Before Abraham was–I am? (Part One)
Did the Jews and Jesus both agree on who and what is God? Was Jesus really the God of the “Old Testament” as some claim, and the God of the fathers, and the Yahweh (YHWH) who revealed himself to Moses? Did Jesus ever state that he was the “I am who/what I am” who spoke to Moses? Who then was and is Jesus and the God of the Bible? The surety afforded to church doctrines, and how the church defines who God is, are issues predicated on the belief that God founded the church upon his son Jesus, being the chief cornerstone, and all doctrines and beliefs of that church are understood—without reservation—to be based on the agreement between the prophets and the apostles. For the Apostle Paul tells us that “after the way which they call heresy, so worship I the God of my fathers, believing all things which are written in the law and in the prophets: And have hope toward God, which they themselves also allow, that there shall be a resurrection of the dead, both of the just and unjust” (Acts 24:14-15). However, the problem we face today, as can also be demonstrated throughout “church” history, is that the so-called Christian church has embraced many different doctrines and beliefs—consisting of many conflicting and contradictory conclusions—and those who profess to agree with these doctrines, or a selection of stated beliefs, find themselves divided organizationally, and in many respects, unwittingly self-deceived by the acceptance of non-biblical rituals, ceremonies and traditions. Consequently, what we discover by examining Christianity today is the growing necessity to prepare official “statements” of beliefs for nearly every denomination, and also for church affiliates within denominations, as well as for the various independent congregations around the world. Thereby giving current followers and prospective members a means to pick and choose a church congregation, and to perhaps make a selection of doctrines they feel are correct according to their own understanding of the Bible. Including those teachings that suit their own personal and acquired views about the “God of my fathers” worshipped by the Apostle Paul. Allowing us to say that these published doctrinal distinctions have generally served to document an historically divided Christianity, and an apparent dividing of the body of Christ, which in modern times has lost any real sense of influence in the world when it comes to explaining human nature–and the reason for our existence–and how this relates to the resurrection of the “just and unjust.” For seldom do we see, particularly in recent decades, the Christian church able to publicly voice a concerted argument and defense of biblical doctrines because much of Christianity has embraced the language of social and political thinking, making right and wrong a subjective matter framed by outside influences, instead of by what is found in the Bible. Raising the issue of why some people choose to participate in a specific church organization in the first place. Knowing that if they don’t care for a congregation they are presently attending, they can form or join another to their liking, giving the impression that Christianity is unsettled about its governance, doctrines and teachings from the Bible. This, of course, can affect the way some people see their “calling,” which in reality may have only been based on an emotional response to a sudden recognition of their guilt before God, having little substance in regard to a God-given repentance. Or, they may have simply grown up in a church affiliation and accepted without thought its doctrines and beliefs, assuming they have proved them sufficiently to themselves, and perhaps over time they find themselves choosing baptism in that church as a way of showing their conviction to follow Christ (Acts 2:42, 4:33; Eph. 2:20-22). [Author’s emphasis throughout.] In any case, such scenarios give us reason to consider that many professing Christians have probably never really taken the time to think about whether or not their doctrines and beliefs can be substantiated from the Bible. Consequently, some well-meaning people may or may not have considered what they are being baptized into and for what reason, as they are not likely thinking about being baptized into “the way which some call heresy” as described by the Apostle Paul. Leaving us to further consider that many Christians may not be baptized to Jesus–for the remission of sins–but are instead baptized to a statement of beliefs, or to a selected set of doctrines, or to an inviting and familiar congregation, or simply to a nostalgic time in their church association, or perhaps even to a charismatic church leadership they regard as having the truth about God. Situations that may well affect how people understand their conversion and define salvation, and also how they might choose to interpret the Bible. Bringing us then to the gravity of what it means to be baptized to Jesus. Because if a person should claim they are baptized to Jesus and be of Jesus’ baptism, then that individual is surely compelled to define who and what is Jesus, and also who and what is the God who sent Jesus into the world to make it possible to attain to the resurrection of the dead. Knowing also that within Christianity–currently and through the ages–there has always existed a confused mixture of beliefs about who and what is God, and how Jesus, as the son of God, fits into the scheme of defining what we mean by God. For there are those who claim that God is One, and there is one God, but they also claim that Jesus is a separate and distinct individual who was and is also God–apart from God the Father–while also believing that Jesus confessed himself to be the “I am” who spoke to Moses. What, then, does the Bible tell us about Jesus and God the Father? Do the prophets and apostles agree on who God is and whether or not Jesus is God, or the son of God? We can begin to look