Answering a Jehovah's Witness

[apostoli]

For the record the LXX does use ego eimi in Exodus 3:14. Where the Hebrew is translated "I AM that I AM" the LXX translates to "I AM the Being."

To remediate your ignorance, Ex 3:14 does not use the phrase "ego eimi" in the important part of the verse "Thus you shall say to the children of Israel, Ehyeh has sent me to you.' The LXX renders 'o on'...

[apostoli]

For the record the LXX does use ego eimi in Exodus 3:14. Where the Hebrew is translated "I AM that I AM" the LXX translates to "I AM the Being."

For the record the LXX does use ego eimi in Exodus 3:14. Where the Hebrew is translated "I AM that I AM" the LXX translates to "I AM the Being."

I've already given you references to two orthodox grammarians. Go research them, and when you can conclusively demonstrate that on the exclusive basis of grammar your opinion is superior to theirs I'll listen to you...as I did state, those two grammarians thought that the clause was absolute, but they did not pedicate their conclusion on the basis of grammar...merely theocratic opinion...

Continued action that would extend into the future would be subjective and dependent on the subject contining to persist...is it your claim that Jesus did not die on the cross?

Is it your claim that Jesus ceased to exist?

I side with Luther = 'God died upon the cross.' ie; Jesus in his entirety died for us - it wasn't some phantism!

[apostoli]

The point is that the Jews would know what "I AM" means.

The reality is that most Jews in Jesus' day couldn't and didn't speak Hebrew, they spoke Aramaic, and that is why in Synagogue practice the text was read in Hebrew by the scribes/priests and then explained in Aramaic = the reason for the existence of the Aramaic Targums, upon which much of Christian understanding is based!

They do not need to hear the whole "I am that I am."

But the significant clause from Ex 3:14 does not contain "ego eimi" It reads "Thus you shall say to the children of Israel, Ehyeh has sent me to you.' The LXX renders 'o on'...

So Jesus can say "I am" without saying "I am that I am" and mean, essentially the same thing. Of course, in the context of John 8:58, it would not make sense for Him to say "Before Abraham was, I am that I am"...or "Before Abraham was, I am the self existent one"

Very true! Just as it doesn't make sense for him to claim he sent himself, and that he was the God who sent him! = John 8:42 = "for I proceeded forth and came from God; nor have I come of Myself, but He sent Me."

No...rather Jesus, answers in a totally ingenius way...He says "Before Abraham was, I Am!" Its somewhat of a play on words; Jesus tells the Jews of his "age" by telling them about His existence....note that He doesn't use the perfect tense....if He did, we would know that Jesus was more concernced with telling about "when He existed"...rather His words are written down in the present tense...which shows us a whole lot more...it shows us who Christ is...He is the great "I AM".....and ontologically that tells us that He is self existent, and thus has always existed!

Notice John 8:50 "And I do not seek My [own] glory; there is One who seeks and judges."

So in other words, by using the present tense, and saying "I AM" Jesus answers the question of His age, and His deity in one fell swoop. Of course, by claiming deity, this only enraged the Jews who then tried to kill Him.

Or he, given his preceding testimony, equated himself with the one who he had said had sent him = God!

[Phat8594]

But the significant clause from Ex 3:14 does not contain "ego eimi" It reads "Thus you shall say to the children of Israel, Ehyeh has sent me to you.' The LXX renders 'o on'...

You keep on using the LXX to interpret John...I of course think this is misguided....


1. You are dismissing a reference / allusion to the OT by saying that the Greek words in the NT do not match the Greek words in Ex. 3:14 (the latter part) of the LXX. Since you hold to a strict word for word match with an allusion to the OT, perhaps you should use this same criteria when the NT quotes the OT directly to confirm that the NT actually means to reference the said quotation?

2. The LXX is not inspired. In other words...you are using an uninspired text to dismiss the clear implications of an inspired text. Therefore, I think the premise by which you base your conclusion is faulty.

3. Saying "Before Abraham was, I am (present tense)" is so odd in any language (especially if it's main point were to be speaking about past (perfect) existence), that I am shocked that you don't see the clear implication of what Jesus is communicating.

[Phat8594]

I side with Luther = 'God died upon the cross.' ie; Jesus in his entirety died for us - it wasn't some phantism!

