Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

John 8:58 - Revisited


  • Please log in to reply
88 replies to this topic

#31 Jesse2W

Jesse2W

    Lambda

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 245 posts

Posted 19 July 2012 - 07:16 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?


Yes, I've heard of God manifestation, but no, I don't agree with your understanding of it.
1: I don't think it was "God" who was manifest in the flesh in 1 Tim 3:16
2: I don't think there is a link between John 8:58 and something outside the context of John such as the Targum.
3: I don't think it was an arbitrary thing that the translators chose not to translate it as "even Yahweh."
4: I don't think that Eve understood God manifestation as being able to call the anointed one Yahweh, but not thinking she was literally giving birth to Yahweh.

When you say Jesus is lord, do you think that means Yahweh, master, or both?

#32 Jesse2W

Jesse2W

    Lambda

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 245 posts

Posted 19 July 2012 - 07:30 AM

I don't mean to sound or be rude in my replies =)
However, your views upset me.... but who knows, perhaps my views are in need of some upsetting.

Edited by Jesse2W, 19 July 2012 - 07:32 AM.


#33 Biblaridion

Biblaridion

    Lambda

  • Christadelphian
  • PipPip
  • 281 posts

Posted 19 July 2012 - 12:44 PM

Hello Jesse,

From your posts I (which are all based on Scripture) and usually well argued, I assumed that you were a Christadelphian. So I am sorry if I went in a bit hard (tough love). I will answer your four points as they raise important issues but it is now rather late in Australia and I am busy at the moment but I promise that I will get back to you on this thread and look at all the points that you raised.


Paul

#34 Matt Smith

Matt Smith

    Upsilon

  • Forum Manager
  • 4,619 posts

Posted 19 July 2012 - 01:17 PM

A couple of big issues with Biblaridion's thesis are:
  • the linkage of the "I am" of John to the Exodus passage
  • Eve thinking she gave birth to Yahweh (despite his linguistic gymnastics)
  • the usage of the of ego eimi throughout the NT by those other than Jesus

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.

#35 nsr

nsr

    Order of the Golden Pedant 2nd Class

  • Forum Manager
  • 6,370 posts

Posted 19 July 2012 - 02:05 PM

The fact that a word or phrase is used in two different passages does not necessarily mean the two passages have a connection, with the obvious exception of direct quotations.

If the contexts are similar, or the word/phrase is emphasised or used many times in both passages, there may be a connection.

If this approach is taken, then to be consistent we would have to consider connections between every single passage where the word/phrase in question occurs.
"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)

#36 Biblaridion

Biblaridion

    Lambda

  • Christadelphian
  • PipPip
  • 281 posts

Posted 19 July 2012 - 02:42 PM

Now when He [Jesus] said to them, "I am," they drew back and fell to the ground. (John 18:6)

#37 nsr

nsr

    Order of the Golden Pedant 2nd Class

  • Forum Manager
  • 6,370 posts

Posted 19 July 2012 - 02:56 PM

What about all the other times Jesus said the words "I am"?
"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)

#38 Mark Taunton

Mark Taunton

    Rho

  • Christadelphian Armoury
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,773 posts

Posted 19 July 2012 - 03:07 PM

And why were they so shocked? Not because Jesus said those particular words, but because instead of trying to deny it (as pretty much anyone finding himself under threat from an armed mob would do, to avoid the likely consequences), he was directly and frankly telling them that he was the one they sought.

Edited by Mark Taunton, 19 July 2012 - 03:16 PM.


#39 Mark Taunton

Mark Taunton

    Rho

  • Christadelphian Armoury
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,773 posts

Posted 19 July 2012 - 03:15 PM

For a man to say 'ego eimi' ("I, I am") is not a claim to be God. The blind man whom Jesus healed said exactly that (John 9:9), but the Jews to whom he said it did not recoil in shock at his utterance.

