Answering a Jehovah's Witness

[RBerman]

Actually Thomas address Jesus as both his Lord and God. To be understood as both natures in one person, human being Lord and divine being God.

I'm not sure about that, given that "Lord" kurios) is applied to God throughout the New Testament. Indeed, this is strong evidence that the NT writers thought Jesus was God: they take OT texts about the kurios (God) and then apply them to kurios Christos. But of course Thomas also knew that Jesus was a man, so you're correct that he did see Jesus as having a human and a divine nature.

[Phat8594]

I'm not sure about that, given that "Lord" kurios) is applied to God throughout the New Testament. Indeed, this is strong evidence that the NT writers thought Jesus was God: they take OT texts about the kurios (God) and then apply them to kurios Christos. But of course Thomas also knew that Jesus was a man, so you're correct that he did see Jesus as having a human and a divine nature.

Psalm 35

23 Awake and (A)rouse yourself for (B)my vindication,
for my cause, my God and my Lord!

(:

[Phat8594]

The NWT could have rendered "I have been and continue to be", but "continue to be" is superfluous as it is obvious given Jesus is speaking and was standing there.

The problem is that it is a present active indicative. Thus the proper translation is "I am". To say I have been and continue to be does not convey the meaning of a present tense verb in Koine greek. Rather it is a forced interpretation to render a clear message sent by John. In fact, if you study throughout John, you will find "I am" phrases in many places....of course the English sometimes adds a "he". Of course, the implications of the way John wrote his gospel would be clear to all in the culture.

Jesus is YHWH...He was the one who appeared to Abraham...He was the one in the burning bush who said that His name was YHWH...and the Jews clearly understood this...which is why they picked up stones to throw at Him.

Did you read the citation I gave of Maimonides explanation of the meaning of Ehyeh asher Ehyeh?

Nope...I didn't see it.

[37818]

I'm not sure about that, given that "Lord" kurios) is applied to God throughout the New Testament. Indeed, this is strong evidence that the NT writers thought Jesus was God: they take OT texts about the kurios (God) and then apply them to kurios Christos. But of course Thomas also knew that Jesus was a man, so you're correct that he did see Jesus as having a human and a divine nature.

First the Greek grammar, Jesus as one person is being addressed as both Lord and God. And secondly, the writers often make a distinction between the Lord Jesus Christ and God. Even though they are understood to be the same God.

1Corinthians 8:6,

. . . yet to us there is one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we unto him; and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things, and we through him. . . .

Ephesians 4:4-6,

There is one body, and one Spirit, even as also ye were called in one hope of your calling; one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all, who is over all, and through all, and in all.

The distincion is made. And yes Jesus is being called both by Thomas.

[apostoli]

The NWT could have rendered "I have been and continue to be", but "continue to be" is superfluous as it is obvious given Jesus is speaking and was standing there.

The problem is that it is a present active indicative. Thus the proper translation is "I am".

Possibly you missed the importance that "eimi" is a present active indicative verb. You give the impression that you think of it as a noun. Being a verb it is speaking about activity. The KJV (as do many translations) renders "ego eimi" at John 14:9 as "Have I been" (NIV "I have been").

Possibly, you have only read that "eimi" is a present active indicative verb and don't particularly comprehend what that means. I'll quote from an online grammar to explain the significance: The indicative mood is a statement of fact or an actual occurrence from the writer's or speaker's perspective...It may be action occurring in past, present, or future time...
http://www.ntgreek.org/learn_nt_gree...htm#INDICATIVE

As I mentioned we are dealing with a verb and not a noun. So the rendering "I am" is a reference to Jesus activity, his existence, or in this case, contextually ("before Abraham was") his pre-existence.

Something you may not be aware of is that if A.John was refering to Ex 3:14 when he wrote, then we would expect to encounter "ego eimi o on" (the phrase used in the LXX).

Whilst the KJV renders "Ehyeh asher Ehyeh" at Exodus 3:14 as "I am that I am", the Greek of the Septuagint (LXX) reads "kai eipen o theos pron Moysen ego eimi o on (I am the existing [one]). kai eipen oytos ereis tois yiois Israel, o on (the existing [one]) apestalke me pros ymas". It is widely recognised that A.John drew on the LXX so if Jesus had been claiming to be YHWH at John 8:58 we would expect to read "ego eimi o on".

