You did notice Auggy stating that he didn’t think it was fear of death that prompted the prayer in Gethsemene, right John? (Or fear, per se, of anything really.)
Jeepers Pratt, I no more than get back after suffering my “Shinola” comment and you already have your red pen out. Talk about a short leash. 
But alas Jason, your corrective ways have caused me to further ponder this very subject we discuss and of which I have been meditating on for two months. I will later post my thoughts, while hoping your red ink might have run out by then. 
John
Regarding the statement, “Mr. Don Bast points out that Jesus had a God, and Mr. Rick Farwell points out that He is God.”
IMO both are true.
The way I see it Jesus is God to us by representation and we should worship Him as God.
But IMO He is not God in essence.
He is the same as God to His creatures.
When you are “the same as” something you cannot be that thing.
“Who is the image of the invisible God, the first born of every creature (Col. 1:15)
What I think is so sad though is when one side accuses the other of the sin of pride.
One day we will all learn if Jesus is God in essence or by representaion.
In the mean time, why can’t we just have an opionion without being accused of sinning?
hey, friends… i’m kind of new, but if it’s ok to jump in…
Scripturally, i read that there is One God, the Father Almighty, who is invisible, and Spirit. and that the Son was both with God, and was God in the beginning, before the world was made (John 1:1, John 17:5).
the Eastern Orthodox Church teaches a primary Godhood of the Father, whose divinity is the eternally begetting source of the Son’s divinity, and nature. so from that point of view, Christ is certainly God in His nature, and certainly Man, but not God, the Father.
and seeing as He was born to a virgin by the power and Spirit of God (God, essentially), i don’t see any problem with calling our Lord fully God, and fully Man in nature. under and from the Father, but essentially identical to the Father, and for us men and women, the totality and fullness of God, in flesh.
Welcome, Grace!
Nice post. I pretty much agree.
If you get a chance, tell us a little about yourself in the Introductions section.
Sonia
The following is a continuation of a discussion that began on another thread (Should we form universalist congregations?.
Ok, cool.
-
How do you define “being?” Would you say it’s the same as “existence?”
-
Do you think Scripture reveals the Supreme Being as having more than one first-person perspective, mind and will?
-
How do you define and understand the word “God” in the following verses? John 5:43-44; 14:1; 17:3; 1 Cor 8:6; Gal 1:3-5; Eph 4:6; 1 Tim 2:5; Rev 3:12.
If Jesus is the Supreme Being, it would seem strange to me that he would have to be given “all authority in heaven and on earth” and made “Lord of all.” Doesn’t the Supreme Being possess this unique authority and status by virtue of his nature and existence?
Moreover, according to Paul, God is Christ’s “head” (1 Cor 11:3). And then we also have the direct testimony of Jesus himself concerning his proper relationship to the one he refers to as “my God” (John 20:17; Rev 3:12; cf. 2 Cor 1:3; 11:31; Eph 1:3, 17; Col 1:3; 1 Pet 1:3; Rev 1:6). In John 5:19, Jesus states, “…the son can do nothing of himself.” In verse 30, Jesus declares, “I can do nothing on my own” and “I do not seek my own will, but the will of the Father who has sent me.” And in John 14:28, Jesus explicitly states, “…my Father is greater than I.” It would seem from verses such as these that the being Christ refers to as the “one God” and the “only true God,” and who Paul refers to as the “one God,” is superior to Jesus.
But surely you do not believe Christ is equal to God in every sense, for Christ himself said he had a God (the Father), and that this personal being was greater than he. If there is some sense in which God is greater than Jesus, then Jesus and the person that is so often referred to as “God” (the Father) are not equal in every possible sense. It may be argued that the ontological equality of Jesus to God is being taught in John 5:18. There, we read that Jesus was “calling God his own father, making himself equal with God.” For a good response to this objection, I recommend the following: angelfire.com/space/thegospe … n5_18.html
The “equality” with God of which Christ is speaking is explained in the context. Jesus was “equal” to God not in an ontological sense but in the sense that Jesus had been given the same right as God to be working on the Sabbath. But this authority was not inherently his; Jesus could do nothing on his own, and God was greater than he. This right had been given to him by God in the same way that God made Jesus Lord and gave to his Son “all authority on heaven and on earth” when he raised him from the dead. Jesus was thus “equal” to God in the same sense that Joseph (who had been given Pharaoh’s authority and power) was “equal” to Pharaoh (Gen 44:18).
