Answering a Jehovah's Witness

[37818]

There are one of two questions I might ask a JW.

One with John 3:3 in mind.
"What do you understand the requirement is to see Jehovah's kingdom?" (JWs are taught only 144,000 are the born again ones.)

The other question I ask has John 14:6 in mind. (Along with John 5:23 and 1 Timothy 2:5.)
"When is the man Jesus, who is not Jehovah, Jehovah to you?" (Some JWs are quick to say never. Reading John 14:6 some will admit that the man Jesus is the only why to Jehovah.) In asking the question I will ask, if I can, to read John 14:6 to me. (John 5:23 makes it clear, I believe that unless Jesus is honored as Jehovah, Jehovah is not honored. I never got that far.) (JWs also do not believe in the bodily resurrection and ascension, so 1 Timothy 2:5 is in mind here.)

It is not to argue, but to get them to think.

[apostoli]

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

The idea you presented seems to be unique to the Western church and is, in my experience, disputed by the Eastern church...well Sabellianism is historically a product of the West, so I'm inclined to question all modalist tendencies...some explanations/analogies might be valid but I'll never know unless they are discussed...

In terms of 'Answering a Jehovah's Witness", JWs most often depict the Trinity in terms of heretical modalism, so finding an expression that avoids the terminology of modalism seems a relevant endevour...

[RBerman]

The idea you presented seems to be unique to the Western church and is, in my experience, disputed by the Eastern church...well Sabellianism is historically a product of the West, so I'm inclined to question all modalist tendencies...some explanations/analogies might be valid but I'll never know unless they are discussed... In terms of 'Answering a Jehovah's Witness", JWs most often depict the Trinity in terms of heretical modalism, so finding an expression that avoids the terminology of modalism seems a relevant endevour...

It's possible not to throw the baby out with the bath water by explaining how the term "mode" can be used properly or improperly.

[Phat8594]

One thing you are ignoring...

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

?? How am I ignoring this ??

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

Well, as I have said repeatedly...and this is the issue that you have still failed to deal with...when Jesus say's ego eimi, he is literally saying "I AM". He is not saying "I have been". If Jesus meant to convey truth merely about when he existed, we would be reading the perfect tense of the verb to be and not the present.

Rather, we see that the present tense is used. This clearly conveys to the Jews, what Jesus is really saying..."I am YHWH"..."I am the one who appeared to Moses, Abraham, Isaac, etc...." And we know this because He is speaking to the Jews, the very ones who claim to worship the great "I AM".

So until you can show why we should translate a present tense verb as a perfect tense verb, I will stick with the literal translation of Jesus' words here.

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.

You mean in their minds it does. However, in reality it doesn't. We know from cultural context what "Before Abraham was, I AM" signifies. In no way can it support a modalistic interpretation, when taken in local and greater context of John and the rest of scripture.

You must be careful not to throw out the baby with the bathwater per se. In other words, just because they use this verse to support their theology, doesn't mean that it actually does. This is similar to JWs using the story of the faithful and discreet slave to support the authority of the Watchtower Organization; we don't throw out the proper translation because of their error in interpretation...rather we throw out their interpretation..there's a big difference.

Imo, there are two battles to contend with and the grammars and the overall context of John 8 support what I've been saying...

The problem is that the grammar does not support the translation of "ego eimi" as "I have been". I have discussed this at length. Ego eimi is in the present tense, not in the perfect tense.

Now does the context support the idea that Jesus is not the Father? Yes! But the grammar of 8:58 (and context) shows us the clear, unmistakable deity of Christ as well.

There is some truth in what you say but you are reading into the text your own theological perspective.

I disagree with the reasons given above. As I have said, I think its the JWs who are translating the text based on their own theological perspective.

Imo, at most John 8:58 allows us to argue that Jesus is claiming equivalence to his Father whom he had defined as God

This is exactly what Christ is doing. He is making Himself equal to God (the Father). He does this by claiming "I AM"..not by claiming for how long He has existed. I mean, just think about it.....angels existed before Abraham...and are they equal to God? Nope. So why would the Jews pick up stone? Because Christ made Himself equal to God (the Father).....and THIS is what fits the overall context of John....the deity of Christ.

[apostoli]

Well, as I have said repeatedly...and this is the issue that you have still failed to deal with...when Jesus say's ego eimi, he is literally saying "I AM".

