John 8:58 and the great 'I AM'

[AVmetro]

:)

[AVmetro]

My hope here, is not to "debate" John8:58 in support of the deity of Christ, but for my fellow Trins to put forth a cooperative effort to form a solid argument like no other.

I'll dig up some primary opposing views and post them below.

[Gavin]

well, I have always undertood the present verb to be (ego eimi) instead of the expected aorist to go back to Exodus 3:14. It is apparent that Christ is not merely claiming to have existed before Abraham, but rather autonomous, self-existence.

My two cents.

Rock on, trinitarians :rockon:

[AVmetro]

Bible Translations that render 'ego eimi' in John8:58 as "I AM" [caps mine for emphasis]:

"Yes indeed! Before Avraham came into being, I AM!"
[Jewish New Testament translated by D.H.Stern]

"Truly, Truly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I AM"
[English Standard Version (ESV)]

"In all truth I tell you, before Abraham ever was, I AM"
[The New Jerusalem Bible (NJB)]

"Very truly I tell you, before Abraham was, I AM"
[New Revised Standard Version (NRSV)]

"I tell you the truth, Jesus answered, 'before Abraham was born, I AM!"
[New International Version (NIV)]

"Jesus said to them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was born, I AM."
[New American Standard Bible (NASB)]

"Jesus said to them, 'I assure you:, before Abraham was, I AM"
[Holman Christian Standard Bible (HCSB)]

"Jesus replied, I assure you most solemnly I tell you, before Abraham was born, I AM"
[The Amplified Bible (AMP)]

"Jesus told them, "Amen, amen, I am telling you, if Abraham had
never been born, I AM [the One] who Comes [the Omnipresent God]!"
[The Disciples New Testament, Aramic Version (http://www.v-a.com/bible/index.html) translated by Victor Alexander (Supporter@v-a.com)]

"Jesus said to them, “I tell you the solemn truth, before Abraham came into existence, I AM!”
[The NET Bible (http://www.netbible.org/netbible/index.htm)]

'Jesus les dijo: De cierto, de cierto os digo: Antes que Abraham fuese, yo soy (I AM).'
[Santa Biblia]

[The Message -Peterson]
[New Century Version]
[Wesley's New Testament]
[JB Phillips New Testament]
[American Standard Version (ASV)]
[New American Bible]
[Analytical Literal Translation (ALT)]
[Bible in Basic English (BBE)]
[Contemporary English Version (CEV) ]
[Darby]
[DouayReimsBible] [Weymouth New Testament]
[Good News Translation (GNT)]
[God's Word (GW)]
[International Standard Version (ISV)]
[Literal Translation of the Holy Bible]
[King James Version (KJV)]
[Modern King James Version (MKJV)]
[21st Century King James Version (KJ21)]
[American King James Version (AKJV)]
[World English Translation]
[Webster]
[Young's Literal Translation (YLT)]
[The New Testament, Recovery Version]
[Concordant Literal New Testament 1926]
[The New English Bible]
[The Modern Reader's Bible - Moulton]
[The Living Oracles New Testament (LO)]
[The Common Edition: New Testament (Common)]

Additional translations:

[Berkeley Version] [Norlie's Simplified New Testament] [New Testament in Modern English (Montgomery)] [Wuest's Expanded Translation] [New Testament (Swann)] [Aldine Bible] [Four Gospels (C. C. Torrey)] [Confraternity Version, Four Gospels (Rieu)] [New Testament (Knox)] [Anchor Bible] [Rotherham] [Holy Bible in Modern English (Fenton)] [Better Version (Estes)] [Sacred Writings (A. Campbell)] [New Easy-to-Read Version] [New Testament for the New World]

On an interesting note the Jewish Publication Society Bible (JPS) renders Exodus 3:14 as thus:

"And God said unto Moses: 'I AM THAT I AM'; and He said: 'Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel: I AM hath sent me unto you.'

The Jerusalem Targum:

¶.Exodus 3:14...And the Word of YHWH [Cf. John1:1-3; 1John1:1-2; Rev19:13] said to Moses: "I am He who said unto the world 'Be!' and it was: and who in the future shall say to it 'Be!' and it shall be." And He said: "Thus you shall say to the children of Israel: 'I Am' has sent me to you." [Cf. John8:58]

[dizzle]

James White material on this is very useful for he rightly points out that one cannot go straight from John to Exodus, but one must make a pit stop in the LXX of Isaiah.

[AVmetro]

I may as well point out that the following argument is what I'm looking to use as an outline for objections. It's certainly not the most thorough of "refutations", but it will work for the present:

http://hector3000.future.easyspace.com/egweimi.htm

[AVmetro]

I'll start with his first reply:

Matt Slick of Christian Apologetics and Research Ministries (CARM):

Excerpt from his article which can be found here:

http://www.carm.org/jw/john8_58.htm

<begin cite>-

The Jehovah's Witnesses and John 8:58

"Jesus said to them: "Most truly I say to you, Before Abraham came into existence, I have been" (New World Translation).

The Jehovah's Witnesses deny that Jesus is God. So, when it comes to translating and interpreting Bible verses that show the deity of Jesus, the JW's will go to great lengths to support their false presupposition. Sometimes they will even translate verses in a way that is not consistent with biblical grammar and context. In the Jehovah's Witness Bible, known as the New World Translation (NWT), John 8:58 is a verse that they have translated in a manner deliberately consistent with their theology.

Following is the verse in context from the NASB.

In John 8:56-59 says, "'Your father Abraham rejoiced to see My day, and he saw it and was glad.' 57The Jews therefore said to Him, 'You are not yet fifty years old, and have you seen Abraham?' 58Jesus said to them, 'Truly truly, I say to you, before Abraham was born, I am.' 59Therefore they picked up stones to throw at Him; but Jesus hid Himself, and went out of the temple." (All Bible quotes are from the NASB)

-<end cite>

The following is an excerpt from a reply given to the above from Heinz Schmitz, a prominent online apologist representing the Jehovah's Witnesses:

http://hector3000.future.easyspace.com/egweimi.htm

<begin cite>-

Reply: Did you know that the 1960, 1973 NASB also has "I have been" as a variant reading in the margin.

[ 8< img snipped ]

If the NASB translators accepted the NWT rendering, perhaps their work is not consistent with "biblical grammar and context" either.

-<end cite>

[AVmetro]

I was a little curious as to this, so I decided to ask the Lockman foundation myself. Here below is the response I received:



Thank you for contacting The Lockman Foundation and for your interest in this issue. We truly appreciate you taking the time and interest in responding to the JW rebuttal.

In searching our files for information on the subject, I have found two files with responses written by our translators:



As it happens, the John 8:58 note is one of those that has undergone needed revision. The translation “I have been” was originally given simply as a smoother, more grammatically correct (in English) rendering, and in a different context such an alternative might be fine. Unfortunately, we learned that members of the “Jehovah’s Witnesses” cult was using this alternative reading to argue their view that Christ did not exist eternally in the past. In effect then, the note was being misused to support heresy. It might have been good to have the note say instead, “I always have been,” but even this might be misused somehow, so the translators thought it best to simply delete the note. The Greek is a simple present tense that does not by itself carry the implication of eternal existance, but it is clear that Jesus is doing something special with it from the fact that He extends the present-tense force of “I am” into the distant past by adding “before Abraham”. Indeed, we believe that He is using the eternal “I am” of Ex. 3:14. Interestingly, the “Witnesses” attempt to refute this by arguing that in the Greek Old Testament (called the LXX), the “I am” is rendered “the one being” or “the one who is”. In point of fact, the words that Jesus uses are a very literal translation of the original Hebrew “I am,” so much so that they are grammatically awkward. This strongly indicates that He is applying the “I am” of Ex 3:14 to Himself.



It is true that early NASB’s had the “I have been” note, and it is most regrettable if Jehovah’s Witnesses claim any kind of support from that for their falsehoods about Christ. The purpose of the note was to suggest an alternative that was better English, not to diminish the deity or eternal existence of the Son of God. The note was eventually deleted, when it became clear that it could be misinterpreted to void the force of “I am” in connection with Ex 3:14.



I hope this information is helpful in your project. If you have any other questions, please feel free to contact us again.



In His Service,

The Lockman Foundation

[AVmetro]

Robertson's Word Pictures of the NT:

Joh 8:58 -
Before Abraham was (prin Abraam genesthai). Usual idiom with prin in positive sentence with infinitive (second aorist middle of ginomai) and the accusative of general reference, “before coming as to Abraham,” “before Abraham came into existence or was born.”
I am (ego¯ eimi). Undoubtedly here Jesus claims eternal existence with the absolute phrase used of God. The contrast between genesthai (entrance into existence of Abraham) and eimi (timeless being) is complete. See the same contrast between en in Joh_1:1 and egeneto in Joh_1:14. See the contrast also in Psa_90:2 between God (ei, art) and the mountains (gene¯the¯nai). See the same use of eimi in Joh_6:20; Joh_9:9; Joh_8:24, Joh_8:28; Joh_18:6.

>

I myself agree that the parallel between the following two passages is stunning:

Before the mountains were brought forth, Or ever thou hadst formed the earth and the world, Even from everlasting to everlasting, thou art God. [ASV]

Before the mountains existed, and before the earth and the world were formed, even from age to age, Thou art.

Afterall, the Jews asked a question in relation to "seeing Abraham" and the "age of Jesus". In light of the above, the response is obviously that of eternal existence.

Joh 8:57 The Jews therefore said unto him, [b]Thou art not yet fifty years old, and hast thou seen Abraham?

In reply to the above question, Jesus replies:

Joh 8:58 Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was born, I AM.

[johnnybanano]

I am not an experienced exegete, nor am I a temporal physicist (if there is such a thing), but I am seeing something here which I had always dismissed as non-understood awkwardness.

I am not sure what is meant be the phrase "eternal existance", but when I first saw it, I simply interpreted it as the fact that the Godhead always has existed and always will exist. I am not certain if this is definition does "eternal existance" justice, but this is how I understood it. This is where my confidence in posting an original take on the text wavers; I am not sure whether or not "eternal existance" already accepts this idea.

My idea:

The verse appears, in most of the versions that IronMetro posted, w/ the phrase, "I AM(!)". In addition to this implying the deity of Christ, and in addition to this implying that Jesus existed before Abraham, it may imply something deeper and more empowering than it would seem.

In a former post, IronMetro gave us the Lockman Foundation's response to the former NASB's rendering of "ego eimi" as "I have been" as a way of putting Jesus' words into a more English-friendly phrasing. They stated that a better rendering would have perhaps been, "...I have always been."

I believe that even this more explicative rendering might have lost something. I believe that Jesus may have made the phrasing sound awkward for a reason. He may have been luring us to understand a greater truth.

If the prase had been rendered, "...I have always been!", then we would be able to understand that, before Abraham, Jesus existed. However, the important difference here is that Jesus didn't say that he "existed" before Abraham. He says that he "exists" before Abraham! That he is presently existing, at that moment before Abraham was born! Now, I conceded that this is simply an idea that I have gotten from this scripture and that it is not necessarily a fact. However, does it not make sense?!? I mean, think of it, this was not a one-time thing as is shown in the following passages:


Before the mountains were brought forth, Or ever thou hadst formed the earth and the world, Even from everlasting to everlasting, thou art God. [ASV]

Before the mountains existed, and before the earth and the world were formed, even from age to age, Thou art. [Brenton's LXX]

(sorry, I don't know the references. These passages appeared in IronMetro's last post)

Jesus phrased it this way for a reason. I believe that this may be the truth that he was trying to communicate. Humbly, I admit that this recent understanding of mine has some dangerous implications on some of my other beliefs, namely mild Open-View Theism. So, as such, I am going to pray about this, kick it around a little and look for some more similar scriptures.

As I stated earlier, I don't know whether this idea is readily accepted in "eternal existence" or any other ideology for that matter. I may very well be saying something that many people are well aware of. For me, this is a new idea. I didn't know if anyone else had heard or thought of it being expressed in this verse or not so I thought that I would introduce it here first before I went to public with it.

Love and Respect

[AVmetro]

And here I was thinking this thread was pruned. I suppose I could post a few excerpts from Ethelbert's book on 'ani hu' here in a few days.

God bless

[RevSteve45]

Iron Metro,

I think that one of the BEST arguments for saying that in John 8:58, that "I am," meant exactly what it meant when God first said it to Moses in Exodus, is this:

The JEWS clearly understood what Jesus was saying, for they took up stones to stone Him. They KNEW that Jesus was in fact claiming to be YWHH.

Another argument you can use to show that Jesus is, in fact, YHWH, is the verses in Isaiah:

Isa 44:6, Thus saith the LORD (YHWH) the King of Israel, and his redeemer the LORD (YHWH) of hosts; I am the first, and I am the last; and beside me there is no God. (KJV)

Then go to Revelation:

Rev 1:11, Saying, I am Alpha and Omega, the first and the last:
(KJV)

Rev 2:8 And unto the angel of the church in Smyrna write; These things saith the first and the last, which was dead, and is alive;
(KJV)

There can, of course, be ONLY one First, and ONLY one Last. In Isaiah, YHWH says that HE is the First & the Last. In Revelation, Jesus says that HE is. They are both right, for they are both YHWH.

In Matthew, Jesus tells Satan:

Matt 4:10, Then saith Jesus unto him, Get thee hence, Satan: for it is written, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve. (KJV)

He was paraphrasing a verse in Deuteronomy:

Deut 6:13-14, Thou shalt fear the LORD thy God, and serve him, and shalt swear by his name.
14Ye shall not go after other gods, of the gods of the people which are round about you; (KJV)

Yet In Hebrews:

Heb 1:6, And again, when he bringeth in the firstbegotten into the world, he saith, And let all the angels of God worship him.
(KJV)

So, Jesus quotes a verse to Satan, that only the LORD (YHWH) shall be worshipped. Yet Hebrews says, "Let all the angels of God worship him." Therefore, the angels of God would NEVER worship Christ, UNLESS He was YHWH.

In His Service,
Steve

[o2bwise]

If the biblical creation record is true, I was created when Christ created Adam.

I did not have conscious existence then. Neverthless, I was created then. The Sabbath looks backward to a FINISHED work.

If Christ was literally begotten of God way before the incarnation, consider the above as a parallel.

My literal lineage traces back to Adam. Christ's literal lineage traces back to God.

Thus, if I was created in Adam and before my birth was in the loins of Adam, it is accurate to say that Jesus ALWAYS WAS, in the bosom of His Father, previous to being literally begotten on Him.

This "model" of the relationship between God and His Son works MUCH better than the Trinitarian model, in my opinion.

God Bless,

Tony (o2)

[Tsmith]

I fail to see this "the great I am" connection.

With regards to John 8:58.

As even the Lockman foundation admits: "The translation “I have been” was originally given simply as a smoother, more grammatically correct (in English) rendering..."

The use of two tenses in a single clause does not allow for the typical translation of "before Abraham was, I am." The PPA that is present here makes it a more accurate rendering to say I have been.

Further, the majority of translation do not even render EGW EIMI as a proper name (all capitals). Consider the following examples of different translations and how they render it:

(NIV) "I tell you the truth," Jesus answered, "before Abraham was born, I am!" Prior existence
(NASB) Jesus said to them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was born, I am." Prior existence
(NLT) John 8:58 Jesus answered, "The truth is, I existed before Abraham was even born!" Prior existence
(KJV) Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am. Prior existence
(NKJV) Jesus said to them, "Most assuredly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I AM." Proper Name
(AMP) Jesus replied, I assure you, most solemnly I tell you, before Abraham was born, I AM. Proper Name
(RSV) Jesus said to them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I am." Prior existence
(KJ21) Jesus said unto them, "Verily, verily I say unto you, before Abraham was, I am!" Prior existence
(WE) John 8:58 Jesus answered, `I tell you the truth. I already was before Abraham was born.' Prior existence
(YLT) Jesus said to them, `Verily, verily, I say to you, Before Abraham's coming -- I am;' Prior existence
(DARBY) Jesus said to them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am. Prior existence
(ASV) Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was born, I am. Prior existence
(Twenty) "In truth I tell you," replied Jesus, "before Abraham existed I was." Prior existence
(Webster) Jesus said to them, Verily, verily, I say to you, Before Abraham was, I am. Prior existence
(Weymouth) "In most solemn truth," answered Jesus, "I tell you that before Abraham came into existence, I am." Prior existence
(Rotherham) Jesus said unto them-Verily, verily, I say unto you: Before, Abraham, came into existence, I, am. Prior existence
(Murdock) Jesus said to them: Verily, verily I say to you, That before Abraham existed, I was. Prior existence
(Montgomery) "In solemn truth I tell you," answered Jesus, "that before Abraham came into existence, I am." Prior existence
(LO) Jesus answered, Most assuredly, I say to you, before Abraham was born, I am. Prior existence

I think of particular interest as well is Williams' translation: "I existed before Abraham was born." This is the translation that Dr. Julius Mantey calls, "the most accurate and illuminating translation in the English language."

What really does all this show? Simply that the grammar at John 8:58 does not have EGW EIMI functioning as a proper name. Rather, it is a Present of Past Action.

Looking at Exodus 3:14 we find that EHYEH ASHER EHYEH translated as I AM WHAT I AM to be a poor translation as well. Consider, just two verses back in Exodus 3:12 the same Hebrew word EHYEH is translated as I WILL BE almost universally.