Sure Jesus died upon the cross....but did He cease to exist? THAT was my question.

[37818]

To remediate your ignorance, Ex 3:14 does not use the phrase "ego eimi" in the important part of the verse "Thus you shall say to the children of Israel, Ehyeh has sent me to you.' The LXX renders 'o on'...

Ehyeh is first person, and o on the article "the" "He who" is in the third person just as God's Name is. It does not change the fact that the LXX translation is an important interpretation. And that Ehyeh is once translated ego eimi in the first person to read/translate, "I am He who is."

[37818]

I've already given you references to two orthodox grammarians. Go research them, and when you can conclusively demonstrate that on the exclusive basis of grammar your opinion is superior to theirs I'll listen to you...as I did state, those two grammarians thought that the clause was absolute, but they did not pedicate their conclusion on the basis of grammar...merely theocratic opinion...

It seems I missed that post. It does not change the grammar of the Hebrew or the Greek. That the LXX translates the Hebrew (Exodus 3:14) first person in the Greek to first person, third person, third person. I agree that is an important interpretation of the Hebrew to the Greek. But that argument does not change my mind, that Jesus used "I am" to refer to His equality to God. (John 8:24, 28, 58.) And that Abraham saw Him (Genesis 12:7, John 8:56, John 1:18 KJV, RV, ASV, NKJV).

[apostoli]

You keep on using the LXX to interpret John...I of course think this is misguided....


1. You are dismissing a reference / allusion to the OT by saying that the Greek words in the NT do not match the Greek words in Ex. 3:14 (the latter part) of the LXX. Since you hold to a strict word for word match with an allusion to the OT, perhaps you should use this same criteria when the NT quotes the OT directly to confirm that the NT actually means to reference the said quotation?

2. The LXX is not inspired. In other words...you are using an uninspired text to dismiss the clear implications of an inspired text. Therefore, I think the premise by which you base your conclusion is faulty.

3. Saying "Before Abraham was, I am (present tense)" is so odd in any language (especially if it's main point were to be speaking about past (perfect) existence), that I am shocked that you don't see the clear implication of what Jesus is communicating.

I'm wondering whether you are as thick as a brick or simply illiterate...read John 8:42 = "for I proceeded forth and came from God; nor have I come of Myself, but He sent Me." Obviously, this personal witness of Jesus excludes him from his definition of God!

[apostoli]

Sure Jesus died upon the cross....but did He cease to exist? THAT was my question.

See Ps 16:10 & Acts 2:27-37...

[Phat8594]

I'm wondering whether you are as thick as a brick or simply illiterate...read John 8:42 = "for I proceeded forth and came from God; nor have I come of Myself, but He sent Me." Obviously, this personal witness of Jesus excludes him from his definition of God!

This personal witness of Jesus excludes Himself from the definition of God the Father. Context is clear. Jesus does, however, make a claim to deity by saying "Before Abraham was, I AM!". He is not claiming to be God the Father (as you keep on thinking we are claiming....and you are right to think He is not claiming to be the Father...context is clear), but He does claim to be the great I AM.

Do you not believe that Jesus is YHWH?

It seems to me that you are doing what the JWs do, and assume that only God the Father is YHWH.

[Phat8594]

I'm wondering whether you are as thick as a brick or simply illiterate...read John 8:42 = "for I proceeded forth and came from God; nor have I come of Myself, but He sent Me." Obviously, this personal witness of Jesus excludes him from his definition of God!

PS, the scholar I was referring to earlier that I talked to about this very verse will be speaking at this conference on Biblical Languages. If Biblical Languages really do interest you, I suggest you look it up.

http://www.pastorum.com/live/#

[apostoli]

This personal witness of Jesus excludes Himself from the definition of God the Father. Context is clear.

Indeed it is! The Jews had no concept of "God the Father"...

Jesus does, however, make a claim to deity by saying "Before Abraham was, I AM!". He is not claiming to be God the Father (as you keep on thinking we are claiming....and you are right to think He is not claiming to be the Father...context is clear), but He does claim to be the great I AM.

I really wish you'd read my posts before replying.