#40 nsr

nsr

    Order of the Golden Pedant 2nd Class

  • Forum Manager
  • 6,370 posts

Posted 19 July 2012 - 03:16 PM

And why were they so shocked? Not because Jesus said those particular words, but because instead of trying to deny it (as pretty much anyone finding himself under threat from an armed mob would do, to avoid the likely consequences), he directly and frankly told them he was the one they were looking for.


Agreed, Mark. That's the natural reading of the text. Imagine if a member of the Gestapo walked on to a crowded train and asked, "Any Jews in here?" and someone put his hand up and said "Yes, I'm a Jew" - he probably would fall over with surprise, figuratively and/or literally.
"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)

#41 Biblaridion

Biblaridion

    Lambda

  • Christadelphian
  • PipPip
  • 281 posts

Posted 20 July 2012 - 12:41 AM

nonsense

#42 Biblaridion

Biblaridion

    Lambda

  • Christadelphian
  • PipPip
  • 281 posts

Posted 20 July 2012 - 12:50 AM

Netbible


tn Heb “with the Lord.” The particle אֶת־ (’et) is not the accusative/object sign, but the preposition “with” as the ancient versions attest. Some take the preposition in the sense of “with the help of” (see BDB 85 s.v. אֵת; cf. NEB, NIV, NRSV), while others prefer “along with” in the sense of “like, equally with, in common with” (see Lev 26:39; Isa 45:9; Jer 23:28). Either works well in this context; the latter is reflected in the present translation. Some understand אֶת־ as the accusative/object sign and translate, “I have acquired a man – the Lord.” They suggest that the woman thought (mistakenly) that she had given birth to the incarnate Lord, the Messiah who would bruise the Serpent’s head.

#43 Biblaridion

Biblaridion

    Lambda

  • Christadelphian
  • PipPip
  • 281 posts

Posted 20 July 2012 - 01:36 AM

The LXX translates Ex.3:14 as "I AM" eventhough the Hebrew is future "I WILL BE"..........for a man (any man) to claim to be "I AM" does not mean that he is claiming to be YAHWEH.

What it means is that he is claiming to be a manifestation (not incarnation) of YAHWEH. That is why Paul could say "I AM THAT I AM" (see previous posts) and the blind man could say "I AM".

This is not blasphemy because man is made in God's image...........man was meant to be a manifestation of God.......to bring glory to the name of God. That does not mean that man is God.


Eventually the "I WILL BE" will be manifest in a called out people who will collectively bear the YAHWEH name and manifest the name.



John uses the "I AM" because all Greek speaking Jews (the Diaspora) were familiar with and used the LXX


Jesus could say that whoever had seen him had seen the Father..........because Jesus was the "I AM" and manifested the name perfectly in his character and actions. Jesus is not claiming to be God. The Father is greater than him and shows him all things, thus demonstrating that the Son is subordinate.


I posted a reply to John 8:58 explaining why the "I AM" was before Abraham - which clearly demonstrates the connection to manifestation .....Yah will be seen (Yahweh-Yireh) and the Passover as typified in Genesis 22 and the name change of Abraham and Sarah..........all linked with the Hebrew RAAH......to show to see.

Typically there is no comment on this important point instead you all choose to focus on one of the footnotes and therefore miss the point altogether.


Christadelphians are supposed to believe in God manifestation (not incarnation) we should therefore not have any problem with seeing Jesus as the promised "I AM" the fulfilment of the "I WILL BE"

To argue that the "I AM" sayings (and here we speak of distinct sayings and grammatial constructs) in the Fourth Gospel have nothing to do with the YAHWEH name does the truth a disservice and makes us look ridiculous in the eyes of Trinitarians (and rightly so), rather, we should be explaining that bearing the YAHWEH name is about GOD MANIFESTATION one of the first principles of Christadelphianism.......that has nothing to do with the Trinity

#44 Biblaridion

Biblaridion

    Lambda

  • Christadelphian
  • PipPip
  • 281 posts

Posted 20 July 2012 - 01:44 AM

More stuff about the "name" and how John employs the revelation of "I AM" and "I WILL BE" in his gospel:


References to God’s name and to the name of Jesus are so frequent in the Fourth Gospel that F.G. Untergassmair speaks of a name-revelation theology unparalleled in other sources.[1] This is an important observation as name-revelation (manifestation) theology forms the basis of the revelation of Jesus as the ‘I AM’. Disciples are exhorted to believe on his name[2] (John 1:12; 2:23; 3:18) and encouraged to ask in his name (14:13-14; 15:16; 16:23, 24, 26), the Holy Spirit is sent in his name (14:26) and they have life in his name (20:31). The disciples’ relationship with the name[3] of Jesus reflects the relationship that Jesus has with the Father’s name. Jesus comes in the name of the Father (5:43; 12:23), works in the name (10:25), manifested the name (17:6), requests that disciples are kept in the name (17:11, 12), declares the name (17:26) and appeals that the Father glorify his name (12:28). Jesus Christ is the perfect manifestation of God’s self-expressive activity, Jesus could say; “He who has seen Me has seen the Father; so how can you say, ‘Show us the Father’?” (John 14:9) The Greek literally reads: “so much time with you I-Am and not you-have-known me Philip?” Although in this case the ‘I-AM’ self identification is purely functional, it resonates with significance when placed alongside the other Johannine ‘I-AM’ sayings. Philip wants Jesus to ‘show’ the Father and John expresses the narrative response in terms of the request by Moses to ‘show your glory’ (Ex.33:18) – the ‘glory’ is actually the purpose of God embodied in the proclamation of the name (Ex.33:19):

Exodus 33


John 14


Show me now your way, that I may know You (v.13)

And where I go you know, and the way you know. (v.4)

You have not let me know whom You will send with me (v.12)
My Presence will go with you (v.14)
[Cf. “presence” in Isa 63:9-14]

the Father will send (in my name)

.... the Helper, the Holy Spirit (v.26)[4]

and I will give you rest (v.14)
[Cf. Isaiah 63:14 ‘rest’]

Peace I leave with you, My peace I give to you (v.27)

Please, show me Your glory (v.18)
[Cf. Isaiah 63:12, 14 ‘glorious’ – though not Hebrew ‘kabod’]

Lord, show us the Father, and it is sufficient for us. (v.8)

I will proclaim the name of the LORD (v.19)

And whatever you ask in My name, that I will do, that the Father may be glorified in the Son. (v.13)


In Exodus 33 the phrase “Yahweh knows him [Moses] by name” is employed in v.12 and v.17 and forms an inclusio denoting Moses’ close relationship (face to face cf. Deut. 34:10) with God. Moses is enquiring who God will send to help him shepherd the people into the Promised Land, specifically asking Yahweh to “show your way” (v.13) and “show your glory” (v.18). The way of Yahweh (cf. Gen.18:19) is Jesus Christ, “I am the way the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me (John 14:16). John 14 deliberately echoes and alludes to Exodus 33 where Yahweh reveals his name to Moses (Ex.33:19) and assures Moses that His presence would guide His people into the land.





[1] Franz Georg Untergassmair, Im Namen Jesu- Der Namensbegriff im Johannes-evangelium: eine exegetisch-religions geschichtliche Studie zu den johanneischen Namenaussagen ,(Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1974)

