7djengo7
This space intentionally left blank
No, I cannot explain why the producers of the KJV chose to write "I am he" in those passages, rather than to simply translate ego eimi into English.
John 18:5 what was Jesus saying?
- Thread starter oatmeal
- Start date
No, I cannot explain why the producers of the KJV chose to write "I am he" in those passages, rather than to simply translate ego eimi into English.
7djengo7
This space intentionally left blank
Of course Jesus already knew, when He said to them, "Whom seek ye?", that they would respond by saying, "Jesus of Nazareth". The passage leaves no room for any such doubt as you expressed in your "most likely". It is said:
Where did Jesus say, "I am he", in John 18:6-9? The answer is: Nowhere. Rather, Jesus said "I am". How, exactly, is Jesus' saying "I am" for Him to be telling them that He is Jesus of Nazareth? When you say, "I am", are you telling people that you are Jesus of Nazareth? Now, had Jesus said, "I am Jesus of Nazareth", or had He said, "I am he", using a predicate pronoun, the antecedent of which is the phrase, "Jesus of Nazareth"--which He did not do--then, perhaps you'd appear closer to actually having an argument.
In verse 9, it is told why Jesus said what He said. Of course, since Jesus did not say "I am he", nor "I am Jesus of Nazareth", verse 9 tells nothing about Jesus "identifying himself as the one whom they are seeking".
Is this platitudinous thing you've just written something you've learned from the Bible? Did James tell you this?
I guess, then, that nobody better visit the fatherless and widows in their affliction, and keep themselves unspotted from the world, lest they thereby "complicate scripture" and "confuse and demoralize the average truth seeker".
Do you consider yourself "the average truth seeker"? And what, if anything, do you mean by that phrase?
Greetings again 7djengo7,
Kind regards
Trevor
I suggest that this is part of the difficulty of translating from one language to another, in this case Greek to English. The example of the blind man shows that in this instance it is simply saying that he was the blind man who they were speaking about. My understanding of “I am he” in John 8:24,28 is speaking to the theme in John’s Gospel of whether or not Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God. I apply the same to John 8:58 and John 18:5.
Kind regards
Trevor
oatmeal
Well-known member
Scripture does not say explicitly that he knew. although I agree that he was well aware of what to expect and what was in the works. At least in general. Not because he was God, but because he is a man that obeyed his Father, thus the Father kept him in the know as he needed to know it.
This is clear from records like Mark 2 regarding the the lame man that was let down through the roof.
verse 8 tells us that "when Jesus perceived" not "because Jesus is God and knows all things already"
And immediately when Jesus perceived in his spirit that they so reasoned within themselves, he said unto them, Why reason ye these things in your hearts?
Does when I asked you, are you 7djengo7?
An accurate answer factually and grammatically for you to reply is, "I am"
Does that mean you are claiming to be the "I am" of Exodus? Hardly, that is ridiculous, likewise in the context of this thread, Jesus indicating that he is the one and only Jesus of Nazareth that he is looking for by stating "I am" is likewise truthfully accurate and grammatically precise. There is no reason to extrapolate a meaning that is not there. In fact, extrapolating like that is clearly private interpretation. II Peter 1:20
The context tells us what the conversation is all about.
Based on the wild and crazy unfounded conclusions trinitarians tend to draw in passages like this, if I used the same logic, I would conclude that all trinitarians are frogs because they are all ribitted to a doctrine not found in scripture. Ribit, ribit.
Most average Bible students are not aware of the best practices regarding letting the word of God speak for itself. They are usually misdirected by traditional, denominational, preconceived, experiential biases instead of reading what is written.
7djengo7
This space intentionally left blank
So, when Scripture says that Jesus knew "all things that should come upon him", Scripture means that Jesus only knew some "things that should come upon him", and did not know "all things that should come upon him"?
Where does Scripture say that Jesus was "well aware of what to expect and what was in the works"? Would you say Jesus was "well aware" of all of what to expect, or would you, instead, say that Jesus was "well aware" of only some of what to expect?
Where does Scripture say that the Father "kept [Jesus] in the know as he needed to know it", or anything resembling that?
Where, in Mark 2, is God the Father even mentioned? Moreover, where, in Mark 2, do we find it "clear" that God the Father "kept [Jesus] in the know as he needed to know it"?
Does verse 8 tell us that Jesus is not God? Does verse 8 tell us that Jesus does not know all things already?