On this verse, Rabbi Jordan D. Cohen comments with regards to translation: "Often translated as "I Am Who I Am," the phrase is more accurately translated as "I Will Be That Which I Will Be." The people will come to know God through their unfolding experiences together."

The Interpreter's One-Volume Commentary on the Bible: "the best rendering is 'I will be as I will be.'"

With regards the LXX, it actually reads EGW EIMI hO ON, which translates literally as I am THE BEING. Thus, we render the LXX Ex 3:!4 as "And God spoke to Moses, saying, I am THE BEING; and he said, Thus shall ye say to the children of Israel, THE BEING has sent me to you."

Thus, again, there is no connection found here with John 8:58. We can be assured that if Jesus was trying to use EHYEH ASHER EHYEH as a name for himself in John 8:58, he would have done so. However, EHYEH ASHER EHYEH is not the same thing as the Greek EGW EIMI hOS EGW EIMI. Rather, he would have said EGW ESOMAI hOS EGW ESOMAI

With regards to ANI HU, we find that ANI HU is not even a word-for-word equivalent to EGW EIMI. Rather, ANI = I and HU = HE. Really, if a connection is to be made between ANI HU in Isaiah and EGW EIMI and John 8:58, there must be a REASON to make such a connection. You cannot do so simply because you want to.
-Tony

[o2bwise]

Hey TSmith!,

Powerful post!

I learned a lot!

Thanks!

Tony (o2)!

[Uriah-]

Matt Slick of Christian Apologetics and Research Ministries (CARM):

Matt Slick is too prideful to even answer questions that prove the idea of Yehoshua being the true God in error, but that is okay, I haven't asked him my main questions, so I am not included on his avoidance list. As for FARM (False Apologetics & Research Ministries), is not a good place to hang around, you will start picking up the false teachings Matt Slick presents.

I will respond on John 8 since people these (as if they changed their deceptive ways) days just cannot stick to context when it comes to Yehoshua having discussions.

[Uriah-]

I addressed "John 7:53 through 8:1-59" on this link: http://pub13.ezboard.com/fneedsomewisdomfrm10.showMessage?topicID=270.topic

[Tsmith]

I just wanted to bump this thread to see if anyone cared to reply.

-Tony

[Jaltus]

Uriah,

You have two major problems with your article to begin with, one leading to the toher.

Issue 1: John 7:53-8:11 should not be there. The real text connects John 7:52 with John 8:12, making the claims one the last day of the feast, which changes a lot.

Issue 2: If Issue 1 is correct (which it is, I can provide the text critical support if needed) then the claim in John 8:12 is not about the argument with the Pharisees, it is Jesus claim to be the Light of the World. What does that mean in context?

During this feast, giant candles were lit outside of the temple on the temple grounds. The light from them could be seen for miles and miles since Jerusalem was on top of a mountain. Thus, Jesus was claiming to be a greater light than those already set up. But what did those lights in the feast stand for? They stood for the very presence of God, the Shekinah glory, as it was manifested to the people of Israel during the Exodus and wanderings.

Jesus was claiming to be the fulfillment and replacement of God's own presence in Israel.

If that does not equate Jesus with God, then nothing does.

[Cal_Minian]

02-04-2003 @ 03:57 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=8312#post8312)
Dee Dee Warren:

James White material on this is very useful for he rightly points out that one cannot go straight from John to Exodus, but one must make a pit stop in the LXX of Isaiah.

Dear DeeDee,
You might be interested in this review of James Whites chapter on John 8:58 from his book on the Trinity by Rick Stamp. The review points out a very big problem with James' Whites logic. I am not aware that he has yet addressed this embarrassing point to this day.

Best Regards,
Cal_Minian

Reviewer: rstamp@m-net.arbornet.org from USA
First of all I would like to say I like the cover artwork.

I am not sure, though who the book is intended to reach. As Kerry Gilliard (another reviewer) wrote it is not an apologetic's book. Being one of Jehovah's witnesses, this could explain why I was a bit dissapointed.

James trys to defend Trinitarianism in a technical way, using Hebrew and Greek but I was left wanting more of an explanation.

An example: The "I am" sayings of Jesus: James starts out by admitting that Trinitarians cannot directly make the claim that the usual text used to connect Jesus with a divine title, Exodus 3:14 and John 8:58 cannot be supported and is "tenuous" without other lines of reasoning. So far so good.

That is enough to rankle many Trinitarians right there, because the simplicity of the comparison of Exodus 3:14 (I am) and John 8:58 (I am) [KJV] is one of the mainstays of Trinitarian apologetics.

However, as James rightfully observes, the Septuagint (LXX) at Exodus 3:14 has God saying "ego eimi ho wn", or "I am the existing one" (or I am THE BEING - Brenton Septuagint). Since Jesus did not call himself "ho wn" at John 8:58 and God did not call himself the "I am" at Exodus 3:14 in the Septuagint, this presents Trinitarians with a real dilemma. How does James resolve this ?

He attempts to connect the Hebrew "ani hu" statements of Isaiah (ani hu means "I [am] he" in Hebrew) which are translated as "ego eimi" in the Greek Septuagint to the "I am" sayings of the gospel of John. I will not get into the technical details as to why this falls short. I don't want this review to be as long as his chapter.

However, James never really gets around to explaining that the words "ani hu" are NOT found in the Hebrew of Exodus 3:14. So he never actually proves his point, but leads the reader to believe that he has. Sorry to say, most do not have the ability in Hebrew or Greek to understand that this is the case, and they will probably feel that he has succeeded.

Nothing could be farther from the truth.

Still, the fact that a Trinitarian apologist recognizes that the Trinity is in trouble, a doctrine in desperate need of shoring up, so to speak, is a very positive sign. He recognizes that most church-goers do not understand or even like to discuss the Trinity. As James states in his introduction, he "loves" the Trinity.

It is apparent that James does love the Trinity. I just wish that he spent more time in his book really getting into the nitty gritty on problem passages like the supposed connection of Exodus 3:14 and John 8:58.

[Cal_Minian]

Today @ 02:25 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=130926#post130926)
Tsmith:

I just wanted to bump this thread to see if anyone cared to reply.

-Tony

Dear Tony,
I enjoyed your post immensely. I am gratified that you accurately reflect what Jesus actually said about himself.

Thank you for your posts. :thumb:

Kind Regards,
Cal_Minian

[AVmetro]

I just wanted to bump this thread to see if anyone cared to reply.

I'd say you've summed up the more "common" arguments against the verse. Thanks :wink:.

I'll comment on this for now:

With regards to ANI HU, we find that ANI HU is not even a word-for-word equivalent to EGW EIMI. Rather, ANI = I and HU = HE. Really, if a connection is to be made between ANI HU in Isaiah and EGW EIMI and John 8:58, there must be a REASON to make such a connection. You cannot do so simply because you want to.

The reason being that 'ego eimi' is used to translate 'ani hu' in the LXX. Tied in with this is the fact that there are quite a few parallels to draw between the 'I AM' statments in Isaiah and the 'I AM' statements of the NT (for a discussion of this see Baukham, 'God Crucified'). Secondly, the phrase 'ani hu' was considered to be a means of self-identification for God by the Jews:

"In A.D. 20, Isaiah 40-45 was being widely read and quoted. The emphatic "hu" was a favorite term for referring to God. Theology was much concerned with the divine self-affirmations contained in "Ani" and "Ani hu". The Hillel psalms, in which "hu" equalted "God", were firmly established in the ritualas of th two prinicpal pilgrimage feasts, Tabernacles and the Passover." (Ethelbert Stauffer, "Jesus and His Story" p.183)

In light of the above, one can easily see why the Jews would want to stone Christ for blasphemy at the feast in the temple itself.

Had He been speaking Aramaic, the argument is only that much stronger :wink:.

God bless

[Tsmith]

Today @ 11:27 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=130944#post130944)
IronMetro:



I'd say you've summed up the more &quot;common&quot; arguments against the verse. Thanks :wink:.

I'll comment on this for now:



The reason being that 'ego eimi' is used to translate 'ani hu' in the LXX. Tied in with this is the fact that there are quite a few parallels to draw between the 'I AM' statments in Isaiah and the 'I AM' statements of the NT (for a discussion of this see Baukham, 'God Crucified'). Secondly, the phrase 'ani hu' was considered to be a means of self-identification for God by the Jews:

&quot;In A.D. 20, Isaiah 40-45 was being widely read and quoted. The emphatic &quot;hu&quot; was a favorite term for referring to God. Theology was much concerned with the divine self-affirmations contained in &quot;Ani&quot; and &quot;Ani hu&quot;. The Hillel psalms, in which &quot;hu&quot; equalted &quot;God&quot;, were firmly established in the ritualas of th two prinicpal pilgrimage feasts, Tabernacles and the Passover.&quot; (Ethelbert Stauffer, &quot;Jesus and His Story&quot; p.183)

In light of the above, one can easily see why the Jews would want to stone Christ for blasphemy at the feast in the temple itself.

Had He been speaking Aramaic, the argument is only that much stronger :wink:.

God bless

First, you have still provided no connection or evidence that we should accept this. Why should we accept that ANI HU is a name of God?

That aside, the fact remains that I HE is then the name, with [am] as an implication. Thus, HU, being the predicate, is nowhere to be found or implied in John 8:58. That said, EGW EIMI in the NT (John 9:9) and ANI HU in the Hebrew scriptures are used by others (1 Sam 21:17) with no consequence. Why should we make a special exception at this point?

As another example, consider this verse:

Isaiah 41:4 Who hath wrought and done
it, calling the generations from the beginning?
I, Jehovah, the first, and with the last, I am he.


Here, ANI HU is just idenitifying who he is. It is not being used as a special name.


-Tony

[dizzle]

I will not get into the technical details as to why this falls short. I don't want this review to be as long as his chapter.


:rofl: Oh come on!!!! Since that was almost his whole argument, let me paraphrase:

"I will not deal with White's main point but will obfuscate to make it seem like I defeated him."

[Cal_Minian]

Today @ 03:38 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=130950#post130950)
Dee Dee Warren:



:rofl: Oh come on!!!! Since that was almost his whole argument, let me paraphrase:

&quot;I will not deal with White's main point but will obfuscate to make it seem like I defeated him.&quot;

Rick dealt with the subject in a way that even someone like you who does not know Hebrew and Greek can understand. That was a devastating blow indeed.

His book makes it seem like ANI HU is what links Exodus 3:14 to John 8:58 but never tells anyone that ANI HU is not even found in Exodus 3:14 !!!!!!


Regards,
Cal

[AVmetro]

First, you have still provided no connection or evidence that we should accept this. Why should we accept that ANI HU is a name of God?

It doesn't have to be a "name" per se but a means of self-identification. As to this I have already demonstrated such in the above citation. Need I type out the whole chapter?

That aside, the fact remains that I HE is then the name, with [am] as an implication. Thus, HU, being the predicate, is nowhere to be found or implied in John 8:58.

I have already pointed out that 'ego eimi' is used in the LXX to translate the Hebrew 'ani hu'. Why? I also pointed out the possibility that Christ was speaking Aramiaic which would only serve to offer support to our view.

That said, EGW EIMI in the NT (John 9:9) and ANI HU in the Hebrew scriptures are used by others (1 Sam 21:17) with no consequence. Why should we make a special exception at this point?

Because it's not just "saying it" but what is implied by it's use. Context {as always} is certainly a factor. The above shouldn't have even been asked.

As another example, consider this verse:

Isaiah 41:4 Who hath wrought and done
it, calling the generations from the beginning?
I, Jehovah, the first, and with the last, I am he.

Here, ANI HU is just idenitifying who he is. It is not being used as a special name.

And?

Yet you ignore it's significant recurring use in the book of Isaiah alone. A book saturated with a heavy monotheistic theme.

'Ani hu' is a means of self-identification. You need to explain why the Jews could see the connection as to implement, with emphasis, the phrase into their feasts and rites. Why did they consider this to be a means by which YHWH identifies Himself? Could it be because it's obvious? The connection in John8:58 is patently undeniable.

God bless

[AVmetro]

Rick dealt with the subject in a way that even someone like you who does not know Hebrew and Greek can understand. That was a devasting blow indeed.

His book makes it seem like ANI HU is what links Exodus 3:14 to John 8:58 but never tells anyone that ANI HU is not even found in Exodus 3:14 !!!!!!

And of course one asking why 'ani hu' does not appear in Ex3:14 is like asking why the name 'YHWH' does not either. Especially taking into consideration that Moses asked for God's name.

I haven't read the whole of James White's book so I can't access what the argument is exactly other than what you say it is.

I would say that he's making the connection with the LXX (i.e. Is ego eimi --> Ex ego eimi) as opposed to the Hebrew. Therefore asking "why isn't 'ani hu' used" is not exactly appropriate.

God bless

[Cal_Minian]

Today @ 03:55 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=130957#post130957)
IronMetro:



It doesn't have to be a &quot;name&quot; per se but a means of self-identification. As to this I have already demonstrated such in the above citation. Need I type out the whole chapter?



I have already pointed out that 'ego eimi' is used in the LXX to translate the Hebrew 'ani hu'. Why? I also pointed out the possibility that Christ was speaking Aramiaic which would only serve to offer support to our view.



Because it's not just &quot;saying it&quot; but what is implied by it's use. Context {as always} is certainly a factor. The above shouldn't have even been asked.



And?

Yet you ignore it's significant recurring use in the book of Isaiah alone. A book saturated with a heavy monotheistic theme.

'Ani hu' is a means of self-identification. You need to explain why the Jews could see the connection as to implement, with emphasis, the phrase into their feasts and rites. Why did they consider this to be a means by which YHWH identifies Himself? Could it be because it's obvious? The connection in John8:58 is patently undeniable.

God bless

Dear IronMetro,
Forgive me for breaking into the converstation in the middle, but do I understand that you consider EGW EIMI to be used as a name by Jesus in John 8:58?

Regards,
Cal

[Tsmith]

Today @ 11:55 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=130957#post130957)
IronMetro:



It doesn't have to be a &quot;name&quot; per se but a means of self-identification. As to this I have already demonstrated such in the above citation. Need I type out the whole chapter?

How is "I [am] he" a identification of one being God? Please demonstrate this. I'm not saying ANI HU is not at this point, but I'm simply asking for solid historical or scriptural evidence of such.


I have already pointed out that 'ego eimi' is used in the LXX to translate the Hebrew 'ani hu'. Why? I also pointed out the possibility that Christ was speaking Aramiaic which would only serve to offer support to our view.

You have not addressed the fact that EGW EIMI in the LXX, translated from ANI HU, has the implied predicate of [he]. John 8:58 does not contain an implied predicate.


Because it's not just &quot;saying it&quot; but what is implied by it's use. Context {as always} is certainly a factor. The above shouldn't have even been asked.

It is a valid question, because thus far your view is based on nothing more than because you want to make the connection. Thus far you have not even shown there is anything to connect!!



And?

Yet you ignore it's significant recurring use in the book of Isaiah alone. A book saturated with a heavy monotheistic theme.

It can appear 5 billion times, but that does not mean it has the force of a proper name. You have to prove that it is being used as a name before you can even begin to claim a connection. You have failed to prove such thus far.

'Ani hu' is a means of self-identification. You need to explain why the Jews could see the connection as to implement, with emphasis, the phrase into their feasts and rites. Why did they consider this to be a means by which YHWH identifies Himself? Could it be because it's obvious? The connection in John8:58 is patently undeniable.

Yes, it is self identification, obviously, for anyone who states such. You have to prove that it is an identification to being God Almighty.

You have provided no basis for a connection to John 8:58 thus far. Why does the healed blind man say EGW EIMI? Why didn't they take that as a claim to being God? You say the context, well then obviously EGW EIMI is also a part of speech and thus one cannot claim that simply because Jesus said it that it was a claim to being God. Further, why did David say ANI HU? Was he claiming to be God? Why should I not make a theology that says both David and the blind man are God. Based on your reasoning here, I could do this.

See, even if you are able to demonstrate ANI HU is used to denote God, you will not be able to make a connection to John 8:58, as you will see as we go. But first, you must lay a foundation.


-Tony

[dizzle]

Rick dealt with the subject in a way that even someone like you who does not know Hebrew and Greek can understand. That was a devasting blow indeed that he never recovered from.

His book makes it seem like ANI HU is what links Exodus 3:14 to John 8:58 but never tells anyone that ANI HU is not even found in Exodus 3:14 !!!!!!

Well White dealt with the subject in a way that even you and Rick who knows English can understand. Have you read the book? If you did you would not have made such an utterly inane comment. If you have, you are not dealing honestly with his argument.

He argues that Exodus 3:14 isn’t where the “I AM” sayings of Christ draw their major weight, it is the Isaianic passages and draws the connecting with “ego eimi” back to Exodus 3:14. Someone who isn’t trying to wiggle out of an uncomfortable corner would realize that. He never gives the impression that ANI HU is in Exodus whatsoever, because that is not what his argument is about. He takes the Scripture holistically and develops the trail. There is no need to go back to Exodus whatsoever, it is developed in Isaiah (which makes Jesus “first and last” declarations in Revelation all the more telling).

[Tsmith]

Today @ 12:10 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=130965#post130965)
Dee Dee Warren:



Well White dealt with the subject in a way that even you and Rick who knows English can understand. Have you read the book? If you did you would not have made such an utterly inane comment. If you have, you are not dealing honestly with his argument.