If he was saying 'I am YHWH" as you expect, A.John would have used the phrase used in the LXX which is "o on" not "ego eimi" (cp Rev 1:8).

He is not saying "I have been". If Jesus meant to convey truth merely about when he existed, we would be reading the perfect tense of the verb to be and not the present.

But what you are ignoring is that A.John, in Jesus' context is using the present active indicative verb which indicates something that is not merely present but persistent - that which was and continues to be. It is the persistence (continuance of existence) of the Son that has to be defended imo...

[apostoli]

It's possible not to throw the baby out with the bath water by explaining how the term "mode" can be used properly or improperly.

Jerome objected to the phrase "three hypostases" as in his mind hypostasis and ousia were the same thing, thus to his mind the Greeks were either giving a Sabellian or Tritheist thought (there were four parties in Antioch at the time) - Jerome would concede that subsistence=hypostasis, and he may have equated ousia to the literal Latin as substance. His Greek opponents objected to his idea that there were "three subsistences" as to them "the three" had one subsistence. In the next century, Severus was (and continues to be) accused of heresy because he wrote of the "hypostases of the hypostasis", so logically, to speak of " three modes of subsistence of the one subsistence" must like wise be heretical...either a Sabellian or Tritheist thought...

Imu, the compromise from Latin is to speak of three person in one substance/subsistence, though the Greeks had problems with the idea of the use of what they understood as prosopon (the actors masks).

Imo, because of ambiguity, it is impossible for English/Latin to provide a useful expression without using the Greek terms and (post Basil) definitions. If we adopt the Greek terms and definitions we would end many an argument...

[RBerman]

Imu, the compromise from Latin is to speak of three person in one substance/subsistence, though the Greeks had problems with the idea of the use of what they understood as prosopon (the actors masks).

"Actor's mask" is the derivation of prosopon, not its meaning. It was used to describe different individuals in relationship, such as in legal disputes.

[Phat8594]

But what you are ignoring is that A.John, in Jesus' context is using the present active indicative verb which indicates something that is not merely present but persistent - that which was and continues to be

Yes, the present active indicative indicates present ongoing action...but it does not typically refer to past ongoing action.... However, the issue is that the NWT does not translate 'ego eimi' to show any bit of present ongoing action....rather it translates it to show past ongoing action.

But riding your logic all the way through:

the present active indicative verb which indicates something that is not merely present but persistent - that which was and continues to be

we can still see the NWT translation is terrible. "I have been" (which is the perfect tense) does not indicate something that was and continues to be. So even so, if we are to continue with your logic, the NWT should have translated the passage "I have been and will always continue to be", which in ontologically speaking, says the same thing as "I AM"...which is "I am God."

There is no getting around the fact that the NWT has purposefully translated this verse in a way to hide the deity of Christ. In fact, the JWs used to claim that their translation was rendered consistent with the "perfect indefinite tense" (circa 1950 NWT). Of course, this is ridiculous, as any legitimate Greek scholar will tell you...there is no "perfect indefinite tense" in Koine Greek.

[37818]

The Greek εγω ειμι ego eimi is used 24 times in the gospel of John.



(John 4:26) λεγει αυτη ο ιησους εγω ειμι ο λαλων σοι

(John 6:20) ο δε λεγει αυτοις εγω ειμι μη φοβεισθε

(John 6:35) ειπεν δε αυτοις ο ιησους εγω ειμι ο αρτος της ζωης ο ερχομενος προς με ου μη πειναση και ο πιστευων εις εμε ου μη διψηση πωποτε

(John 6:41) εγογγυζον ουν οι ιουδαιοι περι αυτου οτι ειπεν εγω ειμι ο αρτος ο καταβας εκ του ουρανου

(John 6:48) εγω ειμι ο αρτος της ζωης

(John 6:51) εγω ειμι ο αρτος ο ζων ο εκ του ουρανου καταβας εαν τις φαγη εκ τουτου του αρτου ζησεται εις τον αιωνα και ο αρτος δε ον εγω δωσω η σαρξ μου εστιν ην εγω δωσω υπερ της του κοσμου ζωης

(John 8:12) παλιν ουν ο ιησους αυτοις ελαλησεν λεγων εγω ειμι το φως του κοσμου ο ακολουθων εμοι ου μη περιπατησει εν τη σκοτια αλλ εξει το φως της ζωης