Is that supposed to be a question?
Again, what's your point, here, in saying to me, "Are you 7djengo7?" For, in John 18, where do we find anybody asking Jesus, "Are you Jesus of Nazareth?"
Does what mean I am "claiming to be the 'I am' of Exodus"?
Um, where in the Bible are we told that there was only one person of Nazareth named 'Jesus'--that the Jesus of Nazareth Who is the Son of God was the only Jesus of Nazareth around during the years He walked the earth?
Which is exactly why I do not read the pronoun, "he", into Jesus words, to try to make Him say "I am he", instead of what He actually said: "I am".
And, of course, the phrase, "I am he", is neither part of the conversation, nor part of the context.
It's funny that you are calling observation of the fact that Jesus does not say, "I am he", in John 18, the drawing of a "wild and crazy unfounded conclusion".
In other words, so long as someone heeds what oatmeal says Scripture means, and agrees with oatmeal, they are "letting the word of God speak for itself".
It's always refreshing to meet people such as yourself, who are devoid of all tradition, preconception, and bias.
oatmeal
Well-known member
You are right! Which is exactly why his reply, "I am" refers to him being Jesus of Nazareth!
As you so accurately pointed out, he knew they were looking for him, and since he knew that his torture and execution would have to begin here, with him, (but none of his followers) being arrested, he told them, "I am" the Jesus of Nazareth they were seeking!
Wow, you are better at presenting my position than I am!
Thank you!
Yes, other than the context.
The context provides the only reason for him to say "I am" as you so wonderfully pointed out!
No, it is obvious from the fact that most if not all denominations still hold to traditions when the word of God is so plain.
If they actually read scripture for what it is, the word of God, most of their teachings and traditions would be discarded as gueswork and useless.
I could provide some examples other than this thread but I am not interested in going on a tangent.
Are the "religious"doing that?
Why not?
It is interesting to note that the Greek word translated "religion" is the antonym, it has the opposite meaning of the Greek word translated "godliness"
God wants us to have a true,vital, and spiritual relationship with him, not religion
oatmeal
Well-known member
He certainly knew all the things he knew. He certainly was not ignorant of the pain he would be put through, The scriptures in the OT make some of that known, and we know that he was aware of his impending suffering because he prayed to God that if there was another way that God would grant him that. However, he was not interested in his doing his own will but the will of the Father, not matter what that might involve. He was painfully aware of the impending pain he would have to endure.
That Jesus was not omniscient is made very plain by scripture.
Of course, not being omniscient like God is, this again proves that Jesus is not God, but God's human son who learned from his Father.
John 5 is one place that shows that Jesus did know everything but learned as the Father showed him as well as acknowledging that the power and authority that Jesus eventually had was given to him. If he was God, then he would have already had all those things, but he was not. Of course, if God gave him all, all without exception, power and authority, then Jesus would have it all and God would not have any. That would be an awkward place for God to be in, Going from all powerful to having no power.
19 Then answered Jesus and said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, The Son can do nothing of himself, but what he seeth the Father do: for what things soever he doeth, these also doeth the Son likewise.
20 For the Father loveth the Son, and sheweth him all things that himself doeth: and he will shew him greater works than these, that ye may marvel.
26 For as the Father hath life in himself; so hath he given to the Son to have life in himself;
27 And hath given him authority to execute judgment also, because he is the Son of man.
Jesus states that if he used his own judgment, there is a possiblity that his judgment would not be just, but since he did not seek his own will, but the Father's, his judgement is just.
30 I can of mine own self do nothing: as I hear, I judge: and my judgment is just; because I seek not mine own will, but the will of the Father which hath sent me.
36 But I have greater witness than that of John: for the works which the Father hath given me to finish, the same works that I do, bear witness of me, that the Father hath sent me.
Jesus continued learning. Jesus is not all knowing. Note the phrases, "when Jesus perceived" it does not say, because Jesus already knew everything all the time.
Matthew 16:8
Which when Jesus perceived, he said unto them, O ye of little faith, why reason ye among yourselves, because ye have brought no bread?
Matthew 22:18
But Jesus perceived their wickedness, and said, Why tempt ye me, ye hypocrites?
Mark 2:8
And immediately when Jesus perceived in his spirit that they so reasoned within themselves, he said unto them, Why reason ye these things in your hearts?
Luke 5:22
But when Jesus perceived their thoughts, he answering said unto them, What reason ye in your hearts?