Paul was undoubtedly expressing the same idea above when he wrote, “For in him all the fullness of God was pleased to dwell” (Col 1:19). But for a man to have “all the fullness of God” dwelling in him does not make him God. Ephesians 3:19 says that the goal of every believer is that they may be “filled with all the fullness of God.” Similarly, Peter speaks of believers becoming “partakers of the divine nature” (2 Pet 1:4). But neither of these verses mean that believers are ultimately going to become the Supreme Being.
But who and what is Paul referring to when he wrote “He was manifested in the flesh, vindicated by the Spirit, seen by angels, proclaimed among the nations, believed on in the world, taken up in glory?” You seem to simply be assuming that the “he” in this verse refers to the Supreme Being. I believe the “he” refers to a fully human Messiah. It was the Messiah who was “manifested in the flesh” (i.e., came into existence as a fully human being).
You put “God” in brackets above, but the reading of the earliest and best manuscripts is not “God” but rather “he who.”
If it’s not true that Jesus is the Supreme Being, then it would be no honor to Jesus to believe that he is. You’d be neither glorifying God nor Jesus by believing that Jesus is God if he in fact isn’t. In fact, I think you’d be embracing a “lesser view” of both God and Jesus by believing that Jesus is God if he actually isn’t. To say that denying Jesus’ deity is “lowering the bar” is, to me, like saying it is “lowering the bar” to deny that every man is “God incarnate.” Neither would be the case. Our reasons for believing that Jesus either is or isn’t the Supreme Being should, I believe, be grounded primarily in what Scripture reveals, not in what we happen to think is a “lesser view.” A false view and idea is always the “lesser view” and the “lesser idea.”
I’m not sure I understand your response here. Could you elaborate a little more?
I’ll check it out. But the same goes for “Attributarianism” or any other belief regarding the nature and number of God. If is neither logical nor revealed in Scripture, then a rejection of it is hardly an example of believing “less” or of “lowering the bar” (and yes, I’m including my own beliefs!).
That’s like saying, “A rejection of Lefein as God, is lowering the bar. Biblical or not.” If you are not God, then a rejection of the belief that you are God is not “lowering the bar.” Similarly, if Jesus isn’t the Supreme Being, then it’s not “lowering the bar” to reject the belief that he is the Supreme Being.
Do you think God’s infinitude enables him to express his being in the form of an entity that is fully human and fully dog?
I think my question is very much relevant, because we’re talking about what’s logically possible for God to do and to be. Do you think God’s omnipotence and infinitude enables him to bring into existence a being that is fully human and fully dog? Or do you think it’s logically possible for God to undergo some kind of change and become something that is fully God, fully human and fully dog?
You say you don’t think Jesus was created. But is not “man” a created being? And isn’t “Jesus” is the name of a being that Scripture describes as a “man?”
Do you think there was a time when “The Eternal Son” did not exist as a man? If so, then whenever the Eternal Son began to exist as a man, wouldn’t this mean that the Eternal Son underwent a radical change and became something he wasn’t before? And if so, wouldn’t this mean that when the Eternal Son became a man something different came into existence that did not have any existence before (i.e., a person who is both fully God and fully man rather than fully God only)? At the very least, wouldn’t it mean that a new nature which is inseparable from the identity of the Eternal Son had come into existence?