[2] “Thou shalt call his name Jesus: for he shall save his people from their sins……….and they shall call his name Immanuel”. [God with us]” (Mtt.21:21-23). The name of Jesus is an abbreviated form of Yahweh which is prefixed to the verb for “save” in the Hebrew (Yahshua) which becomes ‘Iesous’ in the Greek and is coupled with the third person future sense by Matthew (he shall save cf. ‘I will be’). The Old Testament equivalent of Jesus is Joshua the son of Nun, who has three variations of his name, two of which are not substantially different. Initially, Joshua was called Hosea (he has delivered) without the theophoric element, but was renamed by Moses (Num.13:16) as Joshua (Yahweh saves). Names with the element yš, (deliver), were common in the Biblical world: Ishi (1 Chron.4:20; 5:24), Jeshaiah (26:25), Isaiah (Isa.1:1), Hoshaiah (Jer.42:1), Mesha (1 Chron.2:42), Jeshua (Neh.3:19), and the name of Jesus in Greek [Iēsous, Matt.1:1; see also Fowler, Theophoric Personal Names in Ancient Hebrew, 1988, 348]. Sawyer [J. F. Sawyer, Semantics in Biblical Research, New Methods of Defining Hebrew Words for Salvation (Studies in Biblical Theology, Second Series.24) SCM 1972, pp.109-110] observes that given the composition of the name ‘Joshua’ (Jesus), the verb hosia has Yahweh as its subject in 95% of its 337 occurrences (see Zech.12:7; ve.ho.shi.a Yahweh - the Lord shall save) the combination of the verb ‘save’ with Yahweh stresses the importance of the relation between the divine name and salvation – it is a “saving name.”

[3] Richard N. Longenecker notes that ‘the Name’ (locus classicus Ex.23:21) was a primitive Christological title. “As a christological designation, ‘the name’ appears almost exclusively in materials that reflect the Jewish Christian mission and Jewish Christian interests. (p.44).....Just as ‘the name’ was a pious Jewish surrogate for God, so for the early Jewish Christians it became a designation for Jesus, the Lord’s Christ” (p.45). Richard N. Longenecker, The Christology of Early Jewish Christianity, (SCM Press, London, 1970).

[4] In John 14 the Father sends the Holy Spirit, who functions as Jesus’ agent (in my name) during his absence. This continues the OT theme of agency – God sends the Angel as agent, God sends Jesus as agent, finally God sends the Spirit as agent (for Jesus).

#45 Jesse2W

Jesse2W

    Lambda

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 245 posts

Posted 20 July 2012 - 03:27 AM

the blind man could say "I AM".


This baffled me.

What EXACTLY do you think "I AM" can mean?

If the Jews weren't upset with the blind for saying "I AM," then why were they upset with Jesus?
In John 9:10 they asked him how he was healed, not why he claimed the divine name.

I don't accept the "I AM" argument based mostly on it's lack of grammatical sense.

Are you arguing that this is how I should read John 8:58?.... "before Abraham was made, Yah"

How does your understanding of John 8:58 make clear, distinct, grammatical sense?

If it doesn't make clear, distinct, grammatical sense, then what is supposed to be taken metaphorically in John 8:58 so we can interpret it properly?

Edited by Jesse2W, 20 July 2012 - 03:31 AM.


#46 Biblaridion

Biblaridion

    Lambda

  • Christadelphian
  • PipPip
  • 281 posts

Posted 20 July 2012 - 04:26 AM

Hello Jesse,

The blind man was a manifestation of Yahweh's healing power, the nation was blind and refused to be healed. In his healed capacity the blind man was no longer recognizable (He is like him). The blind man was threatened with excommunication because of his faith in Jesus. The difference is that Jesus claimed that God was his FATHER........this puts Jesus' "I AM" sayings in a different category altogether.



Yes, before ABRAM became ABRAHAM (Gen 17:5) he was given the promise (Gen 15) that his people would be delivered at the Passover. This was enacted in Genesis 22 with the sacrifice of Isaac at MORIAH where YAH WAS SEEN (Yahweh-Yireh)

(PS the original Hebrew has no vowels therefore all these words contain the R-H combination as in RAAH - to see, to show)


So Christ was already in the purpose and plan of God from the very beginning...........even before Abraham.......Abraham rejoiced and was glad at the birth of Isaac (he laughs) because he was the promised progeny through which Messiah would come........with the eye of faith he saw this "afar off" (Hebrews).

"Your father Abraham rejoiced (birth of Isaac - Abraham laughs) to see (YAHWEH- YIREH; Yah will be seen) My day, (the Passover sacrifice) and he saw it and was glad."