He argues that Exodus 3:14 isn’t where the “I AM” sayings of Christ draw their major weight, it is the Isaianic passages and draws the connecting with “ego eimi” back to Exodus 3:14. Someone who isn’t trying to wiggle out of an uncomfortable corner would realize that. He never gives the impression that ANI HU is in Exodus whatsoever, because that is not what his argument is about. He takes the Scripture holistically and develops the trail. There is no need to go back to Exodus whatsoever, it is developed in Isaiah (which makes Jesus “first and last” declarations in Revelation all the more telling).


The problem is you cannot connect EGW EIMI directly to Ex 3:14 or even draw it back to such, because the text isn't even closely the same, as I already explained. Further, the LXX of Isaiah is a translation from the Hebrew ANI HU "I [am] he." That said, for reasons I already explain, you cannot connect back to John 8:58. This is just another desperate attempt to make a proof text that isn't even remotely one.

-Tony

[dizzle]

06-16-2003 @ 02:29 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=124210#post124210)
Uriah-:



Matt Slick is too prideful to even answer questions that prove the idea of Yehoshua being the true God in error, but that is okay,...

Oh yes, everyone who opposes Uriah is prideful. Where have I heard this before? You seem to think that anyone who doesn't simply agree with you is refusing to answer. It is called winning by definition. Tails you win, heads you win.


I haven't asked him my main questions, so I am not included on his avoidance list.

How convenient.


As for FARM (False Apologetics &amp; Research Ministries), is not a good place to hang around, you will start picking up the false teachings Matt Slick presents.

More elephant hurling.

I will respond on John 8 since people these (as if they changed their deceptive ways) days just cannot stick to context when it comes to Yehoshua having discussions.

Pufferfish.

[dizzle]

Today @ 07:14 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=130970#post130970)
Tsmith:


The problem is you cannot connect EGW EIMI directly to Ex 3:14 or even draw it back to such, because the text isn't even closely the same, as I already explained.

And I explained it isn't necessary even if what you said were true! I never draw it back to Exodus. Isaiah is enough. Nice dance though.


Further, the LXX of Isaiah is a translation from the Hebrew ANI HU &quot;I [am] he.&quot; That said, for reasons I already explain, you cannot connect back to John 8:58. This is just another desperate attempt to make a proof text that isn't even remotely one.

And White book more than ably showed the path which you have simply made pronounements that it doesn't just made diversions with huffing about Exodus 3:14.

-Tony [/QUOTE]

[Uriah-]

You have two major problems with your article to begin with, one leading to the toher.

It's not problems, it's called pasting what the Passages state.

If that does not equate Jesus with God, then nothing does.

LOL, finally you get it. Nothing is equal with the true God. The true God has no partners. The true God is one, not a family.

I added more to the link, just hit refresh on your brower if you do not see anything new on it.

[Tsmith]

Today @ 12:19 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=130973#post130973)
Dee Dee Warren:



And I explained it isn't necessary even if what you said were true! I never draw it back to Exodus. Isaiah is enough. Nice dance though.



And White book more than ably showed the path which you have simply made pronounements that it doesn't just made diversions with huffing about Exodus 3:14.

-Tony


So please deal with the issues. You come into threads where I am posting and never actually deal with the issue. Will you, for once, please make a reply with some substance?

-Tony

[Cal_Minian]

Today @ 04:10 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=130965#post130965)
Dee Dee Warren:



Well White dealt with the subject in a way that even you and Rick who knows English can understand. Have you read the book? If you did you would not have made such an utterly inane comment. If you have, you are not dealing honestly with his argument.

He argues that Exodus 3:14 isn’t where the “I AM” sayings of Christ draw their major weight, it is the Isaianic passages and draws the connecting with “ego eimi” back to Exodus 3:14. Someone who isn’t trying to wiggle out of an uncomfortable corner would realize that. He never gives the impression that ANI HU is in Exodus whatsoever, because that is not what his argument is about. He takes the Scripture holistically and develops the trail. There is no need to go back to Exodus whatsoever, it is developed in Isaiah (which makes Jesus “first and last” declarations in Revelation all the more telling).

Dear DeeDee,
If ANI HU is the name of God in Hebrew according to you and White and IronMetro and it is not found in Exodus 3:14 then what links Exodus 3:14 to John 8:58?

How EXACTLY does ANI HU link John 8:58 and Exodus 3:14?

Thanks in advance,
Cal

[Cal_Minian]

Today @ 04:15 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=130971#post130971)
Dee Dee Warren:



Oh yes, everyone who opposes Uriah is prideful. Where have I heard this before? You seem to think that anyone who doesn't simply agree with you is refusing to answer. It is called winning by definition. Tails you win, heads you win.



How convenient.



More elephant hurling.



Pufferfish.

Dear DeeDee,
Since this is a Christian forum, could you please take this to the locker room?

Kind Regards,
Cal

[dizzle]

Sorry Cal, there is nothing in that post which belongs there. When elephants are hurled and posts are nothing but puffing I will say so. I am not complaining about his style I am responding to his post.

[dizzle]

Today @ 07:26 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=130977#post130977)
Cal_Minian:

Dear DeeDee,
If ANI HU is the name of God in Hebrew according to you and White and IronMetro and it is not found in Exodus 3:14 then what links Exodus 3:14 to John 8:58?

How EXACTLY does ANI HU link John 8:58 and Exodus 3:14?

Thanks in advance,
Cal

Read my lips. It doesn't have to. Isaiah is enough. I don't make the argument that it has to, but it does through the LXX and Eigo Eimi, but I don't use arguments I don't have to. Isaiah is enough.

[dizzle]

Today @ 07:22 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=130975#post130975)
Tsmith:




So please deal with the issues. You come into threads where I am posting and never actually deal with the issue. Will you, for once, please make a reply with some substance?

-Tony


I did deal with the issue by pointing out that Exodus was not necessary, and that the whole thrust of White's argument is not dealt with in that alleged rebuttal whatsoever. Would you like me to type out those three pages out of White's book and post them so you can substantively respond?

[Tsmith]

Today @ 12:34 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=130982#post130982)
Dee Dee Warren:




I did deal with the issue by pointing out that Exodus was not necessary, and that the whole thrust of White's argument is not dealt with in that alleged rebuttal whatsoever. Would you like me to type out those three pages out of White's book and post them so you can substantively respond?

I am not asking for substance on Ex 3:14, I'm asking for it regarding ANI HU, EGW EIMI, the translation beween the two, Biblical usage, etc. These are the issues that disprove White's theory and that you are ignoring. Please refer back to my prior posts.

-Tony

[dizzle]

Today @ 07:36 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=130983#post130983)
Tsmith:



I am not asking for substance on Ex 3:14, I'm asking for it regarding ANI HU, EGW EIMI, the translation beween the two, Biblical usage, etc. These are the issues that disprove White's theory and that you are ignoring. Please refer back to my prior posts.

-Tony

Perhaps you did not word your issue clearly, can you restate it?

[Tsmith]

Today @ 12:38 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=130984#post130984)
Dee Dee Warren:



Perhaps you did not word your issue clearly, can you restate it?

Ok. Let me lay it out.

First, the predicate-less use of EGW EIMI (where it is typically implied) that White attempts to use to connect to Jesus is a construction that is used in other locations of other people (John 9:9), showing that the use of such is not a simple claim to being God Almighty.

Second, ANI HU, the words in Isaiah are actually I HE, not I AM, as EGW EIMI reads. Within the Hebrew, [am] is implied but not existing. Thus, EGW EIMI is not a literal translation of ANI HU, which is what the name would actually be.

Third, the words ANI HU are used by others in the Hebrew scriptures. An example of this is 1 Chron 21:17 where David uses these same words.

Fourth, all this is ignoring the fact that "Before Abraham was, I am." is a very poor translation and does not accurately reflect the actual meaning of the text, which is something like "I was before Abraham existed" or "Before Abraham existed, I have been."

[AVmetro]

Cal_Minion:

Forgive me for breaking into the converstation in the middle, but do I understand that you consider EGW EIMI to be used as a name by Jesus in John 8:58?

It's a means of self-identification. Take that as a nuanced definition of "name" but anything aside from the implications of speaking it in context is besides the point.

TS stated:

How is "I [am] he" a identification of one being God? Please demonstrate this. I'm not saying ANI HU is not at this point, but I'm simply asking for solid historical or scriptural evidence of such.

I've given you solid historical evidence for such. Twice now you have ignored it.

You have not addressed the fact that EGW EIMI in the LXX, translated from ANI HU, has the implied predicate of [he]. John 8:58 does not contain an implied predicate.

Correct me if I'm wrong but I believe Stafford has made a fuss over the {implied?} "he" in Jn18:5. Now you're objecting to the lack of such? Interesting. My point rests on the fact that the LXX translators used the phrase 'ego eimi' to translate 'ani hu'. Why need I go beyond this to make the connection between the two?

It is a valid question, because thus far your view is based on nothing more than because you want to make the connection. Thus far you have not even shown there is anything to connect!!

I've provided historical evidence, the setting in which the context took place, as well as the reaction of the Jews. Not only this, but the grammar is on our side.

It can appear 5 billion times, but that does not mean it has the force of a proper name. You have to prove that it is being used as a name before you can even begin to claim a connection. You have failed to prove such thus far.

What it means is that it is a recurring theme. I'm not going to argue whether or not it's a "proper name" at this point so long as it is understood to be a common phrase of self-identification used by YHHW. On your point I have already demonstrated this. The very Jews to whom Christ spoke believed such.

Yes, it is self identification, obviously, for anyone who states such. You have to prove that it is an identification to being God Almighty.

See my first post on this page. Who did the Jews use the phrase to identify? In what did they employ it's use?

You have provided no basis for a connection to John 8:58 thus far.

The context and the grammar is ample evidence along with all else I have provided. There is quite a bit of research which has gone into this verse and you suddenly expect me to type it all out for you?

Why does the healed blind man say EGW EIMI? Why didn't they take that as a claim to being God? 1.] You say the context, well then obviously EGW EIMI is also a part of speech and thus one cannot claim that simply because Jesus said it that it was a claim to being God. Further, why did David say ANI HU? Was he claiming to be God? Why should I not make a theology that says both David and the blind man are God. 2.] Based on your reasoning here, I could do this.

1.] Yes, I said context and you obviously missed my point. The
indicators are listed above.

2.] No. I do not draw wooden parallels out of their contexts.

See, even if you are able to demonstrate ANI HU is used to denote God, you will not be able to make a connection to John 8:58, as you will see as we go. But first, you must lay a foundation.

Ah, so now you agree that 'ani hu' could have been used to denote God. Good. That foundation has already been laid. Simply saying "it isn't so" will not suffice for an argument.

In case you're interested, you might want to look into this book (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1850755876/qid%3D1056411521/sr%3D11-1/ref%3Dsr%5F11%5F1/002-8298101-9993613) for more info.

God bless

[Cal_Minian]

Today @ 04:32 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=130981#post130981)
Dee Dee Warren:



Read my lips. It doesn't have to. Isaiah is enough. I don't make the argument that it has to, but it does through the LXX and Eigo Eimi, but I don't use arguments I don't have to. Isaiah is enough.

Dear DeeDee,
Ok, then we can forget Exodus 3:14 because it does not fit Isaiah or John 8:58. However, that was the thrust of White's argument. You brought up White so I thought you agreed with him. Does not matter to me, I will move on.

If ANI HU means Jehovah then why is ANU YHWH (I am Jehovah) found 195 times in the Hebrew? ANI YHWH is found 22 times in Isaiah.


ANI is "I" in Hebrew and HU is "he." When found together it is a verbless clause as in "I am he."

The Greek of the Septuagint is EGW EIMI. Both personal pronoun and verb are found.

But in the Septuagint for these same verses we find EGW EIMI hO QEOS (I am God) not just EGW EIMI by itself. We also find EGW KURIOS (I am the Lord) where there is no EIMI at all!

In the Septuagint at Genesis 26:24 we find Jehovah saying EGW EIMI hO QEOS (I am the God of Abraham) but in Genesis 27:32 Esau said EGW EIMI hO hUIOS or I am the Son of you.

Esau said the magic words EGW EIMI but with the predicate "son" and Jehovah said the same words with the predicate "Lord". Obviously the identification is in what is predicated on EGW (I) and not on the bare EGW EIMI by itself.

The EGW EIMI/ANI HU only works when on ignores the plain sense of the Hebrew and Greek of both the Septuagint and the Hebrew text.

Kind Regards,
Cal

[Cal_Minian]

Today @ 04:51 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=130992#post130992)
IronMetro:

Cal_Minian:
Do you take EGW EIMI to be a title?

IronMetro:
It's a means of self-identification. Take that as a nuanced definition of "name" but anything aside from the implications of speaking it in context is besides the point.

Cal_Minian:
So then if it is not a title (I agree because grammatically it is not used that way in either the LXX or GNT) then anyone who says these words is identifying themselves as God?

TS gave the examples where King David said ANI HU and the blind man said EGW EIMI.

If these words were understood as God's personal self-designation, and everyone understood that, then why was it not blasphemy for David and the blind man to utter those words about themselves?

The Jews were not happy that the blind man identified Jesus as the one who healed him. Why did they not stone the blind man for claiming to be God?

Kind Regards,
Cal

[Tsmith]

Today @ 12:51 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=130992#post130992)
IronMetro:



It's a means of self-identification. Take that as a nuanced definition of &quot;name&quot; but anything aside from the implications of speaking it in context is besides the point.



I've given you solid historical evidence for such. Twice now you have ignored it.


Where? Please direct me to something solid. I've yet to see anything.


Correct me if I'm wrong but I believe Stafford has made a fuss over the {implied?} &quot;he&quot; in Jn18:5. Now you're objecting to the lack of such? Interesting. My point rests on the fact that the LXX translators used the phrase 'ego eimi' to translate 'ani hu'. Why need I go beyond this to make the connection between the two?

I don't have Stafford's book, so I don't know.

As for your position, yes you must. EGW EIMI appears in many places for different people in the NT, so you have a lot of work to do unless you want to claim they are all God.


I've provided historical evidence, the setting in which the context took place, as well as the reaction of the Jews. Not only this, but the grammar is on our side.

Do you know any Hebrew or Greek at all? The grammar is far from on your side. As for the reaction of the Jews, I must thus ask. Did Stephen claim to be God when they stoned him?


What it means is that it is a recurring theme. I'm not going to argue whether or not it's a &quot;proper name&quot; at this point so long as it is understood to be a common phrase of self-identification used by YHHW. On your point I have already demonstrated this. The very Jews to whom Christ spoke believed such.

You have CLAIMED such, you have failed to provide a lick of evidence to prove such.


See my first post on this page. Who did the Jews use the phrase to identify? In what did they employ it's use?

Looking at the first post and I don't see any evidence. Just some thus far empty claims.


The context and the grammar is ample evidence along with all else I have provided. There is quite a bit of research which has gone into this verse and you suddenly expect me to type it all out for you?

You haven't proven anything with the grammar. The grammar does not even remotely support you and you have not shown how it does. Sheesh.


1.] Yes, I said context and you obviously missed my point. The
indicators are listed above.

2.] No. I do not draw wooden parallels out of their contexts.



Ah, so now you agree that 'ani hu' could have been used to denote God. Good. That foundation has already been laid. Simply saying &quot;it isn't so&quot; will not suffice for an argument.

The burden of proof to show it is used as such is on you. So please do.

You have failed to address a SINGLE issue thus far. If you continue on this path in your next reply, I will discontinue my replies. The issues have been laid out. Address them, or please do not reply.

-Tony

[Cal_Minian]

Today @ 04:51 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=130992#post130992)
IronMetro:



It's a means of self-identification. Take that as a nuanced definition of &quot;name&quot; but anything aside from the implications of speaking it in context is besides the point.



I've given you solid historical evidence for such. Twice now you have ignored it.



Correct me if I'm wrong but I believe Stafford has made a fuss over the {implied?} &quot;he&quot; in Jn18:5. Now you're objecting to the lack of such? Interesting. My point rests on the fact that the LXX translators used the phrase 'ego eimi' to translate 'ani hu'. Why need I go beyond this to make the connection between the two?



I've provided historical evidence, the setting in which the context took place, as well as the reaction of the Jews. Not only this, but the grammar is on our side.



What it means is that it is a recurring theme. I'm not going to argue whether or not it's a &quot;proper name&quot; at this point so long as it is understood to be a common phrase of self-identification used by YHHW. On your point I have already demonstrated this. The very Jews to whom Christ spoke believed such.



See my first post on this page. Who did the Jews use the phrase to identify? In what did they employ it's use?



The context and the grammar is ample evidence along with all else I have provided. There is quite a bit of research which has gone into this verse and you suddenly expect me to type it all out for you?



1.] Yes, I said context and you obviously missed my point. The
indicators are listed above.

2.] No. I do not draw wooden parallels out of their contexts.



Ah, so now you agree that 'ani hu' could have been used to denote God. Good. That foundation has already been laid. Simply saying &quot;it isn't so&quot; will not suffice for an argument.

In case you're interested, you might want to look into this book (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1850755876/qid%3D1056411521/sr%3D11-1/ref%3Dsr%5F11%5F1/002-8298101-9993613) for more info.

God bless

Dear IronMetro,
Since you are recommending books I will recomend the new book by Jason BeDuhn called "Truth in Translation." He has a whole chapter on John 8:58.

Have you heard of it?