Luke 20:23
But he perceived their craftiness, and said unto them, Why tempt ye me?
John 6:15
When Jesus therefore perceived that they would come and take him by force, to make him a king, he departed again into a mountain himself alone.
So how much did Jesus know? He most certainly knew all he needed to know and if he didn't he learned.
After you digest the above verses about Jesus getting to the point of perceiving what was going on not already knowing what is going on, you might want to consider the following
Did Jesus know every detail, all the minutest, tiniest details of what he would be going through?
Or did Jesus know, in general, all that he needed to know at that moment?
This is just little old me conjecturing, but if I knew that I would be treated poorly by this website yet I knew God wanted me to make known His word on this website, would I concentrate on all the insults thrown my way? or would I want to focus on doing the will of the Father who sent me? Well, I like thinking God's word over anything else. even thought I do not do his will perfectly, I know that the best thoughts I could ever have is to focus on doing God's will, not focusing on the opposition to God's word
Did Jesus know every atom and proton of every drop of spit that was spat on him? What for?
Did Jesus know exactly where on his body every whiplash would land before he felt it? Would that knowledge help him focus on the joy set before him?
Did he know how much blood he would bleed? in firkins?
Did he know exactly how many thorns would pierce his scalp? Why bother with such trivia?
Jesus' meat was to do the will of the Father, not count the hairs on his head and how much blood would stick to each strand.
Looking unto Jesus the author and finisher of our faith; who for the joy that was set before him endured the cross, despising the shame, and is set down at the right hand of the throne of God.
I do not know exactly what he knew, he certainly knew all that he needed to know at that moment and God continued to stay with him throughout the whole ordeal
Are you serious?
Didn't you just provide a scripture that says just that? And did you not just read the verses that indicate that Jesus did not always know what was going on all the time but learned on the job many a time.
I showed you the verses from John 5 that state precisely that.
Since, I do not wish to have some encyclopedic size reply, I will stop here
If you want me to answer the rest of your questions I will be happy to do so in later posts.
However, if memory serves me correctly, I believe we are allowed only one reply per post replied to.
So technically, I may not be allowed to reply.
If you want answers, please repost your questions and I will teach you scripture
7djengo7
This space intentionally left blank
LOL
So, did Jesus know (-scient) all (omni-) things that should come upon Him, as John says He did, or did Jesus not know all things that should come upon Him? Which is it?
7djengo7
This space intentionally left blank
Did I say that Jesus "knew they were looking for him"? No. I did not say this. Here's what I did say:
No. The "religious" aren't doing that, but the religious are.
So, then, according to you, contra James, the religion he calls "pure" and "undefiled before God" is apparently as bad and worthless as the religion he calls "vain".
In other words, God wants you to go around preaching dime-a-dozen (no, make that dime-a-gross), anti-intellectual platitudes such as that?
oatmeal
Well-known member
What does scripture mean by "all" in that context?
The word "all" has two basic definitions as I was taught in the Power for Abundant Living class by Dr. VP Wierwille,
1. All without exception
2. All within a certain distinction or category
Scriptures, I provided a short list, show that Jesus did not know all things, but he learned more and more as he applied himself to do what he did know and then the Father would show him more as the Father saw fit.
Thus Jesus did not know all things without exception, but he most certainly knew everything that he needed to know to keep moving ahead or pull back, whatever the need was at that time.
Once you recognize the two different meanings of the word all, many scriptures will make more sense to the average reader, for most average readers are not aware of the difference.
Matthew 10:22
And ye shall be hated of all men for my name's sake: but he that endureth to the end shall be saved.
All men? all without exception? including fellow believers who loved them?
All men outside the group of disciples who loved God, who loved Jesus Christ, who loved God's word and each other.
Matthew 11:27
All things are delivered unto me of my Father: and no man knoweth the Son, but the Father; neither knoweth any man the Father, save the Son, and he to whomsoever the Son will reveal him.
All things? without exception? Is the son now in possession of being the Father? No, the Father is still the Father and the son is still the son. The son is still derived, subordinate, and inferior to the Father, which is why Jesus did not do his own will, but the will of the Father who sent him.
All things that the Father knew that the Son needed to complete doing the Father's will
Matthew 11:28
Come unto me, all ye that labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest.
All without exception, including the lazy and idle?
