EGW EIMI in BDAG (Oldshepherd)

[Cal_Minian]

Dear OldShepherd,
It was an excellent idea of yours to look at what BDAG says about EGW EIMI. Notice that the use of it is to “establish identity” and that the identity must come from the predicate. That means that the identity does NOT come from EGW EIMI itself. I agree that ANI HU was translated into EGW EIMI in the LXX.

However, you are in for a surprise when you see what they mean by that for Jesus! See where they say “s. on EGW”? I have provided EGW below as well. They say that it is for self-identification and that when Jesus used it he meant “: I am the one (i.e. the Messiah)” including John 8:58. Then they quote JSNT. I have a copy of that article. They author Freed gives his translation for John 8:58 below. He says it means “ Before Abraham was, I, the Christ, the Son of God, existed .”

I really do think BDAG is a good reference for EGW EIMI, don’t you?

Kind Regards,
Cal



BDAG page 283d – To establish identity the formula EGW EIMI is oft. used in the gospels (corresp. to Hebr. ANI HU Dt 32:39; Is 43:10), in such a way that the predicate must be understood fr. The context: Mt 14:27; Mk 6:50; 13:6; 14:62 Lk 22:70; J 4:26; 6:20; 8:24, 28; 13:19; 18:5f and oft.; s. on EGW – In a question MHTI EGW EIMI; surely it is not I? Mt 26:22,25.

EGW in BDAG 275a – EGW EIMI it is I (in contrast to others) Mt 14:27; Lk 24:39; J 6:20; I am the man 9:9; w. strong emphasis: I am the one (i.e. the Messiah) Mk 13:6; Lk 21:8; J 8:24, 28; cp. Vs 58. … --On J 8:58 s. EFreed, JSNT 17,’83

EFreed, JSNT 17– “I should suggest, rather, that the meaning of the sentence in the mind of the writer was: “Before Abraham was, I, the Christ, the Son of God, existed.”

[OldShepherd]

Today @ 07:18 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=134560#post134560)
Cal_Minian:

Dear OldShepherd,
It was an excellent idea of yours to look at what BDAG says about EGW EIMI. Notice that the use of it is to “establish identity” and that the identity must come from the predicate. That means that the identity does NOT come from EGW EIMI itself. I agree that ANI HU was translated into EGW EIMI in the LXX.

However, you are in for a surprise when you see what they mean by that for Jesus! See where they say “s. on EGW”? I have provided EGW below as well. They say that it is for self-identification and that when Jesus used it he meant “: I am the one (i.e. the Messiah)” including John 8:58. Then they quote JSNT. I have a copy of that article. They author Freed gives his translation for John 8:58 below. He says it means “ Before Abraham was, I, the Christ, the Son of God, existed .”

I really do think BDAG is a good reference for EGW EIMI, don’t you?

BDAG page 283d – To establish identity the formula EGW EIMI is oft. used in the gospels (corresp. to Hebr. ANI HU Dt 32:39; Is 43:10), in such a way that the predicate must be understood fr. The context: Mt 14:27; Mk 6:50; 13:6; 14:62 Lk 22:70; J 4:26; 6:20; 8:24, 28; 13:19; 18:5f and oft.; s. on EGW – In a question MHTI EGW EIMI; surely it is not I? Mt 26:22,25.

EGW in BDAG 275a – EGW EIMI it is I (in contrast to others) Mt 14:27; Lk 24:39; J 6:20; I am the man 9:9; w. strong emphasis: I am the one (i.e. the Messiah) Mk 13:6; Lk 21:8; J 8:24, 28; cp. Vs 58. … --On J 8:58 s. EFreed, JSNT 17,’83

EFreed, JSNT 17– “I should suggest, rather, that the meaning of the sentence in the mind of the writer was: “Before Abraham was, I, the Christ, the Son of God, existed.”

Kind Regards,
Cal

See my comment elsewhere. Is Freed the be all-end all authority on this point? Are all other resources and scholars in the world to be disregarded, in favor of Freed? And OBTW I didn't see any historical citations to back up Freed's assertion. "I would suggest" is NOT documentation.

And Freed does NOT explain why the Pharisees picked up stones to stone Jesus in the temple, proper. Where is there a law, not just an excuse offered to Pilate, a law which Jesus violated, which would cause priests to break the law themselves, and commit murder in the temple in front of the common people? And it is a giant leap from "ego eimi" to "I, the Son of God." How about the blind man was he claiming to be the Son of God too? I think your answer to this will be very interesting.

Here are a few of the laws the Pharisees were attempting to violate. You may not accept these sources, although the Pharisees were bound by them, but at least I am documenting what I say, not just saying "I suggest. . . '
Mishna, Sanhedrin IV section: "A criminal case resulting in the acquittal of the accused may terminate the same day on which the trial began. But if a sentence of death is to be pronounced, it cannot be concluded before the following day."