Regards,
Cal

[OldShepherd]

Yesterday @ 09:49 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=130989#post130989)
Tsmith:

Ok. Let me lay it out.

First, the predicate-less use of EGW EIMI (where it is typically implied) that White attempts to use to connect to Jesus is a construction that is used in other locations of other people (John 9:9), showing that the use of such is not a simple claim to being God Almighty.

Is this the best you have? It is is a very feeble attempt to support your argument. Who was speaking in John 9:9? It was a blind man, a social outcast, uneducated blind beggar. Both Jesus' disciples (9:2) and the Pharisees (9:34) believed him to be a sinner from birth. And since he was so considered he would not have been allowed in the temple or the synagogue, therefore he would not have received any education. Also since he was blind he could not read.

Thus you are basing your intretation of scripture on one statement of the equivalent of a uneducated homeless street person. Are you sure that is what you want to do?

Second, ANI HU, the words in Isaiah are actually I HE, not I AM, as EGW EIMI reads. Within the Hebrew, [am] is implied but not existing. Thus, EGW EIMI is not a literal translation of ANI HU, which is what the name would actually be.

That does NOT matter. The Jews who translated the LXX 250 BC translated it that way. The Jewish leaders of Jesus' day would have and did instantly make the connection between Hebrew: אני הוא/"ani hu" and LXX: ego eimi/"ego eimi." They clearly understood that Jesus was claiming to be God, John 10:33. And that is why the Pharisees picked up stones and attempted to stone Jesus right in the temple, (8:59) violating at least two, possibly three commandments.

Third, the words ANI HU are used by others in the Hebrew scriptures. An example of this is 1 Chron 21:17 where David uses these same words.

In that passage David uses only "ani" NOT "ani hu"

http://www.blueletterbible.org/tmp_dir/c/1056496983-4497.html#17

Fourth, all this is ignoring the fact that &quot;Before Abraham was, I am.&quot; is a very poor translation and does not accurately reflect the actual meaning of the text, which is something like &quot;I was before Abraham existed&quot; or &quot;Before Abraham existed, I have been.&quot;

Begging the question, based on WBTS writings not recognized or accepted by any other credible Greek scholars and also which totally rejects the history of the early church.

Jesus told Peter, Upon this rock I will build my church and the gates of hell will not pravail against it. In the first three centuries of the church thousands of Christians were tortured and murdered because they would not renounce Jesus or their faith and bow down and call Caesar master and lord. The writings of those holy martyrs clearly show that Jesus was claiming to be God. You are implying that the gates of hell did in fact prevail against Jesus' church for almost 2000 years.

[Cal_Minian]

TS said:
Third, the words ANI HU are used by others in the Hebrew scriptures. An example of this is 1 Chron 21:17 where David uses these same words. ”

Oldshepherd replied:
In that passage David uses only "ani" NOT "ani hu"

http://www.blueletterbible.org/tmp_...83-4497.html#17

Cal_Minian:
ANI is used twice in that verse, once with out HU and once with. You may not recogize it because it is preceded by vav.

It looks like this (if you have hebrew fonts installed).
aWh-ynIa]w

Kind Regards,
Cal

[Cal_Minian]

[QUOTE]Today @ 05:08 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=131912#post131912)
Cal_Minian:

TS said:
Third, the words ANI HU are used by others in the Hebrew scriptures. An example of this is 1 Chron 21:17 where David uses these same words. ”

Oldshepherd replied:
In that passage David uses only &quot;ani&quot; NOT &quot;ani hu&quot;

http://www.blueletterbible.org/tmp_...83-4497.html#17

Cal_Minian:
ANI is used twice in that verse, once with out HU and once with. You may not recogize it because it is preceded by vav.

It looks like this (if you have hebrew fonts installed).
aWh-ynIa]w

Kind Regards,

[Ron Macy]

I just skimmed through this thread for the first time. Something struck me as strange about the quote from the Lockman Foundation. Now, I appreciate the work the Lockman Foundation has done with the NASB. I prefer it to any of the other versions currently on the market.

This is the remark which jumped out at me.

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
The translation “I have been” was originally given simply as a smoother, more grammatically correct (in English) rendering, and in a different context such an alternative might be fine. Unfortunately, we learned that members of the “Jehovah’s Witnesses” cult was using this alternative reading to argue their view that Christ did not exist eternally in the past. In effect then, the note was being misused to support heresy. It might have been good to have the note say instead, “I always have been,” but even this might be misused somehow, so the translators thought it best to simply delete the note.
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

It surprised me no one has made any mention of what happen in this quote. It was admitted “I have been” is “a smoother, more grammatically correct (in English) rendering.” That means they understood this passage not to be a reference to God, but possibly to some kind of eternal existence.

Think about what they did and why. They bowed to the pressures of trinitarians who wanted this passage to be a foundation for trinitarian thought. They corrupted a perfectly good translation because it did not support the doctrine they wanted to support. What does this say about the integrity of the translators? What does this say about the integrity of those who have to rely on this kind of corruption to support their doctrines?

Ron

[OldShepherd]

Today @ 11:45 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=131979#post131979)
Ron Macy:

I just skimmed through this thread for the first time. Something struck me as strange about the quote from the Lockman Foundation. Now, I appreciate the work the Lockman Foundation has done with the NASB. I prefer it to any of the other versions currently on the market.

This is the remark which jumped out at me.

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
The translation “I have been” was originally given simply as a smoother, more grammatically correct (in English) rendering, and in a different context such an alternative might be fine. Unfortunately, we learned that members of the “Jehovah’s Witnesses” cult was using this alternative reading to argue their view that Christ did not exist eternally in the past. In effect then, the note was being misused to support heresy. It might have been good to have the note say instead, “I always have been,” but even this might be misused somehow, so the translators thought it best to simply delete the note.
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

It surprised me no one has made any mention of what happen in this quote. It was admitted “I have been” is “a smoother, more grammatically correct (in English) rendering.” That means they understood this passage not to be a reference to God, but possibly to some kind of eternal existence.

Think about what they did and why. They bowed to the pressures of trinitarians who wanted this passage to be a foundation for trinitarian thought. They corrupted a perfectly good translation because it did not support the doctrine they wanted to support. What does this say about the integrity of the translators? What does this say about the integrity of those who have to rely on this kind of corruption to support their doctrines?

Ron

The only integrity in question is yours. They said a "smoother, more grammatically correct (in English) rendering.” They did not say "more Theologically correct." The corruption came in when, as they said The “Jehovah’s Witnesses” cult misused the note to promote heresy.

It is NOT corruption of a translation to omit a footnote which is being twisted and misused.

[OldShepherd]

Today @ 10:08 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=131912#post131912)
Cal_Minian:

Cal_Minian:
ANI is used twice in that verse, once with out HU and once with. You may not recogize it because it is preceded by vav.

It looks like this (if you have hebrew fonts installed).
aWh-ynIa]w

Kind Regards,
Cal

You are correct there is a second occurrence of "ani hu" in that verse. Your post looks like this to me aWh-ynIa]. Here is what it looks like using ISO or UNICODE, which doesn't require special fonts, ואני הוא

[Tsmith]

Today @ 03:18 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=131994#post131994)
OldShepherd:



The only integrity in question is yours. They said a &quot;smoother, more grammatically correct (in English) rendering.” They did not say &quot;more Theologically correct.&quot; The corruption came in when, as they said The “Jehovah’s Witnesses” cult misused the note to promote heresy.

It is NOT corruption of a translation to omit a footnote which is being twisted and misused.

It is not being misused. JW's are simply saying that "I have been" is a more accurate translation. Pure and simple. That, even they agree with.

-Tony

[Jezz]

The significance of thise passage, I think, turns on the fact that Jesus' listeners tried to stone him. The Jews didn't go around stoning people who simply annoyed them (as is the common JW expalanation). They stoned people in accordance with the provisions of the Mosaic Law (which included blasphemy as a crime for which one could be stoned). I think the burden of proof lies with anyone claiming that the Jews would stone someone just for being looney.

Cal_Minian:
The Jews were not happy that the blind man identified Jesus as the one who healed him. Why did they not stone the blind man for claiming to be God?
Clearly, they did not stone the blind man because from the context, the Jews knew that he was not claiming to be God. Simple.

In contrast, clearly they did try to stone Jesus because from the context, the Jews knew that he was claiming to be God. Simple.

TSmith:
Do you know any Hebrew or Greek at all? The grammar is far from on your side.
I know very little Hebrew or Greek - almost certainly less than you. But I am equally as certain that you in turn know less Hebrew and Greek than did the Jews to whom Jesus was speaking - and they clearly made the connection between "I am" and claim to divinity. More on this next.

As for the reaction of the Jews, I must thus ask. Did Stephen claim to be God when they stoned him?
No. But claiming to be God was not the only thing that was punished with stoning in Jewish law. For someone else to claim that Jesus was God would also be blasphemy - punishable by stoning. If you read the relevant passage, you'll see that this was the crime that Stephen was punished for.

In fact, I'm glad you brought up the issue of Stephen's stoning, because you made me go back and read the relevant pasages in Acts. When one reads the account of Stephen's trial and stoning, one realises how the transgression had to be established beyond doubt before the Jews would go as far as stoning someone.

Firstly, Stephen was accused of blasphemy by some people who didn't like what he was preaching. These people offered false testimony against Stephen, claiming that he had blasphemed. Yet despite the damning (though false) testimony, the stoning was still not carried out. Stephen was then given a chance to defend himself against the charges. He spoke at length. Though his audience did not like what he was saying, they still didn't stone him. Stephen finished speaking, and they still didn't appear to be ready to stone him.

But then, Stephen had a vision of the Son of Man* in heaven, standing at the right hand of God. He announced this to the audience. It was at this point, that the audience covered their ears - indicating that what Stephen had done was blasphemy. And it was then that they stoned him.

This story shows just how blatant blasphemy had to be before it would warrant a stoning. It was only after Stephen had so blatantly blasphemed that it drew an immediate reaction from his audience.

So, I have established that 1. stoning was only performed when a law was broken for which the punishment was stoning, and 2. the transgression must have been blatant. What then, does the fact that Jesus' audience wanted to stone him say about is "I am" claim? It says: 1. he must have broken a law for which the punishment was stoning, and 2. it must have been blatant.

I put it that the burden of proof lies with the anti-divine-Jesus crowd here that if they insist "I am" was not a claim to divinity, they need to provide an alternative which explains: 1. what crime was Jesus committing for which the punishment was stoning, and 2. how was his transgression blatant?

*The "Son of Man" claim itself is a claim to divinity, but I think I might start another thread on that at a later date.

[Tsmith]

Jezz,

What you just posted was a bunch of opinion based on your theology. You need to provide scriptural and grammatical evidence to prove anything.

-Tony

[Jezz]

Tsmith:
It is not being misused. JW's are simply saying that &quot;I have been&quot; is a more accurate translation. Pure and simple. That, even they agree with.
No, they didn't say it was more accurate. They said it was more grammatically correct. You are incorrectly equating the two, which is exactly the kind of misrepresentation we're talking about here. "Grammatically correct" and "accurate" are not necessarily the same thing.

For example, if I said (in German): "Ich sind", then the most accurate English translation would be "I are". "I am" would be a "smoother, more grammatically correct (in English) rendering", but it would be a less accurate translation than "I are".

Conclusion: "more grammatically correct" does not equate to "more accurate", as you have falsely implied.

[AVmetro]

Second, ANI HU, the words in Isaiah are actually I HE, not I AM, as EGW EIMI reads. Within the Hebrew, [am] is implied but not existing. Thus, EGW EIMI is not a literal translation of ANI HU, which is what the name would actually be.

The question continues to remain as to why the LXX translators used 'ego eimi' to translate the Hebrew 'ani hu'? That in and of itself is what seals the connection between the Hebrew and the Greek. Your above objection is beginning to sound eerily 'anti-missionary'. :wink:

Fourth, all this is ignoring the fact that "Before Abraham was, I am." is a very poor translation and does not accurately reflect the actual meaning of the text, which is something like "I was before Abraham existed" or "Before Abraham existed, I have been."

Another statement easily contested.

Cal_Minian:

Do you take EGW EIMI to be a title?

IronMetro:
It's a means of self-identification. Take that as a nuanced definition of "name" but anything aside from the implications of speaking it in context is besides the point.

Cal_Minian:
So then if it is not a title (I agree because grammatically it is not used that way in either the LXX or GNT) then anyone who says these words is identifying themselves as God?

I never stated it was not and you seem to imply that I did. I simply did not place emphasis upon it as it's not pertinent to my point.

If these words were understood as God's personal self-designation, and everyone understood that, then why was it not blasphemy for David and the blind man to utter those words about themselves?

Because it wasn't employed in such a way as to convey that idea. The idea in those contexts is not under dispute. The appeal to such as equatable is poor argumentation.

Tsmith stated:

Where? Please direct me to something solid. I've yet to see anything.

Again, first post.

I don't have Stafford's book, so I don't know.

I was making reference to his online critique of White's review of his book. You can find it at his (Stafford's) website.

As for your position, yes you must. EGW EIMI appears in many places for different people in the NT, so you have a lot of work to do unless you want to claim they are all God.

No, I do not. I'm relying on literary pattern, historical evidence, immediate context and the setting thereof. You on the other hand are relying on equivocation.

Do you know any Hebrew or Greek at all?

Sounds like a border line ad hominem attack. If I pointed you to the {majority of} reputable scholars who advocated my view would you pose such a naive question as:

"Do you know any Hebrew or Greek at all?" :duh:

The grammar is far from on your side.

Now there are certainly quite a few to contest the above. I don't know you're qualifications ergo I have no basis on which to take your word as sound.

As for the reaction of the Jews, I must thus ask. Did Stephen claim to be God when they stoned him?

You pose this as if I've never heard of it before :smile:. I must ask, was every occurence of public execution carried out for the same alledged offense?

You have CLAIMED such, you have failed to provide a lick of evidence to prove such.

See first post. You didn't address the historical evidence and therefore have no basis upon which to accuse my view of lacking substantiation.

Looking at the first post and I don't see any evidence. Just some thus far empty claims.

Then address those 'empty claims' that I specifically asked you to address. I'd like to take this one step at a time and it would be nice if you would cooperate.

If you continue on this path in your next reply, I will discontinue my replies.

That's your perogative. :smile:

The issues have been laid out. Address them, or please do not reply.

Address the main point in my first post. If you need more cited, let me know.

Cal_Minion states:

Since you are recommending books I will recomend the new book by Jason BeDuhn called "Truth in Translation." He has a whole chapter on John 8:58.

Have you heard of it?

Yes, I have. Thank you. :wink:

God bless

[Cal_Minian]

Today @ 09:14 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=132067#post132067)
Jezz:


No, they didn't say it was more accurate. They said it was more grammatically correct. You are incorrectly equating the two, which is exactly the kind of misrepresentation we're talking about here. &quot;Grammatically correct&quot; and &quot;accurate&quot; are not necessarily the same thing.

For example, if I said (in German): &quot;Ich sind&quot;, then the most accurate English translation would be &quot;I are&quot;. &quot;I am&quot; would be a &quot;smoother, more grammatically correct (in English) rendering&quot;, but it would be a less accurate translation than &quot;I are&quot;.

Conclusion: &quot;more grammatically correct&quot; does not equate to &quot;more accurate&quot;, as you have falsely implied.

Dear Jezz,
You might be interested in the book "Truth in Translation" by Dr. Jason BeDuhn. He has a whole chapter on John 8:58 and he rates the NWT as "more accurate" than the KJV, NRSV, NASB, NIV, TE, AB and NAB at John 8:58.

Regards,
Cal

[Tsmith]

Today @ 05:32 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=132077#post132077)
IronMetro:

If you continue on this path in your next reply, I will discontinue my replies. ”


Because of your total lack of substance. No scripture, no grammar, no commentary, no historical writings, etc, I will no longer be replying to you on this subject. When you provide some actual information and not just your personal view that the scripture is somehow connected, I will be happy to continue the dialog.

-Tony

[Cal_Minian]

Today @ 09:32 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=132077#post132077)
IronMetro:

Dear IronMetro,
You are confusing me. Why are you merging some of my comments with some of TS?

Regards,
Cal

[AVmetro]

Because of your total lack of substance. No scripture, no grammar, no commentary, no historical writings, etc, I will no longer be replying to you on this subject. When you provide some actual information and not just your personal view that the scripture is somehow connected, I will be happy to continue the dialog.

Buh-bye :hi:

[AVmetro]

Dear IronMetro,
You are confusing me. Why are you merging some of my comments with some of TS?

Regards,
Cal

I try to consolidate all responses in one post if possible. My last reply was written while I was in between doing other things. I may have failed to distinguish between authors. Sorry for the mishap.

God bless

[Jezz]

Tsmith:
What you just posted was a bunch of opinion based on your theology.
On the contrary - what I just posted was a bunch of scriptural facts which contribute to the derivation of my theology. :smile:

You need to provide scriptural and grammatical evidence to prove anything.
All of my post was based on scripture.

Parts of it was based on the Mosaic Law as given in Exodus, Deuteronomy and other relevant books of Law which prescribe stoning as punishment for crimes such as idolatory, blasphemy, sorcery, unlawful killing, adultery, and non-observance of the Sabbath. There may be others that I don't remember off the top of my head, but as far as I can recall there was no punishment prescribed for merely being annoying or looney.