No, all within the category of those who labor and are heavy laden
oatmeal
Well-known member
If you choose to be religious, as opposed to having a true, vital, spiritual relationship with God, then God tells you how to it.
Which life would you rather have? A religious life? or a godly life?
Jesus lived a godly life He did a lot more than look out for orphans and widows.
He did all that God commanded to him
7djengo7
This space intentionally left blank
John 18:4:
Notice that you chose to say, "What does scripture mean by 'all' in that context?", whereas you chose to not say, "What does scripture mean by 'all things that should come upon him' in that context?" Why is that?
Anyway, by "all", Scripture means "all"; by "all", Scripture does not mean "only some, but not all".
Here's what Scripture does not say, but what you, in futility, wish Scripture would have said:
Unlike you, I'm content believing what Scripture says.
7djengo7
This space intentionally left blank
Interesting. So, according to you, when Jesus said, "I am", in John 18:5, what He meant was, "I am [Jesus the Christ, the Son of God]", rather than, "I am [Jesus of Nazareth]" (as oatmeal has been claiming Jesus meant)?
Greetings again 7dengo7,
The following is taking up some of the places in John’s Gospel where the phrase “I am” occurs and testing the Trinitarian claim. We need to determine if Jesus and John are connecting all or some of these with Exodus 3:14. Principally we need to determine if the “I am” of John 8:58 is directly connected with Exodus 3:14 or has some other meaning.
John 1:20-23 (KJV): 20 And he confessed, and denied not; but confessed, I am (S# 1510) not the Christ. 21 And they asked him, What then? Art thou Elias? And he saith, I am (S# 1510) not. Art thou that prophet? And he answered, No. 22 Then said they unto him, Who art thou? that we may give an answer to them that sent us. What sayest thou of thyself? 23 He said, I am the voice of one crying in the wilderness, Make straight the way of the Lord, as said the prophet Esaias.
John 3:28 (KJV): Ye yourselves bear me witness, that I said, I am not the Christ, but that I am sent before him.
The Apostle John records these words of John the Baptist when the representatives of the Jews questioned him. This was not just an idle inquiry, but part of their role to examine if a prophet spoke with Divine authority. They also felt challenged because here was a new prophet who seemed to be working independently of the Scribes and Pharisees and the Sanhedrin Council. Please note the phrases “I am not the Christ” and “I am not” (Elijah). In my opinion, neither of these are connected with Exodus 3:14, but is possibly the start of a theme that John draws attention to by recording various “I am” passages. In other words it is the question of who a person actually is, and it is usually the authorities who want to determine their status.
John 4:25-26 (KJV): 25 The woman saith unto him, I know that Messias cometh, which is called Christ: when he is come, he will tell us all things. 26 Jesus saith unto her, I that speak unto thee am (S# 1510) he.
Here is Jesus confession that He is the Christ, but note this is similar to the language that John the Baptist used. The translators of the KJV have added he in italics to connect Jesus’ answer to say that Jesus is here claiming to be the Christ. They are suggesting by this that Jesus is not claiming to be the “I am” of Exodus 3:14, even though the “I am” of John 4:26 is identical to John 8:58 in the original Greek. In other words the phrase “I am” is a simple expression in this context, but seems a bit awkward in English, requiring the addition of he.
John 6:20 (KJV): But he saith unto them, It is (S# 1510) I; be not afraid.
This is in a different order and I am not familiar enough with Greek to comment except to say that I do not think Jesus is appealing to Exodus 3:14 here. He was comforting them by his words and the familiar tone of his voice.
“I am” occurs in John 6:20, 35, 41, 48, 51, :7:28, 29, 33, 34, 36, 8:12, 16, 18, 23, 24, 28, and each of these describe in one way or another who Jesus is, but it is the last two of these, John 8:24,28 that may be connected to John 8:58, as they are in the same context and spoken at the same time.
John 8:23-28 (KJV): 23 And he said unto them, Ye are from beneath; I am from above: ye are of this world; I am not of this world. 24 I said therefore unto you, that ye shall die in your sins: for if ye believe not that I am he, ye shall die in your sins. 25 Then said they unto him, Who art thou? And Jesus saith unto them, Even the same that I said unto you from the beginning. 26 I have many things to say and to judge of you: but he that sent me is true; and I speak to the world those things which I have heard of him. 27 They understood not that he spake to them of the Father. 28 Then said Jesus unto them, When ye have lifted up the Son of man, then shall ye know that I am he, and that I do nothing of myself; but as my Father hath taught me, I speak these things.