Jesus said to them, "Most assuredly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I AM. (YAHWEH)


Yes, Jesus was BEFORE ABRAHAM..........he was also BEFORE John the Baptist (even though born after John the Baptist):

"This was He of whom I said, 'He who comes after me is preferred before me, for He was before me.' " (John 1:15)

Jesus was and had always been BEFORE JOHN.........in fact he was BEFORE EVERYONE


That does not mean that he was pre-existent

Edited by Biblaridion, 20 July 2012 - 04:28 AM.


#47 Matt Smith

Matt Smith

    Upsilon

  • Forum Manager
  • 4,619 posts

Posted 20 July 2012 - 04:55 AM

It's not only the man born blind who uses ego eimi...

John 9:1-9 "And as Jesus passed by, he saw a man which was blind from his birth. And his disciples asked him, saying, Master, who did sin, this man, or his parents, that he was born blind? Jesus answered, Neither hath this man sinned, nor his parents: but that the works of God should be made manifest in him. I must work the works of him that sent me, while it is day: the night cometh, when no man can work. As long as I am in the world, I am the light of the world. When he had thus spoken, he spat on the ground, and made clay of the spittle, and he anointed the eyes of the blind man with the clay, And said unto him, Go, wash in the pool of Siloam, (which is by interpretation, Sent.) He went his way therefore, and washed, and came seeing. The neighbours therefore, and they which before had seen him that he was blind, said, Is not this he that sat and begged? Some said, This is he: others said, He is like him: but he said, I am he (ego eimi)." NB: Luke uses the exact same phrase ch.7:8.

Act 10:21 "Then Peter went down to the men which were sent unto him from Cornelius; and said, Behold, I am he (ego eimi) whom ye seek: what is the cause wherefore ye are come?"

Matthew 8:8-9 "The centurion answered and said, Lord, I am not worthy that thou shouldest come under my roof: but speak the word only, and my servant shall be healed. For I am (ego eimi) a man under authority, having soldiers under me: and I say to this man, Go, and he goeth; and to another, Come, and he cometh; and to my servant, Do this, and he doeth it."


Luke 1:18 "And Zacharias said unto the angel, Whereby shall I know this? for I am (ego eimi) an old man, and my wife well stricken in years."

Luke 1:19 "And the angel answering said unto him, I am (ego eimi) Gabriel, that stand in the presence of God; and am sent to speak unto thee, and to shew thee these glad tidings."


John 1:26-27 "John answered them, saying, I baptize with water: but there standeth one among you, whom ye know not; He it is, who coming after me is preferred before me, whose shoe's latchet I am (ego eimi) not worthy to unloose."


John 18:35 "Pilate answered, Am I (ego eimi) a Jew? Thine own nation and the chief priests have delivered thee unto me: what hast thou done?"


Acts 21:39 "But Paul said, I am (ego eimi) a man which am a Jew of Tarsus, a city in Cilicia, a citizen of no mean city: and, I beseech thee, suffer me to speak unto the people." NB: Paul uses this particular phrase of himself several times through Acts and his letters.


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.

#48 Biblaridion

Biblaridion

    Lambda

  • Christadelphian
  • PipPip
  • 281 posts

Posted 20 July 2012 - 05:08 AM

Hello Matt,

You are being pendantic.....there are literally thousands of occasions where "I am" is used in the OT and the NT but none are structured like the ones in the Fourth Gospel. I quote from one of my previous posts:

[these are] 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.



This is not just my "opinion" but the evaluation of linguists and theologians of all denominations.


So, you can quote me every single occasion where "I am" is employed in ordinary dialogue but it will not substantiate what you are saying because the Fourth Gospel employs it a syntaticaly unusual and unique manner.

Besides which please explain Paul's use of "I AM THAT I AM" in the context of bearing the name



I thought we believed in God manifestation?