Maimonides, in his Sanhedrin section. He writes: "We have it as a fundamental principle of our jurisprudence, that no one can bring an accusation against himself. Should a man make confession of guilt before a legally constituted tribunal, such confession is not to be used against him unless properly attested by two other witnesses."

Leviticus 24:13-16 And the LORD spoke to Moses, saying, "Take outside the camp him who has cursed; then let all who heard him lay their hands on his head, and let all the congregation stone him. Then you shall speak to the children of Israel, saying: ‘Whoever curses his God shall bear his sin. And whoever blasphemes the name of the LORD shall surely be put to death. All the congregation shall certainly stone him, the stranger as well as him who is born in the land. When he blasphemes the name of the LORD, he shall be put to death.

Maimonides, in his section on the Sanhedrin. "A sentence of death can be pronounced only so long as the Sanhedrin holds its sessions in the appointed place." Also the Talmud says, "After leaving the hall Gazith [which is the court] no sentence of death can be passed upon anyone soever."

http://www.sabbath.org/index.cfm/subj/passover/page/sermons.T546.htm

[Cal_Minian]

Today @ 04:16 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=134885#post134885)
OldShepherd:



Kind Regards,
Cal

See my comment elsewhere. Is Freed the be all-end all authority on this point? Are all other resources and scholars in the world to be disregarded, in favor of Freed? And OBTW I didn't see any historical citations to back up Freed's assertion. "I would suggest" is NOT documentation.

And Freed does NOT explain why the Pharisees picked up stones to stone Jesus in the temple, proper. Where is there a law, not just an excuse offered to Pilate, a law which Jesus violated, which would cause priests to break the law themselves, and commit murder in the temple in front of the common people? And it is a giant leap from "ego eimi" to "I, the Son of God." How about the blind man was he claiming to be the Son of God too? I think your answer to this will be very interesting.

Here are a few of the laws the Pharisees were attempting to violate. You may not accept these sources, although the Pharisees were bound by them, but at least I am documenting what I say, not just saying "I suggest. . . '
Mishna, Sanhedrin IV section: "A criminal case resulting in the acquittal of the accused may terminate the same day on which the trial began. But if a sentence of death is to be pronounced, it cannot be concluded before the following day."

Maimonides, in his Sanhedrin section. He writes: "We have it as a fundamental principle of our jurisprudence, that no one can bring an accusation against himself. Should a man make confession of guilt before a legally constituted tribunal, such confession is not to be used against him unless properly attested by two other witnesses."

Leviticus 24:13-16 And the LORD spoke to Moses, saying, "Take outside the camp him who has cursed; then let all who heard him lay their hands on his head, and let all the congregation stone him. Then you shall speak to the children of Israel, saying: ‘Whoever curses his God shall bear his sin. And whoever blasphemes the name of the LORD shall surely be put to death. All the congregation shall certainly stone him, the stranger as well as him who is born in the land. When he blasphemes the name of the LORD, he shall be put to death.

Maimonides, in his section on the Sanhedrin. "A sentence of death can be pronounced only so long as the Sanhedrin holds its sessions in the appointed place." Also the Talmud says, "After leaving the hall Gazith [which is the court] no sentence of death can be passed upon anyone soever."

http://www.sabbath.org/index.cfm/subj/passover/page/sermons.T546.htm [/QUOTE]


Dear Old Shepherd,
Freed and BDAG agree with me. Here is another one. It is hard to find these threads so I put this here too.



Kenneth L. McKay graduated with honors in Classics from the Universities of Sydney and Cambridge, taught Greek in universities and theological colleges in Nigeria, New Zealand, and England, who taught at the Australian National University for 26 years, has written numerous articles on ancient Greek syntax, as well as authored a book on Classical Attic, Greek Grammar for Students, and A New Syntax of the Verb in "New Testament Greek: an aspectual approach", provides the following in relation to the alleged "true parallel between Exodus 3:14 (LXX) and John 8:58"

"I am" in John's Gospel
The Expository Times, 1996, page 302
BY K. L. MCKAY, MA,
FORMERLY OF THE AUSTRALIAN UNIVERSITY

It has become fashionable among some preachers and writers to relate Jesus' use of the words "I am" in the Gospel according to John, in all, or most, of their contexts, to God's declaration to Moses in Exodus 3:14, and to expound the passages concerned as if the words themselves have some kind of magic in them. Some who have no more than a smattering of Greek attribute the "magic" to the Greek words ego eimi. [1] I wish briefly to draw attention to the normality of the Greek in all such passages, and the unlikelihood of the words ego eimi being intended to suggest any special significance of this kind.