Truth = That which is
I AM = That which is
That which is = That which is
I AM = Truth
He that is = I AM
He that is = That which is
He that is = Truth = That which is
He that is = Truth
I AM = God
I AM = Truth
Truth = God
Jesus = Truth
Jesus = God
God = Jesus
Emmanuel = God with us
Emmanuel = Jesus
Jesus = God with us
Emmanuel = Jesus = Truth
Emmanuel = Truth
God with us = Truth
I AM = Truth
God = Truth
God with us = God
Emmanuel = God
Jesus = Emmanuel
Emmanuel = Jesus
Jesus = God
Jesus = Truth = I AM = Truth = God
Emmanuel = Truth = I AM = Truth = God
Jesus = I AM = God
Jesus = God
Hi Lefein,
You wrote:
“Truth” does not = “that which is.” I think “truth” is best defined as “the quality or state of being true” or “that which is true or in accordance with fact or reality.” While it is true of “truth” (which is, I believe, conceptual and not a substantial personal being with a mind and will) that it exists and always has existed, this is not the definition of “truth.” This is simply something that is true of truth, just like being human is something that is true of both of us as persons (although Lefein ≠ Aaron). Moreover, YHWH is the personal name of a “who” (i.e., a “he who is”) not merely a “that which is.”
So I do not believe that Truth = God (similarly, “God is love,” but it is not true that “love is God”; there is a difference). Consequently, I do not believe the rest of your argument is sound.
I don’t think this follows, either. Jesus is not literally “the truth” anymore than he is literally “the light,” “the way” (which literally means a road or path) or “the door.” He’s speaking figuratively. This becomes more evident when we consider other verses where “the truth” is mentioned. In John 8:40 (cf. vv. 45, 46; 16:7, 13; 17:17; 18:37; 19:35), Jesus told the unbelieving Jews, “but now you seek to kill me, a man who has told you the truth that I heard from God.” Here “the truth” is something (not someone) that is told by Jesus (“a man”), and which he himself heard from God (i.e., Jesus’ God, the Father). It is evident that Jesus does not = “the truth” in this verse. So what did Jesus mean when he said, “I am the truth?” Jesus believed nothing and spoke nothing that is false; everything he believed and spoke was true, and everything he did was consistent with the truth. Most importantly, he revealed the truth about God’s character and purpose and made him known in a way that no other man had or ever will. It could be said that Jesus is “the truth” about the Father’s character, but as important as the truth about the Father’s character surely is, it is not the only thing in this world that is in accordance with fact or reality.
So once again, I think the rest of your argument is unsound.
Jesus’ name “Emmanuel” (“God with us”) does not mean he is God. From the “Biblical Unitarian” website:
If truth is not “that which is” then there is no such thing as truth.
“that which is true or in accordance with fact or reality.” Is by definition; “That which is”.
Truth is, by truth, that which is. Any other definition voids truth of being truth, because anything that is not, in regards to reality, “that which is”, is by definition “that which isn’t”; and Truth is never a “that which isn’t”, because “that which isn’t” is by definition a thing that is a lie or non-existent.
If we cannot agree that truth is “that which is” then unfortunately, we cannot agree on anything further in this thread.
If God is Love, then Love is God. If God = Love (God is Love) then Love = God. If A = B, then B = A.
If Love is not God, then the Bible is false. The same goes with Truth. If Truth is “that which is” then God is Truth in being the I AM; “the being that Is”.
To not give weight to the fact that Truth is Truth, God is Truth, and Truth is God; and likewise that God is Love, but Love is not God, is in my convicted opinion, the forfeiture of sound interpretation.
If he is not “literally” (by a fact of reality) Life, Truth, and Way, then I feel quite strongly that he is a liar in saying that he is.
If your argument against mine rests corely on the fact of your belief that Truth is not “that which is”, that God is not Truth, that A = B does not mean mutual equality between A and B; then I can have no further continuation in this argument, I cannot consider your argument valid, even without the interpretation of Jesus that you have concerning Truth, Life, Way, and even without getting into the Emmanuel argument.
“That which is true” and “that which is in accordance with fact or reality” is not, I don’t think, the same as “that which is.” “That which is” is everything in existence. But God is not “everything in existence.” That’s not a true statement. That’s pantheism.
And as stated before, God is also not merely a “that which is.” God is a “he who is.” Big difference.
What I meant when I said that God is love but love is not God is simply this: God is love in that he is perfectly loving by virtue of his necessary nature. That is, he always, by virtue of his nature, wills the highest good of all which is not-God. But “love is not God” in that one could not substitute “God” for the word “love” whenever the word “love” appears in Scripture. That would create absurdities:
“But I say to you, God your enemies and pray for those who persecute you… For if you God those who God you, what reward do you have? Do not even the tax collectors do the same?” (Mt. 5:44, 46).
