by BelieverInJesus 396 Replies latest watchtower bible
Please check out this link....
There is ample reason to believe that God didn' t die on a cross, and God cannot be tempted. Jesus was tempted, and Jesus died. That alone proves that Jesus is human, (David's son) and God is a spirit that alone dwells in unapproachable light. He is not a son of man. Jesus is... Yeshua actually, since "Jesus" was never his name...
Butters
Butters:
That alone proves that Jesus is human, (David's son)
Really?
Matthew 22
41 While the Pharisees were gathered together, Jesus asked them, 42 "What do you think about the Christ? Whose son is he?"
"The son of David," they replied.
43 He said to them, "How is it then that David, speaking by the Spirit, calls him 'Lord'? For he says,
44 " 'The Lord said to my Lord:
"Sit at my right hand
until I put your enemies
under your feet." 45 If then David calls him 'Lord,' how can he be his son?" 46 No one could say a word in reply, and from that day on no one dared to ask him any more questions.
UD,
So, Mondo1, do you also claim that John Gill, Adam Clarke, and Jaimieson, Fausset, & Brown, were all just "100% theologically biased and didn't know any better"? Or did they (or at least some of them) actually base their statements on their understanding of the Hebrew and Greek texts?
Is everyone who does not agree with your beliefs "100% theologically biased"? Is it possible for people who do not hold your beliefs to be objective in their reasoning?
Yes, I believe they are displaying a clear bias, for they are making a connection for which there is no exegetical ground to make. You'll notice that those commentaries never say why we should make a link, they only do it. They fail to recognize that the language used is nothing, no mystical theological language with some divine import, but normal, every day language. This can be demonstrated too by simply looking at other examples where the same terms are used by others.
Also, according to "Robertson's Word Pictures of the New Testament," Isaiah 43:10, translated into Biblical Greek, reads this way:
And others used EGW EIMI too, so what of it? Robertson blunders here because he compares apples with oranges, where John 8:58 uses egw eimi with the adverbial prin abraam genesqai, where no such adverbial expression is used within Isaiah 43:10.
Jesus said that David claimed that The Messiah was HIS Lord, and that David referred to the Messiah as Lord in Old Testament times. If it was only a prophecy about the future, why did David say MY Lord, instead of THE Lord? David clearly viewed The Messiah as his Living Lord at the time he spoke those words.
No he didn't, because then he wouldn't have been speaking about "his son," for when David was alive, Jesus was not his son.
Also, Hebrews 11:26 shows that Moses knew he was serving the Messiah.
Care to explain how you get that conclusion?
Jacob worshiped Jesus as Lord God Almighty in the following Verses
Never does that say that the person there is Jesus. According to the Targum Pseudo-Jonathan, the one that appeared there was Michael.
Jacob worshiped THE Angel of The Lord who was God Almighty, The God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, but who was a different Person from The Father.
You just contradicted yourself. Either he was the Lord or he was the angel OF the Lord. It isn't both ways. This is a simple demonstration of divine agency, where one takes the name of the person whom he represents and is treated as that person, for *legally,* they are counted as that person.
So, Jesus would have known which translation was more accurate, the Hebrew or the Septuagint, and His listeners (the Jewish leaders) would have known both the Hebrew text and the Septuagint.
Except, if Jesus was literally translating the Hebrew of Exodus 3:14, it would not be EGW EIMI at all, it would be ESOMAI. In Ex 3:12 EHYEH, the Hebrew verb, is literally translated as this very word. Further, you're disregarding that EGW EIMI does not stand alone, but it is used in a sentence, which is PRIN ABRAAM GENESQAI EGW EIMI. The first and third word heavily impact how EIMI is used in this sentence, and in doing so it rules out any such connection. Jesus is dealing with existence relative to Abraham, God is dealing with a revelation of himself.
Mondo
Hellrider,
?? Well, what did he mean, then? If the point wasn`t to just claim that he had existed before Abraham, then what exactly did he mean?
Well let us break down the verse and see.
PRIN ABRAAM GENESQAI
PRIN is an adverb here showing time past. The event that is in the time past was Abraham's coming to be. His birth or conception. So we are dealing with a time that began before this event.
Now Jesus says of himself EGW EIMI. EIMI = 'to be' or 'to exist,' and here the latter sense is carried, for we, again, are dealing with existence as seen with genesqai. The reason the present tense verb is used is to expression duration. In other words, though the action began "before Abraham" he is still performing the action of be-ing. He is still existing.
Now let us take this and compare it with a couple of grammatical references. Smyth's grammar is a good place to start.
"The present [eimi], when accompanied by a definite or indefinite expression of past time [prin abraam genesqai], is used to express an action begun in the past and continued in the present."
The action "begun in the past and continued in the present."