Now again the KJV translators have added the he in both occurrences, and this gives the impression that they did not believe that Jesus was claiming here a connection with Exodus 3:14. It speaks in the first of his claim to a Divine origin as the Son of God v23, and in the second that he was the Son of Man v28. Rather than having some claim to independent Deity, he rather states his absolute dependence upon God His Father, “I do nothing of myself”.
John 8:58 (KJV): Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am.
Despite the context and usage of the phrase in John 8:24,28, the translators here with exactly the same original words have translated this as “I am” and not “I amhe. They thus leave wide open the suggestion that this connects with Exodus 3:14. In my opinion the same phrase occurring in John 8:24,28 qualifies how we should understand John 8:58, spoken at the same time to the same audience. My conclusion is that when Jesus says “I am” in John 8:58, he is claiming to be the Christ, the Son of God and the Son of Man.
John 9:9 (KJV): Some said, This is he: others said, He is like him: but he said, I am he.
This is the blind man speaking and again the translators have added the he to give the proper sense in the English. This particular usage here for the blind man again demystifies the expression in the Greek “I am” to show that it is not automatically a reference to what at first may seem to be the obscure words of Exodus 3:14.
In addition to this it is my belief that Exodus 3:14 should be translated with the future tense “I will be” as given in Tyndale’s translation and the RV and RSV margins. Therefore I have serious doubts that Exodus 3:14 is in any real way connected with John 8:58, unless it can be shown that “I am” of John 8:58 is a fulfillment of “I will be” of Exodus 3:14. This would not make Jesus God the Son, but the Son of God.
Some suggest that the LXX supports understanding that the “I AM” of John 8:58 is a quotation from Exodus 3:14, but the LXX of Exodus 3:14 is different to the KJV. Here is a version of the LXX from my electronic resources:
Exodus 3:14 (LXX): καὶ εἶπεν ὁ θεὸς πρὸς Μωυσῆν Ἐγώ εἰμι ὁ ὤν, καὶ εἶπεν Οὕτως ἐρεῖς τοῖς υἱοῖς Ισραηλ Ὁ ὢν ἀπέσταλκέν με πρὸς ὑμᾶς.
Please note that my printed copy of the LXX is slightly different from my electronic LXX, shown above, but most probably not in the essential detail. The following is the English translation from the printed copy. I have not supplied the printed copy of the LXX for Exodus 3:14, and as I am hopeless with Greek except for a long process starting with Strongs.
Exodus 3:14 (English Translation from LXX): And God spoke to Moses, saying, I am THE BEING; and he said, Thus shall ye say to the children of Israel, THE BEING has sent me to you.
Please note the significant difference between the LXX and the KJV, especially the last phrases, THE BEING has sent me to you and I AM hath sent me unto you:
Exodus 3:14 (KJV): And God said unto Moses, I AM THAT I AM: and he said, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, I AM hath sent me unto you.
Kind regards
Trevor
I stand corrected, Jesus is saying that he is Jesus of Nazareth. You are being very sharp in your perception lately. I will add my understanding of John’s theme, of whether or not Jesus is the Christ the Son of God.
The following is taking up some of the places in John’s Gospel where the phrase “I am” occurs and testing the Trinitarian claim. We need to determine if Jesus and John are connecting all or some of these with Exodus 3:14. Principally we need to determine if the “I am” of John 8:58 is directly connected with Exodus 3:14 or has some other meaning.
John 1:20-23 (KJV): 20 And he confessed, and denied not; but confessed, I am (S# 1510) not the Christ. 21 And they asked him, What then? Art thou Elias? And he saith, I am (S# 1510) not. Art thou that prophet? And he answered, No. 22 Then said they unto him, Who art thou? that we may give an answer to them that sent us. What sayest thou of thyself? 23 He said, I am the voice of one crying in the wilderness, Make straight the way of the Lord, as said the prophet Esaias.
John 3:28 (KJV): Ye yourselves bear me witness, that I said, I am not the Christ, but that I am sent before him.
The Apostle John records these words of John the Baptist when the representatives of the Jews questioned him. This was not just an idle inquiry, but part of their role to examine if a prophet spoke with Divine authority. They also felt challenged because here was a new prophet who seemed to be working independently of the Scribes and Pharisees and the Sanhedrin Council. Please note the phrases “I am not the Christ” and “I am not” (Elijah). In my opinion, neither of these are connected with Exodus 3:14, but is possibly the start of a theme that John draws attention to by recording various “I am” passages. In other words it is the question of who a person actually is, and it is usually the authorities who want to determine their status.