“And you shall God the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength.’”
“But I know that you do not have the God of God within you” (John 5:42).
“By this all people will know that you are my disciples, if you have God for one another” (Jn. 13:35).
“If you keep my commandments, you will abide in my God, just as I have kept my Father’s commandments and abide in his God” (John 15:10). (While the first sentence would at least make sense, the second is manifestly absurd; the Father does not have a God.)
I could, of course, go on and on (as the word “love” is a frequently used word in Scripture), but hopefully you get my point.
Perhaps you would like to offer your sound interpretation of all the verses where “love” appears in Scripture, after you’ve substituted “God” for “love.” 
Literal: “Being in accordance with, conforming to, or upholding the exact or primary meaning of a word or words.”
“The way” literally means “the road” or “the route.” The words “road” and “route” do not literally refer to a personal being. If someone said, “take this road” or “take this route” you would not think he was talking about a person unless it was evident that he was using the words figuratively. The Greek word hodos meant a literal road or route (and was understood as such) before Jesus ever figuratively referred to himself as “the way.” Similarly, Jesus said, “I am the door” (John 10:7, 9). While Jesus was making a statement that is absolutely true, he’s using figurative language here as well. He is not literally a door or a gate through which literal sheep pass and find literal pasture. And just as he is not literally a door or a gate, so he is not literally a road or a route.
The word “life” literally denotes “The property or quality that distinguishes living organisms from dead organisms and inanimate matter, manifested in functions such as metabolism, growth, reproduction, and response to stimuli or adaptation to the environment originating from within the organism,” or “the characteristic state or condition of a living organism.” Even when we consider what is often referred to as “spiritual life,” it is not literally a person with a mind and a will. Rather, it is something that is said to be possessed by persons, or entered into by persons (e.g., “For as the Father has life in himself, so he has granted the Son also to have life in himself” - Jn. 5:26). Only in a figurative sense can a person be said to be “life.” Jesus is “the life” because it was granted to him to have “life in himself” by God, and he is the one through whom we receive spiritual life (John 5:40; 6:33).
The word “truth” literally denotes “the quality or state of being true,” or “that which is true or in accordance with fact or reality” (understood in the former sense, your being a human is “truth” because it is “in accordance with fact or reality”). Again, “Jesus” does not literally = “the truth” (try substituting “Jesus” for “the truth” in John 8:40 or elsewhere, and you’ll see why). Jesus spoke the truth, bore witness to the truth, lived according to the truth, and reveals the truth about the Father’s character and purpose to us. It is in this sense that he is “the Truth.”
So one doesn’t have to believe Jesus was a liar to disagree with your position.
I wasn’t born here but got here as quick as I could…
Love this thread in particular. I thought … no - I KNEW I am a heretic, but at LEAST you guys are discussing the things that I can’t get anyone to listen to without the smell of overheated oil… ouch!
I scanned the thread for discussion of the given name… Philippians 2:8-9, picking up from His death: “even death on a cross. 9 Therefore God has highly exalted him and bestowed on him the name that is above every name…”.
I am by no means a Greek scholar but I have asked a lot of questions over the years… My understanding is that the definite article is definite “the” “Name”. When was this NAME bestowed? There is no hint in this passage about Jesus’s earthly origin, rather, the bestowal of The NAME coincides with his glorification. “Today I have begotten you”. Hebrews 1, picking up in verse 3: *"…**When *He had made purification of sins, He sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high, 4 having become as much better than the angels, as He has inherited a more excellent name than they.
5 For to which of the angels did He ever say,
“YOU ARE MY SON,
TODAY I HAVE BEGOTTEN YOU”?
