews who sought the more to kill Jesus--who is stating that Jesus
  • had broken the sabbath, [making himself equal with God]
  • said that God was his Father, making himself equal with God
It's John saying, "he not only had broken the sabbath, but said also that God was his Father, making himself equal with God"; if these Jews said that, or something similar, nevertheless, it is not recorded in the verse at hand. The verse is a record of what John said--it is not a record of what these Jews may, or may not, have said.

We do not read:



We do not read:



No. Rather, we read:




John is stating exactly what Jesus did that triggered these Jews to seek to kill Jesus.

John is not telling us what these Jews thought; John is telling us what these Jews sought: viz., they sought to kill Jesus.

John is telling us the cause (notice the word, "because", in the text) of their seeking to kill Jesus: the fact that Jesus had broken the sabbath, and made himself equal with God by saying that God was his Father.

You're the lying, Satanic, Bible-despising, anti-Christ hypocrite who is siding with those in the passage who sought the more to kill Jesus; you, like they were, are in self-righteous, arrogant, Christ-blaspheming denial of the Gospel truth that Jesus is equal with God the Father.

John wrote what God told him to write down.

God accurately tells both the truths for us to live and the errors to avoid.

Did Jesus break the Sabbath?

Did Jesus sin against the laws regarding the Sabbath? That is what they said.

You seem to agree with their assessment of Jesus Christ

Why would you agree with them not Jesus Christ?
 

Ps82

Well-known member
What is meant by - before Abraham I AM?
My conclusions according to scripture. I may not quote a bunch of scripture because things become lengthy but I have studied and found scripture for what I am about to write.

1.) God is an invisible Spirit.
2.) God manifested his presence in the form of a male image so that men and angels could behold him.
3.) God's presence appeared to men of old like Adam, Abraham, Moses, etc.
4.) At first he was only identified by men as being God Almighty. Exodus 6:3 Even Jacob did not know his name when he wrestled with him.
5.) Later, he specifically identified himself to Moses as I AM, but Moses explained more who he was.Exodus 3:6,14.
6.) Moses not only heard God identify himself as I AM but shared another name as well. Most people skip right over it. It is interpreted as LORD in KJV. v.15 says: And God said moreover unto Moses; "Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, 'The LORD God of your Fathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob [people who only knew me as God Almighty], hath sent me [Moses] unto you [people of Israel saying]:' this is My Name for ever, and this is my memorial unto all generations.'" IOW, God was forever to be known to Israel and all his followers as I AM The LORD God/ Jehovah,YHWH.
7.) When Jesus told the Jewish religious experts that he was the I AM who even existed before Abraham they UNDERSTOOD he was telling them he was God Almighty of Abraham/ the eternal one or The I AM of, the LORD God of Moses and Israel, who had finally arrived as God the Savior.

When all things known are put together I think this NT verse explains it well: John 1:18
No man hath seen God [the Spirit] at any time; [who came as] the only begotten Son, which is [now] in the bosom of the Father [who was the LORD God of Israel], he [John the Baptist] hath declared him [the Son to be God and LORD seen in flesh].

Is it any wonder that Jesus said: You call me Lord and rightly so.
Is it any wonder that Jesus said: When you have seen the Father LORD you have seen me. We are one.
Is it any wonder that the Spirit of God was not withheld from him by any mere measures? John 3:34
He was fully God/I AM, the the Almighty, the LORD God, as well as God the Lord Savior. Is. 43:11
 

God's Truth

New member
What is meant by - before Abraham I AM?
My conclusions according to scripture. I may not quote a bunch of scripture because things become lengthy but I have studied and found scripture for what I am about to write.

1.) God is an invisible Spirit.
2.) God manifested his presence in the form of a male image so that men and angels could behold him.
3.) God's presence appeared to men of old like Adam, Abraham, Moses, etc.
4.) At first he was only identified by men as being God Almighty. Exodus 6:3 Even Jacob did not know his name when he wrestled with him.
5.) Later, he specifically identified himself to Moses as I AM, but Moses explained more who he was.Exodus 3:6,14.
6.) Moses not only heard God identify himself as I AM but shared another name as well. Most people skip right over it. It is interpreted as LORD in KJV. v.15 says: And God said moreover unto Moses; "Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, 'The LORD God of your Fathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob [people who only knew me as God Almighty], hath sent me [Moses] unto you [people of Israel saying]:' this is My Name for ever, and this is my memorial unto all generations.'" IOW, God was forever to be known to Israel and all his followers as I AM The LORD God/ Jehovah,YHWH.
7.) When Jesus told the Jewish religious experts that he was the I AM who even existed before Abraham they UNDERSTOOD he was telling them he was God Almighty of Abraham/ the eternal one or The I AM of, the LORD God of Moses and Israel, who had finally arrived as God the Savior.

When all things known are put together I think this NT verse explains it well: John 1:18
No man hath seen God [the Spirit] at any time; [who came as] the only begotten Son, which is [now] in the bosom of the Father [who was the LORD God of Israel], he [John the Baptist] hath declared him [the Son to be God and LORD seen in flesh].

Is it any wonder that Jesus said: You call me Lord and rightly so.
Is it any wonder that Jesus said: When you have seen the Father LORD you have seen me. We are one.
Is it any wonder that the Spirit of God was not withheld from him by any mere measures? John 3:34
He was fully God/I AM, the the Almighty, the LORD God, as well as God the Lord Savior. Is. 43:11

Right, Jesus is God with a body. Jesus' Spirit is the Spirit of God come as a man, and existed with an immortal body in the Old Testament times before coming to earth.
 
Top