But most of the post was a paraphrase fn the account of Stephen, which gave an example of how the above principles were put into practice in NT times. It shows that stoning was not a punishment dished out lightly. This was found in Acts 6:6 - Acts 7:59. In particular, from Acts 7:

55But Stephen, full of the Holy Spirit, looked up to heaven and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing at the right hand of God. 56"Look," he said, "I see heaven open and the Son of Man standing at the right hand of God."
57At this they covered their ears and, yelling at the top of their voices, they all rushed at him, 58dragged him out of the city and began to stone him.

Stephen talked for some time, and said things that made his audience "furious" and made them "gnash their teeth at him." (Acts 7:54). There were also witnesses who had testified that they heard Stephen blaspheme (Acts 6:11). But it was only when he made the Son of Man comment that they (the Sanhedrin) actually decided to stone him. (I promise to talk more about the "Son of Man" title, but I wish to do so in another thread later. For a sneak preview, check out Matthew 26:64-66.) This proves that stoning was not a punishment handed out lightly.

I therefore am forced to conclude that Jesus must have committed some serious offence in the eyes of the Jews in order to have been deemed deserving of a stoning. I don't think Jesus' words could be taken as adultery, or murder, or a Sabbath violation, or sorcery. The only crime left that attracts a stoning that I can think of is idolatory/blasphemy - ie, attributing divinity to someone other than God. There are only two people mentioned in the sentence - Abraham and Jesus (referring to himself). It seems clear he is not calling Abraham God, so Jesus must have been calling himself God.

In my opinion, the force of this scriptural argument trumps any grammatical arguments you can come up with - unless you can find an alternative crime that Jesus supposedly committed in John 8:58 (punishable by stoning according to Jewish law), then all the grammatical arguments in the world you could produce have a gaping hole in them.

[Tsmith]

Today @ 06:26 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=132098#post132098)
Jezz:


On the contrary - what I just posted was a bunch of scriptural facts which contribute to the derivation of my theology. :smile:


All of my post was based on scripture.

Parts of it was based on the Mosaic Law as given in Exodus, Deuteronomy and other relevant books of Law which prescribe stoning as punishment for crimes such as idolatory, blasphemy, sorcery, unlawful killing, adultery, and non-observance of the Sabbath. There may be others that I don't remember off the top of my head, but as far as I can recall there was no punishment prescribed for merely being annoying or looney.

But most of the post was a paraphrase fn the account of Stephen, which gave an example of how the above principles were put into practice in NT times. It shows that stoning was not a punishment dished out lightly. This was found in Acts 6:6 - Acts 7:59. In particular, from Acts 7:



Stephen talked for some time, and said things that made his audience &quot;furious&quot; and made them &quot;gnash their teeth at him.&quot; (Acts 7:54). There were also witnesses who had testified that they heard Stephen blaspheme (Acts 6:11). But it was only when he made the Son of Man comment that they (the Sanhedrin) actually decided to stone him. (I promise to talk more about the &quot;Son of Man&quot; title, but I wish to do so in another thread later. For a sneak preview, check out Matthew 26:64-66.) This proves that stoning was not a punishment handed out lightly.

I therefore am forced to conclude that Jesus must have committed some serious offence in the eyes of the Jews in order to have been deemed deserving of a stoning. I don't think Jesus' words could be taken as adultery, or murder, or a Sabbath violation, or sorcery. The only crime left that attracts a stoning that I can think of is idolatory/blasphemy - ie, attributing divinity to someone other than God. There are only two people mentioned in the sentence - Abraham and Jesus (referring to himself). It seems clear he is not calling Abraham God, so Jesus must have been calling himself God.

In my opinion, the force of this scriptural argument trumps any grammatical arguments you can come up with - unless you can find an alternative crime that Jesus supposedly committed in John 8:58 (punishable by stoning according to Jewish law), then all the grammatical arguments in the world you could produce have a gaping hole in them.

The first problem here is that all of this is based on a preconcieved notion that PRIN ABRAAM GENESQAI EGW EIMI is a claim to being God. Your entire point is based on the idea that this is such. You need to start at what is actually stated and work forward, first proving that we should even consider this to possibly be such a claim. Thus far, no real reason has been given for me to consider this to be even a possible claim to a divine position.

After you do this, then your points you are attempting to make will begin to have validity, but until then they do not offer anything.

-Tony

[Jezz]

Cal_Minian:
Dear Jezz,
Hey Cal,

You might be interested in the book &quot;Truth in Translation&quot; by Dr. Jason BeDuhn. He has a whole chapter on John 8:58 and he rates the NWT as &quot;more accurate&quot; than the KJV, NRSV, NASB, NIV, TE, AB and NAB at John 8:58.
Thanks for the reference, and I might read it if/when I manage to obtain a copy and find the time (which, unfortunately, isn't likely). But the contents of the book are not relevant to the point I was trying to make.

I was not trying to argue which translation was more accurate. I was trying to point out that "more grammatically correct" is not necessarily the same as "more accurate".

Tony was falsely equating the two, and using this false equivalence to claim that the NASB translators agreed that "I have been" is a more accurate translation. This is false. All the NASB translators said is that "I have been" is "more grammatically correct" than "I am" (which is true). But they did not say that it was more accurate, and it does not automatically follow from that statement that they think it is more accurate. Thus regardless of whether Tony's preferred translation is more accurate or not, he is incorrect when he says the NASB translators support his preferred translation as being more accurate. I was just pointing out this error, without commenting on the translation itself.

I would be impressed if Tony could openly admit his error here.

[OldShepherd]

Today @ 03:34 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=132103#post132103)
Tsmith:

The first problem here is that all of this is based on a preconcieved notion that PRIN ABRAAM GENESQAI EGW EIMI is a claim to being God. Your entire point is based on the idea that this is such. You need to start at what is actually stated and work forward, first proving that we should even consider this to possibly be such a claim. Thus far, no real reason has been given for me to consider this to be even a possible claim to a divine position.

After you do this, then your points you are attempting to make will begin to have validity, but until then they do not offer anything.

-Tony

And while we are doing this lets ignore the fact that this occurred IN the temple, and that the ringleaders were Pharisees, all of whom were in the process of violating at least two possibly three Mosaic commandments. Stoning without a trial. Death penalty without a trial. Desecrating the "sanctuary" of the temple. Sinners in the temple could not be harmed.

And Jesus said something which caused this murderous rage in the Pharisees. What was it? Claiming to be old? That is not a stoning offense in the law. I have already listed a scripture which clearly identified Jesus' alleged offense, "being a mere man, and making himself God."

"Thus far, no real reason has been given for me to consider this [Ego Eimi, Jn 8:58] to be even a possible claim to a divine position." Translation, "I have blown off every argument presented, there is nothing you can say which will unconvince me of my preconceived notion."

[OldShepherd]

Today @ 02:43 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=132082#post132082)
Tsmith:

Because of your total lack of substance. No scripture, no grammar, no commentary, no historical writings, etc, I will no longer be replying to you on this subject. When you provide some actual information and not just your personal view that the scripture is somehow connected, I will be happy to continue the dialog.

-Tony

Boys and girls can we say Cop Out? If this were true, those should be the easiest kinds of posts to rebut.

[Jezz]

Tsmith:
The first problem here is that all of this is based on a preconcieved notion that PRIN ABRAAM GENESQAI EGW EIMI is a claim to being God. Your entire point is based on the idea that this is such. You need to start at what is actually stated and work forward, first proving that we should even consider this to possibly be such a claim. Thus far, no real reason has been given for me to consider this to be even a possible claim to a divine position.
With all due respect, this is rubbish. :smile:

My starting point has nothing to do with John 8:58 or PRIN ABRAAM GENESQAI EGW EIMI or what it is a claim to be. My starting point is John 8:59 - "At this, they picked up stones to stone him, but Jesus hid himself, slipping away from the temple grounds." In other words, my starting point is that the Jews wanted to stone Jesus at this particular point in time. Why?

Look, pretend I'm a clean slate. I will make no assumption about whether or not "I am" or "I have been" or however you want to translate it is a claim to divinity or not. In fact, I will even assume (for now) that all your grammatical arguments are correct, and it should be "I have been" and not "I am" in v58. That's all besides the point for now.

All I want to know is, why did the Jews want to stone Jesus right then and there? What is your explanation?

[AVmetro]

I know very little Hebrew or Greek - almost certainly less than you. But I am equally as certain that you in turn know less Hebrew and Greek than did the Jews to whom Jesus was speaking - and they clearly made the connection between "I am" and claim to divinity. More on this next.

Yes, 'ani hu' was a common self-revelatory word/phrase used in the scriptures and in extra-biblical Jewish lit. Also, "hu", "ani" and "ani hu" were often used as substitutes for the divine name as employed by the Jews. Ethelbert documents this rather well. The evidence of it's employment in Jewish pracitices is so striking as not to be denied.

Additional usage (from other sources):

"And God said unto Moses: 'I AM THAT I AM'; and He said: 'Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel: I AM hath sent me unto you.' (JPS*)

[*My point here being - The fact that the Jewish translators of the JPS understood "I AM'' to be the reply given to Moses' request for YHWH's name entails that they understood it as such - a name for God.]

Exodus 3:14 - "...And the *Word of YHWH said to Moses: "I am He who said unto the world 'Be!' and it was: and who in the future shall say to it 'Be!' and it shall be." And He said: "Thus you shall say to the children of Israel: **'I Am' has sent me to you." (The Jerusalem Targum) [*Cf. Jn1:1 **Cf. Jn8:58]

"I am He, fear not, for *I AM before the days were." (Revelation of Abraham) [*Parallel to Ps90:2..cf..Jn8:58]

No. But claiming to be God was not the only thing that was punished with stoning in Jewish law. For someone else to claim that Jesus was God would also be blasphemy - punishable by stoning. If you read the relevant passage, you'll see that this was the crime that Stephen was punished for.

As OS stated, it's also important to note where the attempt was made i.e. in the temple itself. Now see 2Chron 23:14..cf..Acts 21:30. As you pointed out, Jezz, in the case of Stephen, this entails a certain seriousness to the charges. Also, as OS pointed out, this was in violation of breaking potentially numerous laws.

As my first post demonstrated, the first-century Jews considered 'ani hu' to be a name for God. A means of self-identification. This phrase was particularly employed at several feasts including the 'Feast of Tabernacles'. This is interesting as it is at this feast in which the events of John7-8 transpired. Christ's statement in vs58 took place while in the temple itself and was directed toward the legalistic Pharisees.

We need not wonder why they made the attempt to take His life.

A mere statement of "primacy" over Abraham would not cut it. Not to the extent that they would risk violating the temple. In fact, Christ in one instance stated that He was greater than the temple of YHWH itself (Matt 12:6). God's very abode. This statement, too, being directed to the Pharisees. Yet, interestingly, no attempt was made to stone Him.

God bless

[zap_30jeanluc]

Greetings folks;

As I read the chain I was beginning to think it was just going to be a trinitarian love fest. Fortunately there was some dissention to this belief expressed.

I wanted to express a few thoughts.
The first is that to say that Jesus had to have been God, that otherwise none of it made sense, is a limitation of God in my estimation. To tell me that God could not have a son, and that God could not have had that son with him for many thousands (or millions) of our years is limiting God.

the second is that I can't find anywhere in the teachings of Jesus which indicates that acceptance of the trinity is a prerequisite of salvation. He gives some solid criteria for that, but doctrine doesn't ever seem to be mentioned.

Finally, I honestly discount the statements and opinions of any group, church, individual who uses the word "cult" like an old dishrag to be tossed around at any who come into flinging range. A cult is a group that worships a living man/woman; members must surrender all possessions to the cult; total seperation from family and friends is demanded.
The disbelief in the trinity does not make a group a cult. The rejection of centuries old doctrines or dogma does not make a group a cult.

a Christian is one who follows the teachings of Jesus. anything else makes you a sect member...........gifts, immersion, confession; knocking on doors; etc.................affectations of sects.

If anyone is wondering..............I'm Lutheran

Zapper

[OldShepherd]

Today @ 05:02 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=132124#post132124)
zap_30jeanluc:

Greetings folks;

As I read the chain I was beginning to think it was just going to be a trinitarian love fest. Fortunately there was some dissention to this belief expressed.

I wanted to express a few thoughts.
The first is that to say that Jesus had to have been God, that otherwise none of it made sense, is a limitation of God in my estimation. To tell me that God could not have a son, and that God could not have had that son with him for many thousands (or millions) of our years is limiting God.

the second is that I can't find anywhere in the teachings of Jesus which indicates that acceptance of the trinity is a prerequisite of salvation. He gives some solid criteria for that, but doctrine doesn't ever seem to be mentioned.

Finally, I honestly discount the statements and opinions of any group, church, individual who uses the word &quot;cult&quot; like an old dishrag to be tossed around at any who come into flinging range. A cult is a group that worships a living man/woman; members must surrender all possessions to the cult; total seperation from family and friends is demanded.
The disbelief in the trinity does not make a group a cult. The rejection of centuries old doctrines or dogma does not make a group a cult.

a Christian is one who follows the teachings of Jesus. anything else makes you a sect member...........gifts, immersion, confession; knocking on doors; etc.................affectations of sects.

If anyone is wondering..............I'm Lutheran

Zapper

There is a definition for cult widely accepted among Evangelical Christians. Your definition includes many of their points but changes some.

"worships a living man/woman" the widely accepted definition does not specify "living." For example, there are still some followers of David Koresh who believe that he is/was the Messiah and will return. I think that puts them in the cult camp.

"total seperation from family and friends is demanded." Some of the fine folks in this discussion are forbidden to have any contact with family who are not members of the group. Especially family members who have been part of the group but who have been kicked out of the group. I think that also puts them in the cult camp.

[Jezz]

Jezz:
(I promise to talk more about the &quot;Son of Man&quot; title, but I wish to do so in another thread later. For a sneak preview, check out Matthew 26:64-66.)
As promised, I've started a new thread on the Son of Man title. You can find that thread at http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?threadid=6324.

[Tsmith]

Today @ 06:56 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=132110#post132110)
OldShepherd:



Boys and girls can we say Cop Out? If this were true, those should be the easiest kinds of posts to rebut.

Actually, when you do it repeatedly, it gets boring and eventually you just don't care to do it anymore. That is the situation here.

[Tsmith]

Today @ 06:50 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=132109#post132109)
OldShepherd:



And while we are doing this lets ignore the fact that this occurred IN the temple, and that the ringleaders were Pharisees, all of whom were in the process of violating at least two possibly three Mosaic commandments. Stoning without a trial. Death penalty without a trial. Desecrating the &quot;sanctuary&quot; of the temple. Sinners in the temple could not be harmed.

And Jesus said something which caused this murderous rage in the Pharisees. What was it? Claiming to be old? That is not a stoning offense in the law. I have already listed a scripture which clearly identified Jesus' alleged offense, &quot;being a mere man, and making himself God.&quot;

Or making himself "a god" as made evident by his quoting psalms 82:6 in his defense.


&quot;Thus far, no real reason has been given for me to consider this [Ego Eimi, Jn 8:58] to be even a possible claim to a divine position.&quot; Translation, &quot;I have blown off every argument presented, there is nothing you can say which will unconvince me of my preconceived notion.&quot;

You haven't presented a reason to make a connection, you have simply made it. That is the issue! Provide a REASON to make the EGW EIMI connection.

-Tony

[Tsmith]

Today @ 07:06 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=132116#post132116)
IronMetro:



Yes, 'ani hu' was a common self-revelatory word/phrase used in the scriptures and in extra-biblical Jewish lit. Also, &quot;hu&quot;, &quot;ani&quot; and &quot;ani hu&quot; were often used as substitutes for the divine name as employed by the Jews. Ethelbert documents this rather well. The evidence of it's employment in Jewish pracitices is so striking as not to be denied.

Additional usage (from other sources):

&quot;And God said unto Moses: 'I AM THAT I AM'; and He said: 'Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel: I AM hath sent me unto you.' (JPS*)

[*My point here being - The fact that the Jewish translators of the JPS understood &quot;I AM'' to be the reply given to Moses' request for YHWH's name entails that they understood it as such - a name for God.]

Exodus 3:14 - &quot;...And the *Word of YHWH said to Moses: &quot;I am He who said unto the world 'Be!' and it was: and who in the future shall say to it 'Be!' and it shall be.&quot; And He said: &quot;Thus you shall say to the children of Israel: **'I Am' has sent me to you.&quot; (The Jerusalem Targum) [*Cf. Jn1:1 **Cf. Jn8:58]



I hope you realize that Exodus 3:14 does not say ANI HU at all, but rather EHYEH ASHER EHYEH, which would literally translate to EGW ESOMAI hOS EGW ESOMAI. The LXX renders it EGW EIMI hO WN, but that is not literal.

&quot;I am He, fear not, for *I AM before the days were.&quot; (Revelation of Abraham) [*Parallel to Ps90:2..cf..Jn8:58]


As OS stated, it's also important to note where the attempt was made i.e. in the temple itself. Now see 2Chron 23:14..cf..Acts 21:30. As you pointed out, Jezz, in the case of Stephen, this entails a certain seriousness to the charges. Also, as OS pointed out, this was in violation of breaking potentially numerous laws.

As my first post demonstrated, the first-century Jews considered 'ani hu' to be a name for God. A means of self-identification. This phrase was particularly employed at several feasts including the 'Feast of Tabernacles'. This is interesting as it is at this feast in which the events of John7-8 transpired. Christ's statement in vs58 took place while in the temple itself and was directed toward the legalistic Pharisees.