The evidence from John 8 in its completeness, is that the Jews would not have understood Jesus to have been claiming to be "o on", he had already declared him to be his father. Earlier (John 8:48) they had accused Jesus as been a Samaritan and/or deranged (had a demon). This is particularly important in considering the following verses. Now to a jew it was obvious he wasn't claiming to be Hashem, but he was exalting himself above the prophets. So whats left? See Exodus 3:2.

Do you not believe that Jesus is YHWH?

I do accept that as the pre-existent Son of God (before he became Jesus), he was the manifestation of YHWH to the Israelites, and therefore the God of Abraham, Isaac & Jacob, thus their God.

In Orthodox Christianity "God" is a function not a "person", thus in the English translations of the creeds of the RCC, EOC, ROC, COC, OOC etc (99% of Christianity), we read that the Father, Son & Spirit are "one in being" as opposed to "one Being".

It seems to me that you are doing what the JWs do, and assume that only God the Father is YHWH.

It seems to me you are doing what the JWs do, and so pay too much attention to your Cathecism and not read what is written in scripture...

I'm in full accord with the teaching of the RCC, EOC, ROC, COC, OOC etc. Which teach that the Father is the source and cause of the Son (and the Spirit). That Jesus as the Logos in his pre-existence is not God's brother! But his son! And that the Father so loved the world that he sent his only begotten Son to redeem us...

[apostoli]

PS, the scholar I was referring to earlier that I talked to about this very verse will be speaking at this conference on Biblical Languages. If Biblical Languages really do interest you, I suggest you look it up.

http://www.pastorum.com/live/#

Thanks for that.

You seem to be missing what I am saying, which in short amounts to "Don't argue with opponents about things that are not conclusive." I can happily agree with a JW about the NWT translation at John 8:58, but as I've said, I then lead them over to John 8:40, and then to Genesis 18 and ask who was the man Abraham encountered that Moses identified as YHWH - to date such an approach has at least provoked JWs, Christadelpians & member of the INC to thought...and we don't have the complication of Moses' identification of what the KJV translates as "the angel of the Lord", but we do have the benefit of A.John's "no man has ever seen God"...

[Phat8594]

I really wish you'd read my posts before replying.

I read your posts...I just don't buy what you are selling.

The Jews had no concept of "God the Father"...

The Jews also didn't have a formal concept of the trinity. Jesus said a lot of things they didn't fully grasp. However, they fully understood what He meant when he says "ego eimi".

The evidence from John 8 in its completeness, is that the Jews would not have understood Jesus to have been claiming to be "o on", he had already declared him to be his father.

Here you go again trying to use the LXX to interpret John. This is getting you into more trouble than you realize. See, here is the issue, we are talking about different sentences with different constructions. What does Exodus 3:14 say? :

Ego eimi ho wn

What you don't realize is that the "wn" is a participle. Its not a verb. So when God says "I Am sent me" it wouldnt really make sense to use "eimi"; since "sent" is the verb....if eimi was used, you would have 2 verbs....which I don't even know if you could even translate that to make any sense....of course, using the participle "ho wn" makes total sense.

Of course, in the same manner, it would not make sense for Jesus to say "Before Abraham was, (ho wn)", because once again, "ho wn" is a participle...not a verb. As I said...different sentence construction.

What Jesus uses, is a verb...eimi. So when Jesus says "Ego eimi", once again it is clear what He is saying. He is saying "I am"...as in Isaiah 41:4 (ego eimi)...as in Jesus is the great "I AM". He is claiming that He is both Eternal and Self-Existent..just as the Father is. But at the same time, He is claiming submission to the Father.
By using the present tense "Ego eimi" Jesus, isn't just answering the questions of "when" He existed, but what type of existence He has. He is self-existent. Ontologically, this tells us that Jesus is YHWH....which in English means that Jesus is God (not God the Father...clearly). The emphasis is on Christ's activities as God, yet One who is submissive to the Father.


Dont just focus on Ex 3:14...but go ahead and look at Isa. 41:4. Its clear, Jesus is claiming to be YHWH.

[37818]

John 8:42 = ". . . for I proceeded forth and came from God; nor have I come of Myself, but He sent Me." Obviously, this personal witness of Jesus excludes him from his definition of God!

The Son of God has two natures. You know this. One is not God and one is God. (Mark 13:32, John 8:16,17. John 5:18,23, John 10:27-30.)