Jason BeDuhn on John 8:58

[Cal_Minian]

I saw some discussion on John 8:58. I thought that the posters here would like to see what Dr. Jason BeDuhn has concluded with his research on the subject.


Conclusion and ranking of English translations of John 8:58

LB "I was in existence before Abraham was ever born!"

The LB comes out as the most accurate translation of John 8:58. The translator avoided the lure of bias and the pressure of the KJV tradition. The NW is second best i n this case, because it understands the relation between the two verbs correctly, even though the influence of the KJV has led its translators to put the verb improperly at the end of the sentence. The average Bible reader might never guess that there was something wrong with the other translations, and might even assume that the error was to found in the LB and NW. When all you can do is compare the English translations, and count them up like votes, the LB and NW stick out as different in John 8:58 . It is natural to assume that the majority are correct and the odd ones at fault. it is only when translations are checked against the original Greek, as they should he, that a fair assessment can be made, and the initial assumption can be seen to be wrong. [page 111]

John 9:9 - The blind man says ego eimi
One passage usually missing from the discussion of the expression “I am” in the Gospel according to John is John 9:9. I n this verse, the words egw eimi are heard from the mouth not of Jesus, but of a blind man cured by Jesus. He, too, uses the words to say “I am he,” the man who before was blind, but have been cured. If anyone needs proof that egw eimi need not be a quote from the Old Testament, and is not reserved as a title of God, here it is. Once again, our attention is drawn to inconsistency i n how words are handled by biased translators. If egw eimi is not a divine self-proclamation in the mouth of the blind man of John 9, then it cannot be such a proclamation in the mouth of Jesus just a few verses earlier. None of the translations we are comparing, of course, have the blind man saying “I am,’’ let alone “I AM.” According to the reasoning of those who insist that the phrase must be understood as a declaration of divine identity, and so preserved in its “interlinear” form, the blind man is also God. We’ll leave that problem to them. For the rest of us, it is sufficient to see in John 9:9 a clear example of the idiomatic use of the expression ego eimi in Greek speech [page 110]


TRUTH IN TRANSLATION

For orders and information please contact the publisher - UNIVERSITY PRESS of AMERICA, INC.
4501 Forbes Blvd. Suite 200 - Lanham, Maryland 20706 - 1-800-462-5220 www.univpress.com

[OldShepherd]

Today @ 09:54 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=133572#post133572)
Cal_Minian:

I saw some discussion on John 8:58. I thought that the posters here would like to see what Dr. Jason BeDuhn has concluded with his research on the subject.

John 9:9 - The blind man says ego eimi
One passage usually missing from the discussion of the expression “I am” in the Gospel according to John is John 9:9. I n this verse, the words egw eimi are heard from the mouth not of Jesus, but of a blind man cured by Jesus. He, too, uses the words to say “I am he,” the man who before was blind, but have been cured. If anyone needs proof that egw eimi need not be a quote from the Old Testament, and is not reserved as a title of God, here it is. Once again, our attention is drawn to inconsistency i n how words are handled by biased translators. If egw eimi is not a divine self-proclamation in the mouth of the blind man of John 9, then it cannot be such a proclamation in the mouth of Jesus just a few verses earlier. None of the translations we are comparing, of course, have the blind man saying “I am,’’ let alone “I AM.” According to the reasoning of those who insist that the phrase must be understood as a declaration of divine identity, and so preserved in its “interlinear” form, the blind man is also God. We’ll leave that problem to them. For the rest of us, it is sufficient to see in John 9:9 a clear example of the idiomatic use of the expression ego eimi in Greek speech [page 110]



Utter garbage! For a scholar this in inexcusable. The blind man was considered to be a sinner from birth by both the disciple's of Jesus (Jn 9:2) and the Pharisees (Jn 9:34). As a "sinner" he would not have been permitted in the temple or the synagogue, as long as he was blind, therefore no religious education. Since he was blind he could not read. Therefore he would NOT have known the customs or conventions of Judaism.

Begging in the marketplace and other places where crowds gathered, he would have heard Greek spoken by many non-Jews, for whom "ego eimi" would have been a common expression.

Using this as a counter example is about on par with asking an undeducated homeless street person to decide a theological point. I do not intend to let my beliefs be decided by one uneducated blind beggar.

[Cal_Minian]

Today @ 07:08 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=133668#post133668)
OldShepherd:


Utter garbage! For a scholar this in inexcusable. The blind man was considered to be a sinner from birth by both the disciple's of Jesus (Jn 9:2) and the Pharisees (Jn 9:34). As a "sinner" he would not have been permitted in the temple or the synagogue, as long as he was blind, therefore no religious education. Since he was blind he could not read. Therefore he would NOT have known the customs or conventions of Judaism.

Begging in the marketplace and other places where crowds gathered, he would have heard Greek spoken by many non-Jews, for whom "ego eimi" would have been a common expression.

Using this as a counter example is about on par with asking an undeducated homeless street person to decide a theological point. I do not intend to let my beliefs be decided by one uneducated blind beggar.

Dear OldShepherd,
You mean that beggars were exempt from being stoned for blasphemy? I don't understand.

If ego eimi is a common expression then what makes you think it is the name of God?

Kind Regards,
Cal

[OldShepherd]

Today @ 12:16 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=133672#post133672)
Cal_Minian:

Dear OldShepherd,
You mean that beggars were exempt from being stoned for blasphemy? I don't understand.

If ego eimi is a common expression then what makes you think it is the name of God?

Kind Regards,
Cal

Did you read my post? Read it then ask your asinine quesions. I mean that those outside the congregation, would not know and would not be expected to know all the rules and practices of the congregation. For example, not only were gentiles excluded from the Sabbath, they incurred the death penalty if they did observe the Sabbath.

"If ego eimi is a common expression then what makes you think it is the name of God?" Asinine! READ THE POST! "Begging in the marketplace and other places where crowds gathered, he would have heard Greek spoken by many non-Jews, for whom "ego eimi" would have been a common expression." Can you see what I said now?

[LilPunkishOfTerror]

Dear Cal

The problem with John 8:58 / John 9:9 is not that both say EGO EIMI but that Jesus compares Abraham's coming into existance against His own existance (note that He says nothing about His own begetting here! Hmm.) and so the contrast is what causes the outrage.

No such contrast in John 9:9. Grammatical studies bear this one out, and for BeDuhn to miss this is well, what kind of research is this guy doing? Does he discuss the grammar in the chapter Cal?

thanks, from Guy

[dizzle]

I am so saddened by the lengths people will go through to rob Christ of His rightful glory.

[Reasonable]

Dear Old Shephard,
Do you have to be so hateful in your replies? I'm not impressed with BeDuhn's arguments either, from what I've seen posted, but your writing style is almost embarrasing. Especially when Cal doesn't respond back in kind. You can be mild-tempered and modest while still being right. GHBearman (Guy) is still contesting Cal's scholar but do you see a difference in his method and yours?

Sorry, maybe the bold-font is getting to me. I do appreciate your efforts though.

[OldShepherd]

Today @ 10:31 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=133963#post133963)
Reasonable:

Dear Old Shephard,
Do you have to be so hateful in your replies? I'm not impressed with BeDuhn's arguments either, from what I've seen posted, but your writing style is almost embarrasing. Especially when Cal doesn't respond back in kind. You can be mild-tempered and modest while still being right. GHBearman (Guy) is still contesting Cal's scholar but do you see a difference in his method and yours?

Sorry, maybe the bold-font is getting to me. I do appreciate your efforts though.

Please see my nic. that is not an affectation. I have been around more than six decades. I am not shouting, I use bold for one simple reason, so I can read my own posts a little easier.

[Cal_Minian]

Today @ 05:01 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=133941#post133941)
Dee Dee Warren:

I am so saddened by the lengths people will go through to rob Christ of His rightful glory.

Dear DeeDee,
I am saddened by the lengths people will go through to rob the God and Father of Jesus Christ of his own rightful personal glory. (Is 42:8).

Regards,
Cal

[Cal_Minian]

Today @ 04:32 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=133931#post133931)
ghbearman:

Dear Cal

The problem with John 8:58 / John 9:9 is not that both say EGO EIMI but that Jesus compares Abraham's coming into existance against His own existance (note that He says nothing about His own begetting here! Hmm.) and so the contrast is what causes the outrage.

No such contrast in John 9:9. Grammatical studies bear this one out, and for BeDuhn to miss this is well, what kind of research is this guy doing? Does he discuss the grammar in the chapter Cal?

thanks, from Guy


Dear Guy,
The only instance of EGW EIMI that fits your criteria is John 8:58. Does that mean you do not see any special significance in the other EGW EIMI sayings of Jesus in the NT? If so, you do not agree with what I have read in Trinitarian circles.

It is one thing to exclude John 9:9 from being different than John 8:58, but that hurts you in the long run if you harmonize all of scripture.

Do you have an all-encompassing view on the use of EGW EIMI by Jesus?

Regards,
Cal

[Trinitarian]

Yesterday @ 06:19 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=134198#post134198)
Cal_Minian:




Dear Guy,
The only instance of EGW EIMI that fits your criteria is John 8:58. Does that mean you do not see any special significance in the other EGW EIMI sayings of Jesus in the NT? If so, you do not agree with what I have read in Trinitarian circles.

It is one thing to exclude John 9:9 from being different than John 8:58, but that hurts you in the long run if you harmonize all of scripture.

Do you have an all-encompassing view on the use of EGW EIMI by Jesus?

Regards,
Cal

Well, now this is just a poor understanding of textual theory as it relates to hermeneutics. Words only acquire meaning as they are used in certain contexts. For example if I say the word "Trunk" you have no idea what I am referring to unless that word is used in a particular context. I could mean the trunk of a car, a piece of luggage, part of a tree or part of an elephant.

Thus to claim that EGO EIMI must carry the same meaning everywhere it occurs is simply a bad understanding of the english language.

Grace and Peace.

[Cal_Minian]

Today @ 04:11 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=134629#post134629)
Trinitarian:



Well, now this is just a poor understanding of textual theory as it relates to hermeneutics. Words only acquire meaning as they are used in certain contexts. For example if I say the word "Trunk" you have no idea what I am referring to unless that word is used in a particular context. I could mean the trunk of a car, a piece of luggage, part of a tree or part of an elephant.

Thus to claim that EGO EIMI must carry the same meaning everywhere it occurs is simply a bad understanding of the english language.

Grace and Peace.

Dear Trinitarian,
I did not make the claim that it must have exactly the same meaning everywhere. For example I think it has a different meaning in John 8:58 than in all the other occurences.

My comments were with respect to a particular argument given by another Trinitarian. He said that at John 8:58 it had a different sense than at John 9:9 because at John 8:58 Jesus was comparing his existence to that of Abraham.

My response is that many Trinitarians who have written on the subject consider all the EGW EIMI sayings of Jesus, particularly in John, to be a statement of his divinity.

My question to the poster was how can that be if in those examples Jesus not comparing his existence to anyone like at John 8:58.

So you see, we are closer with respect to hermeneutics that you thought. I demand that the same Trinitarian criteria be used on the other EGW EIMI sayings of Jesus as they use on the blind man of John 9:9. Let's see what happens then.

For a good summary of BDAG on the subject I just worked up for another Trinitarian, see how they view the EGW EIMI sayings in context at http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=134629#post134629

Kind Regards,
Cal

[Trinitarian]

Today @ 12:23 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=134637#post134637)
Cal_Minian:

So you see, we are closer with respect to hermeneutics that you thought. I demand that the same Trinitarian criteria be used on the other EGW EIMI sayings of Jesus as they use on the blind man of John 9:9. Let's see what happens then.



Of course EGO EIMI means something completely different in John 9:9 and it does in John 8:58. The issue is what it means in it's particular context. I certainly wouldn't consider every occurance of EGO EIMI to be an affirmation of diety. However in this context it clearly is, and that is the point that a Trinitarian Christian would affirm. You seem to be operating off of a false premise that all Trinitarians hold all of the I AM sayings of Jesus to be affirmations of the divine name (YHWH) or of deity. This is not an accurate assumption. Each one must be read in it's context befure such determinations can be made. However in the case of John 8:58, in view of the context, the claim to divinity is clear.

