John 8:58: “Very truly I tell you,” Jesus answered, “before Abraham was born, I am!” ( I am is ego eimi in Greek)
Most Christians, automatically, on auto-pilot, (mistakenly in my opinion) assume Jesus was quoting Yahweh in Exodus 3:14 where God says:
“ I AM WHO I AM.” And he said, “Say this to the people of Israel: ‘ I AM has sent me to you.’
The apostles used the Septuagint and in it, at Exodus 3:14, Yahweh says:
"I am the Being; and he said, Thus shall ye say to the children of Israel, the Being has sent me to you."
The being is "ho on", NOT "eigo eimi" in Greek. I am (eigo eimi) simply introduces what he was ("ho on") instead of defining it.
Notable scholar F. F. Bruce says:
"If a direct reference had been intended to Exodus 3:14 in the present passage (John 8:58), one might have expected "ho on" rather than "ego eimi." (The Gospel of John, 1983, p. 193)
In other words, Jesus did not, I repeat did not, quote Yahweh!
Examine:
"When you have lifted up the Son of Man, then you will know that I am he, and that I do nothing on my own authority, but speak just as the Father taught me." (John 8:28)
In the above text, Jesus says who he is explicitly. The Son of Man. Also, notice he says "ego eimi" there too, but the translators inserted "he" in italics directly afterward because that's what makes sense. This is done because our modern English language doesn't function identically to the ancient biblical languages. Translators do this everywhere with the exception of John 8:58. One should ask himself.."ummm, why?" I think we all know. "Ho on" isn't even there! And even if it were, Jesus says his words weren't even his own!
Jesus is often identifying himself as the Messiah, not the Godman, not the second person of a triune Greek substance, not Michael the Archangel, not some OT figure/spirit named "Wisdom" or "Word," but simply the Messiah. And SON of God.
Let's examine some instances where translators have deemed it appropriate to render "ego eimi" (aka I am) as something else:
Luke 19:22: Thou knewest that I was (ego eimi!) an austere man (KJV)
Notice "knewest" is past tense because translating ego eimi as present tense wouldn't make much sense. Hence the appropriate recognition of sense-making in this instance.
2 Corinthains 12:11: I am (ego eimi) become a fool in glorifying, ye have compelled me (other translations use "I have" for ego eimi, which sounds better, as it certainly would have in John 8:58 as well.)
John 14:9: Have I been (ego eimi!) so long time with you and yet hast thou not known me? (KJV)
Wow. The New World Translation translators render ego eimi as "I have been" in John 8:58 and are called blasphemers and heretics for doing so. Interesting. Hypocritical of Christians to call that an abomination when their own translations take such liberty elsewhere on occasions where it wouldn't threaten any tradition or creed. Because they know very well the Greek-into-English rendering calls for it. They practice intellectual dishonesty and arbitrarily neglect this practice, however, when they think translating it a certain way (and adding capitalization) can somehow (in their minds and with the improper inference attached) recommend a cherished belief.
Trinitarians frequently ask, why would they want to kill Jesus if he wasn't claiming to be Yahweh? In context, there was an increasing sense of malevolence and venom toward Jesus because of his sharp condemnation of them! He told them they weren't of God, that their father was the devil, and that they'd die in their sin. They were so angry and riled up in disposition that they told Jesus he was possessed by a demon. Jesus also called them liars and told them they didn't even know the father nor keep his word like he did! Additionally, in Luke 4:14-30, the people of the synagogue tried to kill Jesus by throwing him down a mountain for what might have been an even lesser offense. He said he wouldn't perform anymore healing among the synagogue of Nazareth and that he would direct his attention to others. The crowd was enraged and attempted to kill him. So, the trinitarians proposing there'd be no other possible reason for them to want to kill Jesus outside a claim to be God are either uninformed or dishonest.
Did Jesus have to literally preexist as a spirit creature as Yah's first creation or as Yahweh Himself before he could have preeminence over Abraham? No. For he was the promised Messiah, slain before the foundation of the world, God's greatest prophecy and plan of salvation, the savior of mankind, the Son of Man in Daniel given a kingdom and the world, king and Lord of all, the fulfillment of all things, etc.! That is why he's of higher rank than and of more importance and grander significance than their father Abraham. The Jews knew very well he was identifying himself as the Messiah and with that revelation, on top of his having already offensively condemned and flagrantly insulted them, was the last straw to be sure!
If the Jews did think Jesus was saying he was older in literal preexistence, it would simply mean they misunderstood him just like they had so many times before. Like they did when they thought he said Abraham saw him and he saw Abraham when all he actually said was that Abraham had rejoiced to see his day! How did Abraham do this? By meeting a spirit creature named "Word" and "Wisdom," or perhaps "Michael" or "Angel of Yah" in the OT? I don't think so. Here's how Abraham rejoiced to see his day:
"For he was looking forward to the city that has foundations, whose designer and builder is God.." (Heb. 11:10)
So Abraham, with eyes of faith, saw Jesus's coming day and heavenly kingdom. It's not that he literally met a preexistent spirit that would be reincarnated as his Messiah long before Messiah was ever even born.
Additionally and noteworthy, John is sometimes a figurative, proleptic, and/or poetic book. To discard these integral facts in order to more easily maintain a traditional view of certain passages would be to your own detriment if you're on a truth seeking quest. Even Christ's contemporaries frequently misunderstood him in John, so we should be careful that we have our milk established first before studying it. And clear in mind when reading it.
Can you imagine being filled with the knowledge God had you in his heart, mind, and will from the beginning for the specifics Jesus was decreed for, ie to save the world, inherit a kingdom, sustain a new creation, as heir, king, and Lord? Talk about inspiring, phenomenal, and stupefying! I cannot even imagine. Jesus's heart must've stayed in a perpetual state of being swollen and grateful. His father's generosity was a catalyst for his I'm sure. What a remarkable relationship and purpose these two shared, that they still do.
For further contemplation and assistance in accurate comprehension, Jesus is identified with God's ancient word, having manifest and fulfilled it. Hence, Karen Armstrong says:
"When Paul and John speak about Jesus as though he had some kind of preexistent life, they were not suggesting he was a second divine "person" in the later trinitarian sense. They were indicating that Jesus transcended temporal and individual modes of existence. Because the "power" and "wisdom" he represented (emphasis mine) were activities that derived from God, he had in some way expressed "what was there from the beginning." These ideas were comprehensible in a strictly Jewish context, though later Christians with a Greek background would interpret them differently." (A History of God: From Abraham to the present: the 4000 year quest for God, p.106)
Further, in John 17:24, Jesus says:
"Father, I want those you have given me to be with me where I am, and to see my glory, the glory you have given me because you loved me before the creation of the world."
And how did he love him?
"For he was foreknown before [pro] the foundation of the world, but has appeared in these last times for the sake of you." (1 Peter 1:20)
Yes, Jesus was the "Lamb slain before the foundation of the world!" (Rev 13:8)
In every single context, Jesus was claiming to be the Messiah, as opposed to the One God who decreed and would send and empower the Messiah to save the world. Because of this title and role, and all it ultimately entails, it should go without saying that his being greater than Abraham is an inevitability. The Jews didn't even think he was the Messiah, and so their going ballistic is no marvel or surprise. They were already incensed from his condemnation.
Greg Deuble summarizes things quite nicely and in my opinion competently. He says on page 185 of his book:
"What Jesus said is this: "Before Abraham was born, I am he, "meaning, I am the Messiah that Abraham looked forward to. This is a very reasonable statement from one who thinks that God had the Messiah in mind from the beginning."
And we need no translation bias or grasping inference for that notion, as we have explicit scriptural statements that prove He did.
Basically, when various individuals in the New Testament say "ego eimi", just as Jesus did in John 8:58, translators have to insert "he" or "the one" directly afterward to make sense of the Greek in English since it doesn't function identically. They only fail to do this in John 8:58 so that they are then able to misuse the text to support Jesus somehow being the same God from Exodus 3:14, who didn't even say precisely what Jesus did. Goodness. Additionally, if that God's supposed to be a trinity, then that wouldn't even make any sense for their dogma. They accomplish an erroneous interpretation by use of unwarranted capitalization, bias translation, bold inference, and misuse of context. Such shady tactics lead me to question the motives, intentions, and intellectual honesty of those who know better. I know some don't know better, and I'm not referring to those. Just like when I read "Crisis of Conscience," which was written by a former Jehovah's Witness governing body member, I know that the men who established some of the highly questionable Watchtower dogmas were confronted with irrefutable logical facts that were contrary to the conclusions they settled upon. Yet they wholeheartedly promulgated falsehoods, misusing texts, and manipulating their followers. Trinitarian leaders and bible translators have accomplished something quite similar, if not identical.