It seems to me quite clear from these two passages that, having purified the ‘race of man’ of Sin, and having been gloriously raised not only from the grave but into the Heaven, the sphere of YHWH’s own throne, THE NAME was bestowed upon Jesus. He had a given name [via the angel] at birth, but these passages speak of The Name bestowed at glorification, as He is the “Firstborn from the Dead”, the adam of a new race/creation/man. That name is the name of His Father - YHWH, the name of THE God whom the Hebrews worshipped and honored [at least sometimes], but oddly the name which they also banned. With my limited human understanding, the way I grasp or apprehend this concept is in Regal terms: Caesar begets Caesar. King Alfred begets King Alfred [actually… blessed Alfred didn’t have an Alfred, did he?]. Psalm 2: YHWH installs “my King upon Zion” who wears the mantle and name, and bears the ring of YHWH.
For me personally, I do not expect in this life to ever really grasp in a comprehensive way what manner of being our Lord is, nor will I fully comprehend the triune relation of Father, His Son the firstborn of the dead, and the Holy Spirit, but for now I see them most clearly in a hierarchical Trinity, and in due time, all glory and honor and all value, all that is so far as this terrarium we know as the Universe is concerned, it will all be lain at the feet of the Father whom we are commanded to worship, to pray to, and to place our hope in. That said… I gotta lotta questions -
And, on another point altogether, I’m disturbed a little by the ‘accidental modalism’ I see all around me in the church. Doctrinaire Trinitarians who are practical modalists… 
This is a big point in the source article. We humans follow convention and are more easily swayed by the ‘pop’ than by truth.
Hello and welcome, Claudius!
A lot of folks here have been labeled “heretic”! Do you believe in the salvation of all?
I suspect there are a lot of people who think they are Trinitarian who are really Modalists. I distinctly recall my 4th grade teacher in a Presbyterian school trying to describe the Trinity by explaining how she was all at the same time a “Mother,” “Daughter,” and “Teacher” – 3 persons in 1.
Then there are people who would describe the Trinity in theologically correct trinitarian terms, but their real modalist belief comes out in various ways, for instance a prayer beginning, “Dear Jesus, Thank you for sending your Son …”
Is this the kind of thing you have in mind?
I notice these things, but I don’t really find myself troubled by them. Do you think there are reasons to be disturbed? Would people be better Christians if they understood the Trinity better?
Sonia
Claudius,
Welcome to the board! I just completed a class on N.T. views of Jesus with Larry Hurtado, who believes Jesus’ divinity was affirmed in the earliest days after his resurrection. But he agrees with most scholars that the name now given to Jesus in Hebrews 1 is “Son.” And that the name now given to him in Phil. 2 is “Lord.” E.g. the NIV study note says “Reference is doubtless to the office or rank conferred on Jesus–his glorious position (“Lord” vs. 11), not his proper name.” I am not seeing where it indicates that the Father is giving him his personal name of YHWH.
Abraham addressed as “Yahweh” the “angel” who remained to talk with him while the other two went on to Sodom.
Then in Genesis 19:24, we read:
Then Yahweh rained on Sodom and Gomorrah sulfur and fire from Yahweh out of heaven.
Two different individuals in one verse, each of whom is called “Yahweh”.
There was Yahweh on earth who spoke with Abraham, whom I believe to be the Son of God, and there was Yahweh in heaven. The One on earth was the agent through whom the one in heaven rained sulfur and fire on Sodom and Gomorrah.
Yes, I have no doubt that the Father and the Son share the name “Yahweh”.
If the Greek Septuagint has anything to say of it; they do share the name.
Eimi is used in the famous “I AM that I AM” verse in the Septuagint as well as in the verse where Jesus says “before Abraham was, I am” when the Pharisees took up stones to stone him for saying he is God.
Hi Lefein,
In the other thread I disputed the claim that Jesus and YHWH “share the same name” based on the LXX (Is God More Than One Person?). My remarks on Ex. 3:14 and Jn. 8:48 are about midway down. In a nutshell, ego eimi (much less eimi by itself) is not the shortened form of the divine name YHWH in Ex 3:14 but rather ho ōn. In the LXX, God never used the expression ego eimi by itself as a means of self-designation. What Jesus would’ve needed to say to identify himself as YHWH is either egō eimi ho ōn or simply ho ōn.