Burton: "The Present Indicative [eimi], accompanied by an adverbial expression denoting duration and referring to past time [prin abraam genesqai], is sometimes used in Greek, as in German, to describe an action which, beginning in past time, is still in progress at the time of speaking."
Do you see the impact? The action was taking place "before Abraham" and yet it was "still in progress," it "continued in the present." It was not simply a matter of saying he existed before Abraham. Even Adam could have claimed that!
Mondo
Exactly. This aspect of infinity, everlasting time, existence now and then and always, is also an aspect of the expression, built into the "I am"-expressions. So, not only is "I am" (part of) one of the titles of God from the Old Testament (Exodus 3,14s "I am who I am", along with related titles), it is also an expression that has the aspect of infinity build into it. These expressions, in which Jesus emphasises his long-lasting (I would say eternal, but you would disagree) existence, is something you neer hear from the mouths of angels, when they occastionally show up, both in the OT and NT. From what is known about jewish and early christian religion, for a man living at that time, in that culture, to hear a man claim that he existed even before Abraham was born, would be to hear this man claim something extremely special about himself, much more than just claiming to be angel. When angels appear in the Bible, the people meeting them do not attempt to stone them.
Hellrider,
At most, eternal prior existence is a possiblity, it is by no means clear or explicit in Jesus words. For example, in one Greek writing we read egw gar eimi iwbab prin hh onomasai me ho kurios iwb. EGW EIMI is used here just as in John 8:58, only with a predicate instead of the sense "exist." Yet, nobody would argue that he was Jobab eternally because he said EGW EIMI in contrast to onomasai. So it is not necessary or even plausable that Jesus was claiming eternal preexistence. And further, "I am" is never used in the sense of a name or title.
Mondo
Mondo:
So it is not necessary or even plausable that Jesus was claiming eternal preexistence.
In the mind of a greek-speaking jew or greek in the 1st or 2nd century, reading the passage in John,the meaning is perfectly clear. For someone in that age to claim that "before Abraham I am", would be to claim that he was existing from "eternity". The term "eternity" is in itself a term that we don`t think of, or speak in terms of, in the same way today as someone 2000 years ago. To have existed before Abraham, the forefather, the exalted man that made the first pact with God 2000 years before Jesus Christ, who brought the jews in as Yahwehs people, meant in the mind of a jew or greek at that time to have existed for "eternity".
And further, "I am" is never used in the sense of a name or title.
Exodus 3,14: God said to Moses, "Iam who Iam . This is what you are to say to the Israelites: 'IAM has sent me to you.' "
Note especially the last part of the passage. "I AM has sent you". God actually tells Moses the short-version of the title. In greek: EGW EIMI has sent you. It is not important that the passage in Exodus has the predicate HO WN (in LXXt), and this is confirmed by the majority of Bible commentators.
"The fact that the Jews attempted to stone Jesus after hearing the
words _I am_ shows that it suggested to them the divine name so
translated in the LXX version of Ex. iii.14." -- R.V.G. Tasker,
Tyndale Commentary on John (Downers Grove, IL: IVP, 1960).
"It is not easy to render into Greek the Hebrew underlying passages
like Exod. 3:14. The LXX translators did so with the same form that
we have here." -- Leon Morris, New International Commentary on the
New Testament, _John_ (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1971), p. 473.
According to both Tasker and Morris, the <ego eimi> of John 8:58 shares the form of the LXX of Exodus 3:14.
(I saw you bring up the real origin of Yahweh HA-WAH in another thread. I am perfectly aware of this verb as the origin of Gods name, but it is not relevant to this discussion, in case you were thinking of bringing it up again).
One more thing: The "I am what I am" and "I am"-statements from Exodus are not the only titles given to God in the OT. There are many variations on the "I am"-theme.
Note especially Genesis 26,24: That night the LORD appeared to him and said, "Iam the God of your father Abraham. Do not be afraid, for Iam with you;
...in which the importance of Abraham in relation to Yahweh is emphasised - and in John, Jesus even claims to be more important than this relation between Abraham and God, and to have existed before this relationship began! - to have existed even before the pact between Yahweh and Abraham and the jews! I realise that you don`t understand the reason why this is so important - and that you don`t understand how this is a claim of deity. But I do. The point, however, is that the "I AM"-part of the statement in Exodus is used as a theme in much of the Torah - the authors create vartiations of the name, with the EGW EIMI as basis. It is this tradition Jesus parttakes in, in John, and he refers to himself. Like it or not.