Maybe I am wrong

#49 Biblaridion

Biblaridion

    Lambda

  • Christadelphian
  • PipPip
  • 281 posts

Posted 20 July 2012 - 05:20 AM

I have come in My Father's name, and you do not receive Me

Edited by Biblaridion, 20 July 2012 - 05:20 AM.


#50 Biblaridion

Biblaridion

    Lambda

  • Christadelphian
  • PipPip
  • 281 posts

Posted 20 July 2012 - 05:25 AM

And I have declared to them Your name, and will declare it

#51 Biblaridion

Biblaridion

    Lambda

  • Christadelphian
  • PipPip
  • 281 posts

Posted 20 July 2012 - 05:33 AM

Do you not believe that I am in the Father, and the Father in Me?
The words that I speak to you I do not speak on My own authority;
but the Father who dwells in Me does the works.


This is called God manifestation and is the reason why Jesus can refer to himself as "I AM"

Jesus manifests the name and character of God

That does not mean that he is the "third person" of the Trinity

It does not mean that he "pre-existed"


It means that whoever "saw Jesus" could say that they had "seen the Father" in action. Jesus, as the "I AM" fulfils the terms implicit in the "I WILL BE" of the Yahweh name.


No longer do we have to ask "who will God be?"

Jesus is the FIRSTFRUITS of WHO GOD WILL BE..........he is the forerunner of many who will bear the Yahweh name and manifest the character and glory due the name.

This is called GOD MANIFESTATION

Edited by Biblaridion, 20 July 2012 - 05:53 AM.


#52 Jesse2W

Jesse2W

    Lambda

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 245 posts

Posted 20 July 2012 - 06:55 AM

Yes, Jesus was BEFORE ABRAHAM..........he was also BEFORE John the Baptist (even though born after John the Baptist):



John 8:58 doesn't say Jesus was before Abraham. It says in essence "before Abraham was made, Jesus is" or "before Abraham becomes, Jesus is [to become]"

John 1:15 quotes John 1:30.
John 1:30 quotes John 1:27.
John 1:27 says "whose shoelaces I am not worthy to untie" where the rest say "he was before me."
This means that "he was before me" means "he was chief of me," not "he existed before me"

What exactly is syntactically special about John's use if "I AM?"

Also, please answer these questions:

What EXACTLY do you think "I AM" can mean?

If the Jews weren't upset with the blind for saying "I AM," then why were they upset with Jesus?
In John 9:10 they asked him how he was healed, not why he claimed the divine name.

I don't accept the "I AM" argument based mostly on it's lack of grammatical sense.

Are you arguing that this is how I should read John 8:58?.... "before Abraham was made, Yah"

How does your understanding of John 8:58 make clear, distinct, grammatical sense?

If it doesn't make clear, distinct, grammatical sense, then what is supposed to be taken metaphorically in John 8:58 so we can interpret it properly?


I just don't think the Pharisees, the blind man, and Eve understood God manifestation like you do. Them understanding this concept is necessary for your understanding of it.

#53 nsr

nsr

    Order of the Golden Pedant 2nd Class

  • Forum Manager
  • 6,370 posts

Posted 20 July 2012 - 07:57 AM

nonsense

What is?
"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)

#54 Mark Taunton

Mark Taunton

    Rho

  • Christadelphian Armoury
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,773 posts

Posted 20 July 2012 - 07:59 AM

nonsense


Is that really the most substantial form of argument you can come up with, to prove your case and disprove the counter-argument? The Jews who heard the blind man say exactly the same form of words that Jesus is recorded as using in Gethsemane - 'ego eimi' : no more, no less, just exactly the same phrase - did not react to it in any unusual way, but simply engaged in conversation with him. If for a man to say 'ego eimi' (just that, just as Jesus said it in Gethsemane) has the force you suppose it does, why did they not all recoil in shock? You really need to answer this point, Paul!