It did not demostrate that though, as Jesus did not say I [am] he, but simply EGW EIMI, or I AM. Where is the "he"? That is part of the name, if he is REALLY using the name. Further, we again having the blind man saying EGW EIMI without a predicate at John 9:9, which should be, if we follow this logic, be the same claim that Jesus made. Yet, because of theology people dismiss that.

Can you provide some evidence for your Feast of the Tabernacles claim?

We need not wonder why they made the attempt to take His life.

A mere statement of &quot;primacy&quot; over Abraham would not cut it. Not to the extent that they would risk violating the temple. In fact, Christ in one instance stated that He was greater than the temple of YHWH itself (Matt 12:6). God's very abode. This statement, too, being directed to the Pharisees. Yet, interestingly, no attempt was made to stone Him.

God bless

Actually, if we look up the lexical meaning of blaspheme, we find Thayer's states the following:

1) slander, detraction, speech injurious, to another’s good name
2) impious and reproachful speech injurious to divine majesty

We can certainly see in John 8 how Jesus, in their eyes, was doing items under the definitions provided without making a claim to be God.

-Tony

[OldShepherd]

Today @ 04:53 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=132443#post132443)
Tsmith:

Actually, if we look up the lexical meaning of blaspheme, we find Thayer's states the following:

1) slander, detraction, speech injurious, to another’s good name
2) impious and reproachful speech injurious to divine majesty

We can certainly see in John 8 how Jesus, in their eyes, was doing items under the definitions provided without making a claim to be God.


How does ego eimi do any of this if, as you claim, it is only self identification used by others in the N.T.?

[OldShepherd]

Today @ 04:42 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=132436#post132436)
Tsmith:

Or making himself &quot;a god&quot; as made evident by his quoting psalms 82:6 in his defense.

You haven't presented a reason to make a connection, you have simply made it. That is the issue! Provide a REASON to make the EGW EIMI connection.
-Tony

Where in the law is making one's self "a god" a stoning offense?

We have provided REASONS but you have blown them off, just as you did this one.

What was the offense so blasphemous that the Jewish leaders, the Pharisees, would 1. violate the sanctity of the temple, 2. stone a man without formal charges, 2. without a chance to call witnesses in his defense, 3. without a chance to confront witnesses against him, 4. on the same day of the offense, 5. without offering the man a chance to recant, ALL violations of the law?

As I said claiming to be old, even older than Abraham, is not a stoning offense.

[Tsmith]

OS,


I would suggest you follow the complete context to find the answers you seek.


-Tony

[Jezz]

Tsmith:
Actually, if we look up the lexical meaning of blaspheme, we find Thayer's states the following:

1) slander, detraction, speech injurious, to another’s good name
2) impious and reproachful speech injurious to divine majesty

We can certainly see in John 8 how Jesus, in their eyes, was doing items under the definitions provided without making a claim to be God.
You'll excuse me if it's not immediately obvious to me how in John 8 Jesus was doing any of those things. :smile: According to you, Jesus was only making claims about himself - how could he have been blaspheming (against either person or God)?

The issue here is what Jesus did that made him worthy of being stoned in the eyes of the Pharisees, according to the Mosaic Law. Moreover, how serious was it that they were willing to break a couple of other laws (eg no trial) in order to do it?

Slander of another's good name may have been "blasphemy" and was certain illegal, but if it was only of a person then it was not blasphemy of the sort which attracted stoning as a punishment.

So please humour an ignorant fool such as myself, and point out exactly what it was about what Jesus said that caused the Pharisees to want to stone him so urgently. What Law specifically did he break, how did he break it, and how was it such a serious and blatant transgression that they wanted to stone him right then and there?

[OldShepherd]

Today @ 12:47 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=132788#post132788)
Tsmith:

OS,

I would suggest you follow the complete context to find the answers you seek.

-Tony

Translation: I can't respond to your questions but I'll say this and all my bud's will marvel at how profound I am. "Boy howdy, ol' Tony really told OS off, didn't he?" "Boy, he shore did, but what'd he say?"

[Tsmith]

Today @ 03:54 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=132795#post132795)
OldShepherd:



Translation: I can't respond to your questions but I'll say this and all my bud's will marvel at how profound I am. &quot;Boy howdy, ol' Tony really told OS off, didn't he?&quot; &quot;Boy, he shore did, but what'd he say?&quot;

Apparently, unlike some of us, I do not have an ego that needs feeding. Your sarcasm says much for you.

Further, the answer is in plain text, found directly by reading it. If you can't take the effort to read John 8 from end to end, then I'm wasting my time to begin with.

[Tsmith]

Today @ 03:52 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=132794#post132794)
Jezz:


You'll excuse me if it's not immediately obvious to me how in John 8 Jesus was doing any of those things. :smile: According to you, Jesus was only making claims about himself - how could he have been blaspheming (against either person or God)?

The issue here is what Jesus did that made him worthy of being stoned in the eyes of the Pharisees, according to the Mosaic Law. Moreover, how serious was it that they were willing to break a couple of other laws (eg no trial) in order to do it?

Slander of another's good name may have been &quot;blasphemy&quot; and was certain illegal, but if it was only of a person then it was not blasphemy of the sort which attracted stoning as a punishment.

So please humour an ignorant fool such as myself, and point out exactly what it was about what Jesus said that caused the Pharisees to want to stone him so urgently. What Law specifically did he break, how did he break it, and how was it such a serious and blatant transgression that they wanted to stone him right then and there?


Joh 8:44 You are of the Devil as father, and the lusts of your father you desire to do. That one was a murderer from the beginning, and he has not stood in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaks a lie, he speaks from his own, because he is a liar, and the father of it.

Here we see, in their eyes, they were certainly being blasphemed.

Joh 8:47 The one who is of God hears the Words of God; for this reason you do not hear, because you are not of God.

It continues.

Now we find the Jews set forth a question to Jesus.

Joh 8:53 Are You greater than our father Abraham who died? And the prophets died! Whom do You make Yourself?

Jesus goes on to provide an answer that is effectively yes, that he is.

Joh 8:58 Jesus said to them, Truly, truly, I say to you, Before Abraham came to be, I am.

So, between his attack on this and his claims against Abraham, they took up stones to kill him.

-Tony

[Jezz]

Tsmith:
Joh 8:44 You are of the Devil as father, and the lusts of your father you desire to do. That one was a murderer from the beginning, and he has not stood in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaks a lie, he speaks from his own, because he is a liar, and the father of it.

Here we see, in their eyes, they were certainly being blasphemed.
They were certainly slandered in their eyes, but this is not a stoning offence.

Joh 8:47 The one who is of God hears the Words of God; for this reason you do not hear, because you are not of God.
Again, not a stoning offence.

It continues.

Now we find the Jews set forth a question to Jesus.

Joh 8:53 Are You greater than our father Abraham who died? And the prophets died! Whom do You make Yourself?

Jesus goes on to provide an answer that is effectively yes, that he is.
Still not a stoning offence.

Joh 8:58 Jesus said to them, Truly, truly, I say to you, Before Abraham came to be, I am.

So, between his attack on this and his claims against Abraham, they took up stones to kill him.
My challenge consisted of multiple parts:

1. Show what Jesus did.
2. Show which law Jesus broke.
3. Show how it was that Jesus broke it.
4. Show that to break that law was a stoning offence.
5. Show that Jesus broke it so severly in that instance that they were ready to stone him without trial.

You've done 1 fairly well. You haven't explicitly stated 2, but you've alluded to slander as the crime (albeit without reference to specific the Mosaic Law that he broke). You've explained 3. But you haven't come close to explaining 4 or 5. Slander against a human is not a stoning offence in Mosaic law, AFAIK, though I'm happy for you to prove otherwise.

[Tsmith]

Today @ 04:47 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=132817#post132817)
Jezz:


They were certainly slandered in their eyes, but this is not a stoning offence.


Again, not a stoning offence.


Still not a stoning offence.


My challenge consisted of multiple parts:

1. Show what Jesus did.
2. Show which law Jesus broke.
3. Show how it was that Jesus broke it.
4. Show that to break that law was a stoning offence.
5. Show that Jesus broke it so severly in that instance that they were ready to stone him without trial.

You've done 1 fairly well. You haven't explicitly stated 2, but you've alluded to slander as the crime (albeit without reference to specific the Mosaic Law that he broke). You've explained 3. But you haven't come close to explaining 4 or 5. Slander against a human is not a stoning offence in Mosaic law, AFAIK, though I'm happy for you to prove otherwise.


Exo 22:28 You shall not revile [blaspheme, HNV] God, and you shall not curse a ruler among your people.

On this verse, Gill states:

"whether civil or ecclesiastic; the last mentioned Jewish writer intend of the king, who is the supreme ruler in things civil, and ought to be honoured and loved, served and obeyed, and not hated and cursed, no, not secretly, not in the bedchamber, nor in the thought of the heart, since not only the thing is criminal but dangerous; it is much if it is not discovered, and then ruin follows upon it, Ecc_10:20. The Apostle Paul applies it to the high priest among the Jews, who was the ruler in sacred things, Act_23:5 and may be applicable to the prince of the sanhedrim, or chief in the grand court of judicature; and even to all dignified persons, who ought not to be spoken ill of, and to be abused in the execution of their office, and especially when they perform well."


Now what is of interest is that one could be put to death by speaking against God's representatives. In this case, it would be the religious leaders. We see that scripturally, God had viewed this as speaking against himself).

Numbers 14:10_However, all the assembly talked of pelting them with stones. And Jehovah’s glory appeared on the tent of meeting to all the sons of Israel. 11_Finally Jehovah said to Moses: “How long will this people treat me without respect, and how long will they not put faith in me for all the signs that I performed in among them?

So here we see they are speaking against Moses. What goes on to happen? Well in Numbers 16:30-35 we see that Jehovah executed the group.

We thus see that even though it wasn't Jehovah himself that was spoken against (it being their leaders), speaking against the leaders could be taken as speaking against Jehovah. The Jews, having this attitude, could, in their mind, rightfully take up stones against Jesus, as is highlighted here.


Numbers 15:30_“‘But the soul that does something deliberately, whether he is a native or an alien resident, he speaking abusively of Jehovah, in that case that soul must be cut off from among his people. 31_Because it is Jehovah’s word that he has despised and his commandment that he has broken, that soul should be cut off without fail. His own error is upon him.’”

In 1 Kings 21:10-13 we find that Naboth was put to death not only for speaking against God, but also the King. Showing again that speaking against men was a factor in execution.

Acts 12:21-23 shows us that even only claim to godship, not even being that of Almighty God, could be punished by death.

For example, in Matthew 9:2_And, look! they were bringing him a paralyzed man lying on a bed. On seeing their faith Jesus said to the paralytic: “Take courage, child; your sins are forgiven.” 3_And, look! certain of the scribes said to themselves: “This fellow is blaspheming.”

They claimed that he was blaspheming because he said the man's sins were forgiven, and yet even the apostles could forgive sins (John 20:23).

[Uriah-]

Literal for John 8:58: "Said to them Yehoshua amen amen I say to you Avraham became I am."

Now if "I am" means "God", then let's see what happens: "Said to them Yehoshua amen amen I say to you Avraham became God."

So according to Trinitarians, Avraham became God? No, they will say. Why not? They want an "acknowledgement" statement such as "I am" to be "I am God" here but not in John 9:9 where the use to be blind guy says "I am."

Let's run a few tests and try to clear up the clouds in the minds of Trinitarians.

I am Uriah. -- Does this translate to "God Uriah"? Or how about "I am God Uriah"?

I am sick. -- Does this translate to "God sick"? Or how about "I am God sick"?

Trinitarians rape scriptural acknowledgements out of context and turn them into something that is not being said.

[Bill the Cat]

Today @ 03:21 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=133377#post133377)
Uriah-:

Literal for John 8:58: &quot;Said to them Yehoshua amen amen I say to you Avraham became I am.&quot;

Now if &quot;I am&quot; means &quot;God&quot;, then let's see what happens: &quot;Said to them Yehoshua amen amen I say to you Avraham became God.&quot;

So according to Trinitarians, Avraham became God? No, they will say. Why not? They want an &quot;acknowledgement&quot; statement such as &quot;I am&quot; to be &quot;I am God&quot; here but not in John 9:9 where the use to be blind guy says &quot;I am.&quot;

Let's run a few tests and try to clear up the clouds in the minds of Trinitarians.

I am Uriah. -- Does this translate to &quot;God Uriah&quot;? Or how about &quot;I am God Uriah&quot;?

I am sick. -- Does this translate to &quot;God sick&quot;? Or how about &quot;I am God sick&quot;?

Trinitarians rape scriptural acknowledgements out of context and turn them into something that is not being said.

I have no idea where you get your literal translation from, but I'll be glad to post a few from literal versions of the Bible:

Joh 8:58 Jesus said to them, `Verily, verily, I say to you, Before Abraham's coming--I am;'
1898 Young's Literal Translation

Joh 8:58 Jesus said to them, Truly, truly, I say to you, Before Abraham came to be, I AM!
Literal translation of the Bible by Sovereign Grace Publishers

Joh 8:58 Jesus said to them, "Most positively, I say to you*, before Abraham came to be, _I_ am!"
The Analytical-Literal Translation of the New Testament the Holy Bible (ALT)

[Cal_Minian]

Yesterday @ 07:37 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=132779#post132779)
OldShepherd:



Where in the law is making one's self &quot;a god&quot; a stoning offense?

We have provided REASONS but you have blown them off, just as you did this one.

What was the offense so blasphemous that the Jewish leaders, the Pharisees, would 1. violate the sanctity of the temple, 2. stone a man without formal charges, 2. without a chance to call witnesses in his defense, 3. without a chance to confront witnesses against him, 4. on the same day of the offense, 5. without offering the man a chance to recant, ALL violations of the law?

As I said claiming to be old, even older than Abraham, is not a stoning offense.


KJV John 19:7 The Jews answered him, We have a law,
and by our law he ought to die, because he made himself
the Son of God.

[OldShepherd]

Today @ 11:44 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=133656#post133656)
Cal_Minian:

Yesterday @ 07:37 PM post located here
OldShepherd:

Where in the law is making one's self "a god" a stoning offense?

We have provided REASONS but you have blown them off, just as you did this one.

What was the offense so blasphemous that the Jewish leaders, the Pharisees, would 1. violate the sanctity of the temple, 2. stone a man without formal charges, 2. without a chance to call witnesses in his defense, 3. without a chance to confront witnesses against him, 4. on the same day of the offense, 5. without offering the man a chance to recant, ALL violations of the law?

As I said claiming to be old, even older than Abraham, is not a stoning offense.

KJV John 19:7 The Jews answered him, We have a law,
and by our law he ought to die, because he made himself
the Son of God.



That was the Jews answer to Pilate after they had plotted by any means to have jesus executed and also after they had a semblance of a trial with witnesses. Now reread my question above. Remember that John 8:58 occurs INSIDE the temple, no trial, no witnesses, no chance for Jesus to recant, etc. etc.

Cite me the specific law from the O.T. NOT the excuse offered to Pilate.

[Cal_Minian]

Today @ 08:13 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=133698#post133698)
OldShepherd:



That was the Jews answer to Pilate after they had plotted by any means to have jesus executed and also after they had a semblance of a trial with witnesses. Now reread my question above. Remember that John 8:58 occurs INSIDE the temple, no trial, no witnesses, no chance for Jesus to recant, etc. etc.

Cite me the specific law from the O.T. NOT the excuse offered to Pilate.

Dear OldShepherd,
I gave you a scripture to back up the reason I gave. Could you please document your claims? Sometimes we have a tendency to relate things the way we remember them rather than the way they are.

I'd like to read your reasoned scriptural support.

Kind Regards,
Cal

[OldShepherd]

Yesterday @ 01:00 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=132797#post132797)
Tsmith:

Apparently, unlike some of us, I do not have an ego that needs feeding. Your sarcasm says much for you.

Further, the answer is in plain text, found directly by reading it. If you can't take the effort to read John 8 from end to end, then I'm wasting my time to begin with.

I have read John 8 from beginning to end more than once, therefore I would like to know just exactly what you are talking about. Specifics, not just, "Go read the whole chapter and you will understand my presuppositions."

And your cop-out speaks much about you. Ego, schmego!

[OldShepherd]

Today @ 01:31 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=133710#post133710)
Cal_Minian:

Dear OldShepherd,
I gave you a scripture to back up the reason I gave. Could you please document your claims? Sometimes we have a tendency to relate things the way we remember them rather than the way they are.

I'd like to read your reasoned scriptural support.

Kind Regards,
Cal

Hold on there pardner. I did not ask for a N.T. scripture, I asked for O.T. law. I can give you more answer than you can handle but first call, raise, or fold, the bet's on the table.

[Uriah-]

I have no idea where you get your literal translation from, but I'll be glad to post a few from literal versions of the Bible:

Joh 8:58 Jesus said to them, `Verily, verily, I say to you, Before Abraham's coming--I am;'
1898 Young's Literal Translation

Joh 8:58 Jesus said to them, Truly, truly, I say to you, Before Abraham came to be, I AM!
Literal translation of the Bible by Sovereign Grace Publishers

Joh 8:58 Jesus said to them, "Most positively, I say to you*, before Abraham came to be, _I_ am!"
The Analytical-Literal Translation of the New Testament the Holy Bible (ALT)

You basically gave almost the same ones but of course mine is more literal. Hehe.