(John 8:18) εγω ειμι ο μαρτυρων περι εμαυτου και μαρτυρει περι εμου ο πεμψας με πατηρ

(John 8:24) ειπον ουν υμιν οτι αποθανεισθε εν ταις αμαρτιαις υμων εαν γαρ μη πιστευσητε οτι εγω ειμι αποθανεισθε εν ταις αμαρτιαις υμων

(John 8:28) ειπεν ουν αυτοις ο ιησους οταν υψωσητε τον υιον του ανθρωπου τοτε γνωσεσθε οτι εγω ειμι και απ εμαυτου ποιω ουδεν αλλα καθως εδιδαξεν με ο πατηρ μου ταυτα λαλω

(John 8:58) ειπεν αυτοις ο ιησους αμην αμην λεγω υμιν πριν αβρααμ γενεσθαι εγω ειμι

John 9:9 is where the blind man who was born blind and Jesus healed, identified himself using "I am," meaning that he was the blind man Jesus healed.

(John 9:9) αλλοι ελεγον οτι ουτος εστιν αλλοι δε οτι ομοιος αυτω εστιν εκεινος ελεγεν οτι εγω ειμι

(John 9:9) Some said, This is he: others [said], He is like him: [but] he said, I am [he].

(John 10:7) ειπεν ουν παλιν αυτοις ο ιησους αμην αμην λεγω υμιν οτι εγω ειμι η θυρα των προβατων

(John 10:9) εγω ειμι η θυρα δι εμου εαν τις εισελθη σωθησεται και εισελευσεται και εξελευσεται και νομην ευρησει

(John 10:11) εγω ειμι ο ποιμην ο καλος ο ποιμην ο καλος την ψυχην αυτου τιθησιν υπερ των προβατων

(John 10:14) εγω ειμι ο ποιμην ο καλος και γινωσκω τα εμα και γινωσκομαι υπο των εμων

(John 11:25) ειπεν αυτη ο ιησους εγω ειμι η αναστασις και η ζωη ο πιστευων εις εμε καν αποθανη ζησεται

(John 13:19) απ αρτι λεγω υμιν προ του γενεσθαι ινα οταν γενηται πιστευσητε οτι εγω ειμι

(John 14:6) λεγει αυτω ο ιησους εγω ειμι η οδος και η αληθεια και η ζωη ουδεις ερχεται προς τον πατερα ει μη δι εμου

(John 15:1) εγω ειμι η αμπελος η αληθινη και ο πατηρ μου ο γεωργος εστιν

(John 15:5) εγω ειμι η αμπελος υμεις τα κληματα ο μενων εν εμοι καγω εν αυτω ουτος φερει καρπον πολυν οτι χωρις εμου ου δυνασθε ποιειν ουδεν

(John 18:5) απεκριθησαν αυτω ιησουν τον ναζωραιον λεγει αυτοις ο ιησους εγω ειμι ειστηκει δε και ιουδας ο παραδιδους αυτον μετ αυτων

(John 18:6) ως ουν ειπεν αυτοις οτι εγω ειμι απηλθον εις τα οπισω και επεσον χαμαι

(John 18:8) απεκριθη ο ιησους ειπον υμιν οτι εγω ειμι ει ουν εμε ζητειτε αφετε τουτους υπαγειν

The bottom line is, the Greek ego eimi does not mean "I have been."

[apostoli]

"Actor's mask" is the derivation of prosopon, not its meaning. It was used to describe different individuals in relationship, such as in legal disputes.

Of the 78 occurances of prosopon in the NT, only seven times does the KJV translate it "person" and of those, 4 refer to Jesus "regardest not the person of men", "countenance of men" would seem more appropriate (cp.ESV "For you are not swayed by appearances", footnote: Greek you do not look at people's faces). The word's primary meaning is "face" (the KJV renders it so 55 times), so it is understandable why the Greek fathers had a dislike for the Latin equivalent (I vaguely recall something in mythology about a three faces God).

Now, Heb 1:3 imo provides a firm foundation for the teaching of the Son's essential equality with his Father, and the distinction between the two. The word used there, in the Greek, is "hypostasis" so that word and usage, imo, provides the strongest retort to the JWs' accusation that the Trinity doctrine follows the ideas of heretical modalism.

[apostoli]

The Greek εγω ειμι ego eimi is used 24 times in the gospel of John.