#55 nsr

nsr

    Order of the Golden Pedant 2nd Class

  • Forum Manager
  • 6,370 posts

Posted 20 July 2012 - 08:11 AM

I think it's important to realise that most of the time when Jesus said something, he simply meant what he said and no more. Not all of his words have some deep and mysterious meaning that needs to be deciphered and decoded through "Bible code" type wordplay.
"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)

#56 Mark Taunton

Mark Taunton

    Rho

  • Christadelphian Armoury
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,773 posts

Posted 20 July 2012 - 08:29 AM

I have little time but will comment on one earlier point:

[2] ... 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.


That statement is 80% wrong. The key letters that form the Hebrew word for "seeing" are resh (equivalent to English R) and alpeh (no direct equivalent English letter), not resh ( R) and heh (equivalent to English H). Those two core letters do come in that combination in the form "yireh". They do not come in combination in the Hebrew of "Abraham", "Terah", "Sarah" or "Moriah".

(Added: Scripture itself shows this claim to be wrong in the case of "Abraham". Yahweh directly explains the significance of this name in Gen 17:5, and it includes no sense of showing, seeing, revealing or manifesting.)

Edited by Mark Taunton, 20 July 2012 - 09:25 AM.


#57 Biblaridion

Biblaridion

    Lambda

  • Christadelphian
  • PipPip
  • 281 posts

Posted 20 July 2012 - 10:09 AM

I think it's important to realise that most of the time when Jesus said something, he simply meant what he said and no more. Not all of his words have some deep and mysterious meaning that needs to be deciphered and decoded through "Bible code" type wordplay.


It is called interpretation and intertextuality.........just because you don't understand something does not mean that it is not present........the whole of John chapter 8 has Abraham as background context........

It is not "Bible Code" to suggest that Jesus is refering to Gen 22:14 when ABRAHAM named the place "Yah will be seen" and Jesus says says "Abraham saw my day"

#58 nsr

nsr

    Order of the Golden Pedant 2nd Class

  • Forum Manager
  • 6,370 posts

Posted 20 July 2012 - 10:18 AM

I think it's important to realise that most of the time when Jesus said something, he simply meant what he said and no more. Not all of his words have some deep and mysterious meaning that needs to be deciphered and decoded through "Bible code" type wordplay.


It is called interpretation and intertextuality........just because you don't understand something does not mean that it is not present........

And just because you can make a passage say something doesn't mean that it is present...
"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)

#59 Biblaridion

Biblaridion

    Lambda

  • Christadelphian
  • PipPip
  • 281 posts

Posted 20 July 2012 - 12:32 PM

Hello Mark,

I am also rather busy so this will be my last post for now

Originally Aleph was placed at the end of words (See the Isaiah scroll for examples of this). Aleph was also added very regularly to conjunctions and prepositions and other negative particles for euphonic and not grammatical reasons. Diacritical marks were added many centuries later to aid pronunciation. The language has developed over time - Modern Hebrew (and we include the MT in this) is not the same as archaic Hebrew.

The longer form of Abraham is thought to be no more than a dialectical variant of the shorter form Abram, just as the only difference between Sarai and Sarah is that the former reflects an archaic feminine suffix, the latter, the normative feminine suffix, both versions carry the same meaning. However, many scholars fail to understand the significance of the name change (by one letter) lies in importance of r-h to the Abrahamic narrative.

Abram originated from a place (Ur) where the moon-god was worshipped, the Canaanites of Ugarit worshiped the moon as Prince Yarih (or Yerah). The Hebrews used a lunar calendar derived from Babylonian and Cananite models, the Hebrew word for month is yahreah. Franz Buhl and P. Lagarde suggest that the meaning of yareah is wanderer. Seventy-five percent of the roots with the elements ‘r’ and ‘h’ are related to movement of some sort. In this case the emphasis is on the moon moving through various phases.

The moon came to represent the idea of illuminating or showing as well as fertility (because of links with the menstrual cycle). Therefore Yahweh-Yireh is the one who will be seen and the addition of a ‘h’ to both Abram and Sarai’s names gives the desired ‘r-h’ combination. The ‘h’ is added to establish that Yahweh shows the future and no one else.