Yahweh has connection to the LXX Ἐγώ εἰμι, or the full phrase Ἐγώ εἰμι ὁ ὤν; the translated rendering of the Hebrew “ehyeh asher ehyeh”, the divine phrase from which the name Yahweh is drawn.
Yahweh is the name-form of “ehyeh asher ehyeh”, which in the Greek is shown as Ἐγώ εἰμι ὁ ὤν. [size=120]ὤ[/size]ν is the conjugated form of εἰμι. Yahweh (or LORD; as the Hebrews would have replaced YHWH with Adonai) is by no means detached from the use of the phrase “I AM” in as far as Ἐγώ εἰμι is used in divine context, any more than LORD (adonai) is detached from the Greek use of Κύριος.
That Jesus says Ἐγώ εἰμι, which brings about the reaction of being stoned, albeit poorly, as they didn’t succeed.
That “ehyeh asher ehyeh” is directly rendered as Ἐγώ εἰμι ὁ ὤν; should necessitate that both mean a similar enough thing to be used in synonymy with one another. If “ehyeh asher ehyeh” means, in tantamount something along the lines of “I am that I am” or “I be, that I be”; then so too does Ἐγώ εἰμι ὁ ὤν - and that Yahweh is the name-form of that phrase (as any respectable rabbi, priest, or theologian will tell you), necessitates that Yahweh be linkable with the Greek phrase Ἐγώ εἰμι ὁ ὤν, just as it is linkable with “ehyeh asher ehyeh”. If then, Ἐγώ εἰμι ὁ ὤν is expressed in the name Yahweh, then the abbreviation of that same phrase Ἐγώ εἰμι ὁ ὤν, or “ehyeh asher ehyeh” as “I AM” or ὁ ὤν must have linkability with the Hebrew abbreviation “ehyeh”. And so what we have is “ehyeh” or “I AM” being the the same on both the Ἐγώ εἰμι side, and the ὁ ὤν side. And so when Jesus says; Ἐγώ εἰμι (for which the people attempt to stone him for) he is saying in Hebrew; “ehyeh”, which is what God said in Exodus 3:14. And in saying Ἐγώ εἰμι, which is him also saying “ehyeh”, he is also saying ὁ ὤν. The equivalency in the context of the divine use of such phrases, cannot be fruitfully neglected.
“Ehyeh” shelachani aleichem. “I AM” has sent you. Or as the Greek puts it; Ὁ ὢν (The εἰμι) ἀπέσταλκέν με πρὸς ὑμᾶς
Ἐγώ εἰμι = Ehyeh = Ὁ ὢν — because “ehyeh asher ehyeh” = Ἐγώ εἰμι ὁ ὤν
When Jesus, and God, refer to themselves in the “I AM” context, they share the name Yahweh by reason of Yahweh being the name-form of both phrases; “ehyeh asher ehyeh” and by translation Ἐγώ εἰμι ὁ ὤν, which includes both portions of the phrase.
Rev 1:8 ᾿Εγώ εἰμι τὸ Α καὶ τὸ Ω, λέγει Κύριος ὁ Θεός, ὁ ὢν καὶ ὁ ἦν καὶ ὁ ἐρχόμενος, ὁ παντοκράτωρ.
Rev 4:8 καὶ τὰ τέσσαρα ζῷα, ἓν καθ᾿ ἓν αὐτῶν ἔχων ἀνὰ πτέρυγας ἕξ, κυκλόθεν καὶ ἔσωθεν γέμουσιν ὀφθαλμῶν, καὶ ἀνάπαυσιν οὐκ ἔχουσιν ἡμέρας καὶ νυκτὸς λέγοντες· ἅγιος, ἅγιος, ἅγιος Κύριος ὁ Θεὸς ὁ παντοκράτωρ, ὁ ἦν καὶ ὁ ὢν καὶ ὁ ἐρχόμενος.
Though, Christ is referred to also as “ὁ ὢν” too. 
So Christ refers to himself, or has at least been referred to, as both ᾿Εγώ εἰμι and ὁ ὢν.
Both God, and Jesus, are referred to in context of “Lord God Almighty” and “ὁ ὢν”.