Hellrider
In the mind of a greek-speaking jew or greek in the 1st or 2nd century, reading the passage in John,the meaning is perfectly clear. For someone in that age to claim that "before Abraham I am", would be to claim that he was existing from "eternity". The term "eternity" is in itself a term that we don`t think of, or speak in terms of, in the same way today as someone 2000 years ago. To have existed before Abraham, the forefather, the exalted man that made the first pact with God 2000 years before Jesus Christ, who brought the jews in as Yahwehs people, meant in the mind of a jew or greek at that time to have existed for "eternity".
Way to go with absolutely no evidence to support your case. Adam, Cain, Able, Enoch, all the angels, etc, all lived before Abraham. I have demonstrated via another text that eternity is not implicit in the syntax.
Note especially the last part of the passage. "I AM has sent you". God actually tells Moses the short-version of the title. In greek: EGW EIMI has sent you. It is not important that the passage in Exodus has the predicate HO WN (in LXXt), and this is confirmed by the majority of Bible commentators.It isn't important? LOL. In that part of the verse he doesn't even say EGW EIMI, he says hO WN has sent you. No EGW EIMI at all! As I said though, it is not used as a name or a title. It is a revelation of his person.
According to both Tasker and Morris, the of John 8:58 shares the form of the LXX of Exodus 3:14.And we will all now observe that neither one of them give any evidence for their assertion. They merely claim it, and without justification.
One more thing: The "I am what I am" and "I am"-statements from Exodus are not the only titles given to God in the OT. There are many variations on the "I am"-theme. Note especially Genesis 26,24: That night the LORD appeared to him and said, " I am the God of your father Abraham. Do not be afraid, for I am with you;
That is going to be a real problem for you, for I can pull such statements for for many different people in the Bible. If you want to argue that, then all the other "I am" statements of others must make them God too! You make me wonder where you come up with this stuff!
Your claims are bare and empty. I have demonstrated with *****grammar**** that there is no relation. Instead of dealing with any of what I say, you duck and cover, turning to authorities who say nothing about what I say, themselves not dealing with the issues. You need to either make an response to the *points I am making* and deal with the grammatically issues at play, or concede the point. It doesn't matter with me, but your games are tiring.
Mondo
Isaiah 43:10 LXX anticipates the phrasing more in John 8:24, 28 than in 8:58.
The latter text is much closer to the use of temporal adverb + present eimi (w/o implied predicate), to contrast an existence initiated by birth with absolute existence, in Isaiah 46:4 LXX and Psalm 89:2 LXX:
Isaiah 46:4 LXX: "From [your] childhood to old age (ek paidiou heós gérós), I am (egó eimi). And to whenever you become aged (kai heós an katagéraséte), I am (egó eimi). I endure you (egó anekhomai humas)".
Psalm 89:12 LXX: "Before the mountains were born (pro tou horé genéthénai), or [before] you brought forth the earth and the world, from everlasting (apo tou aiónos) to everlasting, you are (su ei)".
In that part of the verse he doesn't even say EGW EIMI, he says hO WN has sent you. No EGW EIMI at all!
I was mistaken, should have checked my commentary first. Yes, the phrase in LXX is hO WN APESTALKEN ME PROS hUMAS. But that does not change the following: EGW EIMI is an important part of the passages in the OT in which Yahweh presents himself, in various forms, I am The Being, I am your God, I am the God of Abraham, etc. The variations have "I AM" as basis, and when Jesus use this phrase, the jews attempt to stone him. Why do you think that is? Because he claimed to be someone that came from heaven? Why do none of the angels popping up around the OT receive the same treatment?
One more thing: The "I am what I am" and "I am"-statements from Exodus are not the only titles given to God in the OT. There are many variations on the "I am"-theme. Note especially Genesis 26,24: That night the LORD appeared to him and said, " I am the God of your father Abraham. Do not be afraid, for I am with you;That is going to be a real problem for you, for I can pull such statements for for many different people in the Bible. If you want to argue that, then all the other "I am" statements of others must make them God too! You make me wonder where you come up with this stuff!
Don`t be ridicolous. All the other "different people" never claimed to be the son of God, the Messiah, performed miracles, rode into Jerusalem on a donkey etc. It`s a matter of context. You know this, but you resort to ridicule. Good for you.
According to both Tasker and Morris, the of John 8:58 shares the form of the LXX of Exodus 3:14.And we will all now observe that neither one of them give any evidence for their assertion. They merely claim it, and without justification.
They don`t give justification?
"The fact that the Jews attempted to stone Jesus after hearing the
words _I am_ shows that it suggested to them the divine name so
translated in the LXX version of Ex. iii.14." -- R.V.G. Tasker,
Tyndale Commentary on John (Downers Grove, IL: IVP, 1960).
2000 years of christianity and the overwhelming majority of past and present scholars and Bible commentators says that the form of Ex 3:14 is shared with John 8:58. You and your little Watchtower can scream and yell all you want about the lack of a predicative, but it doesn`t change a thing.