It is, of course, perfectly reasonable to draw attention to Jesus' claims about himself by noting the "I am" element common to them: 'I am the bread of life' (6:35), 'I am the light of the world' (8:12), 'I am the gate/door' (10:7), 'I am the good shepherd' (10:11), 'I am the resurrection and the life' (11:25), 'I am the way, the truth and the life' (14:6), 'I am the true vine' (15:1). These statements give important insights into the identity and work of Jesus, and we can be challenged to decide whether the words "I am" in them convey truth, delusion, deceit, or something else.

In each case the Greek words used are ego eimi, the pronoun being emphatic (as is usually appropriate in beginning a startling fresh statement, answering a question of identity or personal activity, and in some other circumstances), and the verb, also slightly emphatic, [2] being the normal use of the verb 'to be' as a copula, the means of linking the subject with the significant words, 'bread', 'light', etc., which occur as noun complements. The same principle applies when the complement is an adjective or an adverb or adverbial phrase used adjectivally.

With variations of context the degree of emphasis may vary, and either the pronoun or the verb may be omitted. In the parallelism of 8:23 pronoun and verb are separated: humeis ek ton kato este, ego ek ton ano eimi, but in the immediately following parallel statement the introduction of a negative brings the verb forward (thus also giving extra emphasis to toutou): ego ouk eimi ek tou kosmou toutou. In 14:10 the verb is omitted, because it is understood from the rest of the sentence: ego en tw patri kai ho pater en emoi estin. [3] In 14:20 a development from the same statement, also in a hoti clause, omits the copula entirely: ego en tw patri mou kai humeis en emoi kagw en humin. In 10:36 the personal pronoun is not needed for emphasis, and is omitted: huios tou theou eimi. In 7:34 and 7:36 the clause structure demands the postposition of the subject: hopou eimi ego humeis ou dunasthe elthein.

Although the natural English translations differ, there are two contexts of this kind in which Jesus uses the words ego eimi alone to identify himself: in 6:20, where the disciples are afraid of the apparition they see walking on the water, and Jesus reassures them by identifying himself, quite naturally, with these words, which translate into English as "It is I" and in 18:5, while Jesus acknowledges that he is Jesus of Nazareth by speaking the same words, which are naturally translated into English as "I am he".

The syntactic difference between them is that in the former ego is the complement, the unexpressed subject being something equivalent to 'what you see', and in the latter ego is the subject, the unexpressed complement being 'Jesus of Nazareth'. In both these passages ego eimi is the natural Greek response [4] in the circumstances, as may be seen in 9:9, where the man cured of blindness uses exactly the same words to acknowledge his identity. The dramatic reaction of the arresting party in 18:6 is readily explained if we note that the confident authority of Jesus' presence was such that he defeated the merchants in the temple (2:15), and he simply walked away when the crowd was intent on throwing him over the brow of the hill near Nazareth (Luke 4:28-30).

The verb 'to be' is used differently, in what is presumably its basic meaning of 'be in existence', in John 8:58: prin Abraam genesthai ego eimi, [5] which would be most naturally translated 'I have been in existence since before Abraham was born', [6] if it were not for the obsession with the simple words 'I am'. If we take the Greek words in their natural meaning, as we surely should, the claim to have been in existence for so long is in itself a staggering one, quite enough to provoke the crowd's violent reaction

For the emphasis on the words 'I am' we need to look back to God's words to Moses in Exodus 3:14, 'I am who I am. This is what you are to say to the Israelites: "I am has sent me to you".' The passage in its Hebrew form has been discussed by many commentators as something of a problem, with possibilities that the verb could mean 'I am', 'I will be', 'I become', or 'I will become', and the pronoun 'that', 'who', 'what', or even 'because'. Some see a need to emend the text, and some stress various critical principles as basic to its interpretation. A few refer to the Septuagint translation of the passage as relevant for understanding it. [7]

Now the Septuagint was the translation done for the benefit of the increasing number of Greek-speaking Jews a couple of centuries earlier, so naturally it is the version of the Old Testament that is normally referred to in the New Testament, and certainly the one most likely to be known to the early readers of John's Gospel.

It's translation of Exodus 3:14 follows the sense (as understood by the Jewish translators) rather than the exact form of the Hebrew: ego eimi ho wn ... Ho wn apestalke me, which translates into English literally as 'I am the being one',' [8] and 'the being one has sent me'. Now the words ego eimi here are the emphatic pronoun and the copula as in most of the passages cited above; and ho wn represents a relative clause which in its first occurrence would be hos eimi and in its second occurrence would be hos esti, [9] but the most natural translation into English of both would be 'the one who is (who really exists)',' [10] the verb having its basic meaning (and being so accented), and not being a mere copula In neither is there any possibility of inserting an emphatic ego.

So the emphatic words used by Jesus in the passages referred to above are perfectly natural in their contexts, and they do not echo the words of Exodus 3:14 in the normally quoted Greek version. Thus they are quite unlikely to have been used in the New Testament to convey that significance, however much the modern English versions of the relevant passages, following the form of the Hebrew words, may suggest it.