[Cal_Minian]

Today @ 04:36 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=134641#post134641)
Trinitarian:



Of course EGO EIMI means something completely different in John 9:9 and it does in John 8:58. The issue is what it means in it's particular context. I certainly wouldn't consider every occurance of EGO EIMI to be an affirmation of diety. However in this context it clearly is, and that is the point that a Trinitarian Christian would affirm. You seem to be operating off of a false premise that all Trinitarians hold all of the I AM sayings of Jesus to be affirmations of the divine name (YHWH) or of deity. This is not an accurate assumption. Each one must be read in it's context befure such determinations can be made. However in the case of John 8:58, in view of the context, the claim to divinity is clear.


Dear Trinitarian,
You are using language like "of course" and "clear" and you make statements of your belief but any real support is lacking. If you look at the link I gave for the Bauer-Danker-Arndt-Gincrich Greek lexicon year 2000 you will see that it is _clear_ to them that he is claiming to be the Messiah. I agree.

I have read James White and Rob Bowman on this subject and they both consider EGW EIMI when spoken of Jesus particularly in John to be a claim to divinity.

You, of course are free to form your own opinion, but I have not read many Trinitarians who limit the key EGW EIMI saying to John 8:58.

Kind Regards,
Cal

[Trinitarian]

Today @ 12:57 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=134651#post134651)
Cal_Minian:




Dear Trinitarian,
You are using language like "of course" and "clear" and you make statements of your belief but any real support is lacking. If you look at the link I gave for the Bauer-Danker-Arndt-Gincrich Greek lexicon year 2000 you will see that it is _clear_ to them that he is claiming to be the Messiah. I agree.

I have read James White and Rob Bowman on this subject and they both consider EGW EIMI when spoken of Jesus particularly in John to be a claim to divinity.

You, of course are free to form your own opinion, but I have not read many Trinitarians who limit the key EGW EIMI saying to John 8:58.

Kind Regards,
Cal

The Link you gave just opened up another window of this same thread.

You may have read White and Bowman, but have you done much reading beyond that? There is considerable diversity among Christian (Trinitarian) interpreters. Case in point, in my undergrad class on the Gospels the Prof. didn't consider the I AM statements of John to be claiming the divine name (although he did understand them as statements of diety).

You'll note that in BDAG, they say that the word is used in the gospels in such a way that the predicate must be understood from the context. This is what I've been saying. And I would argue that in this context the best understanding is at least a claim to 1) existance prior to the life of Abraham, 2) prior self existence/aseity (a divine attribute) as evidenced by the use of the present tense (I AM), and 3) the application of the divine name YHWH to himself.

This is not based on the fact that the term EGO EIMI occurs here, but because of the context in which occurs. The context is what requires that interpretation, not the term.

You may disagree, but do you have any reason other than the fact that BDAG says this word is sometimes (depending on the context which never seem to deal with) used by Christ to lay claim to Messiahship?

[Cal_Minian]

Today @ 05:21 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=134663#post134663)
Trinitarian:



The Link you gave just opened up another window of this same thread.

You may have read White and Bowman, but have you done much reading beyond that? There is considerable diversity among Christian (Trinitarian) interpreters. Case in point, in my undergrad class on the Gospels the Prof. didn't consider the I AM statements of John to be claiming the divine name (although he did understand them as statements of diety).

You'll note that in BDAG, they say that the word is used in the gospels in such a way that the predicate must be understood from the context. This is what I've been saying. And I would argue that in this context the best understanding is at least a claim to 1) existance prior to the life of Abraham, 2) prior self existence/aseity (a divine attribute) as evidenced by the use of the present tense (I AM), and 3) the application of the divine name YHWH to himself.

This is not based on the fact that the term EGO EIMI occurs here, but because of the context in which occurs. The context is what requires that interpretation, not the term.

You may disagree, but do you have any reason other than the fact that BDAG says this word is sometimes (depending on the context which never seem to deal with) used by Christ to lay claim to Messiahship?

Dear Trinitarian,
Sorry, it should have been this:

http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&threadid=6450


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

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

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




As you can see, Both BDAG and Freed think it was a claim to Messiahship. Also CB Williams and the NET bible provide a object to John 8:24 of "the Christ."

Kind Regards,
Cal

[Trinitarian]

Did you read my post? They say that sometimes it may be a reference to Messiahship, but that it's meaning depends on the context, which you persistently fail to address. How does the context of John 8:58 lend itself to the interpretation that Jesus is claiming Messiahship?

[Cal_Minian]

Today @ 07:11 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=134729#post134729)
Trinitarian:

Did you read my post? They say that sometimes it may be a reference to Messiahship, but that it's meaning depends on the context, which you persistently fail to address. How does the context of John 8:58 lend itself to the interpretation that Jesus is claiming Messiahship?

Dear Trinitarian,
If by "they" you mean BDAG, let's take a closer look at the quote:


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

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



Notice that sometimes EGW EIMI is "I in contrast with others" as in "It is I" or "with strong emphasis" when it means I am the Messiah. They are not saying that sometimes it means "I am the Messiah" and sometimes "I am God"!

They give Freed as an example of what they meant. If you read that article the main concept is the pre-existence of the Messiah, particularly his name. He refers to the Targum of Micah 5:1 where the word "messiah" in inserted into the text instead of the Hebrew "whose origin ..." He also refers to Isaiah 45:1-4 where in the LXX it states of the Messiah (Cyrus back then) "I the Lord who calls you by name."


Therefore in Jewish tradition they would have certainly understood the implications of his claiming to have existed before Abraham as a claim to be the Messiah, a claim they did not believe.

Read Freed's article for more details. As a Seminary student you have easy access to it.


Regards,
Cal

[AVmetro]

Trinitarian stated:
Well, now this is just a poor understanding of textual theory as it relates to hermeneutics. Words only acquire meaning as they are used in certain contexts. For example if I say the word "Trunk" you have no idea what I am referring to unless that word is used in a particular context. I could mean the trunk of a car, a piece of luggage, part of a tree or part of an elephant.

Thus to claim that EGO EIMI must carry the same meaning everywhere it occurs is simply a bad understanding of the english language.

THANK YOU.

[OldShepherd]

Today @ 01:27 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=134770#post134770)
Cal_Minian:

Dear Trinitarian,
If by "they" you mean BDAG, let's take a closer look at the quote:

Notice that sometimes EGW EIMI is "I in contrast with others" as in "It is I" or "with strong emphasis" when it means I am the Messiah. They are not saying that sometimes it means "I am the Messiah" and sometimes "I am God"!

They give Freed as an example of what they meant. If you read that article the main concept is the pre-existence of the Messiah, particularly his name. He refers to the Targum of Micah 5:1 where the word "messiah" in inserted into the text instead of the Hebrew "whose origin ..." He also refers to Isaiah 45:1-4 where in the LXX it states of the Messiah (Cyrus back then) "I the Lord who calls you by name."

Therefore in Jewish tradition they would have certainly understood the implications of his claiming to have existed before Abraham as a claim to be the Messiah, a claim they did not believe.

Read Freed's article for more details. As a Seminary student you have easy access to it.
Regards,
Cal

Does this mean that Freed is the be all, end all, final authority on this point, that every other scholar in the world is wrong and is to be disregarded? Now if we had a number of scholars working independently who all arrived at the same conclusions, then we might have something. But ONE (1) guy?

Which brings me to another name you mentioned as if that one citation was the be all, end all. Diognetus, there are too darned many threads, I don't know which one it was on, I don't care, and I don't feel like looking it up. This guy was cited in BDAG and you glommed on to his one little citation as if it was the holy grail. Diognetus was ONE (1) guy. Again if we had a number of early fathers saying something similar, then we might have something. and OBTW I cannot find any reference to any Diognetus except for the one to whom the epistle from Mathetes is addressed, who as I said, citing the Catholic Encyclopedia, was a pagan.

[Cal_Minian]

Today @ 03:16 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=134869#post134869)
OldShepherd:



Does this mean that Freed is the be all, end all, final authority on this point, that every other scholar in the world is wrong and is to be disregarded? Now if we had a number of scholars working independently who all arrived at the same conclusions, then we might have something. But ONE (1) guy?

Which brings me to another name you mentioned as if that one citation was the be all, end all. Diognetus, there are too darned many threads, I don't know which one it was on, I don't care, and I don't feel like looking it up. This guy was cited in BDAG and you glommed on to his one little citation as if it was the holy grail. Diognetus was ONE (1) guy. Again if we had a number of early fathers saying something similar, then we might have something. and OBTW I cannot find any reference to any Diognetus except for the one to whom the epistle from Mathetes is addressed, who as I said, citing the Catholic Encyclopedia, was a pagan.

Dear OldShepherd,
BDAG says that Dg. refers to something written by an unknown apologist. The unknown apologist is not Diognetus. Diognetus was the one the letter was written to. That is also what the Catholic Encylopaedia says. http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05008b.htm

And there are plenty of scholars who agree with Freed, BDAG and BeDuhn, McKay for one comes to mind. I'll start a new thread for a discussion on that just for you.

Regards,
Cal

[Trinitarian]

Just want to make one final point. Cal has never addressed the one issue that is key to interpreting John 8:58: Context. He claims that this I AM statement of Jesus is a claim to Messiahship, however he is unable to show how this follows from the context. Particularly important is the fact that the Jews tried to stone him following this statement some thing that they would not have done if he had simply been claiming to be the Messiah!! The context makes clear that he was claiming the divine identity.

Word studies are all well and good, but words only have meaning in contexts and Cal doesn't seem to understand this.

[Cal_Minian]

Today @ 11:47 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=135038#post135038)
Trinitarian:

Just want to make one final point. Cal has never addressed the one issue that is key to interpreting John 8:58: Context. He claims that this I AM statement of Jesus is a claim to Messiahship, however he is unable to show how this follows from the context. Particularly important is the fact that the Jews tried to stone him following this statement some thing that they would not have done if he had simply been claiming to be the Messiah!! The context makes clear that he was claiming the divine identity.

Word studies are all well and good, but words only have meaning in contexts and Cal doesn't seem to understand this.

Dear Trinitarian,
Here is a link where I post an article by McKay who says that Jesus' claim to pre-existence was more than enough for the crowd's reaction.
http://theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&threadid=6483


I have already addressed the context in other posts. To recap, in Jewish tradition the Messiah was to have pre-existed, particularly his name. The article cited in BDAG to support this by Edwin Freed cites Micah 5:1 (in the Targums) and Isaiah 45 in the LXX of the "messiah" Cyrus. Both of these texts were considered by first century Jews to have an application to the pre-existence of the Messiah.

As I also posted earlier, it was not merely his claim but the fact that they did not believe him. They also considered it blasphemy for him to make himself out to be the Son of God. (John 19:7) and felt he should die for that as well.

I would like to see your comments on these sources and my explanation of the context.

Kind Regards,
Cal

[Trinitarian]

Today @ 08:23 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=135052#post135052)
Cal_Minian:



Dear Trinitarian,
Here is a link where I post an article by McKay who says that Jesus' claim to pre-existence was more than enough for the crowd's reaction.
http://theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&threadid=6483


I have already addressed the context in other posts. To recap, in Jewish tradition the Messiah was to have pre-existed, particularly his name. The article cited in BDAG to support this by Edwin Freed cites Micah 5:1 (in the Targums) and Isaiah 45 in the LXX of the "messiah" Cyrus. Both of these texts were considered by first century Jews to have an application to the pre-existence of the Messiah.

As I also posted earlier, it was not merely his claim but the fact that they did not believe him. They also considered it blasphemy for him to make himself out to be the Son of God. (John 19:7) and felt he should die for that as well.


Have you done any reading in Second Temple Judaism? The Claim to messiahship was a common one and it was not considered blasphemy. On that point you are mistaken.

However, you are right that claiming to be the Son of God would have been thought of as blasphemy, but you don't accpet the ramifications of the term 'Son of God.' It clearly implies divinity. Moreover it is clear troughout John that Jesus, by claiming to be the Son of God was claiming equality with God and John is clear throughout his Gospel that this was the reason that they tried to kill him (See esp. Jn. 5:18; 10:30; 33).