John 4:25-26 (KJV): 25 The woman saith unto him, I know that Messias cometh, which is called Christ: when he is come, he will tell us all things. 26 Jesus saith unto her, I that speak unto thee am (S# 1510) he.
Here is Jesus confession that He is the Christ, but note this is similar to the language that John the Baptist used. The translators of the KJV have added he in italics to connect Jesus’ answer to say that Jesus is here claiming to be the Christ. They are suggesting by this that Jesus is not claiming to be the “I am” of Exodus 3:14, even though the “I am” of John 4:26 is identical to John 8:58 in the original Greek. In other words the phrase “I am” is a simple expression in this context, but seems a bit awkward in English, requiring the addition of he.
John 6:20 (KJV): But he saith unto them, It is (S# 1510) I; be not afraid.
This is in a different order and I am not familiar enough with Greek to comment except to say that I do not think Jesus is appealing to Exodus 3:14 here. He was comforting them by his words and the familiar tone of his voice.
“I am” occurs in John 6:20, 35, 41, 48, 51, :7:28, 29, 33, 34, 36, 8:12, 16, 18, 23, 24, 28, and each of these describe in one way or another who Jesus is, but it is the last two of these, John 8:24,28 that may be connected to John 8:58, as they are in the same context and spoken at the same time.
John 8:23-28 (KJV): 23 And he said unto them, Ye are from beneath; I am from above: ye are of this world; I am not of this world. 24 I said therefore unto you, that ye shall die in your sins: for if ye believe not that I am he, ye shall die in your sins. 25 Then said they unto him, Who art thou? And Jesus saith unto them, Even the same that I said unto you from the beginning. 26 I have many things to say and to judge of you: but he that sent me is true; and I speak to the world those things which I have heard of him. 27 They understood not that he spake to them of the Father. 28 Then said Jesus unto them, When ye have lifted up the Son of man, then shall ye know that I am he, and that I do nothing of myself; but as my Father hath taught me, I speak these things.
Now again the KJV translators have added the he in both occurrences, and this gives the impression that they did not believe that Jesus was claiming here a connection with Exodus 3:14. It speaks in the first of his claim to a Divine origin as the Son of God v23, and in the second that he was the Son of Man v28. Rather than having some claim to independent Deity, he rather states his absolute dependence upon God His Father, “I do nothing of myself”.
John 8:58 (KJV): Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am.
Despite the context and usage of the phrase in John 8:24,28, the translators here with exactly the same original words have translated this as “I am” and not “I amhe. They thus leave wide open the suggestion that this connects with Exodus 3:14. In my opinion the same phrase occurring in John 8:24,28 qualifies how we should understand John 8:58, spoken at the same time to the same audience. My conclusion is that when Jesus says “I am” in John 8:58, he is claiming to be the Christ, the Son of God and the Son of Man.
John 9:9 (KJV): Some said, This is he: others said, He is like him: but he said, I am he.
This is the blind man speaking and again the translators have added the he to give the proper sense in the English. This particular usage here for the blind man again demystifies the expression in the Greek “I am” to show that it is not automatically a reference to what at first may seem to be the obscure words of Exodus 3:14.
In addition to this it is my belief that Exodus 3:14 should be translated with the future tense “I will be” as given in Tyndale’s translation and the RV and RSV margins. Therefore I have serious doubts that Exodus 3:14 is in any real way connected with John 8:58, unless it can be shown that “I am” of John 8:58 is a fulfillment of “I will be” of Exodus 3:14. This would not make Jesus God the Son, but the Son of God.
Some suggest that the LXX supports understanding that the “I AM” of John 8:58 is a quotation from Exodus 3:14, but the LXX of Exodus 3:14 is different to the KJV. Here is a version of the LXX from my electronic resources:
Exodus 3:14 (LXX): καὶ εἶπεν ὁ θεὸς πρὸς Μωυσῆν Ἐγώ εἰμι ὁ ὤν, καὶ εἶπεν Οὕτως ἐρεῖς τοῖς υἱοῖς Ισραηλ Ὁ ὢν ἀπέσταλκέν με πρὸς ὑμᾶς.