[OldShepherd]

06-24-2003 @ 09:36 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=130983#post130983)
Tsmith:

I am not asking for substance on Ex 3:14, I'm asking for it regarding ANI HU, EGW EIMI, the translation beween the two, Biblical usage, etc. These are the issues that disprove White's theory and that you are ignoring. Please refer back to my prior posts.


That is an excellent question which I will answer from BAGD, 1979, a resource which has been posted as authoritative.
5. ego eimi [ego eimi] is oft. used in the gospels (corresp. to Hebr. אני הוא [ani hu] Dt 32:39; Is 43:10) in such a way that a 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, 5f and oft.

A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, W. Bauer, WF Arndt, FW Gingrich, FW Danker, 1979, p. 224

And אני הוא/ani hu is translated ego eimi/ego eimi in the LXX. And of course "ehyeh asher ehyeh" in Ex 7:14 is translated as ego eimi o on/ego eimi ho on in the LXX.

And Best Regards,
Carlos

[Cal_Minian]

Today @ 01:15 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=133851#post133851)
OldShepherd:



Hold on there pardner. I did not ask for a N.T. scripture, I asked for O.T. law. I can give you more answer than you can handle but first call, raise, or fold, the bet's on the table.

Dear OldShepherd,
You made a lot of statements which form a presuppostion on your part relating to your request. I am merely asking for you to substantiate and explain your scriptural references (if they exist) so that we do not proceed on a sandy foundation.

In addition, if you are inclined to wrangle about whether the anarthrous NOMOS in John 19:7 is the Mosaic law or not, please note BDAG on page 677:

"A special semantic problem for modern readers encountering the term NOMOS is the general tendency to confine the usage of the term 'law' to codified statutes. Such limitation has led to much fruitless debate in the history of NT interpretation."

I agree with the sentiment expressed there.

Fruitfully yours,
Cal

[Jezz]

Tsmith:
Exo 22:28 You shall not revile [blaspheme, HNV] God, and you shall not curse a ruler among your people.
No mention of a death penalty there. Nor is there any death penalty mentioned in an adjacent verse. The nearest death penalty mentioned is 8 verses prior.

On this verse, Gill states:

&quot;whether civil or ecclesiastic; the last mentioned Jewish writer intend of the king, who is the supreme ruler in things civil, and ought to be honoured and loved, served and obeyed, and not hated and cursed, no, not secretly, not in the bedchamber, nor in the thought of the heart, since not only the thing is criminal but dangerous; it is much if it is not discovered, and then ruin follows upon it, Ecc_10:20. The Apostle Paul applies it to the high priest among the Jews, who was the ruler in sacred things, Act_23:5 and may be applicable to the prince of the sanhedrim, or chief in the grand court of judicature; and even to all dignified persons, who ought not to be spoken ill of, and to be abused in the execution of their office, and especially when they perform well.&quot;
I agree with that analysis. But there is no evidence that the punishment for violating Exodus 22:28 carried the death penalty, so even if the law does apply to the Pharisees in John 8 (and I'd agree that it could well apply), it still doesn't give them justification for stoning Jesus. Much less to do so in the temple, and without a trial, and with out a chance to recant, etc...

Now what is of interest is that one could be put to death by speaking against God's representatives. In this case, it would be the religious leaders. We see that scripturally, God had viewed this as speaking against himself).

Numbers 14:10_However, all the assembly talked of pelting them with stones. And Jehovah’s glory appeared on the tent of meeting to all the sons of Israel. 11_Finally Jehovah said to Moses: “How long will this people treat me without respect, and how long will they not put faith in me for all the signs that I performed in among them?

So here we see they are speaking against Moses. What goes on to happen? Well in Numbers 16:30-35 we see that Jehovah executed the group.
You've quoted this way, way out of context. Numbers 16:30-35 is over two chapters after the supposed violation in Numbers 14:10-11. Numbers 14:10 is hardly the context for the judgement issued in Numbers 16:30!

The punishment that YWHW originally suggested for the transgression in Numbers 14:10 was a plague (Numbers 14:12). After Moses pleaded with YWHW, the judgement was reduced - they were instead never to enter the promised land themselves (Numbers 14:23). And this was not issued against just that gathering at the tent, but against the entire nation of Israel (excluding Caleb and Joshua).

The punishment in Numbers 16:30, however, was against a much smaller group of 250 people from three clans. And it was not for the indiscretion in Numbers 14:10, but for a later indiscretion (described in Numbers 16:1-2).

Nevertheless, I will continue with a modified form of your argument, using the fact that the punishment in Numbers 16:30 was applied for Korah, Dathan and Abiram speaking against Moses in Numbers 16:1-2 instead of in Numbers 14:10.

We thus see that even though it wasn't Jehovah himself that was spoken against (it being their leaders), speaking against the leaders could be taken as speaking against Jehovah. The Jews, having this attitude, could, in their mind, rightfully take up stones against Jesus, as is highlighted here.
There are several reasons why this example is not applicable to John 8.

Firstly, in the Numbers 16 narrative, the insolent clans showed a repeated pattern of insolent behaviour (probably over a period of days, weeks, perhaps longer). It wasn't just a few comments in a single conversation - it was a pattern of speaking against Moses. Compare this with John 8, which was a single conversation.

Secondly, Moses warned the clans on more than one occasion that in acting against him and Aaron they were acting against God. They were given ample opportunity to repent, but failed to do so. Compare this with John 8, where the Pharisees gave him no opportunity to repent.

Thirdly, the punishment was not meted out by Moses - it was a divine judgement by YHWH Himself. Moses made a point of this fact:

28Then Moses said, "This is how you will know that the LORD has sent me to do all these things and that it was not my idea: 29If these men die a natural death and experience only what usually happens to men, then the LORD has not sent me. 30But if the LORD brings about something totally new, and the earth opens its mouth and swallows them, with everything that belongs to them, and they go down alive into the grave, then you will know that these men have treated the LORD with contempt." (Numbers 16:28-30)

Compare this with John 8, where it was the Pharisees, and not God, who were issuing the punishment. There is no way that the Pharisees could use a direct divine judgement by God (which was also meant to be a special case to prove that it was YWHW and not Moses who was judging) as a precedent for them to issue judgement themselves. The Pharisees would only consider either one of the following as a sufficient precedent for stoning: 1. a direct command from God Himself to do so, or 2. a clear breach of one of the Mosaic laws for which the punishment was death. I think we can rule out the former, which leaves the latter. And apart from your attempt above (which was a law which apparently didn't carry the death penalty), you have still failed to provide an example of a specific law which attracted the death penalty that Jesus apparently violated (and violated so blatantly that the Pharisees were compelled to stone him right then and there).

When we look at the above three points, we see that the Numbers 16 narrative is completely different from the situation in John 8, and not a useful parallel.

Numbers 15:30_“‘But the soul that does something deliberately, whether he is a native or an alien resident, he speaking abusively of Jehovah, in that case that soul must be cut off from among his people. 31_Because it is Jehovah’s word that he has despised and his commandment that he has broken, that soul should be cut off without fail. His own error is upon him.’”
This seems to be a red herring. There is no mention of the death penalty in this passage, nor is there even a law which prohibts speaking against the priesthood.

In 1 Kings 21:10-13 we find that Naboth was put to death not only for speaking against God, but also the King. Showing again that speaking against men was a factor in execution.
Well, first note that this was not for merely speaking against them, but for cursing them. Secondly, this doesn't prove that cursing the king was a factor in his execution. It proves that cursing the king was wrong, but we have no way of knowing from this passage along if cursing the king by itself was worthy of the death penalty, because God was also cursed (which by itself was sufficient for a death penalty).

Acts 12:21-23 shows us that even only claim to godship, not even being that of Almighty God, could be punished by death.
Again, note that the punishment is not issued by humans but by divine power (an angel of the Lord).

And it also seems to me that you've shot yourself in the foot extremely badly here. If merely claiming to be godship was worthy of a divine death sentence, then why is it that Jesus was allowed to lay claim to godship? He was just a man, after all (in your opinion). Why did the angel of the Lord not smite him?

For example, in Matthew 9:2_And, look! they were bringing him a paralyzed man lying on a bed. On seeing their faith Jesus said to the paralytic: “Take courage, child; your sins are forgiven.” 3_And, look! certain of the scribes said to themselves: “This fellow is blaspheming.”

They claimed that he was blaspheming because he said the man's sins were forgiven, and yet even the apostles could forgive sins (John 20:23).
Yes, claiming to be able to forgive sins is blasphemy of sorts, but in a roundabout way (only God can forgive sins). But note something here - the Pharisees did not attempt to stone Jesus right then and there for laying claim to having the ability to forgive sins. This example proves that subtle blasphemy would not be immediately punished (if at all). Blasphemy would have to be blatant in order to draw an immediate reaction, such as the reaction drawn by the Pharisees in John 8:59.

[Spokoina]

OK, what about ego eimi, I am in these verses:

1Co 15:10 But by the grace of God I am what I am, and His grace toward me did not prove vain; but I labored even more than all of them, yet not I, but the grace of God with me.



Joh 9:9 Some said, This is he: others said, He is like him: but he said, I am he.


Before Abraham..I am..is pre existence surely. Preemmince perhaps...regardless, even JW's teach that Jesus pre existed and was not God.

to connect ego eimi with deity for me causes some translation issues...for other verses.

[Tsmith]

Yesterday @ 04:53 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=135385#post135385)
Jezz:
And it also seems to me that you've shot yourself in the foot extremely badly here. If merely claiming to be godship was worthy of a divine death sentence, then why is it that Jesus was allowed to lay claim to godship? He was just a man, after all (in your opinion). Why did the angel of the Lord not smite him?


We can go back to the other stuff later. For now I would like to focus on this point though.

Claiming godship in and of itself was considered blaphemy if one did not have such from God.

Consider what Jesus said.

Joh 10:34 Jesus answered them, Has it not been written in your Law, "I said, you are gods"? 35 If He called those gods with whom the Word of God was, and the Scripture cannot be broken, 36 do you say of Him whom the Father sanctified and sent into the world, You blaspheme, because I said, I am Son of God?

See, if ones were called gods by God and it was acceptable, it should be of no consequence to claim to be God's son either, as to do so would be a claim to being a god. So, to them, Jesus was blaspheming to claim to being God's son, and thus having godship. This relates directly back to John 8:58 where such prior existance would again be denoting godship, and thus, to them, blaspheme on Jesus' part.

As for my theology. Jesus was not just a man, but the divine son of God.

-Tony

[AVmetro]

Claiming godship in and of itself was considered blaphemy if one did not have such from God.

And you'll substantiate the above with what?

Consider what Jesus said.

Joh 10:34 Jesus answered them, Has it not been written in your Law, "I said, you are gods"? 35 If He called those gods with whom the Word of God was, and the Scripture cannot be broken, 36 do you say of Him whom the Father sanctified and sent into the world, You blaspheme, because I said, I am Son of God?

Which was in response to their charge that Christ was claiming to be 'God'. You simply assume the NWT rendering of "a {generic}god" in this passage. You need to substaniate such as being classed as "blasphemy" using the Mosaic Law or the Mishnah.

Read the surrounding context:
vs28 And I give eternal life to them, and they shall not perish to the age, never! And not anyone shall pluck them out of My hand.

vs29 My Father who has given them to Me is greater than all, and no one is able to pluck out of My Father's hand.

vs30 I and the Father are One!

vs31 Then again the Jews took up stones, that they might stone Him.

[.....]

Joh 10:33 The Jews answered Him, saying, We do not stone You concerning a good work, but concerning blasphemy; and because You, being a man, make Yourself God.
It is patently obvious in reading the above that Christ is, once again, setting Himself on equality with God. Note the Jews rage that one who is "a man" would dare claim the divine perogatives of God.

Secondly..

I would rather interpret Ps82 as denoting 'agency'. Hence the "to whom the Word of God came"; they are called elohim. Christ then contrasts Himself with these who would "die like men" arguing from the lesser to the greater in typical rabbinical style.

Christ states in vs36

Joh 10:36 do you say of Him whom the Father sanctified and sent into the world, You blaspheme, because I said, I am Son of God?

Which was essentially in direct response to their charge of His making Himself "God". See Jn5:18..cf..19:7. What did the phrase 'Son of God' denote in their view? Equality of God which necessitates that Christ be God.

See, if ones were called gods by God and it was acceptable, it should be of no consequence to claim to be God's son either, as to do so would be a claim to being a god. So, to them, Jesus was blaspheming to claim to being God's son, and thus having godship.

Again, where is this in the Mosaic law or Mishnah?

This relates directly back to John 8:58 where such prior existance would again be denoting godship, and thus, to them, blaspheme on Jesus' part.

How is this "direct" and how would it necessarily entail "godship" in order to preexist.

As for my theology. Jesus was not just a man, but the divine son of God.

Was He the "divine Son of God" while a man in your view?

God bless

[AVmetro]

You haven't presented a reason to make a connection, you have simply made it. That is the issue! Provide a REASON to make the EGW EIMI connection.

We have presented reasons. You only label them as "non-connections" leaving us without a reason as to why other than equating contexts (e.g. 'blind man').

I hope you realize that Exodus 3:14 does not say ANI HU at all, but rather EHYEH ASHER EHYEH, which would literally translate to EGW ESOMAI hOS EGW ESOMAI. The LXX renders it EGW EIMI hO WN, but that is not literal.

Point being, the translators of the JPS considered "I AM what I AM/I AM" to be a superior rendering over "I will be what I will be/I will be". Gray Pilgrim in another thread pointed out the disputed nature of this passage and the high potential for varying interpretations. The relationship to John8:58 will come later after the 'ani hu' statements are discussed further.

It did not demostrate that though, as Jesus did not say I [am] he, but simply EGW EIMI, or I AM.

You have continuously disregarded my response to the above objection. I ask again; Why did the Jewish translators of the LXX translate 'ani hu' as 'ego eimi'? As I stated previously, this makes the connection between the Hebrew and Greek. In fact, as I have seen, the BDAG agrees with me.

Additionally, Ethelbert makes a keen observation on this very thing though it is not necessary to do so:
"The first word of this formula in Hebrew, "Ani" (=Anochi = I), is the dominant proclamation of God in Deuteronomy 5, 6; Psalm 46, 11; 50, 7; and 81, 11. The second word is the personal pronoun (= huah = He) which we meet in Psalm 115, 9 ff. Thus, the theophanic formula "Ani hu" in Deutero-Isaiah can be understood as a combination of the liturgical "Ani" with the liturgical "hu". So combined it means "I am He". Now, in Semitic languages the personal pronoun of the third person is also frequently used as a copulative verb, equivalent to am, are, is. If we wish to understand "Ani hu" in this sense, it then means "I am". Both of these possible translations are used in the Greek Bible ("Ego eimi autos" and "Ego eimi"), but the second is preponderant.
[Ethelbert Stauffer, 'Jesus and His Story' p.177]

Where is the "he"? That is part of the name, if he is REALLY using the name.

See above. Secondly, I also noted that Christ most likely spoke the Aramaic language. If so, as I previously stated, the case is that much stronger. Now if Christ uttered 'Ani hu' we would expect the author, John, to employ the methods of the LXX translators by translating 'Ani hu' as 'ego eimi'. Simple, actually.

Further, we again having the blind man saying EGW EIMI without a predicate at John 9:9, which should be, if we follow this logic, be the same claim that Jesus made. Yet, because of theology people dismiss that.

Rather, because we refuse to blindly equivocate. There is a difference in implication considering the historical evidence, consistent literary pattern, setting and immediate context etc. There is a difference between the implications of the blind man's statment and, say, the below:

"I am He, fear not, for *I AM before the days were." (Revelation of Abraham) [*Parallel to Ps90:2..cf..Jn8:58]

As I have said from the beginning, you should have never put the objection forth. It merely serves to misrepresent our argument.

Can you provide some evidence for your Feast of the Tabernacles claim?

First post et al. From there, I'll continue to add.

Actually, if we look up the lexical meaning of blaspheme, we find Thayer's states the following:

1) slander, detraction, speech injurious, to another’s good name
2) impious and reproachful speech injurious to divine majesty

We can certainly see in John 8 how Jesus, in their eyes, was doing items under the definitions provided without making a claim to be God.

In it's context, please. The nuance being, blasphemy punishable by 'stoning' i.e. 'death'. Jezz expounded on this earlier.

Joh 8:44 You are of the Devil as father, and the lusts of your father you desire to do. That one was a murderer from the beginning, and he has not stood in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaks a lie, he speaks from his own, because he is a liar, and the father of it.

Here we see, in their eyes, they were certainly being blasphemed.

Ditto on Jezz. There are many instances where Christ "blasphemed" the Pharisees. Yet they expressed nothing close to the class of anger expressed in context under discussion. If this was sufficent in and of itself in order to carry out a public execution then why did the Pharisees not take advantage of the opportunity?

Secondly, it was not this that incited the attempted stoning. If the above was the cause then why did the attempt not take place upon Christ's words in said verse?

Joh 8:47 The one who is of God hears the Words of God; for this reason you do not hear, because you are not of God.

So why didn't they immediately stone Him?

It continues.

Now we find the Jews set forth a question to Jesus.