Sure literally ego eimi can be rendered "I am" but what you have missed is that 17 of the occurances you cited have a clear predicate, and the rest are predicated by preceding clauses (eg: John 4:25 predicates the ego eimi at vs26).

Imo, you are not giving an argument that would convince a JW, Christadelphian or someone from the INC.

Few scholars directly point to Ex 3:14 as the LXX renders "o on" not "ego eimi". So they point to Isaiah 48:12-16 and then work backwards (cp: Rev 1:8 which uses "o on").

The bottom line is, the Greek ego eimi does not mean "I have been."

I never said it did! I said the JWs could have rendered "I have been and continue to be" which would satisfy eimi being a first person singular present indicative verb. What Robertson refers to as a "progressive present", or what Moulton refers to as the "durative present" which gathers up past and present time into one phrase. Of course both scholars consider the ego eimi at John 8:58 to be absolute, but from the viewpoint of the JWs that is merely biased opinion. So the sensible thing is not to get distracted by grammar or traditional usage. I attempt to avoid JW distractions by getting the JW to acknowledge that Jesus at John 8:58 is talking about his pre-existence, then refer to John 8:40 and point to Genesis 18, and ask "Who was the man Abraham recognised as Jehovah?'

[RBerman]

Of the 78 occurances of prosopon in the NT, only seven times does the KJV translate it "person" and of those, 4 refer to Jesus "regardest not the person of men", "countenance of men" would seem more appropriate (cp.ESV "For you are not swayed by appearances", footnote: Greek you do not look at people's faces). The word's primary meaning is "face" (the KJV renders it so 55 times), so it is understandable why the Greek fathers had a dislike for the Latin equivalent (I vaguely recall something in mythology about a three faces God).

Now, Heb 1:3 imo provides a firm foundation for the teaching of the Son's essential equality with his Father, and the distinction between the two. The word used there, in the Greek, is "hypostasis" so that word and usage, imo, provides the strongest retort to the JWs' accusation that the Trinity doctrine follows the ideas of heretical modalism.

Hebrews 1 is indeed a great text for proving the divinity of Jesus; I'm teaching through it right now at church. The problem is that the argument there is based on so many OT texts that it takes a while to get the gist of how they are used. But once you make it that far, there's really no question that Hebrews 1 makes three basic arguments about Jesus:

1) He is God
2) He is the messiah-king
3) Therefore, He is the messiah-king who is God.

[Phat8594]

Hebrews 1 is indeed a great text for proving the divinity of Jesus; I'm teaching through it right now at church

RB, you just reminded me of another example of how bad the NWT is!

Hebrews 1:8!

Here is the ESV:

But of the Son he says,

“Your throne, O God, is forever and ever,
the scepter of uprightness is the scepter of your kingdom.

Now I can't quite remember the EXACT NWT translation...but its something like

But to the Son He says:
"God, your throne, is forever and ever."

[Phat8594]

I never said it did! I said the JWs could have rendered "I have been and continue to be"

You were, however, defending the translation of the NWT as legitimate.

Also, perhaps you should say that the JW's should have rendered it "I have been and will always continue to be"...which of course says the same thing as "I AM" ontologically...which is: "Jesus is God"

[37818]

I never said it did! I said the JWs could have rendered "I have been and continue to be" which would satisfy eimi being a first person singular present indicative verb.

But do they? And how can this rendering be used against their simple "I have been" rendering?

Jesus refers to Himself as the "I am" as in John 8:58 a number of times as John records them.

John 8:24 I said therefore unto you, that ye shall die in your sins: for if ye believe not that I am [he], ye shall die in your sins.

John 8:28 Then said Jesus unto them, When ye have lifted up the Son of man, then shall ye know that I am [he], and [that] I do nothing of myself; but as my Father hath taught me, I speak these things.

John 8:58 Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am.

John 13:13 Ye call me Master and Lord: and ye say well; for [so] I am.

John 13:19 Now I tell you before it come, that, when it is come to pass, ye may believe that I am [he].

John 18:5,6 They answered him, Jesus of Nazareth. Jesus saith unto them, I am [he]. And Judas also, which betrayed him, stood with them. As soon then as he had said unto them, I am [he], they went backward, and fell to the ground.

John 18:8 Jesus answered, I have told you that I am [he]: if therefore ye seek me, let these go their way: