Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

John 8:58 - Revisited


  • Please log in to reply
88 replies to this topic

#1 Jesse2W

Jesse2W

    Lambda

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 245 posts

Posted 23 June 2012 - 07:31 AM

Can "before Abraham *genesthai,* I am" be understood correctly as "before Abraham becomes, I am to become" with reference to the resurrection?

A Christadelphian cite I stumbled upon when looking into this possibility was http://bibleq.info/answer/447/
This site explains why the Greek can and should be translated as such.

I think this translation makes more sense then claiming to be the messiah before Abraham was made. This new understanding shows how Jesus demonstrated he was superior to Abraham and upset the Pharisees. They Pharisees must have thought that whoever is resurrected first is the most important.

If it can be translated this way, then it makes grammatical sense and that makes me happy. I always expected to find a way for this verse to make perfect sense. Though, I had no idea what it would be.

#2 Mark Taunton

Mark Taunton

    Rho

  • Christadelphian Armoury
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,773 posts

Posted 23 June 2012 - 06:05 PM

The argument presented for that particular suggestion is certainly interesting, and may have some merit. He makes a fair case about tenses in relation to the word 'prin' ("before"), which makes that reading possible.

(BTW, this doesn't mean I agree with everything else written there. In particular I reject the treatment of Exo 3:14 and "I am". The critical Hebrew phrase means "I will be who I will be"; as shown from both Exo 3:12 and many other places where even the LXX itself translates 'ehyeh' as 'esomai' - "I will be" not as 'eimi' - "I am". The LXX's particular rendering in Exo 3:14 is unique to that one verse, and quite inconsistent.)

Edited by Mark Taunton, 23 June 2012 - 06:15 PM.


#3 Jesse2W

Jesse2W

    Lambda

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 245 posts

Posted 23 June 2012 - 10:16 PM

Apparently that site doesn't believe the Genesis account of creation - or at least the young age of the Earth.

#4 LioneDea

LioneDea

    Lambda

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 205 posts

Posted 26 June 2012 - 02:18 PM

The argument presented for that particular suggestion is certainly interesting, and may have some merit. He makes a fair case about tenses in relation to the word 'prin' ("before"), which makes that reading possible.

(BTW, this doesn't mean I agree with everything else written there. In particular I reject the treatment of Exo 3:14 and "I am". The critical Hebrew phrase means "I will be who I will be"; as shown from both Exo 3:12 and many other places where even the LXX itself translates 'ehyeh' as 'esomai' - "I will be" not as 'eimi' - "I am". The LXX's particular rendering in Exo 3:14 is unique to that one verse, and quite inconsistent.)



Lione D' ea: Wrong!

Disclaimer: We are unprofitable servants: we have done that which was our duty to do. (Luke 17:10)


#5 Matt Smith

Matt Smith

    Upsilon

  • Forum Manager
  • 4,619 posts

Posted 26 June 2012 - 02:58 PM


The argument presented for that particular suggestion is certainly interesting, and may have some merit. He makes a fair case about tenses in relation to the word 'prin' ("before"), which makes that reading possible.

(BTW, this doesn't mean I agree with everything else written there. In particular I reject the treatment of Exo 3:14 and "I am". The critical Hebrew phrase means "I will be who I will be"; as shown from both Exo 3:12 and many other places where even the LXX itself translates 'ehyeh' as 'esomai' - "I will be" not as 'eimi' - "I am". The LXX's particular rendering in Exo 3:14 is unique to that one verse, and quite inconsistent.)



Lione D' ea: Wrong!


Such a helpful post... :doh:
Matt Smith
Arizona Christadelphians

Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.

#6 LioneDea

LioneDea

    Lambda

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 205 posts

Posted 02 July 2012 - 11:19 AM

Lione D' ea: I have a question in 8:58 of John. Are christadelphian believe Jesus Christ is already existed before Abraham was?

Disclaimer: We are unprofitable servants: we have done that which was our duty to do. (Luke 17:10)


#7 LioneDea

LioneDea

    Lambda

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 205 posts

Posted 02 July 2012 - 11:20 AM

Apparently that site doesn't believe the Genesis account of creation - or at least the young age of the Earth.



Lione D' ea: Are you referring the Age of the earth in Bible brother?

Disclaimer: We are unprofitable servants: we have done that which was our duty to do. (Luke 17:10)


#8 Matt Smith

Matt Smith

    Upsilon

  • Forum Manager
  • 4,619 posts

Posted 02 July 2012 - 01:31 PM

Lione D' ea: I have a question in 8:58 of John. Are christadelphian believe Jesus Christ is already existed before Abraham was?


Jesus do not exist before his conception in Mary.
Matt Smith
Arizona Christadelphians

Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.

#9 Matt Smith

Matt Smith

    Upsilon

  • Forum Manager
  • 4,619 posts

Posted 02 July 2012 - 01:32 PM


Apparently that site doesn't believe the Genesis account of creation - or at least the young age of the Earth.



Lione D' ea: Are you referring the Age of the earth in Bible brother?


That is what he's referring to, but this particular subject will be heavily moderated if pursued.
Matt Smith
Arizona Christadelphians

Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.

#10 LioneDea

LioneDea

    Lambda

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 205 posts

Posted 11 July 2012 - 01:51 PM


Lione D' ea: I have a question in 8:58 of John. Are christadelphian believe Jesus Christ is already existed before Abraham was?


Jesus do not exist before his conception in Mary.



Lione D' ea: If we are talking the existing of Christ you are incorrect there...why, read what Jesus tell to Jews:

Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am. (King James Version)

Lione D' ea: Jesus Christ itself directly answered to the Jews that He was existedbefore Abraham was. So how come you tell me the existing of Christ is when Mary conceived Him, the bases of yours is not logic and stupid if Biblical saying?


end.

Disclaimer: We are unprofitable servants: we have done that which was our duty to do. (Luke 17:10)


#11 Richie

Richie

    Chi

  • Christadelphian MD
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,355 posts

Posted 11 July 2012 - 02:53 PM

The Jews, like you LioneDea, didn't get what Jesus was saying.
"Build a man a fire, and he'll be warm for a day. Set a man on fire, and he'll be warm for the rest of his life." - Terry Pratchett.

#12 Jesse2W

Jesse2W

    Lambda

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 245 posts

Posted 11 July 2012 - 06:42 PM



Lione D' ea: I have a question in 8:58 of John. Are christadelphian believe Jesus Christ is already existed before Abraham was?


Jesus do not exist before his conception in Mary.



Lione D' ea: If we are talking the existing of Christ you are incorrect there...why, read what Jesus tell to Jews:

Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am. (King James Version)

Lione D' ea: Jesus Christ itself directly answered to the Jews that He was existedbefore Abraham was. So how come you tell me the existing of Christ is when Mary conceived Him, the bases of yours is not logic and stupid if Biblical saying?


end.


It wouldn't actually make sense if you understood it that way. It would be like this.

He is was made before Abraham was made

#13 LioneDea

LioneDea

    Lambda

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 205 posts

Posted 12 July 2012 - 10:06 AM

The Jews, like you LioneDea, didn't get what Jesus was saying.



Lione D' ea If I am a Jew like you...I will not stated Jesus Christ is God, but if not...I will confesseth that He is God and not a mere man as you Jews claim to Him. Prove it that Jesus Christ is man and I am ready to refute your bases.

Disclaimer: We are unprofitable servants: we have done that which was our duty to do. (Luke 17:10)


#14 nsr

nsr

    Order of the Golden Pedant 2nd Class

  • Forum Manager
  • 6,370 posts

Posted 12 July 2012 - 10:28 AM

Prove that Jesus was a man? Easily done. Jesus was tempted to sin, and he died. Two things that would be impossible if he were also God.

There really is nothing more that needs to be said.
"But you have come to Mount Zion and to the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, to an innumerable company of angels, to the general assembly and church of the firstborn who are registered in heaven, to God the Judge of all, to the spirits of just men made perfect..." (Heb 12:22-23)

#15 LioneDea

LioneDea

    Lambda

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 205 posts

Posted 12 July 2012 - 10:30 AM




Lione D' ea: I have a question in 8:58 of John. Are christadelphian believe Jesus Christ is already existed before Abraham was?


Jesus do not exist before his conception in Mary.



Lione D' ea: If we are talking the existing of Christ you are incorrect there...why, read what Jesus tell to Jews:

Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am. (King James Version)

Lione D' ea: Jesus Christ itself directly answered to the Jews that He was existedbefore Abraham was. So how come you tell me the existing of Christ is when Mary conceived Him, the bases of yours is not logic and stupid if Biblical saying?


end.


It wouldn't actually make sense if you understood it that way. It would be like this.

He is was made before Abraham was made



Lione D' ea: Wrong that is not the Christ implying when he answered to Jews...why, let us read in other translation of the Bible what the word WAS that Jesus Christ referred:

“I tell you the truth,” Jesus answered, before Abraham was born, I am!” (New International Version 1984)

Lione D' ea: Jesus Christ talking about is the existing of Abraham not how Abraham was made, that's why Jews answered to Him:

Then said the Jews unto him, Thou art not yet fifty years old, and hast thou seen Abraham? (King James Version)

Lione D' ea: It is not the made was talking about by Christ, but the existing so Jesus Christ said to them:

Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am. (King James Version)

Lione D' ea: Therefore before Abraham was born Christ was existed.

Disclaimer: We are unprofitable servants: we have done that which was our duty to do. (Luke 17:10)


#16 LioneDea

LioneDea

    Lambda

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 205 posts

Posted 12 July 2012 - 10:46 AM

Prove that Jesus was a man? Easily done. Jesus was tempted to sin, and he died. Two things that would be impossible if he were also God.

There really is nothing more that needs to be said.



Lione D' ea: False Jesus Christ did not sin according to Himself, John 8:46 Read:

Which of you convinceth me of sin? And if I say the truth, why do ye not believe me?

Lione D' ea: Jesus Christ itself did not commit sin, so the question there was is Jesus Christ was tempted in what particular aspect He was tempted, let us read Hebrew 2:18; 4:15 stated:

For in that he himself hath suffered being tempted, he is able to succour them that are tempted.

For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin. (Hebrew 4:15)

Lione D' ea: According to the passages Jesus Christ was tempted. In what particular tempted in Hebrew 3:7-9 Read:

Wherefore (as the Holy Ghost saith, To day if ye will hear his voice,

8Harden not your hearts, as in the provocation, in the day of temptation in the wilderness:


9When your fathers tempted me, proved me, and saw my works forty years.


Lione D' ea: The temptation which Hebrews 2:18; 4:15 referred to Christ is the proved, not the temptation of sin and there is no we can read in whole New Testament that says Jesus Christ was tempted to sin if you can prove it He was sin I accept I lose, but if you can't you are liar?

Disclaimer: We are unprofitable servants: we have done that which was our duty to do. (Luke 17:10)


#17 nsr

nsr

    Order of the Golden Pedant 2nd Class

  • Forum Manager
  • 6,370 posts

Posted 12 July 2012 - 02:23 PM

I didn't say he sinned. I said he was tempted to sin.
"But you have come to Mount Zion and to the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, to an innumerable company of angels, to the general assembly and church of the firstborn who are registered in heaven, to God the Judge of all, to the spirits of just men made perfect..." (Heb 12:22-23)

#18 Jesse2W

Jesse2W

    Lambda

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 245 posts

Posted 13 July 2012 - 12:17 AM





Lione D' ea: I have a question in 8:58 of John. Are christadelphian believe Jesus Christ is already existed before Abraham was?


Jesus do not exist before his conception in Mary.



Lione D' ea: If we are talking the existing of Christ you are incorrect there...why, read what Jesus tell to Jews:

Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am. (King James Version)

Lione D' ea: Jesus Christ itself directly answered to the Jews that He was existedbefore Abraham was. So how come you tell me the existing of Christ is when Mary conceived Him, the bases of yours is not logic and stupid if Biblical saying?


end.


It wouldn't actually make sense if you understood it that way. It would be like this.

He is was made before Abraham was made



Lione D' ea: Wrong that is not the Christ implying when he answered to Jews...why, let us read in other translation of the Bible what the word WAS that Jesus Christ referred:

“I tell you the truth,” Jesus answered, before Abraham was born, I am!” (New International Version 1984)

Lione D' ea: Jesus Christ talking about is the existing of Abraham not how Abraham was made, that's why Jews answered to Him:

Then said the Jews unto him, Thou art not yet fifty years old, and hast thou seen Abraham? (King James Version)

Lione D' ea: It is not the made was talking about by Christ, but the existing so Jesus Christ said to them:

Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am. (King James Version)

Lione D' ea: Therefore before Abraham was born Christ was existed.

The King James Version is inaccurate here. It should be "was made" or perhaps "becomes"


It still wouldn't make gramatical sense that way.

None of these sentences make sense:
1. I am was before Abraham was.
2. I am before abraham was.

The present tense doesn't work with the past tense.

#19 LioneDea

LioneDea

    Lambda

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 205 posts

Posted 15 July 2012 - 08:16 AM

I didn't say he sinned. I said he was tempted to sin.



Lione D' ea: Therefore He was sin because he was tempted to sin, as thechristadelphians claims, are you confuse?

Edited by LioneDea, 15 July 2012 - 08:41 AM.

Disclaimer: We are unprofitable servants: we have done that which was our duty to do. (Luke 17:10)


#20 LioneDea

LioneDea

    Lambda

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 205 posts

Posted 15 July 2012 - 08:37 AM






Lione D' ea: I have a question in 8:58 of John. Are christadelphian believe Jesus Christ is already existed before Abraham was?


Jesus do not exist before his conception in Mary.



Lione D' ea: If we are talking the existing of Christ you are incorrect there...why, read what Jesus tell to Jews:

Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am. (King James Version)

Lione D' ea: Jesus Christ itself directly answered to the Jews that He was existedbefore Abraham was. So how come you tell me the existing of Christ is when Mary conceived Him, the bases of yours is not logic and stupid if Biblical saying?


end.


It wouldn't actually make sense if you understood it that way. It would be like this.

He is was made before Abraham was made



Lione D' ea: Wrong that is not the Christ implying when he answered to Jews...why, let us read in other translation of the Bible what the word WAS that Jesus Christ referred:

“I tell you the truth,” Jesus answered, before Abraham was born, I am!” (New International Version 1984)

Lione D' ea: Jesus Christ talking about is the existing of Abraham not how Abraham was made, that's why Jews answered to Him:

Then said the Jews unto him, Thou art not yet fifty years old, and hast thou seen Abraham? (King James Version)

Lione D' ea: It is not the made was talking about by Christ, but the existing so Jesus Christ said to them:

Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am. (King James Version)

Lione D' ea: Therefore before Abraham was born Christ was existed.

The King James Version is inaccurate here. It should be "was made" or perhaps "becomes"


It still wouldn't make gramatical sense that way.

None of these sentences make sense:
1. I am was before Abraham was.
2. I am before abraham was.


The present tense doesn't work with the past tense.



Lione D' ea: Actually it is not only King James Version is the only version I used, and doesn't mean that there was verses errors in any versions of the Bible meaning they are all incorrect. But let us prove if speaking grammatical sense...you said: None of these sentences make sense: 1. I am was before Abraham was. 2. I am before abraham was let us read first in I Corinthians 4:6 Read:

And these things, brethren, I have in a figure transferred to myself and to Apollos for your sakes; that ye might learn in us not to think of men above that which is written, that no one of you be puffed up for one against another. (King James Version)

Lione D' ea: The one step of how to read the Bible is to learn not to think above that which is written, so what the passage of John 8:58 in King James Version said:

Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am. (King James Version)

Lione D' ea: The KJV said: Before Abraham was, I am, this is the exact that version rendered, and don't think the man who translate this version illiterate in grammar.

Edited by LioneDea, 15 July 2012 - 08:39 AM.

Disclaimer: We are unprofitable servants: we have done that which was our duty to do. (Luke 17:10)


#21 Jesse2W

Jesse2W

    Lambda

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 245 posts

Posted 15 July 2012 - 10:00 AM







Lione D' ea: I have a question in 8:58 of John. Are christadelphian believe Jesus Christ is already existed before Abraham was?


Jesus do not exist before his conception in Mary.



Lione D' ea: If we are talking the existing of Christ you are incorrect there...why, read what Jesus tell to Jews:

Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am. (King James Version)

Lione D' ea: Jesus Christ itself directly answered to the Jews that He was existedbefore Abraham was. So how come you tell me the existing of Christ is when Mary conceived Him, the bases of yours is not logic and stupid if Biblical saying?


end.


It wouldn't actually make sense if you understood it that way. It would be like this.

He is was made before Abraham was made



Lione D' ea: Wrong that is not the Christ implying when he answered to Jews...why, let us read in other translation of the Bible what the word WAS that Jesus Christ referred:

“I tell you the truth,” Jesus answered, before Abraham was born, I am!” (New International Version 1984)

Lione D' ea: Jesus Christ talking about is the existing of Abraham not how Abraham was made, that's why Jews answered to Him:

Then said the Jews unto him, Thou art not yet fifty years old, and hast thou seen Abraham? (King James Version)

Lione D' ea: It is not the made was talking about by Christ, but the existing so Jesus Christ said to them:

Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am. (King James Version)

Lione D' ea: Therefore before Abraham was born Christ was existed.

The King James Version is inaccurate here. It should be "was made" or perhaps "becomes"


It still wouldn't make gramatical sense that way.

None of these sentences make sense:
1. I am was before Abraham was.
2. I am before abraham was.


The present tense doesn't work with the past tense.



Lione D' ea: Actually it is not only King James Version is the only version I used, and doesn't mean that there was verses errors in any versions of the Bible meaning they are all incorrect. But let us prove if speaking grammatical sense...you said: None of these sentences make sense: 1. I am was before Abraham was. 2. I am before abraham was let us read first in I Corinthians 4:6 Read:

And these things, brethren, I have in a figure transferred to myself and to Apollos for your sakes; that ye might learn in us not to think of men above that which is written, that no one of you be puffed up for one against another. (King James Version)

Lione D' ea: The one step of how to read the Bible is to learn not to think above that which is written, so what the passage of John 8:58 in King James Version said:

Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am. (King James Version)

Lione D' ea: The KJV said: Before Abraham was, I am, this is the exact that version rendered, and don't think the man who translate this version illiterate in grammar.


It doesn't make sense at face value - you have to take it metaphorically or translate it different.

#22 LioneDea

LioneDea

    Lambda

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 205 posts

Posted 15 July 2012 - 10:36 AM

It doesn't make sense at face value - you have to take it metaphorically or translate it different.



Lione D' ea: Maybe for you it doesn't make sense but not in the Bible because if you value your salvation the need there is zealous in reading. Take for example if you are doubt in the passage of King James Version, there is other translation we can read aside of King James Version take a look in NIV 1984

I tell you the truth,” Jesus answered, “before Abraham was born, I am!”
Jesus answered, “I tell you the truth, before Abraham was even born, I AM! (New Living Translation)
Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I am.” (English Standard Version)

Lione D' ea: It is the same in referred, and if you have doubt the Bible which you are reading, you can go back in old manuscript of the Bible to assure but I guarantee to you as Jesus Christ said: Before Abraham was, He was existed. Read meticulously what Jesus Christ answered to the Jews in verse 56 He said:

Your father Abraham rejoiced to see my day: and he saw it, and was glad.

Lione D' ea: See that Abraham glad because he saw the Christ therefore Christ is existed, that's why Jews reply to Him:

Then said the Jews unto him, Thou art not yet fifty years old, and hast thou seen Abraham?

Lione D' ea: Therefore it is not talking about how Abraham was made.

Edited by LioneDea, 15 July 2012 - 10:39 AM.

Disclaimer: We are unprofitable servants: we have done that which was our duty to do. (Luke 17:10)


#23 Matt Smith

Matt Smith

    Upsilon

  • Forum Manager
  • 4,619 posts

Posted 15 July 2012 - 02:31 PM


I didn't say he sinned. I said he was tempted to sin.



Lione D' ea: Therefore He was sin because he was tempted to sin, as thechristadelphians claims, are you confuse?


Being tempted to sin is not sin. Acting on the temptations is sin. Are you confused?
Matt Smith
Arizona Christadelphians

Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.

#24 Jesse2W

Jesse2W

    Lambda

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 245 posts

Posted 15 July 2012 - 09:34 PM

It doesn't make sense at face value - you have to take it metaphorically or translate it different.



Lione D' ea: Maybe for you it doesn't make sense but not in the Bible because if you value your salvation the need there is zealous in reading. Take for example if you are doubt in the passage of King James Version, there is other translation we can read aside of King James Version take a look in NIV 1984

I tell you the truth,” Jesus answered, “before Abraham was born, I am!”
Jesus answered, “I tell you the truth, before Abraham was even born, I AM! (New Living Translation)
Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I am.” (English Standard Version)

Lione D' ea: It is the same in referred, and if you have doubt the Bible which you are reading, you can go back in old manuscript of the Bible to assure but I guarantee to you as Jesus Christ said: Before Abraham was, He was existed. Read meticulously what Jesus Christ answered to the Jews in verse 56 He said:

Your father Abraham rejoiced to see my day: and he saw it, and was glad.

Lione D' ea: See that Abraham glad because he saw the Christ therefore Christ is existed, that's why Jews reply to Him:

Then said the Jews unto him, Thou art not yet fifty years old, and hast thou seen Abraham?

Lione D' ea: Therefore it is not talking about how Abraham was made.

I don't think you (like the Pharisees) understood what Jesus was talking about. Regardless, Jesus' response doesn't make grammatical sense based on any English I'm familiar with. Unless you understand Jesus to be speaking metaphorically (claiming to be eternally existing or claiming to be the messiah in God's plan), then this translation is not grammatically correct. If you think "I am" is the divine name, then what sense is it to say "before Abraham was made, Yahweh?"

#25 Biblaridion

Biblaridion

    Lambda

  • Christadelphian
  • PipPip
  • 281 posts

Posted 19 July 2012 - 05:12 AM

Hello,

Here is something I prepared earlier but it only scratches the surface............I could say much more.......the problem is that most "Christians" do not understand the Old Testament..........and do not know how to employ intetextuality.........that is why they come up with wierd idea's about pre-existence etc........they take everything literaly and do not look at the context.............bad hermeneutics.




Before Abraham


“Your father Abraham rejoiced to see My day, and he saw it and was glad. Then the Jews said to Him, ‘You are not yet fifty years old, and have You seen Abraham?’ Jesus said to them, ‘Most assuredly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I AM.’” (John 8:56-58)

The first thing of note is that the Jewish response (have you seen Abraham?) is a non sequitur to the initial statement (Abraham saw My day). Their logic demanded that if Abraham saw Christ’s day then Christ must have seen Abraham. A more natural response would have been; ‘What day did Abraham see....or, how did he see your day?’ However, Jesus is not diverted by the non sequitur but immediately responds with the controversial - before Abraham......‘I AM’ statement.




Abraham rejoiced


The cultic setting of the previous chapter (Feast of Tabernacles) provides the background for questions concerning the identity of Jesus. Mary L. Coloe[1] observes that Jewish tradition, recorded in the Book of Jubilees (c.150 BC), remembers Abraham as the first to celebrate Tabernacles: “And he [Abraham] built booths for himself and for his servants on that festival. (Jub. 16:21) The feast was celebrated with great rejoicing” (Jub.16:20, 25, 27 cf. Lev.23:40; ‘you shall rejoice before the LORD’). She also points out that both Jubilees and the Targum on Isaiah 43 link intertextualy with the Gospel:

Jubilees: “He knew and perceived that from him there would be a righteous planting for eternal generations and a holy seed from him...” (Jub. 16:26)
Targum: “I declared to Abraham your father what was about to come” (Isa. Tg. 43: 10-12)
Gospel: “Abraham rejoiced to see my day” (John 8:56)

Targum: “I am he that was from the beginning” (Isa. Tg. 43: 10).
Gospel: “Before Abraham was I am” (John 8:58).

Alongside her observations even more powerful intertextual links can be posited with the Abrahamic narrative in Genesis, particularly in Genesis 22. The theme of “seeing” (the blind man of John 9) is anticipated by Abraham “seeing” Christ in John 8. Abraham “saw” the typological ‘day of Christ’ (the Passover) when he sacrificed his son Isaac on Mount Moriah which was given the Memorial name of Yahweh-Yireh, which means Yahweh will be seen.[2] Moreover, the rejoicing of Abraham connects with the “laughter” of Abraham (Gen.17:17) and Sarah (Gen.18:12) at the promise of an heir – who was named Isaac (he laughs).

Abraham saw My Day


Abram was promised that his descendants would be saved from Egypt (Gen.15: 14-16) and they were rescued 430 years later on the “same day” (Ex.12:41).[3] The day that the promise was given to Abram (cf. Gen.15:18, ‘same day’) and the day of deliverance was therefore the Passover. (‘My day’ in John 8:56); Jesus states that, ‘I AM’ was before Abraham and this is established by the promise of deliverance being given to Abram (not yet renamed Abraham the progenitor of the ‘Jewish world’), moreover, the promise of self manifestation can be traced back to Eve (Gen.3:15), who believed that she had given birth to Yahweh (Gen.4:1).[4] To sum up, John uses Isaiah 43, Genesis 22 and Jubilees to establish that Passover deliverance was pre-destined since the beginning of the (Jewish) world – moreover, the ‘I AM’ was also pre-destined. Men of faith were able to “see” this (i.e., the blind man) and it was the day of Yahweh that Abraham “saw” when he sacrificed Isaac; “On the third day Abraham lifted up his eyes and saw the place afar off” (Gen.22:4)[5]




[1] Mary L. Coloe, Like Father- Like Son: The Role of Abraham in Tabernacles , Jn 8: 31-59,(Pacifica 12 (February) 1999. 1-11), 9

[2] Genesis 22:14; the Abrahamic narrative in Genesis is themed around revelation and “seeing”. All the names contain the ‘r-h’ combination Abraham, Terah, Sarah, Moriah, Yahweh-Yireh connecting with the Hebrew raah- to show or see in the sense of revealing and manifesting.

[3] Andrew Perry offers a plausible explanation of ‘the day’ by linking it with the deliverance from Egypt: “And it came to pass on the day when the Lord (Yahweh) spake unto Moses in the land of Egypt.” (Ex.6:29-30) In Isaiah 43 the prophet resorts to Exodus Passover language in order to speak of coming deliverance from Babylon. The future Exodus from Babylon is assured because God was the ‘Yahweh’ that had brought Israel out of Egypt. The language of ‘the day’ connects with the creative language of Genesis 1, but the creative act that is being referred to here is the act of deliverance at Passover. A. Perry, Before he was born,(Willow Publications, 1995),172-192.

[4] Eve thought she had given birth to the Messiah: Now Adam knew Eve his wife, and she conceived and bore Cain, and said, “I have acquired a man from (or, with) the LORD.”” (Gen.4:1NKJ). The transliterated Hebrew reads as follows (names in bold): ve.ha.a.dam ya.da et-kha.va ish.to va.ta.har va.te.led et-ka.yin va.to.mer ka.ni.ti ish et-YHWH ( הוהי-תא) The Hebrew kanitish (gotten or acquired) is a play on kayin (Cain) –the Canaanites were merchants and smiths. Note that the ‘et’ (תא) that proceeds each name is not translated with the exception of the last name where the participle is erroneously translated as ‘from’ or ‘with’ [the help of], however, it is a demonstrative pronoun similar to the Greek autos (self, this same) –according to Gesenius this primitive word lost its demonstrative power when set before nouns and pronouns that are already definite and thus became superfluous. It is the context which determines how the prefix is translated the phrase [with]….the help of is a translators guess. A more suitable translation would be: And the man knew (even or the same) Eve his wife; and she conceived and bore (even or the same) Cain, and said: ‘I have gotten a man (even or the same) YHWH.’ Eve had been promised that she would give birth to the Messiah (Gen.3:16) and therefore it was only natural that she would see her first child as a manifestation of the promised Yahweh. The Hebrew ‘et’ (תא) represents the first and last letters of the Hebrew alphabet (the Alpha and Omega of the Greek alphabet).

[5] “These all died in faith, not having received the promises, but having seen them afar off, and were persuaded of them, and confessed that they were strangers and pilgrims on the earth”. (Heb.11:13) Genesis Rabbah 44:25ff, states that Rabbi Akiba, in a debate with Rabbi Johanan ben Zakkai, held that Abraham had been shown not this world only but the world to come (this would include the days of the Messiah).

#26 Jesse2W

Jesse2W

    Lambda

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 245 posts

Posted 19 July 2012 - 05:42 AM

Hello,

Here is something I prepared earlier but it only scratches the surface............I could say much more.......the problem is that most "Christians" do not understand the Old Testament..........and do not know how to employ intetextuality.........that is why they come up with wierd idea's about pre-existence etc........they take everything literaly and do not look at the context.............bad hermeneutics.




Before Abraham


“Your father Abraham rejoiced to see My day, and he saw it and was glad. Then the Jews said to Him, ‘You are not yet fifty years old, and have You seen Abraham?’ Jesus said to them, ‘Most assuredly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I AM.’” (John 8:56-58)

The first thing of note is that the Jewish response (have you seen Abraham?) is a non sequitur to the initial statement (Abraham saw My day). Their logic demanded that if Abraham saw Christ’s day then Christ must have seen Abraham. A more natural response would have been; ‘What day did Abraham see....or, how did he see your day?’ However, Jesus is not diverted by the non sequitur but immediately responds with the controversial - before Abraham......‘I AM’ statement.




Abraham rejoiced


The cultic setting of the previous chapter (Feast of Tabernacles) provides the background for questions concerning the identity of Jesus. Mary L. Coloe[1] observes that Jewish tradition, recorded in the Book of Jubilees (c.150 BC), remembers Abraham as the first to celebrate Tabernacles: “And he [Abraham] built booths for himself and for his servants on that festival. (Jub. 16:21) The feast was celebrated with great rejoicing” (Jub.16:20, 25, 27 cf. Lev.23:40; ‘you shall rejoice before the LORD’). She also points out that both Jubilees and the Targum on Isaiah 43 link intertextualy with the Gospel:

Jubilees: “He knew and perceived that from him there would be a righteous planting for eternal generations and a holy seed from him...” (Jub. 16:26)
Targum: “I declared to Abraham your father what was about to come” (Isa. Tg. 43: 10-12)
Gospel: “Abraham rejoiced to see my day” (John 8:56)

Targum: “I am he that was from the beginning” (Isa. Tg. 43: 10).
Gospel: “Before Abraham was I am” (John 8:58).

Alongside her observations even more powerful intertextual links can be posited with the Abrahamic narrative in Genesis, particularly in Genesis 22. The theme of “seeing” (the blind man of John 9) is anticipated by Abraham “seeing” Christ in John 8. Abraham “saw” the typological ‘day of Christ’ (the Passover) when he sacrificed his son Isaac on Mount Moriah which was given the Memorial name of Yahweh-Yireh, which means Yahweh will be seen.[2] Moreover, the rejoicing of Abraham connects with the “laughter” of Abraham (Gen.17:17) and Sarah (Gen.18:12) at the promise of an heir – who was named Isaac (he laughs).

Abraham saw My Day


Abram was promised that his descendants would be saved from Egypt (Gen.15: 14-16) and they were rescued 430 years later on the “same day” (Ex.12:41).[3] The day that the promise was given to Abram (cf. Gen.15:18, ‘same day’) and the day of deliverance was therefore the Passover. (‘My day’ in John 8:56); Jesus states that, ‘I AM’ was before Abraham and this is established by the promise of deliverance being given to Abram (not yet renamed Abraham the progenitor of the ‘Jewish world’), moreover, the promise of self manifestation can be traced back to Eve (Gen.3:15), who believed that she had given birth to Yahweh (Gen.4:1).[4] To sum up, John uses Isaiah 43, Genesis 22 and Jubilees to establish that Passover deliverance was pre-destined since the beginning of the (Jewish) world – moreover, the ‘I AM’ was also pre-destined. Men of faith were able to “see” this (i.e., the blind man) and it was the day of Yahweh that Abraham “saw” when he sacrificed Isaac; “On the third day Abraham lifted up his eyes and saw the place afar off” (Gen.22:4)[5]




[1] Mary L. Coloe, Like Father- Like Son: The Role of Abraham in Tabernacles , Jn 8: 31-59,(Pacifica 12 (February) 1999. 1-11), 9

[2] Genesis 22:14; the Abrahamic narrative in Genesis is themed around revelation and “seeing”. All the names contain the ‘r-h’ combination Abraham, Terah, Sarah, Moriah, Yahweh-Yireh connecting with the Hebrew raah- to show or see in the sense of revealing and manifesting.

[3] Andrew Perry offers a plausible explanation of ‘the day’ by linking it with the deliverance from Egypt: “And it came to pass on the day when the Lord (Yahweh) spake unto Moses in the land of Egypt.” (Ex.6:29-30) In Isaiah 43 the prophet resorts to Exodus Passover language in order to speak of coming deliverance from Babylon. The future Exodus from Babylon is assured because God was the ‘Yahweh’ that had brought Israel out of Egypt. The language of ‘the day’ connects with the creative language of Genesis 1, but the creative act that is being referred to here is the act of deliverance at Passover. A. Perry, Before he was born,(Willow Publications, 1995),172-192.

[4] Eve thought she had given birth to the Messiah: Now Adam knew Eve his wife, and she conceived and bore Cain, and said, “I have acquired a man from (or, with) the LORD.”” (Gen.4:1NKJ). The transliterated Hebrew reads as follows (names in bold): ve.ha.a.dam ya.da et-kha.va ish.to va.ta.har va.te.led et-ka.yin va.to.mer ka.ni.ti ish et-YHWH ( הוהי-תא) The Hebrew kanitish (gotten or acquired) is a play on kayin (Cain) –the Canaanites were merchants and smiths. Note that the ‘et’ (תא) that proceeds each name is not translated with the exception of the last name where the participle is erroneously translated as ‘from’ or ‘with’ [the help of], however, it is a demonstrative pronoun similar to the Greek autos (self, this same) –according to Gesenius this primitive word lost its demonstrative power when set before nouns and pronouns that are already definite and thus became superfluous. It is the context which determines how the prefix is translated the phrase [with]….the help of is a translators guess. A more suitable translation would be: And the man knew (even or the same) Eve his wife; and she conceived and bore (even or the same) Cain, and said: ‘I have gotten a man (even or the same) YHWH.’ Eve had been promised that she would give birth to the Messiah (Gen.3:16) and therefore it was only natural that she would see her first child as a manifestation of the promised Yahweh. The Hebrew ‘et’ (תא) represents the first and last letters of the Hebrew alphabet (the Alpha and Omega of the Greek alphabet).

[5] “These all died in faith, not having received the promises, but having seen them afar off, and were persuaded of them, and confessed that they were strangers and pilgrims on the earth”. (Heb.11:13) Genesis Rabbah 44:25ff, states that Rabbi Akiba, in a debate with Rabbi Johanan ben Zakkai, held that Abraham had been shown not this world only but the world to come (this would include the days of the Messiah).

You'd make a good trinitarian apologist. Could you please explain why the translators chose not to render it as "even Yahweh??

#27 Biblaridion

Biblaridion

    Lambda

  • Christadelphian
  • PipPip
  • 281 posts

Posted 19 July 2012 - 05:43 AM

Hello,

Small note on the................ "not yet 50 years old"

Jesus was about 30 not 50, so why would John record this? Obviously his enemies thought he looked older...........perhaps the stress had prematurely aged him..........but I believe that John is establishing a theological point.

Ealier (John chapter 2) , Jesus had talked about his body being the temple...........John records that the actual temple (at that point) had taken 46 years to build............now at the end of the ministry (some three-and-a-half-years later) Jesus seems to be 50 years old. Do you get it? He is the new temple about to replace the old one.

So many "Christians" do not understand how to read the 4G

#28 Biblaridion

Biblaridion

    Lambda

  • Christadelphian
  • PipPip
  • 281 posts

Posted 19 July 2012 - 05:47 AM

Hello Jesse,

Have you never heard of God manifestation? I suggest you read Doctor Thomas and some other Christadelphian writers. God manifestation is what Christadelphianism is about. That is not the same as the third "person" of the Trinity. The "I am" sayings are definitely linked with the Yahweh name and Jesus was definitely "God manifest". How can we hope to persaude outsiders if we do not grasp the fundamentals ourselves?

#29 Biblaridion

Biblaridion

    Lambda

  • Christadelphian
  • PipPip
  • 281 posts

Posted 19 July 2012 - 05:55 AM

You'd make a good trinitarian apologist. Could you please explain why the translators chose not to render it as "even Yahweh??



You will have to ask the translators that question..........they were obviously not consistent as they ignored the demonstrative pronoun with regards to the proper names of Eve and Cain......so the last occurance is a guess (on their part).

If anything........this weighs against the Trinity (it is not an argument for the Trinity).........Eve thought she gave birth to the Messiah (Yahweh) that had been promised to her in the previous chapter (a natural assumption), instead she gave birth to a murderer.

Edited by Biblaridion, 19 July 2012 - 05:56 AM.


#30 Biblaridion

Biblaridion

    Lambda

  • Christadelphian
  • PipPip
  • 281 posts

Posted 19 July 2012 - 06:03 AM

Hello,

Find below a section (by me) from the forth coming anti-Trinity book that is multi-authored and to be published by T. Gaston God willing (some sections of the article may not appear in the book as they have been edited-out due to word limit constraints):

This section concerns God manifestation:

(appologies for the non-rendering of the Greek fonts but manifestation (transliterated) is phanerosis



Andrew Perry examines the Hebrew grammar of Ex.3:14[1] and concludes that it is correctly rendered as “I will be who I will be”.[2] He rejects the existential reading (I AM that I AM: Hebw., ‘ehyeh ‘asher ‘ehyeh) and concludes that the context of the saying is God manifestation in other words God will be [Moses]. The focus is on the authority of agency granted to the reluctant Moses. God would reveal himself through Moses, who would be as God to Aaron (Ex.4:16), and as God to Pharaoh (Ex.7:1).[3] The Johannine ‘I AM’ (evgw, eivmi) rendering was probably influenced by the LXX translation of Ex 3:14 (evgw, eivmi) and although the present tense used by the LXX is not a grammatically correct translation of the Hebrew, the intent would be obvious enough to Greek readers especially as the original Hebrew verb ‘ehyeh is a play on Yahweh. Moreover, for John’s purpose the present ‘I AM’ has the force of propinquity, rather than the ambiguous ‘I WILL BE’. It is no longer necessary to ask who God will be as the final revelation has arrived. That the Evangelist wishes to equate the ‘I AM’ with Yahweh is not in doubt as the utterance of the expression by Jesus at his arrest (John 18:5-6) causes the contingent of soldiers to fall to the ground. It is sometimes objected that the ‘I AM’ expression is found on the lips of the blind man without carrying the same overtones (John 9:9 NKJ);

“Some said, “This is he.” Others said, “He is like him.” He said, “I am [he].


It is to be noted that the final [he] is not present in the Greek making this an absolute ‘I AM’ statement without the predicate. The absolute form, Egō eimi, does not occur in classical Greek literature and with the exception of the Greek Old Testament it is difficult to identify any use of the absolute form before it appeared in the New Testament writings. However, Catrin Williams argues that egō eimi can be used where a predicate appears in a preceding statement (“He is like him”) and that in other cases egō eimi is an expression of self-identification.[4] It is granted that the statement uttered by the blind man does not have the force of the other absolute ‘I AM’ statements used by Jesus; this is indicated by the reaction of the hearers who wish to excommunicate the blind man (not stone him for blasphemy). However, it is clear that John uses an unusual syntactic structure in order to establish an intratextual link (if only secondary) between the blind man and Jesus. The intention of the Evangelist can only be understood in the light of John 9:3 (KJV);

“......that the works of God should be made manifest (fanerwqh/|) in him [the blind man]”.

The blind man becomes a manifestation of God through the witness that he bears; this parallels Christ who could say, “I have manifested (VEfane,rwsa,) your name” (John 17:6). Neither the blind man, nor Christ, is claiming to be God – John presents the theology of God manifestation. The blind man uses the ‘I AM’ because he is identifying himself as a manifestation of divine self-expressive activity but to a far lesser degree than Christ who expresses the full manifestation of the name. It is interesting to note that his newly acquired status as “God manifest” (‘I AM’) makes the blind man virtually unrecognizable (“He is like him”) to his audience. The blind man ‘sees’ the light and manifests God but the Pharisees remain blind (John 9:41) and therefore manifest the works of their father the devil (John 8:38, 44).



[1] A. Perry, The translation of Exodus 3:14a in the Supplement to The Christadelphian EJournal of Biblical Interpretation Annual 2009, (eds., A. Perry, P. Wyns, T. Gaston, J. Adey, Willow Publications, 2009:210-233)

[2] The phrase begs the question: Who will God be? The covenant promise vouched safe to David answers the question: He shall be to me a Son (2 Sam.7:14). This echoes the ‘will be’ of Ex.3:14a – the “son” would manifest the qualities and character of the Father – this passage is indisputably quoted in the future tense by the author to the Hebrews; “I will be to him a Father, and he shall be to me a Son” (Heb 1:5) within the context of inheriting a more excellent name. (v.4) Perhaps the theology of God manifestation is best expressed in the unusual formulation used by the apostle Paul in 1 Cor.15:8-10: “And last of all he was seen (ōpthē cf. ‘appeared’ same word used by Stephen in Acts 7:30 to describe the appearance in Ex.3:2-14) of me……For I am the least of the apostles….but by the grace of God I am what I am (eivmi o[ eivmi)….yet not I but the grace of God which was with me”. The context of the Corinthians passage is the conversion of Paul in order to bear the name (Acts 9:15), therefore Paul becomes a manifestation of God’s self expressive activity.

[3] On the use of “God” for Moses, P. M. Casey states the following: “For example, Moses is described by Philo as “God and king of the whole nation” (Vita Mos I, 158). Philo’s lengthy discussion of the unusually exalted position of Moses shows no other sign of elevating him to the position of a second deity, and we have already seen his unambiguous commitment to monotheism (Dec 65). We must therefore infer that, from Philo’s perspective and that of the Jewish community to which he belonged, his description of Moses as qeo,j did not infringe monotheism.” P. M. Casey, “Monotheism, Worship and Christological Development in the Pauline Churches” in The Jewish Roots of Christological Monotheism: Papers from the St. Andrews Conference on the Historical Origins of the Worship of Jesus, (Carey C. Newman, James R. Davila, Gladys S. Lewis, Brill, 1999: 214-234),216

[4] Catrin H. Williams, “‘I Am’ or ‘I Am He’? Self-Declaratory Pronouncements in the Fourth Gospel and Rabbinic Tradition,” in Jesus in Johannine Tradition, ed. Robert T. Fortna and Tom Thatcher (Lousiville, London, and Leiden: Westminster John Knox, 2001), 343-52

Edited by Biblaridion, 19 July 2012 - 06:06 AM.





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users