Even if they're just innocently "seeing it a different way", at the very least they should be able to see why the validity of their translation and/or interpretation of certain texts is decidedly debatable. Yet many trinitarians have no mercy, just like the governing body of Jehovah's Witnesses, when people harbor and herald reasonable concerns and inquiries. I think it's the fragility of the foundation of this dogma and their conclusions that catalyzes extreme judgmentalism and unmercifulness. And I don't mean the kind I'm demonstrating by exposing the truth here. I mean the kind that causes them to label, shun, and place right into the center of hell so-called heretics. The kind that in the past caused them to banish, torture, and murder so-called heretics. The kind that causes them to assume that some of Christ's brothers and sisters should be regarded as worse than a Satanist or atheist. Yes, I've been told I'm worse than both by militant trinitarians online ready to metaphorically slay the heretics. This is preposterous.
Trinitarians know full well that the same God who said "I am the Being" in Exodus 3:14 is the God of our forefathers, who was Jesus's God! This same God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob is said to be the "God and father" of our Lord Jesus Christ also, and Jesus Christ is said to be a "holy servant" of him. What would these facts tell anyone unindoctrinated, intellectually honest, and reasonable?
Most Christians, automatically, on auto-pilot, (mistakenly in my opinion) assume Jesus was quoting Yahweh in Exodus 3:14 where God says:
“ I AM WHO I AM.” And he said, “Say this to the people of Israel: ‘ I AM has sent me to you.’
The apostles used the Septuagint and in it, at Exodus 3:14, Yahweh says:
"I am the Being; and he said, Thus shall ye say to the children of Israel, the Being has sent me to you."
The being is "ho on", NOT "eigo eimi" in Greek. I am (eigo eimi) simply introduces what he was ("ho on") instead of defining it.
Notable scholar F. F. Bruce says:
"If a direct reference had been intended to Exodus 3:14 in the present passage (John 8:58), one might have expected "ho on" rather than "ego eimi." (The Gospel of John, 1983, p. 193)
In other words, Jesus did not, I repeat did not, quote Yahweh!
Examine:
"When you have lifted up the Son of Man, then you will know that I am he, and that I do nothing on my own authority, but speak just as the Father taught me." (John 8:28)
In the above text, Jesus says who he is explicitly. The Son of Man. Also, notice he says "ego eimi" there too, but the translators inserted "he" in italics directly afterward because that's what makes sense. This is done because our modern English language doesn't function identically to the ancient biblical languages. Translators do this everywhere with the exception of John 8:58. One should ask himself.."ummm, why?" I think we all know. "Ho on" isn't even there! And even if it were, Jesus says his words weren't even his own!
Jesus is often identifying himself as the Messiah, not the Godman, not the second person of a triune Greek substance, not Michael the Archangel, not some OT figure/spirit named "Wisdom" or "Word," but simply the Messiah. And SON of God.
Let's examine some instances where translators have deemed it appropriate to render "ego eimi" (aka I am) as something else:
Luke 19:22: Thou knewest that I was (ego eimi!) an austere man (KJV)
Notice "knewest" is past tense because translating ego eimi as present tense wouldn't make much sense. Hence the appropriate recognition of sense-making in this instance.
2 Corinthains 12:11: I am (ego eimi) become a fool in glorifying, ye have compelled me (other translations use "I have" for ego eimi, which sounds better, as it certainly would have in John 8:58 as well.)
John 14:9: Have I been (ego eimi!) so long time with you and yet hast thou not known me? (KJV)
Wow. The New World Translation translators render ego eimi as "I have been" in John 8:58 and are called blasphemers and heretics for doing so. Interesting. Hypocritical of Christians to call that an abomination when their own translations take such liberty elsewhere on occasions where it wouldn't threaten any tradition or creed. Because they know very well the Greek-into-English rendering calls for it. They practice intellectual dishonesty and arbitrarily neglect this practice, however, when they think translating it a certain way (and adding capitalization) can somehow (in their minds and with the improper inference attached) recommend a cherished belief.
Trinitarians frequently ask, why would they want to kill Jesus if he wasn't claiming to be Yahweh? In context, there was an increasing sense of malevolence and venom toward Jesus because of his sharp condemnation of them! He told them they weren't of God, that their father was the devil, and that they'd die in their sin. They were so angry and riled up in disposition that they told Jesus he was possessed by a demon. Jesus also called them liars and told them they didn't even know the father nor keep his word like he did! Additionally, in Luke 4:14-30, the people of the synagogue tried to kill Jesus by throwing him down a mountain for what might have been an even lesser offense. He said he wouldn't perform anymore healing among the synagogue of Nazareth and that he would direct his attention to others. The crowd was enraged and attempted to kill him. So, the trinitarians proposing there'd be no other possible reason for them to want to kill Jesus outside a claim to be God are either uninformed or dishonest.
Did Jesus have to literally preexist as a spirit creature as Yah's first creation or as Yahweh Himself before he could have preeminence over Abraham? No. For he was the promised Messiah, slain before the foundation of the world, God's greatest prophecy and plan of salvation, the savior of mankind, the Son of Man in Daniel given a kingdom and the world, king and Lord of all, the fulfillment of all things, etc.! That is why he's of higher rank than and of more importance and grander significance than their father Abraham. The Jews knew very well he was identifying himself as the Messiah and with that revelation, on top of his having already offensively condemned and flagrantly insulted them, was the last straw to be sure!
If the Jews did think Jesus was saying he was older in literal preexistence, it would simply mean they misunderstood him just like they had so many times before. Like they did when they thought he said Abraham saw him and he saw Abraham when all he actually said was that Abraham had rejoiced to see his day! How did Abraham do this? By meeting a spirit creature named "Word" and "Wisdom," or perhaps "Michael" or "Angel of Yah" in the OT? I don't think so. Here's how Abraham rejoiced to see his day:
"For he was looking forward to the city that has foundations, whose designer and builder is God.." (Heb. 11:10)
So Abraham, with eyes of faith, saw Jesus's coming day and heavenly kingdom. It's not that he literally met a preexistent spirit that would be reincarnated as his Messiah long before Messiah was ever even born.
Additionally and noteworthy, John is sometimes a figurative, proleptic, and/or poetic book. To discard these integral facts in order to more easily maintain a traditional view of certain passages would be to your own detriment if you're on a truth seeking quest. Even Christ's contemporaries frequently misunderstood him in John, so we should be careful that we have our milk established first before studying it. And clear in mind when reading it.
Can you imagine being filled with the knowledge God had you in his heart, mind, and will from the beginning for the specifics Jesus was decreed for, ie to save the world, inherit a kingdom, sustain a new creation, as heir, king, and Lord? Talk about inspiring, phenomenal, and stupefying! I cannot even imagine. Jesus's heart must've stayed in a perpetual state of being swollen and grateful. His father's generosity was a catalyst for his I'm sure. What a remarkable relationship and purpose these two shared, that they still do.
For further contemplation and assistance in accurate comprehension, Jesus is identified with God's ancient word, having manifest and fulfilled it. Hence, Karen Armstrong says:
"When Paul and John speak about Jesus as though he had some kind of preexistent life, they were not suggesting he was a second divine "person" in the later trinitarian sense. They were indicating that Jesus transcended temporal and individual modes of existence. Because the "power" and "wisdom" he represented (emphasis mine) were activities that derived from God, he had in some way expressed "what was there from the beginning." These ideas were comprehensible in a strictly Jewish context, though later Christians with a Greek background would interpret them differently." (A History of God: From Abraham to the present: the 4000 year quest for God, p.106)
Further, in John 17:24, Jesus says:
"Father, I want those you have given me to be with me where I am, and to see my glory, the glory you have given me because you loved me before the creation of the world."
And how did he love him?
"For he was foreknown before [pro] the foundation of the world, but has appeared in these last times for the sake of you." (1 Peter 1:20)
Yes, Jesus was the "Lamb slain before the foundation of the world!" (Rev 13:8)
In every single context, Jesus was claiming to be the Messiah, as opposed to the One God who decreed and would send and empower the Messiah to save the world. Because of this title and role, and all it ultimately entails, it should go without saying that his being greater than Abraham is an inevitability. The Jews didn't even think he was the Messiah, and so their going ballistic is no marvel or surprise. They were already incensed from his condemnation.
Greg Deuble summarizes things quite nicely and in my opinion competently. He says on page 185 of his book:
"What Jesus said is this: "Before Abraham was born, I am he, "meaning, I am the Messiah that Abraham looked forward to. This is a very reasonable statement from one who thinks that God had the Messiah in mind from the beginning."
And we need no translation bias or grasping inference for that notion, as we have explicit scriptural statements that prove He did.
Basically, when various individuals in the New Testament say "ego eimi", just as Jesus did in John 8:58, translators have to insert "he" or "the one" directly afterward to make sense of the Greek in English since it doesn't function identically. They only fail to do this in John 8:58 so that they are then able to misuse the text to support Jesus somehow being the same God from Exodus 3:14, who didn't even say precisely what Jesus did. Goodness. Additionally, if that God's supposed to be a trinity, then that wouldn't even make any sense for their dogma. They accomplish an erroneous interpretation by use of unwarranted capitalization, bias translation, bold inference, and misuse of context. Such shady tactics lead me to question the motives, intentions, and intellectual honesty of those who know better. I know some don't know better, and I'm not referring to those. Just like when I read "Crisis of Conscience," which was written by a former Jehovah's Witness governing body member, I know that the men who established some of the highly questionable Watchtower dogmas were confronted with irrefutable logical facts that were contrary to the conclusions they settled upon. Yet they wholeheartedly promulgated falsehoods, misusing texts, and manipulating their followers. Trinitarian leaders and bible translators have accomplished something quite similar, if not identical.
Even if they're just innocently "seeing it a different way", at the very least they should be able to see why the validity of their translation and/or interpretation of certain texts is decidedly debatable. Yet many trinitarians have no mercy, just like the governing body of Jehovah's Witnesses, when people harbor and herald reasonable concerns and inquiries. I think it's the fragility of the foundation of this dogma and their conclusions that catalyzes extreme judgmentalism and unmercifulness. And I don't mean the kind I'm demonstrating by exposing the truth here. I mean the kind that causes them to label, shun, and place right into the center of hell so-called heretics. The kind that in the past caused them to banish, torture, and murder so-called heretics. The kind that causes them to assume that some of Christ's brothers and sisters should be regarded as worse than a Satanist or atheist. Yes, I've been told I'm worse than both by militant trinitarians online ready to metaphorically slay the heretics. This is preposterous.
Trinitarians know full well that the same God who said "I am the Being" in Exodus 3:14 is the God of our forefathers, who was Jesus's God! This same God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob is said to be the "God and father" of our Lord Jesus Christ also, and Jesus Christ is said to be a "holy servant" of him. What would these facts tell anyone unindoctrinated, intellectually honest, and reasonable?
Well said.
ReplyDeleteYou are way off.
ReplyDelete* https://drive.google.com/file/d/1VgYE4tQkCgUZRNOMU4IsiXBiVxd7C0WM/view?usp=drivesdk (same)
* https://www.academia.edu/50115289/John_8_58_Grammatical_and_Contextual_Review_of_Common_Interpretations (same)
* https://drive.google.com/file/d/1RnM3Ck3U-M5nEv27bR_Wau6A4k8DbHg1/view?usp=drivesdk
Dear one, God Almighty made a testament/will in the OT with us that we should inherit His kingdom. So for this testament/will to be activated the testator has to die.
ReplyDeleteFor where there is a testament, there must also of necessity be the death of the testator. Hebrews 9.16.
That is why God Almighty had to die on the cross (He didn't cease to exist just like we do not cease to exist when we die) but He died in the flesh so that He could spill HIS holy blood
Therefore take heed to yourselves and to all the flock, among which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to shepherd the church of God which He purchased with His own blood. Acts 20.28
so that whoever believes in this gift of LOVE (self sacrifice John 15.13, Romans 5.8) should receive His Holy Spirit and be sealed for the kingdom (receive the inheritance)
You must believe in the Christ, the LOVE (self sacrifice/death) of God manifested in the flesh because it was the love of God that fulfilled the law that brings death.
Owe no one anything except to love one another, for he who loves another has fulfilled the law. 9 For the commandments, “You shall not commit adultery,” “You shall not murder,” “You shall not steal,” “You shall not bear false witness,” “You shall not covet,” and if there is any other commandment, are all summed up in this saying, namely, “You shall love your neighbour as yourself.” 10 Love does no harm to a neighbour; therefore love is the fulfilment of the law. Romans 13
So if you believe in the love (self sacrifice/death) of God in the flesh, the death of the testator, you will be born again and receive His inheritance, His Holy Spirit and will no longer be under the law.
Trinity and unitarianism (and all other religions) will lead you therefore to hell because both doctrines demand a faith, in which a separate father sends his separate son to the cross. Whoever believes in this, whoever puts their faith in this sacrifice of an other, does not believe in the selfless self sacrificing Love of God, and will therefore not receive the Spirit of God but the spirit of the selfish (satanic) anti (in stead of) Christ.
God is SPIRIT and when He came to earth, He was still in heaven at the same time
No one has ascended to heaven but He who came down from heaven, that is, the Son of Man who is in heaven. John 3.13
That is how God Most High Himself was able to go to the cross and spill His holy blood and therefore activate the testament/will.
This is the gospel of peace which is based on the love of God.
Interesting points of issue. Still wrong on the Trinity, and the Son Of God issue, being equal with God, getting the same honor as the Father is the clincher.
ReplyDelete