Please note that my printed copy of the LXX is slightly different from my electronic LXX, shown above, but most probably not in the essential detail. The following is the English translation from the printed copy. I have not supplied the printed copy of the LXX for Exodus 3:14, and as I am hopeless with Greek except for a long process starting with Strongs.
Exodus 3:14 (English Translation from LXX): And God spoke to Moses, saying, I am THE BEING; and he said, Thus shall ye say to the children of Israel, THE BEING has sent me to you.
Please note the significant difference between the LXX and the KJV, especially the last phrases, THE BEING has sent me to you and I AM hath sent me unto you:
Exodus 3:14 (KJV): And God said unto Moses, I AM THAT I AM: and he said, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, I AM hath sent me unto you.
Kind regards
Trevor
oatmeal
Well-known member
How much detail would or should or could "all things that should come upon him" include?
I see you included a third meaning for "all"
your definition does not mean all seeing that some does not equal all.
Maybe you do not yet see the difference and the legitimacy of the two definitions for "all" that I presented.
Both mean "all" but one includes some distinctions.
Does the word "all" in Romans 10:12 refer to all people without exception throughout all time?
Or is the "all" referring to all those that call upon him?
12 For there is no difference between the Jew and the Greek: for the same Lord over all is rich unto all that call upon him.
It is not all people without exception believer and non believer, it refers only to all those that call upon him
How about verse 16?
16 But they have not all obeyed the gospel. For Esaias saith, Lord, who hath believed our report?
Have all people without exception not believed Isaiah's reports? Have you believed the gospel? If you have then, all here is not all without exception but all within a distinctive group.
If you have obeyed the gospel, then you are not one of the all that have not obeyed. You would be an exception to "all without exception" meaning thus, all in this passage would have to mean all within the distinctive group that should should have obeyed the gospel but did not.
Oh how about the following in 18
But I say, Have they not heard? Yes verily, their sound went into all the earth, and their words unto the ends of the world.
Was the sound of the words of the gospel told to the crabs living in the bottom of the ocean miles beneath the surface?
Does all mean all animals and plants and rock and things or is God concerned with all the people only?
How about 21
Did Esaias without stopping to inhale, to drink or eat, to listen to others questions stretch forth his hands all day? did he stop to use his hands to eat or did he slurp up food without using his hands?
God is a practical God, He knows we are dust, he knows that by our sins we have become weak and prone to even more sin. That is why he sent his son
John 3:31
He that cometh from above is above all: he that is of the earth is earthly, and speaketh of the earth: he that cometh from heaven is above all.
John is referring to Jesus Christ.
Is Jesus Christ above all without exception including himself or all within the distinction of those on the earth?
oatmeal
Well-known member
Why don't you ask me?
It is my thread.
Jesus is basically saying, "I am Jesus of Nazareth, the one you seek"
7djengo7
This space intentionally left blank
Really?? Get serious. Why would I have needed to ask you? You've already told me you think that, by His words, "I am", Jesus meant, "I am [Jesus of Nazareth]". So, why would I need to ask you what you think Jesus meant by His words, "I am", since you've already told me?
Seeing as you've just told me that this is "my thread", then, what if, in a future post, I were to say, "oatmeal thinks this is his thread"; would you really like to respond by saying, "Why don't you ask me?" Why should I ask you to tell me something you've already told me (and repeatedly, at that)?
You've already told me that. Why are you telling me it again?
oatmeal
Well-known member
Because it seems you do not accept that yet, let alone believe it
7djengo7
This space intentionally left blank
Seeing as I've (at least twice) clearly stated that you think Jesus meant "I am [Jesus of Nazareth]" by His phrase, "I am", how, exactly, can it seem to you that I do not believe that you think Jesus meant "I am [Jesus of Nazareth]", by His phrase, "I am"?
7djengo7
This space intentionally left blank
All of those to whom Jesus is referring, here, by the adjective, "all"--that is, all of them, rather than none, or only some, of them. Of course, the Greek text does not have the noun, 'men'.
Which did Jesus say?
- And ye shall be hated of all for my name's sake?
- And ye shall be hated of some, but not all, for my name's sake?
Do you think that, by saying this phrase, you mean something other than, or beyond what you mean by saying simply, "all"? If so, what? Do you also like to say the phrase, "all with exception"?
Would you like to have seen Jesus say, "And ye shall be hated of all with exception for my name's sake?" instead of what He actually said: "And ye shall be hated of all for my name's sake?"