To say I have been and continue to be does not convey the meaning of a present tense verb in Koine greek.

It isn't a present tense verb, it is a present active indicative verb, there is a huge difference! As the abovementioned grammar noted, being indicative it may be an action occurring in past, present, or future...

"eimi" is simply the verb "to be", "to exist", "to be present". Thus some transalations render "ego eimi" at Jn 8:58 as "I existed" or "I had being".

Rather it is a forced interpretation to render a clear message sent by John.

"I am" is only a valid rendition when the "am" is understood in its archaic meaning as an act of existence. Jesus is simply claiming before Abraham was born, he already existed. From the Jews viewpoint he was either claiming to be equal to YHWH or he was an angel/messenger sent by YHWH (cp. Jn 8:42) or he was the very Memra/Logos/Word of YHWH. In either case that would be enough to have them pick up stones to stone him...

In fact, if you study throughout John, you will find "I am" phrases in many places....of course the English sometimes adds a "he". Of course, the implications of the way John wrote his gospel would be clear to all in the culture.

The Greek culture maybe, Jesus most likely spoke Aramaic in his dealings in John 8.

Jesus is YHWH...He was the one who appeared to Abraham...He was the one in the burning bush who said that His name was YHWH...and the Jews clearly understood this...which is why they picked up stones to throw at Him.

In the case of Moses, we first learn that it was the angel of YHWH (aramaic targums = the Memra/Word of God). Jesus (the God-man) couldn't be YHWH as he didn't exist in OT times. However, the pre-existent Son of God did, in the guise of the angel of the LORD!

Now a JW will acknowledge such but when the messenger speaks in the first person, as if he was YHWH, they will validly note that in the custom of the OT, emissaries always spoke in the first person as if they were the King, and were treated by people as if they were the King, and so it is with the angel of the Lord. It is a fair argument but in my opinion it misses a few important points...

I agree that the Son is the God of the Israelites, YHWH (God made manifest), but I do so on the basis of Ex 33:34 (why would an angel say he would send "mine angel" to go before you? Why wouldn't he lead them himself?) Now, in Ex 33:12-23 YHWH promises "My presence shall go with thee" and Moses appeals "If thy presence go not with me, carry us not up from here." A little later, Moses asks to see "thy glory" and the angel of the LOrd responds that "Thou cannot see my face; for there no man shall see me and live..." On this basis I reject the JWs idea that the the angel of the Lord was merely an emissary...

Did you read the citation I gave of Maimonides explanation of the meaning of Ehyeh asher Ehyeh?

Nope...I didn't see it.

Thats strange as it was the bulk of post #48 that you have already responded to...For your convenience I'll repeat it...

The medieval Jewish scholar, Maimonides, in his Guide for the Perplexed (Chapter LXIII) remarks "...God taught Moses how to teach them [the Isaraelites], and how to establish amongst them the belief in the existence of Himself, namely, by saying Ehyeh asher Ehyeh, a name derived from the verb hayah in the sense of "existing," for the verb hayah denotes "to be," and in Hebrew no difference is made between the verbs "to be" and "to exist." The principal point in this phrase is that the same word which denotes "existence," is repeated as an attribute. The word asher, "that," corresponds to the Arabic illadi and illati, and is an incomplete noun that must be completed by another noun; it may be considered as the subject of the predicate which follows. The first noun which is to be described is ehyeh; the second, by which the first is described, is likewise ehyeh, the identical word, as if to show that the object which is to be described and the attribute by which it is described are in this case necessarily identical. This is, therefore, the expression of the idea that God exists, but not in the ordinary sense of the term; or, in other words, He is "the existing Being which is the existing Being," that is to say, the Being whose existence is absolute..."
http://www.sacred-texts.com/jud/gfp/gfp073.htm

[Phat8594]

Possibly you missed the importance that "eimi" is a present active indicative verb.

Actually that's the whole basis of my argument...that you missed the fact that it is a present active indicative verb.

You give the impression that you think of it as a noun.

Nope. Its a verb..which means that it has tense, voice, mood etc....to convey when a verb happens, the relation of the subject and the verb, the relation of the verb to reality, etc.