Rev 1:8 “I am the Alpha and the Omega,” says the Lord [God], “who is and who was and who is to come, the Almighty.” -ESV
Rev 4:8 And the four living creatures, each of them with six wings, are full of eyes all around and within, and day and night they never cease to say, “Holy, holy, holy, is the Lord God Almighty, who was and is and is to come!” -ESV
I don’t think it was because Jesus said, “εγω ειμι” that the Jews picked up stones to stone Him. I think it was because He indicated that He existed before Abraham. No mere man could have existed before Abraham.
“εγω ειμι” is simply the subject “I” of a sentence with the “I” emphasized. Here are a number of examples in which clearly Jesus is not using “εγω ειμι” in a claim to be the supreme God:
Matthew 14:27 But immediately Jesus spoke to them, saying, “Take heart; it is I (εγω ειμι)Do not be afraid.”
Luke 22:70 So they all said, “Are you the Son of God, then?” And he said to them, “You say that I am (“εγω ειμι”).”
Luke 24:39 See my hands and my feet, that it is I myself (“εγω ειμι”). Touch me, and see.
John 6:35 Jesus said to them, “I am (“εγω ειμι”) the bread of life;
John 8:18 I am (“εγω ειμι”) the one who bears witness about myself, and the Father who sent me bears witness about me.”
John 10:9 I am (“εγω ειμι”) the door. If anyone enters by me, he will be saved and will go in and out and find pasture.
John 10:11 I am (“εγω ειμι”)the good shepherd. The good shepherd lays down his life for the sheep.
John 18:4,5 Then Jesus, knowing all that would happen to him, came forward and said to them, “Whom do you seek?”
They answered him, “Jesus of Nazareth.” Jesus said to them, “I am (“εγω ειμι”) he.”
As both myself and Paidion have pointed out, the phrase ἐγὼ εἰμι did not by itself identity a person as YHWH. Jesus used this same expression several times before without eliciting the same violent reaction from the Jews. Even the blind man who Jesus healed repeatedly used this very expression (John 9:9) - and of course, no one thought he was claiming to be YHWH. Moreover, if John was translating Jesus’ words from the Hebrew hâyâh into Greek and understood Jesus to be using the abbreviated form of the divine name, he almost certainly would’ve translated it as ὁ ὤν given the LXX translation of Ex 3:14 rather than ἐγὼ εἰμι (which, again, was a common way of designating oneself, and did not in itself express the radical idea that one was YHWH).
So why did the Jews try to stone Jesus if it wasn’t because they thought he was claiming to be YHWH? Answer: they understood him to be making a Messianic claim, and this claim alone infuriated them. It’s the same charge they brought against Jesus during his trial (i.e., that he claimed to be the Christ, the Son of God). Jesus was claiming to be the one of whom God had foretold and prophesied before “father Abraham” even existed, and thus to be greater than Abraham. A claim such as this was simply too much for them to take, as it was inconceivable to them that Jesus of Nazareth could be God’s Annointed One who had been foretold in their own sacred Scriptures as early as Gen 3:15. To them, he was not the Christ, the Son of the Living God (Mt. 16:16), but an imposter.
It is Jesus’ God and Father (see Rev 1:6) who I believe is being quoted in v. 8 (the red-letter text of some translations notwithstanding!) and referred to in Rev 4:8. The entity “who was and who is and who is to come” (Jesus’ God, the Father) is even distinguished from Jesus in vv. 4-5. And we know it is Jesus’ God who is being referred to in 4:8 as “the Lord God Almighty” because this unipersonal entity sitting on a throne is later distinguished from Jesus (“a Lamb standing as though it had been slain” - 5:6) in the same vision (see v. 7). So I don’t think John is revealing Jesus to be the “Lord God Almighty” in either of these verses. It is true, however, that both Jesus’ God (Rev 1:8; 21:6) and Jesus himself (Rev 22:13) identify themselves as being “the Alpha and the Omega, the beginning and the end.” But their sharing this figurative title (which denotes not eternality or timelessness but rather that one is certain to bring to completion what one started) does not denote ontological or existential equivalence.