Lon
Well-known member
It HAS to mean both or neither is true. Both are true.
What is Jesus saying here?
- Thread starter Bright Raven
- Start date
Derf
Well-known member
I'm having to review where we were on this.
You're saying that Jesus is equating Himself with God, and because God is timeless, Jesus is claiming to be timeless.
(the other option is that Jesus is NOT equating Himself with God, and is not claiming to be timeless.)
If God is "timeless", then Jesus' claim might inherently mean He's claiming timelessness, but the passage doesn't make that claim directly.
So it can't be used as a proof for the timelessness of God, anymore than every other instance of "I AM".
There are some significant problems with a "timeless" God, such as that Jesus is still on the cross, and that God, having forsaken Jesus still on the cross, is forever in a state of forsaking Him.
I suppose that still might be the case, but the bible doesn't support it, anymore than Jesus, using a time-sequence description, was claiming to do things out of sequence. I.e. if Jesus had claimed that Abraham's almost-sacrifice of Isaac was on schedule for the next day when talking to the Pharisees, in contradiction to the biblical account, and we had to recognize both sources as equally accurate, then it would point to a timelessness.
Lon
Well-known member
I'm saying that Jesus said "before Abraham 'was' I 'Am.'" It means 1) I Am and 2 Am Both
Lon
Well-known member
Why? What reason? A theological construct? I'm saying contextually and grammatically you cannot rule out 1) that "I Am" is a given and 2) that before Abraham 'was' I 'am.' Only a desire to have a time-constraint upon God would have anybody arguing the point. There is no necessity to argue it otherwise, the text gives both of these.
Derf
Well-known member
I told you. It's not necessary for the wording, and it doesn't naturally come from the wording. The text only gives "both" when your theological construct makes it do so, to use your words.
"Before Abraham was" places the context in time. "I Am" describes the who. Was the "I Am" existing before Abraham was? Yes. That's all it says. Our interpretation of what God means by His name carries all the rest of the connotation.
Last edited:
Trump Gurl
Credo in Unum Deum
BINGO.
That is the best answer to the OP question, simple and straight to the point. Christ is God.
Lon
Well-known member
It doesn't matter what you told me. It matters 'what Jesus said.'
Incorrect. It is all true or 'half' true.
Which makes more sense? When committed to an idea? No, you are very wrong. Grammar is correct whether you want it to be or not. I don't have to do anything BUT appeal to the text. Look: "was" "Am" given by the text. You don't 'get' to make the text not say what you don't want it to say. That just isn't going to happen. The text itself is the clarity. I nor you can change text. It is what it is. No amount of 'I told you' can make Jesus' words go away. Moreover, why would you want to do that anyway? For a theological construct???
AND the when. Sorry. Fact.
Incorrect, that is your bias and it is NOT supported by the text. You've made a jump in YOUR theology, and while I sympathize, it is NOT in fact supported by the text. This, among other scriptures is EXACTLY why I cannot make the same theological leap. Scripture just doesn't allow it and it certainly doesn't here.
ESPECIALLY when it is timeless in the given! Do you ACTUALLY understand that Jesus had JUST said "Before?????" Do you actually grasp that? Do you grasp the emphasis of HIS choosing??? Can you POSSIBLY not grasp HIS context? HIS CONTEXT WAS TIME by Abraham's mention has there is absolutely nothing you could say that could make me second guess or doubt "before." Nothing. The Lord Jesus Christ said it. By necessity, it has to be the end of it. OUR LORD Jesus Christ was that clear. Listen to Him.
Last edited:
Derf
Well-known member
Well, that was my point. What did Jesus say, considering his audience, which I read recently that you agree with.
I don't understand your two statements that follow. How can the same thing be either all true or half true while also being all true or none true?
I think you are arguing my point for me. I admit it could apply in my case, too--do you admit it could apply in your case?
Yes, the when was "before", as you express so eloquently further down.
If timeless is a given, you're admitting it's your theological construct that drives your interpretation.
I wasn't questioning "before". It was part of my point.
Jesus was clear He existed before Abraham was, and He was clear that He is God. He wasn't so clear about timelessness, unless you import more meaning into His words than He intended, from what I can see.
Timelessness doesn't have a "before".
First, The passage itself says "before Abraham was, I am he." The "I AM" in all caps is a much later commentary added to the Bible.
If Jesus was saying that he was God and remain cryptic for some reason, he would have said "before the world was I am he." This would indicate his equality with God. However, he said "before Abraham was, I am he." The makes Jesus greater than Abraham which he is. This makes better sense with the 53rd verse.
There is a common misconception pushed onto this passage that the people were going to stone Jesus because he said he was God. Within the context of the book, that makes no sense. In the very next chapter, the Jewish leaders were throwing anyone who said Jesus was the Messiah out of the synagogues - not that Jesus was God.
Next, we have Jesus's personal style. Whenever people correctly identified him, he would respond in the affirmative. John 4:26, John 13:13, John 13:19, John 18:5-8, Matthew 16:17, Matthew 26:64, Matthew 27:11, etc. Similarly, 8:58 was an answer to the question in 8:53.
Right Divider
Body part
The Messiah is God. I think that you are the one misconceiving the passage.
Is not a scripture passage I have ever seen. Do you have special revelation?
Right Divider
Body part
Last edited:
Well, let's go through this passage. The capitalization of god in this passage is an editorial commentary on the passage and not the actual meaning conveyed by the passage. The first two parts - "For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given" - clearly identifies a human being - not God. Little "g" god does occur in the Bible and in the context of the passage makes far more sense - see Ezekiel 31:11 as well as Jesus's explanation in John 10:34-38. Martin Luther more properly translated this passage as "divine hero".
"The everlasting Father" is even more problematic especially with the capital F. Now, this translation is saying that Jesus is the Father and the entire Athanasian Creed goes down the toilet with that since the Trinitarian belief says Jesus is not the Father. So, even if you are a Trinitarian, you need to realize this translation is messed up. The Calvinists replace "The everlasting Father" with "eternal" since that fits their Platonic beliefs. However, "father of the age" is a much better translation and goes well with Colossians 1:15-20.
Right Divider
Body part
Marin Luther wanted to throw out the book of James. Why should I believe his "proper translation"?
Are you a JW?
Derf
Well-known member
I would propose "father of the everlasting ones", similar to
[Gen 4:20-21 KJV] 20 And Adah bare Jabal: he was the father of such as dwell in tents, and [of such as have] cattle. 21 And his brother's name [was] Jubal: he was the father of all such as handle the harp and organ.
Besides Jesus, do you know of any humans who are perfect?
Seriously though, I also gave Ezekiel and Jesus as sources. Are they not good enough for you?
Definitely not.
(Edited: oops, said Moses instead of Ezekiel.)
Last edited:
That fails the context - the everlasting ones would be Christians, angels or what? Regardless, that would mean that those "everlasting ones" would call Jesus, "father" which fails.
Maybe you can give more context.
No, it doesn't. There is no "autos" (pardon me not typing in greek) in that passage (at least not in Jesus' words).
Ego Eimi is a well known Greek idiom.
John 9:9 KJV
Some said, This is he: others said, He is like him: but he said, I am he.