Possibly, you have only read that "eimi" is a present active indicative verb and don't particularly comprehend what that means. I'll quote from an online grammar to explain the significance: The indicative mood is a statement of fact or an actual occurrence from the writer's or speaker's perspective...It may be action occurring in past, present, or future time...

To be honest, it seems that it is you who has only read that it is in the indicative mood and dont quite comprehend what that means. It seems that you are confusing verbal mood (how the verb relates to reality) with the tense (when the verb actually happens).

So while you are quite right that the indicative mood can apply to a verb occuring in the past, present or future, you are wrong to think that it is the mood that shows us when this happens; rather, it is the verbal tense that shows us when a verb happens. In this case, the tense is present, which in Koine Greek..typically refers to present ongoing action. Therefore, when Jesus says "ego eimi" (present active indicative)...he is saying "I am", not "I have been".

It isn't a present tense verb, it is a present active indicative verb, there is a huge difference!

Again, you are confusing mood and tense.

"eimi" is simply the verb "to be", "to exist", "to be present".

Yep.

Thus some transalations render "ego eimi" at Jn 8:58 as "I existed" or "I had being".

And they are wrong. Again...its a present tense, indicative mood, active voice verb. What a verb means, does not determine the tense.

[apostoli]

Actually that's the whole basis of my argument...that you missed the fact that it is a present active indicative verb.

Nope. Its a verb..which means that it has tense, voice, mood etc....to convey when a verb happens, the relation of the subject and the verb, the relation of the verb to reality, etc.

To be honest, it seems that it is you who has only read that it is in the indicative mood and dont quite comprehend what that means. It seems that you are confusing verbal mood (how the verb relates to reality) with the tense (when the verb actually happens).

So while you are quite right that the indicative mood can apply to a verb occuring in the past, present or future, you are wrong to think that it is the mood that shows us when this happens; rather, it is the verbal tense that shows us when a verb happens. In this case, the tense is present, which in Koine Greek..typically refers to present ongoing action. Therefore, when Jesus says "ego eimi" (present active indicative)...he is saying "I am", not "I have been".

Again, you are confusing mood and tense.

Yep.

And they are wrong. Again...its a present tense, indicative mood, active voice verb. What a verb means, does not determine the tense.

What you are totally ignoring is Jesus' context! Which is "Before Abraham was". From your viewpoint he is saying "Before Abraham was, I exist" (Christadelphians & the INC will love you, as they deny the pre-existence of the Son*) . Contextually, to understand Jesus as saying "Before Abraham was, I existed and continue to exist" fits the text...

It is the whole reason the Jews picked up stones to stone him...

Personally, I agree with you that the text corresponds to Exodus 3:14, though not on KJV translational grounds, but on Jesus' claim to have persisted from before Abraham's time to the then present. There are only two options in that respect either he was an angel or Jehovah himself. JWs will say he was an angel, I disagree...

nb: JWs acknowledge the incarnation of the Son...
________________

* Christadelphians & the INC suggest that Jesus is the fulfillment of the promises, not the deliverer of them...
________________

ps: From the same grammar previously cited...

Present Tense
The present tense usually denotes continuous kind of action. It shows 'action in progress' or 'a state of persistence.' When used in the indicative mood, the present tense denotes action taking place or going on in the present time.

As you discount my word, I suggest you contact John Reece in the Biblical Languages 301 forum. From his resources, he will explain to you in more detail the signicance of a verb that is present active indicative...

[Phat8594]

What you are totally ignoring is Jesus' context! Which is "Before Abraham was".

Except that I am not ignoring context. When we look at the greater context of what is actually going on, we see that the Jesus is answering the greater question of "who do you claim to be?" (and all the implications of such)

To which Jesus pretty much says: "I am God"

So when Jesus says "“Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I am.”, Jesus is making it clear who He is (the self existent one...the great I AM). Since Christ is the great I AM, it goes without saying that he has always existed. Not only has He always existed (thus He existed before Abraham and still exists to this day), but He is greater than Abraham (since He is I AM).

Contextually, to understand Jesus as saying "Before Abraham was, I existed and continue to exist" fits the text...