[Cal_Minian]

Today @ 12:34 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=135056#post135056)
Trinitarian:



Trinitarian:
Have you done any reading in Second Temple Judaism? The Claim to messiahship was a common one and it was not considered blasphemy. On that point you are mistaken.

cal:
Both McKay and I have made the point that it was the claim to pre-existence as the Messiah and not merely to be claiming to be the Messiah that was more than enough reason for their reaction. You keeping going back to "Messiah" and I keep correcting you as to what I have been saying. Hopefully I have been successful communicating this to you by now.

Trinitarian:
However, you are right that claiming to be the Son of God would have been thought of as blasphemy, but you don't accpet the ramifications of the term 'Son of God.' It clearly implies divinity.

cal:
You are committing an exegetical fallacy to use the word CLEARLY before having clearly made your point.

In addition angels were beneh elohim (sons of God). If by "divinity" you mean angel I completly agree with you.

According to Werner's Formation of Dogma on page 134 "the purest and most primitive form of the apocalyptic-christological Angel-Christology" was that "God had assigned to the archangel Christ the lordship in the 'future aeon.'

Trinitarian:
Moreover it is clear troughout John that Jesus, by claiming to be the Son of God was claiming equality with God and John is clear throughout his Gospel that this was the reason that they tried to kill him (See esp. Jn. 5:18; 10:30; 33).

cal:
What is clear from John 5:19 through the rest of the chapter is that Christ denied being equal with God because he said he could not do anything ap heautau or 'of himself' -- of his own originality. He claimed to have been sent by his Father (cf John 13:16) as the slave of of his Father.

I have a lot of material on John 5. If you want an in depth analysis of that chapter, looking at the Greek and OT parallels in the Hebrew Iwill be glad to start a new thread so that we have plenty of 'elbow-room.'

Kind Regards,
Cal

[Trinitarian]

cal:
You are committing an exegetical fallacy to use the word CLEARLY before having clearly made your point.

Me

It is not a fallacy, exegetical, or otherwise to use the word 'clearly.' It is no different than any other statement of fact. If you want to refute, me fine, but just calling it a fallacy doesn't lend precedent to what you say.

cal

In addition angels were beneh elohim (sons of God). If by "divinity" you mean angel I completly agree with you.

Me

Then why would it be blasphemy to call yourself Son of God, if all it means is angel? The Pharisees had no problem with angels. You say that "They also considered it blasphemy for him to make himself out to be the Son of God." How can this be if it only implies angelic being? You can only blaspheme a deity, not an angel.

cal

According to Werner's Formation of Dogma on page 134 "the purest and most primitive form of the apocalyptic-christological Angel-Christology" was that "God had assigned to the archangel Christ the lordship in the 'future aeon.'

Me

So? The JW's have published all kinds of heresy. This statment proves no other point than to tell me what the JW's believe, it doesn't make any arguement for their beliefs being valid. Moreover the heresy of making Christ into an angel is refuted by Hebrews 1 where God the Son is clearly (oh, my did I say that again?) distinguished from the angels.

cal:
What is clear from John 5:19 through the rest of the chapter is that Christ denied being equal with God because he said he could not do anything ap heautau or 'of himself' -- of his own originality. He claimed to have been sent by his Father (cf John 13:16) as the slave of of his Father.

Me

To use your argumentation: You are committing an exegetical fallacy to use the word CLEAR before having clearly made your point. :ahem:

The Son's dependence on the Father does not militate against his deity, rather it shows how the Father and Son work in concert. Moreover, I think you need to read John 5:18 (trust that is what you meant, right? You said 5:19). Here it is:

"This is why the Jews were seeking all the more to kill him, because not only ws breaking the Sabbath, but he was even calling God his own Father, making himself equal with God."

John 5:18 ESV

This isn't the opinion of the Jews, this is a theological statement on the part of the author of the Gospel of John that Jesus was claiming equality with God, and that was why the Jews were trying to kill him.

[Cal_Minian]

Today @ 01:19 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=135075#post135075)
Trinitarian:

cal:
You are committing an exegetical fallacy to use the word CLEARLY before having clearly made your point.

Trinitarian

It is not a fallacy, exegetical, or otherwise to use the word 'clearly.' It is no different than any other statement of fact. If you want to refute, me fine, but just calling it a fallacy doesn't lend precedent to what you say.

Cal_Minian
D.A. Carson in his book Exegetical Fallacies says on page 122 under the section “17 Abuse of “obviously” and similar expressions “It is perfectly proper for a commentator to use “obviously,” “nothing can be clearer,” or the like when he or she has marshaled such overwhelming evidence that the vast majority of readers would concur that the matter being presented is transparent, or that the argument is logically conclusive. But it is improper to use such expressions when opposing arguments have not been decisively refuted, and it is a fallacy to think the expressions themselves add anything substantial to the argument.”

You used these terms without presenting an argument (merely quoting scripture) and before I had replied. What you did fits what Carson speaks about as a fallacy.

cal:

In addition angels were beneh elohim (sons of God). If by "divinity" you mean angel I completely agree with you.

Trinitarian
Then why would it be blasphemy to call yourself Son of God, if all it means is angel? The Pharisees had no problem with angels. You say that "They also considered it blasphemy for him to make himself out to be the Son of God." How can this be if it only implies angelic being? You can only blaspheme a deity, not an angel.


cal

The statement that I made was in reference to this statement of yours which you have omitted in your reply.
Therefore you have taken me out of context.

You said:

However, you are right that claiming to be the Son of God would have been thought of as blasphemy, but you don't accept the ramifications of the term 'Son of God.' It clearly implies divinity.


To which I replied that your statement about CLEARLY was an exegetical fallacy. See my quote of Carson above.
The I took issue with your statement that merely claiming to be ‘Son of God’ implied divinity. I said “In addition angels were beneh elohim (sons of God). If by "divinity" you mean angel I completely agree with you.

You have not answered this. If the term ‘Son of God’ CLEARLY implies divinity then WHY are not angels who are beneh elohim divine in the same sense as Jesus?

I did not use this statement as an argument as to why they considered Jesus to have blasphemed. You have re-arranged our dialogue in a way that is misleading.

The post to which you are presumably replying has the reason I say that they claimed Jesus was blaspheming. Since you cut it out I will quote myself here for the third time (at least)


Both McKay and I have made the point that it was the claim to pre-existence as the Messiah and not merely to be claiming to be the Messiah that was more than enough reason for their reaction. You keeping going back to "Messiah" and I keep correcting you as to what I have been saying. Hopefully I have been successful communicating this to you by now.



cal
According to Werner's Formation of Dogma on page 134 "the purest and most primitive form of the apocalyptic-christological Angel-Christology" was that "God had assigned to the archangel Christ the lordship in the 'future aeon.'

Trinitarian
So? The JW's have published all kinds of heresy.

cal
Werner was not a JW.

Trinitarian
This statement proves no other point than to tell me what the JW's believe,

cal
Werner was not a JW.


Trinitarian
it doesn't make any arguement for their beliefs being valid. Moreover the heresy of making Christ into an angel is refuted by Hebrews 1 where God the Son is clearly (oh, my did I say that again?) distinguished from the angels.

cal
Let's see what Hebrews 1 says is the reason, in context, why Jesus was being distinguished from the angels and when it happened, shall we. Then we can draw our conclusions from what the writer CLEARLY says.



KJV Hebrews 1:4 Being made so much better than the angels, as he hath by inheritance obtained a more excellent name than they.


Notice that Jesus was MADE better than the angels because of being given a name. What was Jesus before he was given this name?

Jesus was distinguished from the angels AFTER this event. What was he before?

cal
What is clear from John 5:19 through the rest of the chapter is that Christ denied being equal with God because he said he could not do anything ap heautau or 'of himself' -- of his own originality. He claimed to have been sent by his Father (cf John 13:16) as the slave of his Father.

Trinitarian
To use your argumentation: You are committing an exegetical fallacy to use the word CLEAR before having clearly made your point.

cal
I made my point. Let’s see if you deal with it.

Trinitarian
The Son's dependence on the Father does not militate against his deity, rather it shows how the Father and Son work in concert. Moreover, I think you need to read John 5:18 (trust that is what you meant, right? You said 5:19). Here it is:

cal
No, my quote is from John 5:19 which is the start of his reply to the false accusations of the Jews.

Trinitarian
This isn't the opinion of the Jews, this is a theological statement on the part of the author of the Gospel of John that Jesus was claiming equality with God, and that was why the Jews were trying to kill him.

cal
Let’s test your theory and see if it has any merit. You claim that John presents his view that Jesus has just claimed equality with God. Jesus then responds to this with “Yes I claim equality with God and rightfully so because I am God.”

NO,
He responds with “the Son can do nothing of himself,” or AP hEAUTAU. He is refuting their claim. To say that one can do nothing of themselves is NOT an affirmation of divinity. When I brought this up before you admit as much when you say “The Son's dependence on the Father does not militate against his deity.” Well it surely is not an affirmation of it!

You are failing to consider this passage in context. Verse 18 is the accusation. Verse 19 is the response by Jesus. His response contains language that shows the “dependence” of the Son of the Father, according to your own words.

Thus Jesus refutes this false accusation.

Kind Regards,
Cal

[OldShepherd]

Today @ 05:23 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=135052#post135052)
Cal_Minian:

Dear Trinitarian,
Here is a link where I post an article by McKay who says that Jesus' claim to pre-existence was more than enough for the crowd's reaction.
http://theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&threadid=6483

I have already addressed the context in other posts. To recap, in Jewish tradition the Messiah was to have pre-existed, particularly his name. The article cited in BDAG to support this by Edwin Freed cites Micah 5:1 (in the Targums) and Isaiah 45 in the LXX of the "messiah" Cyrus. Both of these texts were considered by first century Jews to have an application to the pre-existence of the Messiah.

As I also posted earlier, it was not merely his claim but the fact that they did not believe him. They also considered it blasphemy for him to make himself out to be the Son of God. (John 19:7) and felt he should die for that as well.

I would like to see your comments on these sources and my explanation of the context.

Kind Regards,
Cal

Here are my comments on this. Below you will see a rather lengthy list quoting the precise scriptures and Jewish laws which the Pharisees were trying to violate by stoning Jesus in the temple, without a trial. At the very bottom of this list are enumerated ALL the offenses, under Jewish law, which merited stoning. Claiming to be the Messiah or even the Son of God is not among those offenses. Blasphemy is the only offense that might even be close. So how did Jesus blaspheme? The elements of this offense are clearly listed in Lev 24:13-16.

McKay has been cited as proof that Jesus did NOT claim to be God by saying "eyo eimi"

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

McKay cites the incident of the blind man in Jn 9:9 as proof that "ego eimi" was not exclusive to God and did not constitute a claim to be God. This ignores the fact that the blind man was considered a sinner from birth by both Jesus' disciples and the Pharisees. Since he was considered a sinner he would not have been permitted in the temple or the synagogue, therefore would not have received any formal religious training. He was blind therefore he could not read the scriptures.

The blind man's knowledge of the language would have been that of the street, NOT of the synagogue and the temple. He would have heard many non-Jews speaking, e.g. Romans, and they would have had no reluctance whatsoever, to use language which would have offended the Jews.

Also McKays view does not consider the implied/understood predicate of the statement. In Jn 8:58, the implied/understood predicate is, "the one existing before Abraham". In the blind man's statement the implied/understood predicate is "the one born blind." Hardly a claim to divinity.

Using the blind man in Jn 9:9 is on the level of asking an uneducated homeless street person to decide a point of theology.

"The dramatic reaction of the arresting party in 18:6 is readily explained if we note that the confident authority of Jesus' presence was such that he defeated the merchants in the temple (2:15), and he simply walked away when the crowd was intent on throwing him over the brow of the hill near Nazareth (Luke 4:28-30)." Note McKay cites Jesus "confident authority" as the reason why the Pharisees tried to stone Jesus IN the temple, without a trial, and in violation of several other Jewish laws. See list of stoning offenses at the end of this list. "confident authority" is NOT on the list. So what was the real offense for which the Pharisees were going to stone Jesus, in the temple, in front of ordinary Jew witnesses?
The Mishna, Sanhedrin IV section: "A criminal case resulting in the acquittal of the accused may terminate the same day on which the trial began. But if a sentence of death is to be pronounced, it cannot be concluded before the following day."

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

The proper method of voting was to have "the judges each in his turn absolve or condemn." (This is from the Mishna, from the Sanhedrin section.) "The members of the Sanhedrin were seated in the form of a semi-circle at the extremity of which a secretary was placed [meaning, one secretary on both ends], whose business it was to record the votes. One of these secretaries recorded the votes in favor of the accused, the other against him."

Deuteronomy 13:14-15 Then you shall inquire, search out, and ask diligently. And if it is indeed true and certain that such an abomination was committed among you, you shall surely strike the inhabitants of that city [etc.]

Maimonides, on the Sanhedrin. "A sentence of death can be pronounced only so long as the Sanhedrin holds its sessions in the appointed place." Also the Talmud says, "After leaving the hall Gazith [which is the court] no sentence of death can be passed upon anyone soever." They were not in the court when they passed the sentence of death.

Deut 19:15: "One witness is not enough to convict a man accused of any crime or offense he may have committed. A matter must be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses."

Deut 17:6: "On the testimony of two or three witnesses a man shall be put to death, but no one shall be put to death on the testimony of only one witness."

"We have it as a fundamental principle of our (Jewish) jurisprudence that no one can bring an accusation against himself. Should a man make a confession of guilt before a legally constituted tribunal, such confession is not to be used against him unless properly attested by two other witnesses. "-Chandler, supra, pages 271-272, citing: Maimonides, Sanhedrin 1V2, Mendelsohn, "Criminal Jurisprudence of the Ancient Hebrews,"
p.133.

Mishnah Sanhedrin 4.1

In noncapital cases they hold trial during the daytime and the verdict may be reached during the night; in capital cases they hold the trial during the daytime and the verdict must also be reached during the daytime. In noncapital cases the verdict, whether of acquittal or of conviction, may be reached the same day; in capital cases a verdict of acquittal may be reached on the same day, but a verdict of conviction not until the following day.

Requirements for Conviction

Mishnah Sanhedrin 5.1-4

5.1 They used to prove witnesses with seven inquiries: In what week of years? In what year? In what month? On what day? In what hour? In what place? (R. Jose says: [They aked only,] On what day? In what hour? In what place?) [They also asked:] Do you recognize him? Did you warn him? If a man committed idolatry [they asked the witnesses], What did he worship? and, How did he worship it?
2. The more a judge tests the evidence the more he is deserving of praise: Ben Zakkai once tested the evidence even to inquiring about the stalks of figs. Wherein do the inquiries differ from the cross-examination? If to the inquiries one [of the two witnesses] answered, "I do not know," their evidence becomes invalid; but if to the cross-examination one answered, "We do not know," their evidence remains valid. Yet if they contradict one another, whether during the inquiries or the cross-examination, their evidence becomes invalid.
3. If one said, "On the second of the month," and the other said, "On the third," their evidence remains valid since one may have known the month was intercalated and the other did not know the month was intercalated; but if one said, "On the third," and the other said, "On the fifth," their evidence becomes invalid. If one said, "At the second hour," and the other said, "At the third," their evidence remains valid; but if one said, "At the third hour," and the other said, "At the fifth," their evidence becomes invalid. R. Judah says: It remains valid; but if one said, "At the fifth hour," and the other said, "At the seventh," their evidence becomes invalid since at the fifth hour the sun in in the east and at the seventh it is in the west.
4. They afterward brought in the second witness and proved him. If their words were found to agree together they begin [to examine the evidence] in favor of acquittal. If one witness said, "I have somewhat to argue in favor of his acquittal," or if one of the disciples said, "I have somewhat to argue in favor of his acquittal," they bring him up and set him among them and he does not come down from thence the whole day. If there is any substance in his words they listen to him. Even if the accused said, "I have somewhat to argue in favor of my acquittal," they listen to him, provided there is any substance to his words.

Postponement of Final Sentence Until the Day After Trial Under the Mishnah

Mishnah Sanhedrin 5.5

If they found him innocent they set him free; otherwise they leave his sentence over until the morrow. they went together in pairs, they ate a little (but they used to drink no wine the whole day), and they discussed the matter all night, and early on the morrow they came to the court. He that favored acquittal says: "I declared him innocent and I still declare him innocent"; and he that favored conviction says, "I declared him guilty and I still declare him guilty." He that favored conviction may now acquit, but he that had favored acquittal [the day before] may not retract and favor conviction."

Capital Punishment To Be By Stoning

Mishnah Sanhedrin 6.1-4

1. When sentence has been passed, they take him forth to stone him. The place of stoning was outside the court, as it is written, Bring forth him that hath cursed without the camp. One stands at the door of the court with a towel in his hand, and another, mounted on a horse, far away from him [but where he is able] to see him. If one [in court] said, "I have somewhat to argue in favor of his acquittal," that man waves the towel and the horse runs and stops him [the stoner]. Even if he himself said, "I have somewhat to argue in favor of my acquittal," they must bring him back, be it four times or five, provided that there is any substance in his words. If they found him innocent, they set him free; otherwise he goes forth to be stoned. A herald goes out before him [announcing], "Such-a-one, the son of such-a-one, is going forth to be stoned for that he committed such or such an offense. Such-a-one and such-a-one are witnesses against him. If any man knoweth anything in favor of his acquittal, come let him plead it."
2. When he was about ten cubits from the place of stoning they used to say to him, "Make your confession," for such is the way of them that have been condemned to death to make confession, for every one that makes his confession has a share in the world to come. For so we have found it with Achan. Joshua said to him, [I]My son, give, I pray thee, glory to the Lord, the God of Israel, and make confession unto him, and tell me now what you have done; hide it not from me. And Achan answered Joshua and said, Of a truth I have sinned against the Lord, the God of Israel, and thus and thus have I done. Whence do we learn that his confession made atonement for him? It is written, And Joshua said, Why have you troubled us? The Lord shall trouble thee this day--this day you shall be troubled, but in the world to come you shall not be troubled. If he knows not how to make his confession they say to him, "Say, May my death be an atonement for all my sins." R. Judah says: If he knew that he was condemned because of false testimony he should say, "Let my death be an atonement for all my sins excepting this sin." They said to him: If so, every one would speak after this fashion to show his innocense."
3. When he was four cubits from the place of stoning, they stripped off his clothes. A man is kept covered in front and a woman both in front and behind. So R. Judah. But the Sages say: a man is stoned naked but a woman is not stoned naked.
4. The place of stoning was twice the height of a man. One of the witnesses knocked him down on his loins; if he turned over on his heart the witness turned him over again on his loins. If he straightaway died that sufficed; but if not, the second took the the stone and dropped it on his heart. If he straightaway died, that sufficed; but if not, he was stoned by all Israel, for it is written, The hand of the witnesses shall be first upon him to put him to death and afterward all the hand of all the people. All that have been stoned must be hanged. So R. Eliezer. But the Sages say: None is hanged save the blasphemer and the idolater. A man is hanged with his face to the people and a woman with her face to the gallows. So R. Eliezer. But the Sages say: A man is hanged but a woman is not hanged. R. Eliezer said to them: Did not Simeon ben Shetah hang women in Ashkelon? They answered: He hanged eighty women, whereas two ought not to be judged in one day. How did they hang a man? They put a beam into the ground and a piece of wood juttted from it. The two hand were brought together and it was hanged. R. Jose days: The beam was made to lean against a wall and one hanged the corpse thereon as butchers do. And they let it down at once: if it remained there overnight a negative command is thereby transgressed, for it is is written, His body shall not remain all night upon the tree, but thou shall surely bury him the same day; for he that is hanged is a curse against God; as if to say, Why was this one hanged? Because he blessed the Name, and the Name of Heaven was found profaned.

Crimes Meriting Capital Punishment

Mishnah 7.4

These are they that are to be stoned: he that has connexion with his mother, his father's wife, his daughter-in-law, a male, or a beast, and the woman that suffers connexion with a beast, and the blasphemer and the idolator, and he that offers any of his seed to Molech, and he that has a familiar spirit and a soothsayer, and he that profanes the Sabbath, and he tht curses his father or his mother, and he that has a connexion with a girl that is betrothed, and he that beguiles [others to commit idolatry], and he that leads [a whole town] astray, and the sorcerer and a stubborn and rebellious son.

http://www.keithhunt.com/Jestrial.html

http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/jesus/sanhedrin.html

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

Note, I use bold face to more easily read my own posts. I am not shouting. I also use all CAPS to emphasize certain word.

[Cal_Minian]

[i]Today @ 01:51 AM
OldShepherd
post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=135290#post135290)

OldShepherd:
McKay cites the incident of the blind man in Jn 9:9 as proof that "ego eimi" was not exclusive to God and did not constitute a claim to be God.

cal:
Don’t forget Jason BeDuhn who also makes the same claim.

OldShepherd:
This ignores the fact that the blind man was considered a sinner from birth by both Jesus' disciples and the Pharisees. Since he was considered a sinner he would not have been permitted in the temple or the synagogue, therefore would not have received any formal religious training. He was blind therefore he could not read the scriptures.

cal:
The account in John chapter 9 involved a man who was born blind but whose sight Jesus healed. The man had not personally been able to read the Scriptures, yet he did have a limited knowledge. He knew that God does not hear the requests of willful sinners.

The Scriptures were not the possession of every person. Most Israelites learned the Scriptures by hearing them read, not by reading them themselves. Because this man was born blind he would have heightened listening ability.

OldShepherd:
The blind man's knowledge of the language would have been that of the street, NOT of the synagogue and the temple.

cal:
You appear to think that the blind never went into the temple and were entirely street people! Please allow the holy Scriptures to correct your understanding … KJV Matthew 21:14 And the blind and the lame came to him in the temple ; and he healed them.

OldShepherd:
He would have heard many non-Jews speaking, e.g. Romans, and they would have had no reluctance whatsoever, to use language which would have offended the Jews.

cal:
He would not have heard non-Jews when he was in the temple (larger fonts are for emphasis, I am not shouting.)

OldShepherd:
Also McKays view does not consider the implied/understood predicate of the statement. In Jn 8:58, the implied/understood predicate is, "the one existing before Abraham". In the blind man's statement the implied/understood predicate is "the one born blind." Hardly a claim to divinity.

cal:
In the discourse in John 8 Jesus said EGW EIMI three times. If the Jews understood this to be a claim of divinity then why did they not attempt to stone him the first two times? Did they have a three-strikes law?

OldShepherd:
Using the blind man in Jn 9:9 is on the level of asking an uneducated homeless street person to decide a point of theology.

cal:
If you read the account in John 9 you will see that the religious leaders asked the blind man if he was a disciple of Jesus and that they had the same opinion of Jesus as they did of him. In John 9:16 they said of Jesus, “How can a man that is a sinner do such miracles?” So if Jesus is a sinner like the blind man then your argument also works against you. They should have ignored what Jesus said too.

Kind Regards,
Cal

[OldShepherd]

Today @ 02:53 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=135397#post135397)
Cal_Minian:

OldShepherd:
Also McKays view does not consider the implied/understood predicate of the statement. In Jn 8:58, the implied/understood predicate is, "the one existing before Abraham". In the blind man's statement the implied/understood predicate is "the one born blind." Hardly a claim to divinity.

cal:
In the discourse in John 8 Jesus said EGW EIMI three times. If the Jews understood this to be a claim of divinity then why did they not attempt to stone him the first two times? Did they have a three-strikes law?

For someone who generally tends to present reasoned and apparently informed discussions that is definitely uninformed. Do you know what a predicate is and how it functions in a sentence? What is the predicate, either stated or implied/understood, in the two other examples you cited? I will illustrate my statement again, the predicate clause is highlighted in blue.
Jon 8:58 Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am."the one who existed before Abraham, and whose day Abraham rejoiced to see."

Jon 9:9 Some said, This is he: others said, He is like him: but he [the blind man] said, I am he. "the man born blind".

And as I said before which you ignored, there is no way the reply in J 9:9 can have messianic or theological overtones.

Did you know that the Talmud interpreted a certain O.T. passage to mean that every man was required to have his own copy of the scriptures? That is one of the 613 commandments in the O.T.

And as for your comment about the blind man not hearing common street Greek in the Temple. Is that really relevant? I have two sons, I can remember them coming home, from school, using all sorts of bad language they had heard other kids use, that they did NOT hear at home. At home they certainly did NOT learn a certain filthy phrase they said (only once, each), the second word of which is not mother.

The blind man earned his living on the streets not in the temple. There was no censor on the street to tell him what was proper and what was not.

Jesus was accused of being a sinner, at that point, but NOT a sinner from birth, as was the blind man, twice. Would you care to try a relevant argument?

And OBTW my comment was for those who have suggested I am shouting all the time by using bold in my posts. I do not expect an apology, from you.

Note, I use bold to more easily read my own posts. I am not shouting. I also use all CAPS to emphasize certain words.

[Jezz]

Cal wrote:
Let’s test your theory and see if it has any merit. You claim that John presents his view that Jesus has just claimed equality with God. Jesus then responds to this with “Yes I claim equality with God and rightfully so because I am God.”

NO,
Well, let's test his theory properly and see if it has any merit. :wink:

The trinitarian hypothesis makes two predictions that are applicable to this passage.

1. Both the Father and the Son are equally God, in that they have equal power.
2. Because there is only one God, the Father and the Son (while separate persons) cannot act completely independently (which would imply two separate Gods, rather than one God).

If the trinitarian hypothesis is true, then we would expect Jesus to respond with perhaps four different types of claims to affirm the above two predictions:

1. Claims that the Son cannot act independently of the Father.
2. Claims that the Father cannot act independently of the Son.
3. Claims indicating that the Father can do anything that the Son can do.
4. Claims indicating that the Son can do anything that the Father can do.

The first two points serves to a claim of the unity of God, and thus a claim against polytheism. The last two points together would be a claim that the Father and the Son are equal in power (and thus both equally God). If all four of these claims are made, then this is equivalent to an affirmation of the Trinity (at least, as it applies to the Father/Son relationship).

Compare this with a unitarian hypothesis - we would allow for (though not require) claims of type 1, and certainly expect claims of type 3 would be made, but we wouldn't see any claims of type 2 or 4. Either of claim types 2 or 4 would refute the unitarian hypothesis in favour of the trinitarian.

Let's see how that pans out.

He responds with “the Son can do nothing of himself,” or AP hEAUTAU. He is refuting their claim. To say that one can do nothing of themselves is NOT an affirmation of divinity. When I brought this up before you admit as much when you say “The Son's dependence on the Father does not militate against his deity.” Well it surely is not an affirmation of it!
That is true. To claim dependence on God is not to claim equality with God. But it is also not (by itself) a claim to inferiority. So this claim by Jesus is not sufficient to support your position (that Jesus is inferior to God).

On the other hand, a statement of this sort is predicted by the trinitarian hypothesis, because it falls under the bracket of claim type 1 (claims that the Son is dependent on the Father).

Also, you are ignoring a subtle fact. You are saying that Jesus was refuting "their" claim. But note, the author himself (John) was making this claim! John did not say "the Jews thought that he was making himself equal with God" in verse 18. He simply wrote, that "he was making himself equal with God". He stated this as a fact - not as an opinion of the Pharisees. Any explanation that you come up with must also explain how one of Jesus' closest disciples could have been so badly mistaken about what a claim to be "Son of God" really meant. But, presumably you know more about Jesus than did the disciple whom he loved, so I'll defer to your superior explanation when it is forthcoming. :wink:

You are failing to consider this passage in context. Verse 18 is the accusation. Verse 19 is the response by Jesus. His response contains language that shows the “dependence” of the Son of the Father, according to your own words.

Indeed, and language of dependence is exactly what the trinitarian hypothesis would predict, as noted above.

But speaking of failing to consider this passage in context... you've done the same thing yourself. You've failed to take into account the rest of verse 19. Here is the complete verse of John 5:19:

Jesus gave them this answer: "I tell you the truth, the Son can do nothing by himself; he can do only what he sees his Father doing, because whatever the Father does the Son also does.

Jesus says three things here - the first of which you have already noted, but the second two you have ignored:

1. "The Son can do nothing by himself". As already noted above, this falls into the first category.

2. "he can only do what he sees his Father doing". Turning this claim back-to-front, as it were, we see that it is equivalent to saying "the Father can do anything that the Son can do". This falls into claim category 3 above.

So far, the claims are consistent with both unitarian and trinitarian hypotheses.

But here's where things get interesting. The third piece of information says:

3. "because whatever the Father does, the Son also does."

This statement logically implies the following two statements:

a. Whatever the Father can do, the Son can also do. In other words, this is claim type 4.
b. The Father cannot do anything without the Son doing it also. In other words, this shows that the Father is dependent on the Son (claim type 2).

At this point, Jesus has made claims of type 2 and 4. As I noted above, this refutes the unitarian position and affirms the trinitarian.

Thus Jesus refutes this false accusation.
As I have shown, Jesus was not refuting this accusation. The last part of his response in verse 19 makes it clear that Jesus is reaffirming his claim to deity, not refuting it.

[Cal_Minian]

Today @ 07:28 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=135672#post135672)
OldShepherd:



For someone who generally tends to present reasoned and apparently informed discussions that is definitely uninformed. Do you know what a predicate is and how it functions in a sentence? What is the predicate, either stated or implied/understood, in the two other examples you cited? I will illustrate my statement again, the predicate clause is highlighted in blue.
Jon 8:58 Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am."the one who existed before Abraham, and whose day Abraham rejoiced to see."

Jon 9:9 Some said, This is he: others said, He is like him: but he [the blind man] said, I am he. "the man born blind".

And as I said before which you ignored, there is no way the reply in J 9:9 can have messianic or theological overtones.

Did you know that the Talmud interpreted a certain O.T. passage to mean that every man was required to have his own copy of the scriptures? That is one of the 613 commandments in the O.T.

And as for your comment about the blind man not hearing common street Greek in the Temple. Is that really relevant? I have two sons, I can remember them coming home, from school, using all sorts of bad language they had heard other kids use, that they did NOT hear at home. At home they certainly did NOT learn a certain filthy phrase they said (only once, each), the second word of which is not mother.

The blind man earned his living on the streets not in the temple. There was no censor on the street to tell him what was proper and what was not.

Jesus was accused of being a sinner, at that point, but NOT a sinner from birth, as was the blind man, twice. Would you care to try a relevant argument?

And OBTW my comment was for those who have suggested I am shouting all the time by using bold in my posts. I do not expect an apology, from you.

Note, I use bold to more easily read my own posts. I am not shouting. I also use all CAPS to emphasize certain words.

Dear OldShepherd,
I said:
In the discourse in John 8 Jesus said EGW EIMI three times. If the Jews understood this to be a claim of divinity then why did they not attempt to stone him the first two times? Did they have a three-strikes law?

I did not see that you answered that.

Kind Regards,
Cal

[AVmetro]

Cal_Minion stated:

As I also posted earlier, it was not merely his claim but the fact that they did not believe him. They also considered it blasphemy for him to make himself out to be the Son of God. (John 19:7) and felt he should die for that as well.

Trinitarian made an excellent point from Jn5:18 and 10:30. He states:

Trinitarian:
However, you are right that claiming to be the Son of God would have been thought of as blasphemy, but you don't accpet the ramifications of the term 'Son of God.' It clearly implies divinity. Moreover it is clear troughout John that Jesus, by claiming to be the Son of God was claiming equality with God and John is clear throughout his Gospel that this was the reason that they tried to kill him (See esp. Jn. 5:18; 10:30; 33).

Yet you go on to reply:

What is clear from John 5:19 through the rest of the chapter is that Christ denied being equal with God because he said he could not do anything ap heautau or 'of himself' -- of his own originality. He claimed to have been sent by his Father (cf John 13:16) as the slave of of his Father.

....Ignoring Trinitarian's point. Granted, hypothetically, that this is merely a claim of the Jews {as opposed to an interjection by John}, what does this tell us? It demonstrates what the phrase "Son of God" meant to them which is the whole of the issue surrounding Jn19:7 i.e. "we have a law".

See also:
Rabbi Eleazar Hakkapar (170 A.D.) "God saw that a man, son of a woman, would come forth in the future who would endeavor to make himself God and to lead the whole world astray. Therefore he spoke: 'Beware that you do not err by following that man.' For it is said: 'A man is not God.... And if he says he is God, he is a liar. And he will lead men astray and say that he is going and will come back again at the end of days.' Is it not so that he spoke thus, but he will not be able to do it."
A few hundred years later:
Rabbi Abbahu of Caesarea "If a man says, 'I am God,' he is a liar; if he says, 'I am the Son of Man,' his end will be such that he will rue it; if he says, 'I shall ascend to heaven,' will it not be that he will have spoken and will not be able to perform?"
Both obvious polemics against Jesus Christ.

Both McKay and I have made the point that it was the claim to pre-existence as the Messiah and not merely to be claiming to be the Messiah that was more than enough reason for their reaction. You keeping going back to "Messiah" and I keep correcting you as to what I have been saying. Hopefully I have been successful communicating this to you by now.

If the Messiah was held to be "preexistent" in Jewish theology {as you explicitly claimed} then what is the difference between claiming to be the Messiah and claiming to be the preexistent Messiah? In light of their {the Jews} beliefs, a mere claim to "Messiah" alone necessarily entails a claim to preexistence. Therefore the signifcant difference you appeal to is, in reality, non-existant.

According to Werner's Formation of Dogma on page 134 "the purest and most primitive form of the apocalyptic-christological Angel-Christology" was that "God had assigned to the archangel Christ the lordship in the 'future aeon.'

And? See:

"He created in the beginning one man only, so that heretics should not say that ther are several Powers in heaven (Sanh, 38a); "All agree that nothing was created on the first day, so that people should not say that the archangel Michael stretched the south end of the firmament and Gabriel the north end; for 'I am the Lord that stretched forth the heavens alone'" (Talmud Gen R 1:3).

You have not answered this. If the term ‘Son of God’ CLEARLY implies divinity then WHY are not angels who are beneh elohim divine in the same sense as Jesus?

Because we're basing our understanding on such passages as Jn5:18..cf..10:30. You know this. The question for you is why 'Son of God' is considered 'blasphemy' in Jn19:7 and yet not of the angels nor even of the Pharisees in Jn8:41?

What is clear from John 5:19 through the rest of the chapter is that Christ denied being equal with God because he said he could not do anything ap heautau or 'of himself' -- of his own originality. He claimed to have been sent by his Father (cf John 13:16) as the slave of his Father.

What would you expect us to have? That the Son work independantly of the Father? Would you have the Trinitarian rather it say "I do nothing of the Father.." ? Jezz made an excellent explanation of your fallacy. The Holy Spirit is said to "..not speak of His own but what He hears" (John16:13). Yet Trinitarians do not deny that the Holy Spirit is 'God' on this account, do they? ;-)

Christ had just stated in vs17:
"But Jesus answered them, My Father works until now, and I work."
By claiming to work on the Sabbath just as His Father works on the Sabbath is an explicit claim to equality with YHWH. This is precisely why John could state "He was breaking the Sabbath" as God Himself "broke" the Sabbath as was held by many rabbis.
After vs19 Christ states that all the works the Father does so He does (vs20). What are these? Christ goes on to state that just as the Father raises the dead so does He (vs21). Christ is said in the next verse to be the Judge of all (vs22..cf..Joel3:12). He then goes on to state that all are to 'honor' Him (timaw) even as all are to 'honor' the Father. The word 'timaw' meaning a 'fixed value'. We are to "hold at value" the Son "just as" we are the Father. That is an explicit claim to equality. Had Christ been making the attempt to refute the Jews who were charging Him (vs18) this was the wrong argument to use! ;-) Continuing, vs26 the Son has Life in Himself (Cf.1Jn5:11) just as the Father. "But He was given all of this." The reason?:
"...because He is the Son of Man"
See also Rev5:13 where Christ is set on undeniable equality with the Father. Christ has refuted nothing, only substantitated His claims.

Let’s test your theory and see if it has any merit. You claim that John presents his view that Jesus has just claimed equality with God. Jesus then responds to this with “Yes I claim equality with God and rightfully so because I am God.”

NO,
He responds with “the Son can do nothing of himself,” or AP hEAUTAU. He is refuting their claim. To say that one can do nothing of themselves is NOT an affirmation of divinity. When I brought this up before you admit as much when you say “The Son's dependence on the Father does not militate against his deity.” Well it surely is not an affirmation of it!

Christ's patently obvious point being, yes a refutation, not of equality with God, but of working outside of God's authority. He is not God's rival as the Jewish accusers appeared to have percieved by His statements.

Now, you have labeled Christ's response as being a "refutation" of sorts. As one can see the subsequent verses fail to give this impression. ;-)

You are failing to consider this passage in context. Verse 18 is the accusation. Verse 19 is the response by Jesus. His response contains language that shows the “dependence” of the Son of the Father, according to your own words.

Thus Jesus refutes this false accusation.

Your labeling it a refutation has the wrong implications in mind. He was refuting any thought of Him working outside of God's authority as a 'rival' of sorts. The verse you cited is perfectly in line with Trinitarian theology i.e. functional subordination. If you intend to refute the Trinitarian view then you must propose those objections that go against our theology.

The account in John chapter 9 involved a man who was born blind but whose sight Jesus healed. The man had not personally been able to read the Scriptures, yet he did have a limited knowledge. He knew that God does not hear the requests of willful sinners.

You're only serving to support OS with this statement. OS has already stated that He was a sinner and considered so from birth as a result of his blindness. Ergo, he would have naturally learned this as an explanation for his condition.

The Scriptures were not the possession of every person. Most Israelites learned the Scriptures by hearing them read, not by reading them themselves. Because this man was born blind he would have heightened listening ability.

This isn't the point. As has been stated time and time again it is the implications behind the usage that are of relevance. The blind man would had to have intended it's use as the self-revelatory phrase employed by YHWH in the OT and Jewish lit. in order for it to be classed as blasphemy. The use employed by Christ fits this criteria. E.g.:

"I am He, fear not, for I AM before the days were." (Revelation of Abraham)

..cf..

"Before Abraham was, I AM" Jn8:58 [*Cf. Ps90:2]

In the discourse in John 8 Jesus said EGW EIMI three times. If the Jews understood this to be a claim of divinity then why did they not attempt to stone him the first two times? Did they have a three-strikes law?

I believe these do have divine implications. Simply not as obvious as the last utterance of the phrase.
Simple reason, because they did not immediately grasp what He was saying. Read:
Vs20 These words spake Jesus in the treasury, as he taught in the temple: and no man laid hands on him; for his hour was not yet come.

Vs27 They understood not that he spake to them of the Father.

Vs43 Why do ye not understand my speech? even because ye cannot hear my word.
However, one can see that the reality was beginning to set in. They twice pose the question:
Vs25 Then said they unto him, Who art thou?

Vs53 Art thou greater than our father Abraham, which is dead? and the prophets are dead: whom makest thou thyself?

God bless

[OldShepherd]

Today @ 12:49 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=135682#post135682)
Cal_Minian:

Dear OldShepherd,
I said:
In the discourse in John 8 Jesus said EGW EIMI three times. If the Jews understood this to be a claim of divinity then why did they not attempt to stone him the first two times? Did they have a three-strikes law?

I did not see that you answered that.

Kind Regards,
Cal

I certainly did address it. I asked you to clarify your response by stating what was the stated or implied/understood predicate in the other two "ego eimi" statements.

The Scriptures were not the possession of every person. Most Israelites learned the Scriptures by hearing them read, not by reading them themselves. Because this man was born blind he would have heightened listening ability.

The ancient Jews identified 613 commandments in the Torah. Note, number #15. Maybe #614 should be, "Thou shalt not speaketh of what thou knowest not."
         Torah

10 To honor the old and the wise (Lev. 19:32) (CCA17).

11. To learn Torah and to teach it (Deut. 6:7) (CCA14). See Torah.

12. To cleave to those who know Him (Deut. 10:20) (the Talmud states that cleaving to scholars is equivalent to cleaving to Him) (CCA16).

13. Not to add to the commandments of the Torah, whether in the Written Law or in its interpretation received by tradition (Deut. 13:1) (CCN159). See Torah.

14. Not to take away from the commandments of the Torah (Deut. 13:1) (CCN160). See Torah.

15. That every person shall write a scroll of the Torah for himself (Deut. 31:19) (CCA15). See Torah.

http://www.jewfaq.org/613.htm

[Trinitarian]

Hey, thanks for picking up my arguement. I was gone for a day or so and couldn't respond. Great Post.

Grace and Peace.

[OldShepherd]

Yesterday @ 12:49 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=135682#post135682)
Cal_Minian:

Dear OldShepherd,
I said: In the discourse in John 8 Jesus said EGW EIMI three times. If the Jews understood this to be a claim of divinity then why did they not attempt to stone him the first two times? Did they have a three-strikes law?

I did not see that you answered that.

Kind Regards,
Cal

First a little stage setting. Who was present? “all the people” and the “scribes and Pharisees.,” Jn 8:2-3.
Jn 8:2 And early in the morning he came again into the temple, and all the people came unto him; and he sat down, and taught them.
3 And the scribes and Pharisees

Why was no attempt made to seize or stone Jesus for the two previous uses of the phrase ego eimi/ego eimi? Two distinct possibilities, God did NOT permit it because it was not the appointed time, J 8:20, and/or the two previous instances can be semantically differentiated from Jn 8:58. First Jn 8:23-4.
John 8:20 These words spake Jesus in the treasury, as he taught in the temple: and no man laid hands on him; for his hour was not yet.]

23 And he said unto them, Ye are from beneath; I am from above: ye are of this world; I am not of this world.
24 I said therefore unto you, that ye shall die in your sins: for if ye believe not that I am [he], ye shall die in your sins.
I have mentioned the implied/understood predicate before but it has never been addressed. What is the predicate of Jesus’ use of ego eimi/ego eimi in this verse? “I am from above, I am not of this world,” evidently claiming to be “from above, not of this world” is NOT a claim to divinity or being the messiah. Neither of which OBTW is a stoning offense in the several Jewish laws I posted Here! (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=135290#post135290)

The next occurrence, Jn 8:28
28 Then said Jesus unto them, When ye have lifted up the Son of man, then shall ye know that I am [he], and [that] I do nothing of myself; but as my Father hath taught me, I speak these things.
In this verse the predicate for the statement ego eimi/ego eimi is “the son of man.” Again claiming to be the “son of man” apparently is not a stoning offense.

A satisfactory answer has never been given to the question, “What was the offense for which all the people led by the scribes and Pharisees, attempted to stone Jesus, in the temple proper, in violation of at least twenty (20) requirements of Jewish law?

Very Kindest Regards,
Carlos.



I use bold to more easily read my own posts. I am not shouting. I also use all CAPS to emphasize certain words.

[OldShepherd]

Yesterday @ 02:53 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=135397#post135397)
Cal_Minian:

The Scriptures were not the possession of every person. Most Israelites learned the Scriptures by hearing them read, not by reading them themselves. Because this man was born blind he would have heightened listening ability. * * *

You appear to think that the blind never went into the temple and were entirely street people! Please allow the holy Scriptures to correct your understanding … KJV Matthew 21:14 And the blind and the lame came to him in the temple ; and he healed them.

If you read the account in John 9 you will see that the religious leaders asked the blind man if he was a disciple of Jesus and that they had the same opinion of Jesus as they did of him. In John 9:16 they said of Jesus, “How can a man that is a sinner do such miracles?” So if Jesus is a sinner like the blind man then your argument also works against you. They should have ignored what Jesus said too.

Kind Regards,
Cal

"So if Jesus is a sinner like the blind man then your argument also works against you. They should have ignored what Jesus said too." Jesus was not handicapped in anyway, e.g. blind, lame, deaf, etc. and while the Pharisees did accuse him of being a sinner, he would have been permitted, no required, to attend temple and synagogue. Whereas the blind man was expressly prohibited from doing so. Our old friend the Jewish Encyclopedia. There were some exceptions but this was the general rule for the blind in ancient Judaism. So once again I ask the rhetorical qeustion, should a modern day believer base their understanding, of scripture, on one statement by a blind, outcast, uneducated beggar?
BLIND, THE, IN LAW AND LITERATURE

The ancient nations regarded blindness as the lowest degradation that could be inflicted upon man; hence gouging out the eyes of an enemy was a form of national retaliation. The Philistines bored out the eyes of Samson, and the king of Babylon blinded Zedekiah. Nahash the Ammonite demanded as a condition of surrender that he should thrust out the right eye of every man of Jabesh-gilead, as a reproach upon all Israel (I Sam. xi. 2).

In the Bible.

The blind, together with cripples and lepers, were outcasts of society and kept quarantined outside the town limits; they became paupers and a menace to passers-by. When David besieged the Jebusites at Jerusalem, the blind and crippled mendicants were so numerous that he was compelled to take stringent measures against them (II Sam. v. 6). In the eyes of the ancient Hebrews the maimed, and especially the blind, were thought to possess a debased character.

The Mishnah prohibits the ordination of a blind justice, although a blind witness is permitted to testify.

The Talmud compares the blind, the leper, the childless, and the pauper to the dead (Ned. 64b), quoting from Lamentations (iii. 6): "He hath set me in dark places as they that be dead of old."

Reciting the Scriptures.

The public reading of the Pentateuch by a blind man is prohibited, as the "words of Holy Writ may not be recited orally" (Meg. 24a).

http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=1139&letter=B

[OldShepherd]

Would the priests, scribes, and Pharsisses have understood Jesus to have been claiming to be YHWH when He answered them "Amen. amen, I say to you before Abraham was, ego eimi/"ego eimi", literally "I Am"?
Jewish Encyclopedia - Ehyeh-Asher-Ehyeh.
The Incommunicable Name was pronounced "Adonai," and where Adonai and Yhwh occur together the latter was pronounced "Elohim." After the destruction of the Second Temple there remained no trace of knowledge as to the pronunciation of the Name (see Jehovah). The commentators, however, agree as to its interpretation, that it denotes the eternal and everlasting existence of God, and that it is a composition of (meaning "a Being of the Past, the Present, and the Future"). The name Ehyeh denotes His potency in the immediate future, and is part of Yhwh. The phrase "ehyeh-asher-ehyeh" (Ex. iii. 14) is interpreted by some authorities as "I will be because I will be," using the second part as a gloss and referring to God's promise, "Certainly I will be [ehyeh] with thee" (Ex. iii. 12). Other authorities claim that the whole phrase forms one name. The Targum Onkelos leaves the phrase untranslated and is so quoted in the Talmud (B. B. 73a). The "I AM THAT I AM" of the Authorized Version is based on this view.

http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=52&letter=N

Jehovah A mispronunciation (introduced by Christian theologians, but almost entirely disregarded by the Jews) of the Hebrew "Yhwh," the (ineffable) name of God (the Tetragrammaton or "Shem ha-Meforash"). This pronunciation is grammatically impossible; it arose through pronouncing the vowels of the "tzere" (marginal reading of the Masorites: = "Adonay") with the consonants of the "ketib" (text-reading: = "Yhwh")—"Adonay" (the Lord) being substituted with one exception wherever Yhwh occurs in the Biblical and liturgical books. "Adonay" presents the vowels "shewa" (the composite under the guttural א becomes simple under the י), "kholem," and "kametz," and these give the reading (= "Jehovah"). Sometimes, when the two names and occur together, the former is pointed with "katef segol" ( ) under the י —thus, (="Jehovah")—to indicate that in this combination it is to be pronounced "Elohim" (). These substitutions of "Adonay"and "Elohim" for Yhwh were devised to avoid the profanation of the Ineffable Name (hence is also written, or even, and read "ha-Shem" = "the Name ").

The reading "Jehovah" is a comparatively recent invention. The earlier Christian commentators report that the Tetragrammaton was written but not pronounced by the Jews (see Theodoret, "Question. xv. in Ex." [Field, "Hexapla," i. 90, to Ex. vi. 3]; Jerome, "Præfatio Regnorum," and his letter to Marcellus, "Epistola," 136, where he notices that "PIPI" [= ΠIΠI =] is presented in Greek manuscripts; Origen, see "Hexapla" to Ps. lxxi. 18 and Isa. i. 2; comp. concordance to LXX. by Hatch and Redpath, under ΠIΠI, which occasionally takes the place of the usual κύριος, in Philo's Bible quotations; κύριος = "Adonay" is the regular translation; see also Aquila).

"Jehovah" is generally held to have been the invention of Pope Leo X.'s confessor, Peter Galatin ("De Arcanis Catholicæ Veritatis," 1518, folio xliii.), who was followed in the use of this hybrid form by Fagius (= Büchlein, 1504-49). Drusius (= Van der Driesche, 1550-1616) was the first to ascribe to Peter Galatin the use of "Jehovah," and this view has been taken since his days (comp. Hastings, "Dict. Bible," ii. 199, s.v. "God"; Gesenius-Buhl, "Handwörterb." 1899, p. 311; see Drusius on the tetragrammaton in his "Critici Sacri, i. 2, col. 344). But it seems that even before Galatin the name "Jehovah" had been in common use (see Drusius, l.c. notes to col. 351). It is found in Raymond Martin's "Pugio Fidei." written in 1270 (Paris, 1651, iii., pt. ii., ch. 3, p. 448; comp. T. Prat in "Dictionnaire de la Bible," s.v.).

http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=206&letter=J

[Cal_Minian]

07-01-2003 @ 05:24 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=136633#post136633)
OldShepherd:



"So if Jesus is a sinner like the blind man then your argument also works against you. They should have ignored what Jesus said too." Jesus was not handicapped in anyway, e.g. blind, lame, deaf, etc. and while the Pharisees did accuse him of being a sinner, he would have been permitted, no required, to attend temple and synagogue. Whereas the blind man was expressly prohibited from doing so. Our old friend the Jewish Encyclopedia. There were some exceptions but this was the general rule for the blind in ancient Judaism. So once again I ask the rhetorical qeustion, should a modern day believer base their understanding, of scripture, on one statement by a blind, outcast, uneducated beggar?
BLIND, THE, IN LAW AND LITERATURE

The ancient nations regarded blindness as the lowest degradation that could be inflicted upon man; hence gouging out the eyes of an enemy was a form of national retaliation. The Philistines bored out the eyes of Samson, and the king of Babylon blinded Zedekiah. Nahash the Ammonite demanded as a condition of surrender that he should thrust out the right eye of every man of Jabesh-gilead, as a reproach upon all Israel (I Sam. xi. 2).

In the Bible.

The blind, together with cripples and lepers, were outcasts of society and kept quarantined outside the town limits; they became paupers and a menace to passers-by. When David besieged the Jebusites at Jerusalem, the blind and crippled mendicants were so numerous that he was compelled to take stringent measures against them (II Sam. v. 6). In the eyes of the ancient Hebrews the maimed, and especially the blind, were thought to possess a debased character.

The Mishnah prohibits the ordination of a blind justice, although a blind witness is permitted to testify.

The Talmud compares the blind, the leper, the childless, and the pauper to the dead (Ned. 64b), quoting from Lamentations (iii. 6): "He hath set me in dark places as they that be dead of old."

Reciting the Scriptures.

The public reading of the Pentateuch by a blind man is prohibited, as the "words of Holy Writ may not be recited orally" (Meg. 24a).

http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=1139&letter=B

Dear OldShepherd,
I quoted you a scripture that proves that the blind were in the temple. I frankly do not care what your Jewish sources say if they contradict the inspired Scripture.

To be honest, when you quote me these sources I do not even read them.

My doctrine is that which the inspired writers taught. The sources that you quote were written by those who rejected Jesus as the Messiah.

Kind Regards,
Cal

[OldShepherd]

Today @ 07:08 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=139618#post139618)
Cal_Minian:

Dear OldShepherd,
I quoted you a scripture that proves that the blind were in the temple. I frankly do not care what your Jewish sources say if they contradict the inspired Scripture.

To be honest, when you quote me these sources I do not even read them.

My doctrine is that which the inspired writers taught. The sources that you quote were written by those who rejected Jesus as the Messiah.

Kind Regards,
Cal

Bullfeathers you parrot the teaching of the WBTS and you yourself quotes sources, such as Diognetus, which is NOT inspired scriptures, when they can be twisted to seem to agree with the teachings of your master the WBTS. So save the pious nonsense for your Pioneers, they will believe it.

[AVmetro]

Cal_Minioin cited:

Mat 21:14 "And the blind and the lame came to Him in the temple, and He healed them."

Albert Barnes:
When a person entered any of the gates into this space within the wall he saw the temple rising before him with great magnificence; but the space was not clear all the way up to it. Going forward, he came to another wall, enclosing considerable ground, considered more holy than the rest of the hill. The space between this first and second wall was called “the court of the Gentiles.” It was so called because Gentiles might come into it, but they could proceed no further. On the second wall and on the gates were inscriptions in Hebrew, Greek, and Latin, forbidding any Gentile or unclean person from proceeding further on pain of death. This “court” was not of equal dimensions all the way round the temple. On the east, north, and west it was quite narrow. On the south it was wide, occupying nearly half of the whole surface of the hill. In this court the Gentiles might come. Here was the place where much secular business was transacted.
John Gill:
Mat 21:14 - And the blind and the lame came to him,.... The Syriac and Ethiopic versions read, "they brought unto him the blind and the lame". The blind could not come to him unless they were led, nor the lame, unless they were carried: the sense therefore is, they came, being brought to him:

in the temple; that part of it, the court of the Gentiles, and mountain of the house, out of which he had cast the buyers and sellers, &c. and in the room of them, were brought in these objects of his pity
Cal_Minion had stated in this post (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?postid=135397#post135397):

He would not have heard non-Jews when he was in the temple

See above citations.

I quoted you a scripture that proves that the blind were in the temple. I frankly do not care what your Jewish sources say if they contradict the inspired Scripture.

The question is "where" on the temple grounds in regards to 'who' was permitted to enter what area.

To be honest, when you quote me these sources I do not even read them.

Contrary to your understanding, the citations provided by Old Shepherd do not contradict scripture but only serve to clarify scripture in regards to details. You might be interested in reading this article (http://www.tektonics.org/solex.html) as it makes a solid point.

My doctrine is that which the inspired writers taught. The sources that you quote were written by those who rejected Jesus as the Messiah.

But they were relevent rules and regulations of the time nonetheless. Unless the citations provided by Old Shepherd are polemics against Christ, then I see no relevance to the above statement as it pertains to what is being discussed in regards to the temple.

God bless

[Cal_Minian]

Yesterday @ 10:32 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=139839#post139839)
IronMetro:


But they were relevent rules and regulations of the time nonetheless. Unless the citations provided by Old Shepherd are polemics against Christ, then I see no relevance to the above statement as it pertains to what is being discussed in regards to the temple.

God bless

Dear IronMetro,
The problem with all of these quotes from Judaica are the assumptions that the teachings of the Jews in the first century are reflected in the quotes.

The beliefs of the Jews varied tremendously over time and geographic range.

On the other hand, what is written in the gospels about them was placed there for out instruction.

The bible is my source of information on the Jews of Jesus' day and I will not apologize for placing the bible in a category above any secular source.

Kind Regards,
Cal

[AVmetro]

Cal_Minion stated:

The problem with all of these quotes from Judaica are the assumptions that the teachings of the Jews in the first century are reflected in the quotes.

Then the burden would naturally be on you to demonstrate that they are not reflective of the current laws and regulations of the time. I think you'll have a bit of trouble accomplishing that in regards to what we're discussing at the moment.

The beliefs of the Jews varied tremendously over time and geographic range.

Did they here? I speak of a potential contrast with the first-century Jewish Jerusalem of Jesus' day with the information presented in the posts of Old Shepherd and others.

On the other hand, what is written in the gospels about them was placed there for out instruction.

Do I disagree?

The bible is my source of information on the Jews of Jesus' day and I will not apologize for placing the bible in a category above any secular source.

So do I. But herein lies your problem. You assume that the information presented in said secular sources contradicts what is to be found in scripture when it does nothing of the sort.

Thanks.

[Cal_Minian]

Today @ 04:24 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=140394#post140394)
IronMetro:



Then the burden would naturally be on you to demonstrate that they are not reflective of the current laws and regulations of the time. I think you'll have a bit of trouble accomplishing that in regards to what we're discussing at the moment.



Did they here? I speak of a potential contrast with the first-century Jewish Jerusalem of Jesus' day with the information presented in the posts of Old Shepherd and others.



Do I disagree?



So do I. But herein lies your problem. You assume that the information presented in said secular sources contradicts what is to be found in scripture when it does nothing of the sort.

Thanks.

Dear IronMetro.
I assume nothing. I am frankly not very interested in quotes from Judaica, particularly when they are presented in such quantity.

They are also not presented with any rigorous proof that these views are in fact identical to the views of the particular Jews to which Jesus was speaking in John 8 or the blind man in John 9.

Since I have such a lack of interest in these particular Jewish sources, wishing to focus on what the bible says about the Jews in John 8 and 9, I have no desire or motive to spend time attempting to refute an unproven and unfounded theory that these sources are relevent.

Kind Regards,
Cal

[AVmetro]

I assume nothing.

So you are insisting that the citations provided do in fact contradict scripture?

I am frankly not very interested in quotes from Judaica, particularly when they are presented in such quantity.

The intent, I assure you, is not to 'spam' you with quantity but with documentation of what we assert. I see no reason why one would not be interested in the historical context of the bible.

They are also not presented with any rigorous proof that these views are in fact identical to the views of the particular Jews to which Jesus was speaking in John 8 or the blind man in John 9.

In a previous post I had cited Albert Barnes. The citation being thus:
When a person entered any of the gates into this space within the wall he saw the temple rising before him with great magnificence; but the space was not clear all the way up to it. Going forward, he came to another wall, enclosing considerable ground, considered more holy than the rest of the hill. The space between this first and second wall was called “the court of the Gentiles.” It was so called because Gentiles might come into it, but they could proceed no further. On the second wall and on the gates were inscriptions in Hebrew, Greek, and Latin, forbidding any Gentile or unclean person from proceeding further on pain of death. This “court” was not of equal dimensions all the way round the temple. On the east, north, and west it was quite narrow. On the south it was wide, occupying nearly half of the whole surface of the hill. In this court the Gentiles might come. Here was the place where much secular business was transacted.
Now read:
Act 21:28-29 Crying out, Men of Israel, come to our help: this is the man who is teaching all men everywhere against the people and the law and this place: and in addition, he has taken Greeks into the Temple, and made this holy place unclean . For they had seen him before in the town with Trophimus of Ephesus, and had the idea that Paul had taken him with him into the Temple.

In the above instance, complete agreement between the scriptures and the secular source cited.

You can see similar in regards to the priests in the days of the Exodus:
Lev 21:16-23 And Jehovah spoke to Moses, saying, Speak to Aaron, saying, No man of your seed in their generations shall draw near to offer the bread of his God if there is a blemish in him. For no man in whom there is a blemish shall draw near, a blind man, or a lame man, or disfigured, or deformed, or a man that is broken-footed, or broken handed, or crook-backed, or a crushed one, or who has a blemish in his eye, or a scurvy or scabbed person, or one with crushed testicles. No man of the seed of Aaron, the priest, in whom there is a blemish shall come near to offer the fire offerings of Jehovah. He has a blemish; he shall not come near to offer the bread of his God. He shall eat the bread of his God, of the most holy and of the holy. Only he shall not go in to the veil, nor come near to the altar, because he has a blemish; so that he does not profane My sanctuaries. For I, Jehovah, do sanctify them.
Which is highly reminiscent of that which was cited by OS concerning the temple and the blind.

Since I have such a lack of interest in these particular Jewish sources, wishing to focus on what the bible says about the Jews in John 8 and 9, I have no desire or motive to spend time attempting to refute an unproven and unfounded theory that these sources are relevent.

So you don't believe it is important to understand the historical context in which the events of the scriptures took place? You may lack 'interest' but this in no wise negates the fact that it is highly important in illuminating details.

God bless

[Cal_Minian]

Today @ 08:24 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=140492#post140492)
IronMetro:


So you don't believe it is important to understand the historical context in which the events of the scriptures took place? You may lack 'interest' but this in no wise negates the fact that it is highly important in illuminating details.

God bless

Dear IronMetro,
My problem with all of this is that it takes a large speculative leap in addition to these Judaic sources to reach the conclusion that the Jewish blind man would not understand EGW EIMI as a name of God, if in fact that is how it would have been understood.

The understanding that BDAG presents is much more reasonable and believable. EGW EIMI is used to signal a self identification that must come from context.