Joh 8:53 Are You greater than our father Abraham who died? And the prophets died! Whom do You make Yourself?

Christ also claimed to be "greater than the Temple" (Matt12:6), "greater than Jonah" (Matt12:41) and "greater than Solomon" (Matt12:42). All statements directed to the Pharisees. Yet I see no attempt at a public execution. Note also Jn2:19 where Christ states that He will "destroy this Temple" {a statement misconstrued by the Jews}. Again, no attempt at a public execution. See Matt22:41-46. Again the Pharisees. Here Christ explicitly claims to being King David's "Lord" {i.e. David's superior}. Yet an attempt at His life is, yet again, missing from the context.

Jesus goes on to provide an answer that is effectively yes, that he is
Joh 8:58 Jesus said to them, Truly, truly, I say to you, Before Abraham came to be, I am.

And of course I agree in part. Just in a different way. ;-)

Cal cited:

KJV John 19:7 The Jews answered him, We have a law,
and by our law he ought to die, because he made himself
the Son of God.

Cf..Jn5:18. Note that I'm emphasizing the Jewish mindset and how they viewed the title. When citing the above (19:7), you have the wrong implications in mind. :wink:

Uriah stated:

You basically gave almost the same ones but of course mine is more literal.

You're probably using an interlinear and reading it with English grammar in mind.

Tsmith states:

Exo 22:28 You shall not revile God, and you shall not curse a ruler among your people.

On this verse, Gill states:

"whether civil or ecclesiastic; the last mentioned Jewish writer intend of the king, who is the supreme ruler in things civil, and ought to be honoured and loved, served and obeyed, and not hated and cursed, no, not secretly, not in the bedchamber, nor in the thought of the heart, since not only the thing is criminal but dangerous; it is much if it is not discovered, and then ruin follows upon it, Ecc_10:20. The Apostle Paul applies it to the high priest among the Jews, who was the ruler in sacred things, Act_23:5 and may be applicable to the prince of the sanhedrim, or chief in the grand court of judicature; and even to all dignified persons, who ought not to be spoken ill of, and to be abused in the execution of their office, and especially when they perform well."

I don't necessarily disagree where appropriate. However, you are misapplying this principle to the Pharisees, a religous sect. The most influence they had would be that in the sanhedrin. And only then if they were members.

In fact, take one of the above examples from your cite of John Gill:

Act 23:1-5 And looking earnestly [b]on the sanhedrin, Paul said, Men, brothers, I have lived in all good conscience before God until this day. And the high priest Ananias commanded those who stood by him to strike him on the mouth. Then Paul said to him, God shall strike you, whitened wall! For do you sit judging me according to the Law, and against law command me to be stricken? And they who stood by him said, Do you revile God's high priest? Then Paul said, I did not
know, brothers, that he was the high priest; for it is written, "You shall not speak evil of the ruler of your people."
Note that Paul {a former strict Pharisee himself}was only repentant when it was brought to his attention that it was the High Priest whom he verbally assaulted. Otherwise, he most likely felt his comment directed to a member of the Sanhedrin, probably a "fellow" Pharisee. Hence your theory does not apply.

Now what is of interest is that one could be put to death by speaking against God's representatives. In this case, it would be the religious leaders.

My, what a jump! You simply find it convenient to equate rulers, kings and priests with a few members of a religous sect.

Jezz made some excellent comments regarding the rest so I'll simply 8< the rest of my reply.

God bless

[AVmetro]

Yesterday @ 08:56 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=135662#post135662)
Spokoina:

OK, what about ego eimi, I am in these verses:

1Co 15:10 But by the grace of God I am what I am, and His grace toward me did not prove vain; but I labored even more than all of them, yet not I, but the grace of God with me.

It's only rendered that way in the English. The Greek simply has eimi without the ego.

God bless

[Jezz]

Hey Tony,

Tsmith:
Jezz: And it also seems to me that you've shot yourself in the foot extremely badly here. If merely claiming to be godship was worthy of a divine death sentence, then why is it that Jesus was allowed to lay claim to godship? He was just a man, after all (in your opinion). Why did the angel of the Lord not smite him?

We can go back to the other stuff later. For now I would like to focus on this point though.
This point was actually a side-note to my main reply, and had little to do with the main theme of my post. I find it curious that you've chosen to focus on this and ignore the bulk of my post (for now, at least). :smile:

As for responding this focussed point - IronMetro has answered pretty much as I would (except probably better), so I'll defer to let you respond to his post (saves you the hassle of having to make two replies. :wink:)

Cheers,
-Jezz

[mercia]

02-05-2003 @ 12:30 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=8379#post8379)
IronMetro:

I may as well point out that the following argument is what I'm looking to use as an outline for objections. It's certainly not the most thorough of &quot;refutations&quot;, but it will work for the present:

http://hector3000.future.easyspace.com/egweimi.htm

The above is managed by a JW apologist named 'Heinz Schmitz'. You might remember him as the guy who tried to tackle James Patrick Holding's 'Wisdom' article. :no:

Everybody grab a line of his rebuttal and bite down :rant: :cheers:

The bible translations above provided in my last post, ought to counter that particular area. :bonk:


> Can I ask you all a question?
Why are there always these endless debates about the evidence for Deity, between unitarians and trinitarians with both parties extrapolating upon their preferred Scriptures on one linear level?

Surely the whole debate needs to be changed to a debate about perception? And why God has done this? Because it will be for a reason. For some reason He asking us to (perceive) in a certain way. Now perception is related to affection (which is what the ministry of Jesus was about). If we perceive materialistically - that is as to the flesh - it is because we have been conditioned this way, and our affections are often after the flesh (we judge things according to the flesh), while those who perceive spiritually if you like, tend not to do this. That is Egypt = perception and affections of the flesh, the identification with the flesh we are suppossed to leave behind in the new covenant era = looking on things from appearances.
Israel = internal spritiual perception, and affections we are suppossed to progress to in the new covenant era.

I say this is why God has left us this puzzle to solve. It is in some ways a test, it has to be. But it is a test as to perception. The outcome will show Heaven what we have learned.

The test says that we have to make these Two one God in the new covenant era. So it is a test of perception.

Ok - Some unitarians seem to think its a test but see it the oppossite way - "the LORD your God is ONE GOD". And therefore we need to be theological reductionists, and reduce and twist Scripture to support the above and extrapolate Scripture everywhere that supports this theory. But if we are more honestly to go by (all) Scriptures (and we surely cannot be punished by God if at the end of it we have done our very best to do just that), and marry that with the perception Jesus and tthe apostles taught us to have in the new covenant era,.. then it is clear surely to everyone, that this is all a matter of perception, and how we are to perceive things. Not the negation of Scripture by ratrionalising away the meaning on one level that our pressupposition does'nt support? Which what the Unitarian Christadelphians do everywhere.

If Jesus says "I AM", and most bibles have interpretted it that way for centuries, and most Christians have read it that way for centuries, then God knowing the future, is not going to leave our faith in the hands of some latter day theology students or churches (i.e the unitarian Christadelphians), to tell us we have all got it the interpretation wrong, surely? This is trusting in man. and trusting in man is against Scripture 'trust in the Lord with all your heart and mind"; "woe to the fool who puts his trust in man" But relying upon latter day theology students picking apart the Hebrew translation is trusting in man. I just dont believe God has left it up to the latter day Churches and Hebrew and Greek reading theology students to lead us to the new light. I do not read Hebrew and Greek, I would therefore have to "trust in Hebrew reading theology students with all my heart and mind and lean not of the Lord for understanding". I know my God and I know that is not right - the truth is already out there as someone once said. And its not a matter of complicated Hebrew to Greek translations for the few, but rather a matter of natural or spiritual perception for the many. What I am trying to say is that the test, is that is what we shall call it - is not in understandiing multiple languages in minute detail, though I have the highest respect to those that do - but rather in terms of perception of what we already know. That is spiritual percepton/natural perception based upon - prob the KJ version which I trust. All theological errors will be made within those parameters - i,e spiritual perception/natural perception.

If we are to clearly seperate Jesus as man from Jehovah, then why would the old testament prophecies speak of Him as Jehovah?
“Unto us a Child is born, unto us a Son is given, and the government shall be on His shoulder, and His name shall be called Wonderful Couseller, the Mighty God, THE EVERLASTING FATHER, the Prince of peace” (isa. Ix. 6). “Behold, a virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and shall call His name IMMANUEL – GOD WITH US” (Vii. 14). Is this because the Old Testament is speaking in first causes only? I know somethinig about this.. I will explain later on.

is it because we are to perceive salvation in First Principles (i.e Jesus was only secondary effect), so it was really Jehovah who was saving us? Or are we to perceive that in Him (Jesus) was Jehovah - fully. But then if "fully" why was Jesus praying to His Father whilst on earth? If the Divine was directly speaking through Him?

If Jesus sits on Gods throne with the Father in the Revelation, and receives lautrec (Service/worship) with the Father, and God calls Him God, and on our foreheads the name of Jesus and the Father, yet Duetronomy says the Lord your God is one God, and Jesus is a High Priest to God, can God be a Highpriest to Himself? Then the only possible way to reconcile these apparant contradictions (and i dont believe there are any) is in terms of how we perceive. When one perceives this matter how God intends us to perceive this matter. It is all about perception.

And instead of endless debates on the translations of words, when surely this is about perception.

Unitarians seem to think we are to shun all ideas of more than one person in the God head because of the Shema.

Let me give you the key..
The key to solving this problem is in these words "do not look on things as to their outward appearance" said Paul. That is do not think according to the flesh.

Another clue is this..
I have noticed Unitarians who say Jesus was just a man, tend to think and perceive from appearances, that is the flesh. For example, the Christadelphians who believe Jesus is just a man, also say He had a sinful nature. The reason why they say this - is because he had flesh. So they say a sinful nature is flesh. But is this not looking on things and perceiving things as to their appearance? The flesh is not a sinful nature in itself. If I have a lump of meat in the kitchen, its not sinning. Its the carnal mind that is the sinful nature. The flesh is just the effect.

So those who think carnally, that is from appearances like the Christadelphians do great harm to the charachter of the Jesus because there theology is based upon the fact they just cannot in their materially conditioned minds perceive things in any other way that in this sort of linear way. Hence they also deny the body has a spirit, that satan or anything they cant perceive from appearances exists (when i know he does as I have seen him), and that the holy spirit is just what science calls electricity.

It seems to me all error is caused
1 - in relation to how we perceive - carnally or spiritually
2 - by perceving carnally we just extrapolate upon the pressupposition we started with in one linear mode.

Its all about perception - We need to debate that.

[OldShepherd]

06-25-2003 @ 11:45 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=131979#post131979)
Ron Macy:

I just skimmed through this thread for the first time. Something struck me as strange about the quote from the Lockman Foundation. Now, I appreciate the work the Lockman Foundation has done with the NASB. I prefer it to any of the other versions currently on the market.

This is the remark which jumped out at me.

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
The translation “I have been” was originally given simply as a smoother, more grammatically correct (in English) rendering, and in a different context such an alternative might be fine. Unfortunately, we learned that members of the “Jehovah’s Witnesses” cult was using this alternative reading to argue their view that Christ did not exist eternally in the past. In effect then, the note was being misused to support heresy. It might have been good to have the note say instead, “I always have been,” but even this might be misused somehow, so the translators thought it best to simply delete the note.
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

It surprised me no one has made any mention of what happen in this quote. It was admitted “I have been” is “a smoother, more grammatically correct (in English) rendering.” That means they understood this passage not to be a reference to God, but possibly to some kind of eternal existence.

Think about what they did and why. They bowed to the pressures of trinitarians who wanted this passage to be a foundation for trinitarian thought. They corrupted a perfectly good translation because it did not support the doctrine they wanted to support. What does this say about the integrity of the translators? What does this say about the integrity of those who have to rely on this kind of corruption to support their doctrines?

Ron

I was sitting home thinking thoughts when all of a sudden this popped into my mind so I had to do a lot of searching to find this post. What is the clear implication of Mr. Macy's response?

The quality and reliability of the source, the caliber of the scholarship means absolutely nothing. As long as a footnote in the NASB seems to support the twisted teachings of the WBTS then they wave the NASB around as if it were carved in stone and carried down from the mountain by Charlton Heston himself.

The NASB was good as long as it seemed to support the WBTS but note the instant the NASB retracts that footnote because it was being misused and abused by JWs, suddenly they no longer accept the NASB but turn on it like a pack of rabid dogs, "They corrupted a perfectly good translation because it did not support the doctrine they wanted to support. What does this say about the integrity of the translators?" What does this say about the integrity of the WBTS? Their only criteria, is NOT research and scholarship but, whether or not a source supports the WBTS. Blatant, mindless, blind following the blind hypocricy.

[PioneerSDA]

I fail to see this "the great I am" connection.

With regards to John 8:58.

As even the Lockman foundation admits: "The translation “I have been” was originally given simply as a smoother, more grammatically correct (in English) rendering..."

The use of two tenses in a single clause does not allow for the typical translation of "before Abraham was, I am." The PPA that is present here makes it a more accurate rendering to say I have been.

Further, the majority of translation do not even render EGW EIMI as a proper name (all capitals). Consider the following examples of different translations and how they render it:

(NIV) "I tell you the truth," Jesus answered, "before Abraham was born, I am!" Prior existence
(NASB) Jesus said to them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was born, I am." Prior existence
(NLT) John 8:58 Jesus answered, "The truth is, I existed before Abraham was even born!" Prior existence
(KJV) Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am. Prior existence
(NKJV) Jesus said to them, "Most assuredly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I AM." Proper Name
(AMP) Jesus replied, I assure you, most solemnly I tell you, before Abraham was born, I AM. Proper Name
(RSV) Jesus said to them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I am." Prior existence
(KJ21) Jesus said unto them, "Verily, verily I say unto you, before Abraham was, I am!" Prior existence
(WE) John 8:58 Jesus answered, `I tell you the truth. I already was before Abraham was born.' Prior existence
(YLT) Jesus said to them, `Verily, verily, I say to you, Before Abraham's coming -- I am;' Prior existence
(DARBY) Jesus said to them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am. Prior existence
(ASV) Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was born, I am. Prior existence
(Twenty) "In truth I tell you," replied Jesus, "before Abraham existed I was." Prior existence
(Webster) Jesus said to them, Verily, verily, I say to you, Before Abraham was, I am. Prior existence
(Weymouth) "In most solemn truth," answered Jesus, "I tell you that before Abraham came into existence, I am." Prior existence
(Rotherham) Jesus said unto them-Verily, verily, I say unto you: Before, Abraham, came into existence, I, am. Prior existence
(Murdock) Jesus said to them: Verily, verily I say to you, That before Abraham existed, I was. Prior existence
(Montgomery) "In solemn truth I tell you," answered Jesus, "that before Abraham came into existence, I am." Prior existence
(LO) Jesus answered, Most assuredly, I say to you, before Abraham was born, I am. Prior existence

I think of particular interest as well is Williams' translation: "I existed before Abraham was born." This is the translation that Dr. Julius Mantey calls, "the most accurate and illuminating translation in the English language."

What really does all this show? Simply that the grammar at John 8:58 does not have EGW EIMI functioning as a proper name. Rather, it is a Present of Past Action.

Looking at Exodus 3:14 we find that EHYEH ASHER EHYEH translated as I AM WHAT I AM to be a poor translation as well. Consider, just two verses back in Exodus 3:12 the same Hebrew word EHYEH is translated as I WILL BE almost universally.

On this verse, Rabbi Jordan D. Cohen comments with regards to translation: "Often translated as "I Am Who I Am," the phrase is more accurately translated as "I Will Be That Which I Will Be." The people will come to know God through their unfolding experiences together."

The Interpreter's One-Volume Commentary on the Bible: "the best rendering is 'I will be as I will be.'"

With regards the LXX, it actually reads EGW EIMI hO ON, which translates literally as I am THE BEING. Thus, we render the LXX Ex 3:!4 as "And God spoke to Moses, saying, I am THE BEING; and he said, Thus shall ye say to the children of Israel, THE BEING has sent me to you."

Thus, again, there is no connection found here with John 8:58. We can be assured that if Jesus was trying to use EHYEH ASHER EHYEH as a name for himself in John 8:58, he would have done so. However, EHYEH ASHER EHYEH is not the same thing as the Greek EGW EIMI hOS EGW EIMI. Rather, he would have said EGW ESOMAI hOS EGW ESOMAI

With regards to ANI HU, we find that ANI HU is not even a word-for-word equivalent to EGW EIMI. Rather, ANI = I and HU = HE. Really, if a connection is to be made between ANI HU in Isaiah and EGW EIMI and John 8:58, there must be a REASON to make such a connection. You cannot do so simply because you want to.
-Tony

How are you doing? I hope God and Christ His Divine Son blesses you.
If it wasn't God's only born Son who appeared unto Abraham with His two angels and ate with him and talked about destroying Sodom with Him than who was it? Have you forgotten John 1:18 that would make that impossible to have been the Father and makes it clear that it was God's only born who appeared to Him using the very name Yahweh that He inherited from His Father?

"No man hath seen God [nor seen His shape] at any time, the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him." John 1:18 ; John 5:37

It's very clear that since no man has seen God it must have been His only born who he gave birth to in eternity equally divine with Himself that used his Father's name than He inherited "The Great I am" to appear unto Abraham in Genesis 18.

May the Divine Son of God bless you to be like Paul who said "...I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me. " Galations 2:20