See, Christ could have said this, but He said "I AM". Saying "I AM" to the Jews says all of the above and more! It says that Christ is YHWH. If Jesus' answer was meant to convey "I existed", then John would have used the perfect tense, not the present.

This is why the Jews picked up stones! Not because of how old Christ claimed to be, but because of who Christ claimed to be!

As you discount my word, I suggest you contact John Reece in the Biblical Languages 301 forum. From his resources, he will explain to you in more detail the signicance of a verb that is present active indicative

I only discount the information that I know to be untrue. i.e. that mood is what conveys when a verb happens, when it is actually the tense. I am well aware of the significance of a present active indicative...its one of the first things we learned in Intro to Biblical Greek...

John Reece may feel free to comment in this section if he so pleases. However, although I am no Greek scholar by any means of the imagination, I actually have had the opportunity to discuss this very passage with someone who is (someone who has actually been on several translation committees).

[apostoli]

Except that I am not ignoring context. When we look at the greater context of what is actually going on, we see that the Jesus is answering the greater question of "who do you claim to be?" (and all the implications of such)

To which Jesus pretty much says: "I am God"

The flaw in your argument is that Jesus had declared that he proceeded forth from God (Jn 8:42). Did Jesus send himself and proceed from himself? Another flaw in your argument is Jesus said "I honour my Father, and ye do dishonour me. And I seek not mine own glory: there is one that seeketh and judgeth." So obviously Jesus isn't declaring himself God! After all, in Jesus' context within John 8, God is his Father!

So when Jesus says "“Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I am.”, Jesus is making it clear who He is (the self existent one...the great I AM). Since Christ is the great I AM, it goes without saying that he has always existed. Not only has He always existed (thus He existed before Abraham and still exists to this day), but He is greater than Abraham (since He is I AM).

Fair comment. But in the context of John 8, he isn't claiming to be God - see John 8:31-50, though imu, he is claiming he pre-existed Abraham, thus he is claiming equivalence to God (his Father).

See, Christ could have said this, but He said "I AM". Saying "I AM" to the Jews says all of the above and more! It says that Christ is YHWH. If Jesus' answer was meant to convey "I existed", then John would have used the perfect tense, not the present.

Have a talk to John Reece.

This is why the Jews picked up stones! Not because of how old Christ claimed to be, but because of who Christ claimed to be!

Nothing about age is in discussion, you are just trying to be distractive. The text of John 8 makes it plain he is not claiming to be God his father. Now whether he was claiming to be he who appeared to Abraham, Isaac & Jacob is a different matter...

I only discount the information that I know to be untrue. i.e. that mood is what conveys when a verb happens, when it is actually the tense. I am well aware of the significance of a present active indicative...its one of the first things we learned in Intro to Biblical Greek...

John Reece may feel free to comment in this section if he so pleases. However, although I am no Greek scholar by any means of the imagination, I actually have had the opportunity to discuss this very passage with someone who is (someone who has actually been on several translation committees).

I suggest you go discuss it with him again. Was he a oneness pentecostal?

[Phat8594]

The flaw in your argument is that Jesus had declared that he proceeded forth from God (Jn 8:42). Did Jesus send himself and proceed from himself

You are conflating God the Father and Christ. Both Christ and the Father are God....but Christ is not the Father.

So obviously Jesus isn't declaring himself God! After all, in Jesus' context within John 8, God is his Father!

Jesus isn't declaring Himself to be His Father, but He is declaring Himself to be I AM. i.e. YHWH

The text of John 8 makes it plain he is not claiming to be God his father. Now whether he was claiming to be he who appeared to Abraham, Isaac & Jacob is a different matter...

I never said Jesus is claiming to be God the Father. He is, however, claiming to be YHWH.

As I have said...if Jesus was conveying truth about when He existing he would have used the perfect tense, not the present. By using the present tense, Jesus answers that and so much more. He reveals not only how long He has existed, but who He is. He is I AM.

I suggest you go discuss it with him again. Was he a oneness pentecostal?

If by oneness pentecostal you mean trinitarian...then yes. If you actually mean a oneness pentecostal...then no.