I just don't find the supposed Judaic arguments compelling, let alone worthy of consideration. Sorry.

Kind Regards,
Cal

[OldShepherd]

Today @ 01:57 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=140506#post140506)
Cal_Minian:

Dear IronMetro,
My problem with all of this is that it takes a large speculative leap in addition to these Judaic sources to reach the conclusion that the Jewish blind man would not understand EGW EIMI as a name of God, if in fact that is how it would have been understood.

The understanding that BDAG presents is much more reasonable and believable. EGW EIMI is used to signal a self identification that must come from context.

I just don't find the supposed Judaic arguments compelling, let alone worthy of consideration. Sorry.

Kind Regards,
Cal

In other words if it either does or could contradict the myriad of secular sources, ancient and modern, that tower slaves quote in their publications, then it is not worthy of consideration. But if some scholar who lives 2000 years later and could not possibly know anything about the culture and customs of first century Jerusalem, without those sources, happens to write something which agrees with WBTS teaching then that writing is held up as if it were the holy grail.

Basically the standard is if it agrees with WBTS teachings it is right, regardless of who wrote it, when, or where. If is contradicts the WBTS it is wrong.

[Cal_Minian]

Yesterday @ 04:24 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=140394#post140394)
IronMetro:



Then the burden would naturally be on you to demonstrate that they are not reflective of the current laws and regulations of the time. I think you'll have a bit of trouble accomplishing that in regards to what we're discussing at the moment.



Did they here? I speak of a potential contrast with the first-century Jewish Jerusalem of Jesus' day with the information presented in the posts of Old Shepherd and others.



Do I disagree?



So do I. But herein lies your problem. You assume that the information presented in said secular sources contradicts what is to be found in scripture when it does nothing of the sort.

Thanks.

Dear IronMetro:
As you know, I have posted at length on the fact that our doctrine is that which was taught by the bible writers in context. I really believe this to be true ... this is supported by the fact that all the essential doctrines are taught in Scripture by bible writers in context.

An extension of this hermeneutic is that everything that we need to know to interpret what the bible writers teach us is in the bible .

I do not disagree that history can help us understand certain aspects of what is taught.

I do, though, strongly disagree with any attempt to make an argument where the strongest support is extra-biblical.

If one cannot support their belief by using the bible alone (sola scriptura) then I am not inclined to spend too much time either thinking about it or even attempting to refute it.

I hope that explains my feelings on this. I'm just a bible kind of guy.

Kind Regards,
Cal

[OldShepherd]

Today @ 10:09 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=141597#post141597)
Cal_Minian:

Dear IronMetro:
As you know, I have posted at length on the fact that our doctrine is that which was taught by the bible writers in context. I really believe this to be true ... this is supported by the fact that all the essential doctrines are taught in Scripture by bible writers in context.

An extension of this hermeneutic is that everything that we need to know to interpret what the bible writers teach us is in the bible .

I do not disagree that history can help us understand certain aspects of what is taught.

I do, though, strongly disagree with any attempt to make an argument where the strongest support is extra-biblical.

If one cannot support their belief by using the bible alone (sola scriptura) then I am not inclined to spend too much time either thinking about it or even attempting to refute it.

I hope that explains my feelings on this. I'm just a bible kind of guy.

Kind Regards,
Cal

Interpreted: "Anything which contradicts the teachings of my group is wrong and not worthy of consideration. We, however, will quote any source regardless when, where, or by whom written, if it can be twisted to appear to support WBTS teachings.

Although we say "sola scriptura," Bible only, we will use any other sources such as the BDAG if it seems to or can be twisted to support WBTS teachings. For example the BDAG uses many extrabiblical historical writings, such as Philo, Plutarch, etc. to determine word definitions but even the BDAG is only worthy of consideration if it supports our teachings.

[AVmetro]

My problem with all of this is that it takes a large speculative leap in addition to these Judaic sources to reach the conclusion that the Jewish blind man would not understand EGW EIMI as a name of God, if in fact that is how it would have been understood.

That's not my point. It is irrelevant to me whether he understood it as such or not. As I have stated from the beginning, it is not simply "saying it" that is a claim to being divine. I may as well ask you whether or not the blind man was claiming to be the preexistent Messiah by employing it's use? No? Why? Context? Thank you. I've already demonstrated that 'ani hu' was employed as a substitute for the Tetra at the Feast of Tabernacles.

Yet this in no wise necessitates that every individual who utters the phrase must be claiming divinity. See my point? OS's argument only makes it stronger by removing the opportunity to simply equivocate.

My primary point was to correct your assertions regarding OS's citations i.e. that they were inaccurate in accord with what the scriptures state.

The understanding that BDAG presents is much more reasonable and believable. EGW EIMI is used to signal a self identification that must come from context.

I.e. in your own opinion.

I just don't find the supposed Judaic arguments compelling, let alone worthy of consideration. Sorry.

Considering your admittal that you don't even read them, I don't find this surprising.

As you know, I have posted at length on the fact that our doctrine is that which was taught by the bible writers in context. I really believe this to be true ... this is supported by the fact that all the essential doctrines are taught in Scripture by bible writers in context.

I don't disagree.

An extension of this hermeneutic is that everything that we need to know to interpret what the bible writers teach us is in the bible .

I don't disagree.

I do not disagree that history can help us understand certain aspects of what is taught.

I do, though, strongly disagree with any attempt to make an argument where the strongest support is extra-biblical.

This is a naive statement. Historical context et al is the bible. It's just not expounded upon in the scriptures. Secondly, there is a nuanced dichotomy between drawing your basic beliefs from the scriptures and forming a comprehensive argument.

If one cannot support their belief by using the bible alone (sola scriptura) then I am not inclined to spend too much time either thinking about it or even attempting to refute it.

I hope that explains my feelings on this. I'm just a bible kind of guy.

Again, another naive statement that would be expected only from a KJVO. Unless you can demontrate that our sources contradict the scriptures, I don't see you as having a case.

Did you read the article I linked on this very thing? I found it interesting.

Thanks.

[OldShepherd]

Yesterday @ 09:38 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=140405#post140405)
Cal_Minian:

Dear IronMetro.
I assume nothing. I am frankly not very interested in quotes from Judaica, particularly when they are presented in such quantity.

They are also not presented with any rigorous proof that these views are in fact identical to the views of the particular Jews to which Jesus was speaking in John 8 or the blind man in John 9.

Since I have such a lack of interest in these particular Jewish sources, wishing to focus on what the bible says about the Jews in John 8 and 9, I have no desire or motive to spend time attempting to refute an unproven and unfounded theory that these sources are relevent.

Kind Regards,
Cal

"I have no desire or motive to spend time attempting to refute an unproven and unfounded theory that these sources are relevent." But you will wave DeBuhn and Diognetus as if Charlton Heston carried them down from the mountain engraved in stone. Bottom line, if it seems to support WBTS teaching, regardless who wrote it, when, or where, pagan, Jew, Christian, immaterial, then it is "right" But if it contradicts WBTS teaching then it is automatically wrong.

[Cal_Minian]

Yesterday @ 09:51 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=141732#post141732)
IronMetro:



That's not my point. It is irrelevant to me whether he understood it as such or not. As I have stated from the beginning, it is not simply "saying it" that is a claim to being divine. I may as well ask you whether or not the blind man was claiming to be the preexistent Messiah by employing it's use? No? Why? Context? Thank you. I've already demonstrated that 'ani hu' was employed as a substitute for the Tetra at the Feast of Tabernacles.

Yet this in no wise necessitates that every individual who utters the phrase must be claiming divinity. See my point? OS's argument only makes it stronger by removing the opportunity to simply equivocate.

My primary point was to correct your assertions regarding OS's citations i.e. that they were inaccurate in accord with what the scriptures state.



I.e. in your own opinion.



Considering your admittal that you don't even read them, I don't find this surprising.



I don't disagree.



I don't disagree.



This is a naive statement. Historical context et al is the bible. It's just not expounded upon in the scriptures. Secondly, there is a nuanced dichotomy between drawing your basic beliefs from the scriptures and forming a comprehensive argument.



Again, another naive statement that would be expected only from a KJVO. Unless you can demontrate that our sources contradict the scriptures, I don't see you as having a case.

Did you read the article I linked on this very thing? I found it interesting.

Thanks.

Dear IronMetro,
I can supply plenty of statements that do not contradict the bible but that we know to be false. That is not good logic. I will not waste my time trying to refute statements based on extra-biblical quotes.

As for the status of the blind man, there are just too many presuppostions that you want me to swallow in order to accept your take on this. I would be remiss as a debater if I did not point this out. Besides, you would not longer respect me :smile:

That the Jewish blind man had knowledge of the bible: I already quoted to the effect that he did in a previous post. The objection that he could not enter the temple was refuted Scripturally. The objection that he could not read Scripture because he was blind and therefore would not have known the same things as sighted Jewish people was also refuted because almost no one would have had a manuscript to read for themselves. They would have all learned by hearing it recited. The man was blind, not deaf :smile:

Kind Regards,
Cal

[OldShepherd]

Today @ 01:47 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=141965#post141965)
Cal_Minian:

The objection that he could not read Scripture because he was blind and therefore would not have known the same things as sighted Jewish people was also refuted because almost no one would have had a manuscript to read for themselves. They would have all learned by hearing it recited. The man was blind, not deaf :smile:

Kind Regards,
Cal

Which ignores the fact that OS proved from the OT that all Jews were required by the law to make their own copy of the scriptures and you will also find that they were required to wear Tzittzits with certain passages of scriptures in them. :uhoh:

[barryrob]

I am so saddened by the lengths people will go through to rob Christ of His rightful glory.
Or the lenghts thet go to give him that which he is not entitled to such a making him out to be Almighty God!

Barryrob

[barryrob]

I saw some discussion on John 8:58. I thought that the posters here would like to see what Dr. Jason BeDuhn has concluded with his research on the subject.
Further food for thinking Christians:-

Other places in the Christian Greek texts (N.T.) of the Bible were the Greek word eimi, appears and is translated other than 'I' or 'am' or 'I am'.



Luke 19:22 K.J.V. "And he saith unto him, Out of thine own mouth will I judge thee, thou wicked servant. Thou knewest that I was* (Gk. eimi, Literally "am") an austere man, taking up that I laid not down, and reaping that I did not sow:"-‘Greek to English Interliner N.T. K.J.V’. by George Ricker Berry



John 14:9 K.J.V. (also see N.W.T) "Jesus saith unto him, Have I been* (Gk. eimi, Literally "am I") so long time with you, and yet hast thou not known me, Philip? he that hath seen me hath seen the Father; and how sayest thou then, Shew us the Father?"-‘Greek to English Interliner N.T. K.J.V’. by George Ricker Berry



John 14:9 N.I.V. “Jesus answered: "Don't you know me, Philip, even after I have been (Gk. “eimi,” Int. “I am.””-‘The NASB-NIV Parallel N.T. in Gk. & Eng. with Interlinear translation’ by Alfred Marshall) among you such a long time? Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father. How can you say, `Show us the Father'?





Barryrob

[barryrob]

Dear DeeDee,
I am saddened by the lengths people will go through to rob the God and Father of Jesus Christ of his own rightful personal glory. (Is 42:8).
Regards, Cal
Or to give the right amount of Glory to the one by not robbing the other!
"Ego eimi" having the sense of "pre-existence", "have been" (N.W.T.), this comment (note the bold type) which is interesting as it follows this exposition on John 8:58



"Amen Amen, I say to you, before Abraham came into being I AM. There is on doubt now about the assertion of an eternal personality; there can be hardly any doubt about the claim to Deity."



then he goes on to add the following:



"Yet it is made by allusion and implication. The words I AM need not of necessity mean more than an assertion of existence, they need not be the Divine Name revealed to Moses at the Bush (Exodus iii, 14). It still cannot be said that He has explicitly affirmed is Deity."



The above has be taken from 'Reading in St John's Gospel' by William Temple p.144. Noting William Temple's comment, Jehovah's Christian Witnesses render "ego eimi" as "have been" thus referring to Pre-existence and NOT to Deity. Here the Jews went to stone Jesus for saying that he had seen Abraham and was not yet Fifty years of age and not for claiming to be God which I confirmed by John's statement at John 1:18 "No-one has ever seen God" (N.I.V.).