Footnotes:
[1] I have seen one such speaker try to impress his audience by writing the words on a blackboard, only to demonstrate that he was ignorant of even the simplest details of Greek.
[2] It's position is un-emphatic, but the degree of emphasis could be reduced by its omission, which would make no difference to the meaning. The omission of the copula is quite common in Greek, especially, but not exclusively, in the third person.
[3] The fact that this is a reported statement, in a hoti clause, does not affect the grammar, but only the degree of emphasis.
[4] In translation, if as is likely, the original reply was the equivalent in Aramaic.
[5] Note that with this meaning the verb is differently accented in Greek [ E)GW\ E)MI/ instead of E)GW\ E)IMI ].
[6] For the construction see "K. L. McKay, A New Syntax of the Verb in New Testament Greek: An aspectual approach" (Peter Lang, 1994), 4.2.4.
[7] For extensive modern discussion of the problems of interpretation see Brevard S. Childs, Exodus: A Commentary (OTL, SCM, 1974) and John 1. Durham, Exodus (WBC 3, Word, 1987). See also Martin Noth, Exodus (OTL, SCM, 2nd ed. 1966); U. Cassuto, Commentary on the Book of Exodus (Magnes Press), 1. P. Hyatt, Exodus (NCB, Oliphants, 1971); Alan Cole, Exodus (TC, IVP, 1973); J. W. Wevers, Notes on the Greek Text of Exodus (Scholars Press, 1990).
[8] As Noth mentions in a footnote.
[9] Cf. the Vulgate translation of 14b: Qui est misit me ad vos.
[10] English has lost the full range of inflections, and the relative pronoun is now treated as if it were always third person.

[Cal_Minian]

06-28-2003 @ 08:53 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=134958#post134958)
Cal_Minian:



See my comment elsewhere. Is Freed the be all-end all authority on this point? Are all other resources and scholars in the world to be disregarded, in favor of Freed? And OBTW I didn't see any historical citations to back up Freed's assertion. "I would suggest" is NOT documentation.

And Freed does NOT explain why the Pharisees picked up stones to stone Jesus in the temple, proper. Where is there a law, not just an excuse offered to Pilate, a law which Jesus violated, which would cause priests to break the law themselves, and commit murder in the temple in front of the common people? And it is a giant leap from "ego eimi" to "I, the Son of God." How about the blind man was he claiming to be the Son of God too? I think your answer to this will be very interesting.

Here are a few of the laws the Pharisees were attempting to violate. You may not accept these sources, although the Pharisees were bound by them, but at least I am documenting what I say, not just saying "I suggest. . . '
Mishna, Sanhedrin IV section: "A criminal case resulting in the acquittal of the accused may terminate the same day on which the trial began. But if a sentence of death is to be pronounced, it cannot be concluded before the following day."

Maimonides, in his Sanhedrin section. He writes: "We have it as a fundamental principle of our jurisprudence, that no one can bring an accusation against himself. Should a man make confession of guilt before a legally constituted tribunal, such confession is not to be used against him unless properly attested by two other witnesses."

Leviticus 24:13-16 And the LORD spoke to Moses, saying, "Take outside the camp him who has cursed; then let all who heard him lay their hands on his head, and let all the congregation stone him. Then you shall speak to the children of Israel, saying: ‘Whoever curses his God shall bear his sin. And whoever blasphemes the name of the LORD shall surely be put to death. All the congregation shall certainly stone him, the stranger as well as him who is born in the land. When he blasphemes the name of the LORD, he shall be put to death.

Maimonides, in his section on the Sanhedrin. "A sentence of death can be pronounced only so long as the Sanhedrin holds its sessions in the appointed place." Also the Talmud says, "After leaving the hall Gazith [which is the court] no sentence of death can be passed upon anyone soever."

http://www.sabbath.org/index.cfm/subj/passover/page/sermons.T546.htm



Dear Old Shepherd,
Freed and BDAG agree with me. Here is another one. It is hard to find these threads so I put this here too.


Dear OldShepherd,
Do you now admit that BDAG and the references it brings to bear on John 8:58 do NOT agree with your theology?

You state that Freed does not say why the Jews wanted to stone Jesus because of claiming to be the Messiah. He discusses this in his concluding paragraph. Did you read Freed before you made that statement?

Kind Regards,
Cal

[OldShepherd]

Today @ 08:55 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=139682#post139682)
Cal_Minian:

Dear OldShepherd,
Do you now admit that BDAG and the references it brings to bear on John 8:58 do NOT agree with your theology?

Why should I admit such a stupid thing when it doesn't?