It seems that you think that taking the present tense for what it is, and translating it as I AM somehow supports modalism. Of course, this could not be further from the truth. In fact, when we read it as it is written, we actually learn about the trinity. I.E. that Jesus is not God the Father, but Jesus is YHWH, just as God the Father is YHWH.

[apostoli]

You are conflating God the Father and Christ. Both Christ and the Father are God....but Christ is not the Father.

One thing you are ignoring...

"No man hath seen God at any time..." John 1:18

Jesus isn't declaring Himself to be His Father, but He is declaring Himself to be I AM. i.e. YHWH

Or simply declaring himself to be the "angel of the LORD" which fits the overall context of the Gospel of John..

"No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared [him]." John 1:18

In the Aramaic Targums of the Jews (their exposition of scripture) they identify "the angel of the Lord" as the "memra" = the Word of God cp. Jn 1:1.

If by oneness pentecostal you mean trinitarian...then yes. If you actually mean a oneness pentecostal...then no.

I mean someone who thinks the Father and Son are modes of existence of a single being (individual).

It seems that you think that taking the present tense for what it is, and translating it as I AM somehow supports modalism.

It does in their context (modern modalists got their ideas from the KJV). Christadelphians & the INC understand it as exclusively a present tense verb and interpret it to mean that Jesus is the fulfillment of the promises. Imo, there are two battles to contend with and the grammars and the overall context of John 8 support what I've been saying...

Of course, this could not be further from the truth. In fact, when we read it as it is written, we actually learn about the trinity. I.E. that Jesus is not God the Father, but Jesus is YHWH, just as God the Father is YHWH.

There is some truth in what you say but you are reading into the text your own theological perspective. For me John 8:58 doesn't provide a case. Imo, at most John 8:58 allows us to argue that Jesus is claiming equivalence to his Father whom he had defined as God. Though John 8:58 with 8:40 could be appealed to, to argue that the man Abraham encountered at Gen 18, whom he recognised as YHWH, was the pre-existent Son of God.
_____________

As I thought back on the last few posts I acknowledge we are arguing for the same thing but from different angles. From my perspective, your argument is slanted towards modalism...one of my phobias and something I strenuously fight against...

[RBerman]

I mean someone who thinks the Father and Son are modes of existence of a single being (individual).

Not all "modalism" is heretical. Orthodox Trinitarians teach that the three persons of God have three "modes of subsistence" of the single God. Oneness Pentacostals, on the other hand, teach that the three persons are three "modes of manifestation" of the single God. The former describes the intra-Trinitarian distinctives (e.g. the generation of the Son, the procession of the Spirit, the non-begotten, non-procession of the Father) while affirming the unity of God, whereas the latter emphasizes God's oneness at the expense of declaring such distinctives to be a matter of surface appearances only, with no underlying personal basis.

[37818]

All appearances of God in the OT was none other than the only-begotten Son of God. John 1:18 (KJV, RV, ASV, NKJV). For that matter, besides for Son of God now being human, He has always been the only way to Jehovah (Yehwah) God. (John 14:6.)

[apostoli]

Not all "modalism" is heretical. Orthodox Trinitarians teach that the three persons of God have three "modes of subsistence" of the single God.

Possibly I am just being pedantic and quibbling about the influence of Plato in theological expression but, imu, "three modes of subsistence" is a contradiction of fact if we are refering to the three hypostases = the three subsistences (Father, Son and Spirit). Imu, the expression relies on Plato's idea of the eternal forms. That is: what some philosophers refer to as the fourth man = the idea "God" precedes the three hypostases = the form "God" has three modes of existence manifested through the three hypostases. I see a heap of problems with such...

Imu, within the thought of the Latin Scholastics, it is the "subsistence" (=hypostasis), the act of subsisting, that differentiates those things that are common in substance/essentia (ousia). Thus to be Son is not a mode of subsistence, but simply a unique subsistence that has modes of operation (which may not be unique). As a hypostasis, being begotten is an essential (unchangeable) personal property of the Son's hypostasis, the particularity that differentiates him from the common ousia (=God). That is: the Son's participation in the divine physis/ousia is derived from his Father, who alone is the source of the common ousia.

Imu, there is another side to the equation which involves both the unique and common function/operation of the three...

[RBerman]

I agree, Apostoli. You are being pedantic and quibbling. Just let it go.