Why is the I Am not used to support the trinity or deity of Christ until the last 200 years or so?    ?

It's because you just made that up.

Already debunked in your previous question, where the very Bible passage you mention
- Before Abraham was, I am
was used by a third-century Christian scholar to argue that Jesus is God.


P.S. You wrote
>> No you did not debunk the question you just translated it the way you want it to read I AM. Origin was talking about Jesus exited before Abraham had he believed Jesus was claiming deity he would have mentioned it he did not! <<

Well...since I am not a translator of Koine Greek, we know that you're lying. Since I also quoted others from the period, we know you're dissembling.

Let's see what Origen wrote, and you can point out where SOMEONE ELSE mistranslated it.


225 AD Origen "In what follows, some may imagine that he says something plausible against us. "If," says he, "these people worshipped one God alone, and no other, they would perhaps have some valid argument against the worship of others. But they pay excessive reverence to one who has but lately appeared among men, and they think it no offence against God if they worship also His servant." To this we reply, that if Celsus had known that saying," I and My Father are one," and the words used in prayer by the Son of God, "As Thou and I are one, he would not have supposed that we worship any other besides Him who is the Supreme God. "For," says He, "My Father is in Me, and I in Him." And if any should from these words be afraid of our going over to the side of those who deny that the Father and the Son are two persons, let him weigh that passage, "And the multitude of them that believed were of one heart and of one soul," that he may understand the meaning of the saying, "I and My Father are one." We worship one God, the Father and the Son, therefore, as we have explained; and our argument against the worship of other gods still continues valid. And we do not "reverence beyond measure one who has but lately appeared," as though He did not exist before; for we believe Himself when He says, "Before Abraham was, I am." Again He says, "I am the truth; " and surely none of us is so simple as to suppose that truth did not exist before the time when Christ appeared. We worship, therefore, the Father of truth, and the Son, who is the truth; and these, while they are two, considered as persons or subsistences, are one in unity of thought, in harmony and in identity of will. So entirely are they one, that he who has seen the Son, "who is the brightness of God's glory, and the express image of His person," has seen in Him who is the image, of God, God Himself."


Then, let's look at what Novatian wrote, which I quoted before, which you apparently didn't bother to read or you probably would have falsely accused me of mistranslating him as well:

235 AD Novatian "But although it is not possible to maintain that one who is himself mortal can make another immortal, yet this word of Christ not only sets forth, but affords immortality: certainly He is not man only who gives immortality, which if He were only man He could not give; but by giving divinity by immortality, He proves Himself to be God by offering divinity, which if He were not God He could not give. If Christ was only man, how did He say, "Before Abraham was, I Am? " For no man can be before Him from whom he himself is; nor can it be that any one should have been prior to him of whom he himself has taken his origin. And yet Christ, although He is born of Abraham, says that He is before Abraham. Either, therefore, He says what is not true, and deceives, if He was not before Abraham, seeing that He was of Abraham; or He does not deceive, if He is also God, and was before Abraham. And if this were not so, it follows that, being of Abraham, He could not be before Abraham. If Christ was only man, how does He say, "And I know them, and my sheep follow me; and I give unto them eternal life, and they shall never perish? " And yet, since every man is bound by the laws of mortality, and therefore is unable to keep himself for ever, much more will he be unable to keep another for ever. But Christ promises to give salvation for ever, which if He does not give, He is a deceiver; if He gives, He is God.


Should I list others?

375 AD Chrysostom "Jesus saith unto them, Before Abraham was, I Am. Then took they up stones to cast at Him." Seest thou how He proved Himself to be greater than Abraham? For the man who rejoiced to see His day, and made this an object of earnest desire, plainly did so because it was a day that should be for a benefit, and belonging to one greater than himself. Because they had said, "The carpenter's son" (Matthew 13:55), and imagined nothing more concerning Him, He leadeth them by degrees to an exalted notion of Him. Therefore when they heard the words, "Ye know not God," they were not grieved; but when they heard, "before Abraham was, I Am," as though the nobility of their descent were debased, they became furious, and would have stoned Him. "He saw My day, and was glad." He showeth, that not unwillingly He came to His Passion, since He praiseth him who was gladdened at the Cross. For this was the salvation of the world. But they cast stones at Him; so ready were they for murder, and they did this of their own accord, without inquiry. But wherefore said He not, "Before Abraham was, I was," instead of "I Am"? As the Father useth this expression, "I Am," so also doth Christ; for it signifieth continuous Being, irrespective of all time. On which account the expression seemed to them to be blasphemous. Now if they could not bear the comparison with Abraham, although this was but a trifling one, had He continually made Himself equal to the Father, would they ever have ceased casting stones at Him?


etc. etc. etc.

Conclusion: you were lying, and you were caught. DO THE RIGHT THING. Admit that you lied. The alternative is to expose your own hypocrisy....Show more

You're making no sense.   


There is proof that the early Christians were worshiping Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

And Jesus never in his life used the word "Jehovah."  It didn't exist till the 13th century....Show more

Caiaphas, the High Priest who presided over Jesus' phony trial, seemed to have no problem understanding what it meant....Show more

Exodus 3:14 is plain enough to any reasonably intelligent person....Show more

Wow, you're like seriously interested in mythology, aren't you. ...Show more