You state that Freed does not say why the Jews wanted to stone Jesus because of claiming to be the Messiah. He discusses this in his concluding paragraph. Did you read Freed before you made that statement?Kind Regards,
Cal

I certainly did. Are you talking about this concluding paragraph?That does not give a reason for the stoning, only Freed's opinion of what the sentence means. And with Freed's unsupported, undocumented opinion, and $3 I can get a cup of latté almost anywhere.
EFreed, JSNT 17– “I should suggest, rather, that the meaning of the sentence in the mind of the writer was: “Before Abraham was, I, the Christ, the Son of God, existed.”

[AVmetro]

EFreed, JSNT 17– “I should suggest, rather, that the meaning of the sentence in the mind of the writer was: “Before Abraham was, I, the Christ, the Son of God, existed.”

Is that a strictly literal translation of the text? :hi:

The argument of the JWs, as I have seen over the various 'I AM' threads, is that "ego eimi'' implies {merely} 'prior existence' which entails or implies the predicate of "I am...the Messiah".

Am I correct?

Thanks.

[Cal_Minian]

Yesterday @ 08:40 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=139810#post139810)
OldShepherd:



Why should I admit such a stupid thing when it doesn't?



I certainly did. Are you talking about this concluding paragraph?That does not give a reason for the stoning, only Freed's opinion of what the sentence means. And with Freed's unsupported, undocumented opinion, and $3 I can get a cup of latté almost anywhere.
EFreed, JSNT 17– “I should suggest, rather, that the meaning of the sentence in the mind of the writer was: “Before Abraham was, I, the Christ, the Son of God, existed.”


Dear OldShepherd,
No, what you quote is what I posted with respect to his translation of John 8:58. That is NOT the concluding paragraph.

At first you said that Freed never mentioned why the Jews wanted to stone Jesus and now you say he is merely stating his opinion.

If does not sound like you have read the article at all. Why do you bother us with your opinions on an article you have not read?

Regards,
Cal

[Cal_Minian]

Cal:
Dear OldShepherd,
Do you now admit that BDAG and the references it brings to bear on John 8:58 do NOT agree with your theology? ”


Oldshepherd:
Why should I admit such a stupid thing when it doesn't?


Dear OldShepherd,
This is what BDAG says on John 8:58. Note that they say that at John 8:58 it means he is claiming to be the Messiah. That is not what you believe is it?????


BDAG page 283d – To establish identity the formula EGW EIMI is oft. used in the gospels (corresp. to Hebr. ANI HU Dt 32:39; Is 43:10), in such a way that the predicate must be understood fr. The context: Mt 14:27; Mk 6:50; 13:6; 14:62 Lk 22:70; J 4:26; 6:20; 8:24, 28; 13:19; 18:5f and oft.; s. on EGW – In a question MHTI EGW EIMI; surely it is not I? Mt 26:22,25.

EGW in BDAG 275a - EGW EIMI it is I (in contrast to others) Mt 14:27; Lk 24:39; J 6:20; I am the man 9:9; w. strong emphasis: I am the one (i.e. the Messiah) Mk 13:6; Lk 21:8; J 8:24, 28; cp. Vs 58. … --On J 8:58 s. EFreed, JSNT 17,’83

EFreed, JSNT 17– “I should suggest, rather, that the meaning of the sentence in the mind of the writer was: “Before Abraham was, I, the Christ, the Son of God, existed.”


Kind Regards,
Cal

[AVmetro]

IronMetro:

The argument of the JWs, as I have seen over the various 'I AM' threads, is that "ego eimi'' implies {merely} 'prior existence' which entails or implies the predicate of "I am...the Messiah".

Am I correct?

Thanks.

[Cal_Minian]

Today @ 03:39 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=140344#post140344)
IronMetro:

IronMetro:

The argument of the JWs, as I have seen over the various 'I AM' threads, is that "ego eimi'' implies {merely} 'prior existence' which entails or implies the predicate of "I am...the Messiah".

Am I correct?

Thanks.



Dear IronMetro,
I do not recall any threads which were specifically started to address why the Jews wished to stone Jesus.

Jehovah's Witnessess do not teach that they wanted to stone Jesus "merely" because of his claim to pre-existence.


In John 8 Jesus was discussing the issue of "Fatherhood" with the Jews. They claimed their Father was Abraham. Jesus said his Father was their God. He then called them liars and said he existed before their Father, Abraham.

He had also said that their Father was Satan!

ASV John 8:44 Ye are of your father the devil, and the
lusts of your father it is your will to do. He was a murderer
from the beginning, and standeth not in the truth, because
there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he
speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father thereof.




ASV John 8:54 Jesus answered, If I glorify myself, my
glory is nothing: it is my Father that glorifieth me; of whom
ye say, that he is your God; 55 and ye have not known
him: but I know him; and if I should say, I know him not, I
shall be like unto you, a liar: but I know him, and keep his
word. 56 Your father Abraham rejoiced to see my day; and
he saw it, and was glad



Therefore it was not that he "merely" claimed to be the Messiah, but that he claimed to have existed before Abraham who was their self-proclaimed Father. In addition to this he called them liars and said their Father was really Satan. This was more than enough to cause their enraged reaction in verse 59.

