Sorry to disillussion the trintiarians, but Exodus 3:14 and John 8:58 hardly offer proof of anything. Was it not a trinitarian just yesterday saying scriptures must be read in context? The context of the account of John 8:58 clearly shows he was addressing existing before Abraham, not a decalration of being God.
As for Exodus 3:14, since it was written in Hebrew, I turned to a Jewish Rabbi for an explanation of it. "Most moderns follow Rashi in rendering 'I will be what I will be'; i.e. no words can sum up all that He will be to His people, but His everlasting faithfulness and unchanging mercy will more and more manifest themselves in the guidance of Israel. The answer which Moses receives in these words is thus equivalent to, "I shall save in the way that I shall save.' It is to assure the Israelites of the fact of deliverance, but does not disclose the manner. It must suffice the Israelites to learn that 'Ehyeh, I WILL BE (with you), hath sent me unto you.'
The message Moses gave to the Israelites had nothing to do with abstract or obtuse theology (which would have meant nothing to an enslaved people), but instead told his people about the new creation God was going to do -- liberate a people from bondage Gods own being affirms life and existence. He will not allow those forces that are destructive to reduce the Jewish people to nothing. (Sefornos Commentary to the Torah) Gods magisterial power over creation was soon going to be unleashed against a government that would deconstruct its policies of exploitation and oppression. Moses words had little to do with being as an abstraction but had everything to do with the process of becoming.
In my opinion, of all the translations that speak to the heart of the matter, I think Bubers translation is the best of the group. From Bubers understanding we may deduce God assured Moses, that He would always be present in the life of His people; He has not abandoned them, for even as they suffer, so too, does Gods Shechina -- the feminine aspect of Divinity.. God promised Moses that He and would bring about a new beginning for a suffering people." from the traditional translation and explanation I have from the Hertz Pentateuch for Ex. 3:14. (sorry, but the Rabbi who emailed me back did not give their name.)
I have always seen this as really grasping at straws to justify their triune god. The two scriptures have little bearing on each other than similar wording in the Greek Septuagent. If we are to believe that Jesus' usage of the Greek ego eimi at John 8:58 is his declaring himself God, then we must also accept that the formerly blind beggar at John 9:9 was declaring himself God.
Scholars are hardly in agreement on the traditional translations of the two scriptures cited either.
As for Jesus saying he and the Father are one shows him to be God, then you must also accept other renderings of those being one with Christ as also being God;
John 17:11 And now I am no more in the world, but these are in the world, and I come to thee. Holy Father, keep through thine own name those whom thou hast given me, that they may be one, as we are.21 That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me.
22 And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one:
Romans 12:5 so we, though many, are one body in Christ, and individually members one of another. (RSV)
1 Corinthians 6:17 But he who is united to the Lord becomes one spirit with him. (RSV)
1 John 3:24 All who keep his commandments abide in him, and he in them. And by this we know that he abides in us, by the Spirit which he has given us. (RSV)
John 14:20 In that day you will know that I am in my Father, and you in me, and I in you. (RSV)
Galatians 3:28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus. (RSV)
What does being one really mean in the scriptures?
1 Corinthians 1:10 I appeal to you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree and that there be no dissensions among you, but that you be united in the same mind and the same judgment. (RSV)
*IF* Jesus being one with the Father makes him God, then it is only logical that the Apostles being one with Jesus and God are also God!
And still, no one explains how Jesus calls another the ONLY true God, yet is still God, and there only be one God! I find it curious indeed, in order to justify their doctrine, they actually strive to discredit or obscure Jesus' very own words, yet also claim to follow him and worship him.
Another point they often gloss over is Jesus being placed in subjection to God after he hands all things to God.
1 Corinthians 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.
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. (KJV)
This alone shows Jesus is not equal to God and clearly shows them to be two separate and distinct individuals. One cannot be subject to another and still be equal.
Page 6,7; "Trinitarian dogma is one of the great enigmas of our time. The fact that it defies both conventional logic and rational explanation does not seem to diminish the Trinitarians desire to protect at all costs his complex theological formula. We are puzzled at the agitation that is created when the Trinity is questioned. This seems to point to a lack of confidence in what is claimed to be the unquestionable party line of virtually all Christian ministers. The common branding of all objectors as unbelievers does nothing to reassure us." Page 11; "One of the strongest arguments against it [the trinity] is that it cannot be expressed without abandoning biblical language." ( The Doctrine of the Trinity: Christianity's Self Inflicted Wound, 1998, Anthony F. Buzzard, Charles F. Hunting, International Scholars Publications)
Lew W