His name was changed from Abram to Abraham. It is hard to imagine how the addition of one letter can change the meaning of a name so radically. The name Abram is a cognate from Ab (father) and ram (high) and is usually understood as meaning “exalted father”, but might possibly be referring to a priestly function i.e. “father of a height.” Abram is informed that the reason for his name change to Abraham was because he would be the “father of many nations” (Gen.17: 4). The Hebrew for many (multitude) is hamon and therefore one would expect ab-hamon (father of multitudes). Abraham obviously plays on ab-hamon but also on ab-rah suggesting “father of multitudes (who shall be seen).”

Edited by Biblaridion, 20 July 2012 - 12:34 PM.


#60 Mark Taunton

Mark Taunton

    Rho

  • Christadelphian Armoury
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,773 posts

Posted 20 July 2012 - 12:49 PM

Hello Jesse,

The blind man was a manifestation of Yahweh's healing power, the nation was blind and refused to be healed. In his healed capacity the blind man was no longer recognizable (He is like him). The blind man was threatened with excommunication because of his faith in Jesus. The difference is that Jesus claimed that God was his FATHER........this puts Jesus' "I AM" sayings in a different category altogether.


Why so? That is special pleading. If Jesus used "I am" consistently and exclusively in context of his relationship with God, that God was his father in a unique way, then you might have a point. But that is simply not the case at all - he uses it in many different contexts.

Yes, before ABRAM became ABRAHAM (Gen 17:5) he was given the promise (Gen 15) that his people would be delivered at the Passover. This was enacted in Genesis 22 with the sacrifice of Isaac at MORIAH where YAH WAS SEEN (Yahweh-Yireh)

(PS the original Hebrew has no vowels therefore all these words contain the R-H combination as in RAAH - to see, to show)


This is quite wrong - see my earlier post. As Gen 17:5 proves, Abraham means "father of a multitude". The "raham" bit means "multitude"; it has nothing to do with "seeing" - the spelling is quite different.

So Christ was already in the purpose and plan of God from the very beginning...........even before Abraham.......Abraham rejoiced and was glad at the birth of Isaac (he laughs) because he was the promised progeny through which Messiah would come........with the eye of faith he saw this "afar off" (Hebrews).

"Your father Abraham rejoiced (birth of Isaac - Abraham laughs) to see (YAHWEH- YIREH; Yah will be seen) My day, (the Passover sacrifice) and he saw it and was glad."


Well some of that's true, but the rest is very confused, as was your earlier post mentioning this idea. Neither Abraham's nor Sarah's laughing at God's promise of them having a son together was the "rejoicing" of which Jesus spoke. Plainly in context, both of them laughed in disbelief - how could a 99-year-old man and a 90-year-old woman have a son? While Sarah did laugh/rejoice at Isaac's birth, that is not said of Abraham. Rather, Abraham rejoiced on Mt Moriah at the seeing (provision) by God, in the future, of Jesus the true lamb, instead of Isaac the anti-typical beloved son whom he received back from the dead in a figure, rather than in reality. That's why he named the place Yahweh-yireh (Yahweh will see/provide).

Jesus said to them, "Most assuredly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I AM. (YAHWEH)


No, 'Yahweh' does not mean "I am". It means "he will be", with a causative sense, and derives from 'ehyeh' - "I will be". Even the LXX translation in Exo 3:14 of "ehyeh asher ehyeh" as 'ego eimi ho wn' is totally inconsistent, not only within itself (it fails to reproduce the A-B-A form of the Hebrew) but also with the rest of the LXX. In most other places where 'ehyeh' occurs in the Hebrew OT, including just before this in Exo 3:12, the LXX (like the NT in quotation) translates it as 'esomai' - "I will be", not as 'eimi' - "I am".

Edited by Mark Taunton, 20 July 2012 - 01:10 PM.





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users