Obviously this is just a short sketch of the events. If you have access to the Watchtower of 5/15/88, page 9 and the article "The Question of Fatherhood" you will find more details.


Kind Regards,
Cal

[AVmetro]

Cal_Minion:

I do not recall any threads which were specifically started to address why the Jews wished to stone Jesus.

No, there wasn't any one thread initiated on the topic of "why". Just discussed within the appropriate threads.

Jehovah's Witnessess do not teach that they wanted to stone Jesus "merely" because of his claim to pre-existence.

Which is where the implied predicate "Messiah" came in. I was asking that you verify if I was correct in gathering that.

In John 8 Jesus was discussing the issue of "Fatherhood" with the Jews. They claimed their Father was Abraham. Jesus said his Father was their God. He then called them liars and said he existed before their Father, Abraham.

Christ's claim to 'preexistence Messiah' was already understood prior to this. See:
Joh 1:24-27 And they who were sent were from the Pharisees. And they asked him and said, Why then do you baptize, if you are not the Christ , nor Elijah, nor that Prophet? John answered them, saying, I baptize with water, but One stands among you whom you do not know. He it is who, coming after
me, who has been before me; of whom I am not worthy to loosen the thong of His sandal.
I.e. This was old news to them.

He had also said that their Father was Satan!

So why didn't they stone Him upon the above utterance? Try not to employ a double-standard.



8<

Therefore it was not that he "merely" claimed to be the Messiah, but that he claimed to have existed before Abraham who was their self-proclaimed Father. In addition to this he called them liars and said their Father was really Satan. This was more than enough to cause their enraged reaction in verse 59.

See above. Also, I had addressed this in another thread. See here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?postid=135722#post135722).

Additionally, reiterating OS, this again begs the question as to why members of a strict religous sect would violate the temple amongst other laws on account of something as simple as the above? In the other thread I had made reference to those instances where the Jews removed the accused from the temple prior to carrying out any form of attempted execution (e.g. 2Chron 23:14..cf..Acts 21:30). These are all contextual clues we must factor in.

Obviously this is just a short sketch of the events. If you have access to the Watchtower of 5/15/88, page 9 and the article "The Question of Fatherhood" you will find more details.

Thanks. I'll look into it.

God bless

[Cal_Minian]

Today @ 04:54 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=140415#post140415)
IronMetro:



No, there wasn't any one thread initiated on the topic of &quot;why&quot;. Just discussed within the appropriate threads.



Which is where the implied predicate &quot;Messiah&quot; came in. I was asking that you verify if I was correct in gathering that.



Christ's claim to 'preexistence Messiah' was already understood prior to this. See:
Joh 1:24-27 And they who were sent were from the Pharisees. And they asked him and said, Why then do you baptize, if you are not the Christ , nor Elijah, nor that Prophet? John answered them, saying, I baptize with water, but One stands among you whom you do not know. He it is who, coming after
me, who has been before me; of whom I am not worthy to loosen the thong of His sandal.
I.e. This was old news to them.



So why didn't they stone Him upon the above utterance? Try not to employ a double-standard.



See above. Also, I had addressed this in another thread. See here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?postid=135722#post135722).

Additionally, reiterating OS, this again begs the question as to why members of a strict religous sect would violate the temple amongst other laws on account of something as simple as the above? In the other thread I had made reference to those instances where the Jews removed the accused from the temple prior to carrying out any form of attempted execution (e.g. 2Chron 23:14..cf..Acts 21:30). These are all contextual clues we must factor in.



Thanks. I'll look into it.

God bless

Dear IronMetro,
I do not see anything in those two verses that exactly apply to John 8.

Having said that, there were many laws that those Jews broke when it came to Jesus.

The following are some of the laws of God that were flagrantly violated by the Jews in the trial of Christ: bribery (De 16:19; 27:25); conspiracy and the perversion of judgment and justice (Ex 23:1, 2, 6,_7; Le 19:15,_35); bearing false witness, in which matter the judges connived (Ex 20:16); letting a murderer (Barabbas) go, thereby bringing bloodguilt upon themselves and upon the land (Nu 35:31-34; De 19:11-13); mob action, or ‘following a crowd to do evil’ (Ex 23:2,_3); in crying out for Jesus to be impaled, they were violating the law that prohibited following the statutes of other nations and that also prescribed no torture but that provided that a criminal be stoned or put to death before being hung on a stake (Le 18:3-5; De 21:22); they accepted as king one not of their own nation, but a pagan (Caesar), and rejected the King whom God had chosen (De 17:14,_15); and finally, they were guilty of murder (Ex 20:13).

