The final and correct interpretation of John 1.1

by Hellrider 79 Replies latest watchtower bible

• 

  Hellrider

  Ianone:

  You have ignored addressing the scriptures where Jesus identifies Himself as the I AM, the OT God.

  I am sorry I can`t address this particular part of your posts, because this is a HUUGE issue, on which there has been numerous threads in the past, involving the ones on the forum that knows most about this issue, LeoLaia, Narkissos, Joseph Malik, LittleToe, Cygnus (in no particular order). This thread is a good one to start:

  http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/10/96120/1.ashx

  ...in which they discuss (I parttake in it too, although my knowledge and skills are pale compared to most of the others there) - this particular part of the NT that you are referring to, the "I AM"-statements of Jesus in John. I agree with you that it may look (particularly judging from the response Jesus gets from his audience when saying this, they chase him away, try to throw rocks etc, and also how they fall to the ground when Jesus says this in the garden when they come to arrest him, I like that part in John) like ...what you are saying it looks like. On the other hand, there is the linguistic discussion about the greek text (which is FAR from simple, I can assure you!!!), and then there`s the question what Jesus may have meant by these words. Should it be interpreted as him claiming to be "part of God" in a trinitarian sense? Or just a claim of divinity? Or should it be seen in relation to other passages in which he refers to himself as "the Son" and to the one who sent him as "the Father"? And if so, in a trinitarian or a non-trinitarian sense?

  The list of questions is endless. Read carefully thru the thread I posted. Then start your own thread where you ask the specific questions about the nature of Christ. The starting point in this thread that I started here, is first and foremost about John 1, then, secondly, in relation to other parts of the NT, etc etc. You`re starting in the wrong end by asking your question here.

  Edited to add: By the way, Ianone, the view you are supporting is called modalism, isn`t it? If so, this is not the doctrine I meant to support in my first post! I never meant to say that First God was the Father (yhwh), then the Son, then the holy ghost. This is NOT what I meant! I merely wanted to try to get into a discussion about John 1,1, to try to make some sense of it. I do NOT feel that the thoughts I expressed in the first post even resembles modalism, I see it as supporting trinitarianism..
• 

  Narkissos

  As has been pointed out countless times, the characteristic, absolute use of egô eimi ("I am") in the Gospel of John is not a direct reference to the Tetragrammaton (Yhwh), nor even to its "pun explanation" 'ehyeh 'asher 'ehyeh, "I am who/what I am" (LXX egô eimi ho ôn, "I am the being") in Exodus 3, but to the LXX absolute use of egô eimi (translating the Hebrew 'ani hu', "I am he/that) in Deutero-Isaiah, which coexists with the Tetragrammaton in Hebrew (and with kurios, "Lord," in the LXX). E.g. Isaiah 43:10 which we know only too well:

  You are my witnesses, says the LORD (Hebrew Yhwh; Greek kurios ho theos),
  
  and my servant whom I have chosen,
  
  so that you may know and believe me
  
  and understand that I am he (Hebrew 'ani hu', Greek egô eimi).

  To explain Yhwh as a late (Qabbalistic!) fabrication as Ianone does is a farce. Not only do the BC Qumran manuscripts and countless other Israelite documents attest it, but also non-Israelite documents such as the 9th-century BC Moabite stele which I can regularly see in the Louvre Museum (there are generally a couple of JWs pointing to the Tetragrammaton there). Were Moabite king Mesha's scribes influenced by Jewish Qabbalah (which by the way appeared almost 2,000 years later)?
• 

  Hellrider

  Oh, and btw, Ianone:

  How can you claim that Jesus makes the claim "I am that I am" without him saying that he is yhwh? From what I`ve understood, the whole point of the trinitarian view on the "I am"-statements, is that these statements are references to the name of god, yhwh, in the OT. If Christ by the "I am" statements do NOT claim to be yhwh (because you claim that yhwh is a kabbalistic invention, and not gods real name), then...what? WHAT is Jesus saying by "I am"? If Gods name is NOT yhwh, then Jesus isn`t claiing to be God, is he? The whole point of the trinitarians claims, is that "I am" (ego eimi, ego eimi ho on, or whatever) is a translation of Gods name into greek (a point that in itself is on shaking ground, and has been discussed a lot, especially in the thread I offered above).

  Your theology is very incoherent.
• 

  Leolaia

  To explain Yhwh as a late (Qabbalistic!) fabrication as Ianone does is a farce. Not only do the BC Qumran manuscripts and countless other Israelite documents attest it, but also non-Israelite documents such as the 9th-century BC Moabite stele which I can regularly see in the Louvre Museum (there are generally a couple of JWs pointing to the Tetragrammaton there). Were Moabite king Mesha's scribes influenced by Jewish Qabbalah (which by the way appeared almost 2,000 years later)?

  Not to mention its attestation in the Ketef Hinnom fragments of the benediction in Numbers 6:24-26 from the 7th century BC (the earliest Hebrew text of the OT), its appearance in the oldest LXX fragments and fragments of other Greek versions, its attestation in bullae (such as "Miqneyaw, servant of YHWH") and the Lachish ostraca, its extensive attestation in the OT and in extrabiblical inscriptions as a theophoric element, the reference to the name in Clement of Alexandria, Origen (as in the manuscripts before him), and Josephus (who refers to the sacred name "consisting of four vowels," i.e. Iaoue), and so forth.

  Ianone's insistance to the contrary despite all this evidence reminds me of pseudo-scholar insisting on 607 BC despite all the evidence to the contrary.
• 

  Leolaia

  Hellrider....Please see Narkissos' post above. Ianone regards 'hyh 'shr 'hyh as the true name of God (a phrase that ironically is intended to explain the meaning of YHWH, via HYH), which corresponds in Greek to egó eimi ho ón. I suspect that he then thinks that 'hyh 'shr 'hyh is the actual name used all throughout the OT, which those evil wiley Jewish Masoretes replaced with yhwh.
• 

  Hellrider

  Leolaia:

  Ianone regards 'hyh 'shr 'hyh as the true name of God

  I didn`t know that. Then it`s even worse than I thought. Please ignore my previous post, Ianone.
• 

  Leolaia

  From Ianone:

  YHVH isnt even the real name of God, THe Masoretic, Talmudic scribes added it to the Torah. The Septuagint, the oldest Old Testament in known existence uses the name "Eyeh Asher Eyeh," I AM THAT I AM. The name Jesus called Himself in John 8:58, JOhn 6:20 and other places. JEHOVAH is a Masonic-Zionist-Jesuit-Gnostic god, who ordered the Israelites, when they were in Egypt, to massacre the Persians. This massacre of the Persians is still celebrated today in the Talmudic Jewish religion as "Purim."

  http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/11/100753/1.ashx

  Why did you capitalize I AM??? You reek of being a mason. I AM is a masonic term hijacked from the Old Testament's "Eyeh Asher Eyeh" the real name of God,, I AM THAT I AM.

  http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/10/80965/5.ashx

  Freemasons and jews have been kicked out and banned from many countries, because of their thievery and criminal monetary practices, and for their religous seductions they impose on people.

  http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/10/80965/8.ashx

  The bible does not mention any such word "tetragrammaton" that word came from the Jewish Mystical writings of the Kaballah. The name of God used in the Torah is not YHWH, but is Eyeh Asher Eyeh, Literally, I AM THAT I AM.

  http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/10/80965/12.ashx

  Loelai, your basing your pagan tetragrammaton on the gross "Masoretic Text" written years after Christ, this is where the Tetragrammaton was inserted into TORAH. Before the masoretic text, there was no such name as YHWH in the Old Testament.

  http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/10/80965/13.ashx
• 

  hamsterbait

  Couldn't we use Aristotle here? Love, God etc are substances, the nature of which certain objects and beings partake of.

  The word has qualities of "godness" about it.

  Too tired to really express it clearly.

  HB
• 

  Ianone

  Narkissos would have us believe that the God of the Bible is the Master Mason who needs a secret encoded name by which his adept sages must summon him by. How dare we pion non-Masons dare try to summon god by anything other than the omnific Kabbalist secret encoded tegragrammatron. Wait a minute....YHWH isnt the God of the OT. It could be Satan whom you, the JWs, and Freemasons summon with the witchcraft and sorcery of numerology.
• 

  Ianone

  You are confusing the issue. There is no Biblical example of the "tetragrammatron" except in the Pharisees Masoretic translation , which came out many years after the Septuagint and Christ. THe God of the OT was called I AM. Throughout the Torah and Tanakh. YHWH was later added to the Tanakh in the Masoretic Hebrew text and this omited the real name, I AM. A clever trick by the elders of the Sanhedrin to replace the true God and place themselves on Moses seat. Chabad Lubavitch and the vipers den.