Kind Regards,
Cal

[AVmetro]

I do not see anything in those two verses that exactly apply to John 8.

Their relation to John8 being to demonstrate the point OS has been attempting to drive home all along:
2Ch 23:14 And Jehoiada the priest brought out the commanders of hundreds who were set over the army, and said to them, Take her out of the ranks. And whoever follows her shall be killed with the sword. For the priest said, Do not kill her in the house of Jehovah.

..cf..

Act 21:30-31 And all the city was moved, and the people ran together. And laying hands on Paul, they drew him outside of the temple. And immediately the doors were shut. And as they were seeking to kill him, the news came to the chiliarch of the cohort, that all Jerusalem was in an uproar.
On the latter verse we have the following:
John Gill:

and they took Paul and drew him out of the temple; as unworthy to be in that holy place; and that it might not be defiled with his blood; for their intention was nothing less than to take away his life:

Jamieson, Fausset and Brown:

Act 21:30 - took Paul, and drew him out of the temple; and forthwith the doors were shut--that the murder they meant to perpetrate might not pollute that holy place.

A.T. Robertson:

Straightway the doors were shut (eutheo¯s ekleisthe¯san hai thurai). With a bang and at once. First aorist (effective) passive of kleio¯. The doors between the inner court and the court of the Gentiles. But this was only the beginning, the preparation for the real work of the mob. They did not wish to defile the holy place with blood. The doors were shut by the Levites.
All of which demonstrate the point to be made.

Having said that, there were many laws that those Jews broke when it came to Jesus.

The following are some of the laws of God that were flagrantly violated by the Jews in the trial of Christ: bribery (De 16:19; 27:25); conspiracy and the perversion of judgment and justice (Ex 23:1, 2, 6,_7; Le 19:15,_35); bearing false witness, in which matter the judges connived (Ex 20:16); letting a murderer (Barabbas) go, thereby bringing bloodguilt upon themselves and upon the land (Nu 35:31-34; De 19:11-13); mob action, or ‘following a crowd to do evil’ (Ex 23:2,_3); in crying out for Jesus to be impaled, they were violating the law that prohibited following the statutes of other nations and that also prescribed no torture but that provided that a criminal be stoned or put to death before being hung on a stake (Le 18:3-5; De 21:22); they accepted as king one not of their own nation, but a pagan (Caesar), and rejected the King whom God had chosen (De 17:14,_15); and finally, they were guilty of murder (Ex 20:13).

Regarding Christ's trial, this is only to be expected. Why? On account of Messianic prophecy. For example, read:

Psa 35:11 False witnesses did rise up; they laid to my charge things that I knew not. [KJV]

Or as the BBE renders it:

Psa 35:11 False witnesses got up: they put questions to me about crimes of which I had no knowledge. [BBE]

"Bribery" and "defilement of the temple" are rather far apart in severity, IMHO. The question which still needs to be answered is why the Jews became enraged to such a degree as to make this risk? Refer back to my previous post on 'preexistent Messiah' etc. You might remember how those in Nazareth attempted to throw Christ off the face of a cliff. Yet we wouldn't want to simply equate this instance with that, of say, the charge made in Jn10:30 (i.e. "blasphemy").

God bless

[Cal_Minian]

Today @ 07:59 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=140483#post140483)
IronMetro:



Their relation to John8 being to demonstrate the point OS has been attempting to drive home all along:
2Ch 23:14 And Jehoiada the priest brought out the commanders of hundreds who were set over the army, and said to them, Take her out of the ranks. And whoever follows her shall be killed with the sword. For the priest said, Do not kill her in the house of Jehovah.

..cf..

Act 21:30-31 And all the city was moved, and the people ran together. And laying hands on Paul, they drew him outside of the temple. And immediately the doors were shut. And as they were seeking to kill him, the news came to the chiliarch of the cohort, that all Jerusalem was in an uproar.
On the latter verse we have the following:
John Gill:

and they took Paul and drew him out of the temple; as unworthy to be in that holy place; and that it might not be defiled with his blood; for their intention was nothing less than to take away his life:

Jamieson, Fausset and Brown:

Act 21:30 - took Paul, and drew him out of the temple; and forthwith the doors were shut--that the murder they meant to perpetrate might not pollute that holy place.

A.T. Robertson:

Straightway the doors were shut (eutheo¯s ekleisthe¯san hai thurai). With a bang and at once. First aorist (effective) passive of kleio¯. The doors between the inner court and the court of the Gentiles. But this was only the beginning, the preparation for the real work of the mob. They did not wish to defile the holy place with blood. The doors were shut by the Levites.
All of which demonstrate the point to be made.



Regarding Christ's trial, this is only to be expected. Why? On account of Messianic prophecy. For example, read:

Psa 35:11 False witnesses did rise up; they laid to my charge things that I knew not. [KJV]

Or as the BBE renders it:

Psa 35:11 False witnesses got up: they put questions to me about crimes of which I had no knowledge. [BBE]

&quot;Bribery&quot; and &quot;defilement of the temple&quot; are rather far apart in severity, IMHO. The question which still needs to be answered is why the Jews became enraged to such a degree as to make this risk? Refer back to my previous post on 'preexistent Messiah' etc. You might remember how those in Nazareth attempted to throw Christ off the face of a cliff. Yet we wouldn't want to simply equate this instance with that, of say, the charge made in Jn10:30 (i.e. &quot;blasphemy&quot;).

God bless


Dear IronMetro,
I am sorry, but I still do not understand. Are you saying that the Jews had a law that if blasphemy were committed they could killl someone in the temple but if it was a lessor offense they would drag them out of the temple and kill them somewhere else?

Kind Regards,
Cal

[OldShepherd]

Today @ 01:10 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=140485#post140485)
Cal_Minian:

Dear IronMetro,
I am sorry, but I still do not understand. Are you saying that the Jews had a law that if blasphemy were committed they could killl someone in the temple but if it was a lessor offense they would drag them out of the temple and kill them somewhere else?

Kind Regards,
Cal

Babble, babble, babble. Read his post! To stone anyone without a proper trial before a quorum of the Sanhedrin was murder. And a proper sentence could only be adjudged the day after the trial. Witnesses for the defense and prosecution must be sought. The only lawful place to carry out a lawfully imposed sentence of stoning was outside the city. It was a separate offense of the law to harm anyone in any way inside the temple. As I have pointed out on another thread the attempted stoning of Jesus violated at least 20 provisions of Jewish law.

But of course my sources were Jewish and according to JW teaching they are not worthy of consideratin because they blow WBTS doctrine completely out of the water.

[Cal_Minian]

Yesterday @ 08:10 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=140485#post140485)
Cal_Minian:


They broke their own laws all the time... why not at John 8:58 is the question!

Dear IronMetro,
I am sorry, but I still do not understand. Are you saying that the Jews had a law that if blasphemy were committed they could killl someone in the temple but if it was a lessor offense they would drag them out of the temple and kill them somewhere else?

Kind Regards,
Cal

[OldShepherd]

Today @ 10:01 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=141588#post141588)
Cal_Minian:

They broke their own laws all the time... why not at John 8:58 is the question!

Biblical proof? And if you do have scriptural evidence of some minor infractions I am sure that none of them rise to the level of committing murder in the temple, thereby defiling the most sacred place in all of Judaism, and violating at least 20 provisions of Jewish law at one time.

[AVmetro]

Cal_Minion:

I am sorry, but I still do not understand. Are you saying that the Jews had a law that if blasphemy were committed they could killl someone in the temple but if it was a lessor offense they would drag them out of the temple and kill them somewhere else?

No. It's an indicator of probability in regards to which of the two interpretations are most likely to be correct.

I can point to instances where Christ is threatened with death on account of blasphemy (e.g. Jn5:18; 10:30 et al). Yet I can also point to those instances in scripture where Christ claims to be 'greater than x_______., makes rash statements directed towards the Pharisees, etc., etc., whereas in those cases not a single stone was lifted. A pertinent point being, if not in those instances under the same circumstances then how much less when defilement of the temple is a possiblity?

This is why OS and others have attempted to demonstrate extensively the sanctity of the temple. What could Christ have possibly have done to incite the Jews to a state of rage that overides this sacred view?

I think the extensive work of Ethelbert, Harner and Ball et al tell us precisely why.

God bless

[Cal_Minian]

Yesterday @ 08:11 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=141695#post141695)
IronMetro:



No. It's an indicator of probability in regards to which of the two interpretations are most likely to be correct.

I can point to instances where Christ is threatened with death on account of blasphemy (e.g. Jn5:18; 10:30 et al). Yet I can also point to those instances in scripture where Christ claims to be 'greater than x_______., makes rash statements directed towards the Pharisees, etc., etc., whereas in those cases not a single stone was lifted. A pertinent point being, if not in those instances under the same circumstances then how much less when defilement of the temple is a possiblity?

This is why OS and others have attempted to demonstrate extensively the sanctity of the temple. What could Christ have possibly have done to incite the Jews to a state of rage that overides this sacred view?

I think the extensive work of Ethelbert, Harner and Ball et al tell us precisely why.

God bless

Dear IronMetro,
All these "probablilites" and "C is greater than y" do not make for good exegetical proofs.

I outlined that Jesus had said that Satan was their Father after they claimed Abraham was their Father and that Jesus then claimed to be greater than Abraham because of being the pre-existent Messiah.

They did not believe him and this also enraged them. This more than accounts for their vilolent reaction.

Your evidence to the contrary is to me, too fuzzy and subjective to carry much weight.

Regards,
Cal