Who is Jesus? Is he God?

by BelieverInJesus 396 Replies latest watchtower bible

• 

  Mondo1

  In fact, it is refering back to "Teacher and Lord." This is quite clear in the text. What he would do would serve as a confirmation of that fact. Notice what A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature states:

  "To establish identity the formula egw, eimi is oft[en] used in the gospels (corresp[onding] to Hebr[ew] ani hu] Dt 32:39; Is 43:10), in such a way that the predicate must be understood fr[om] the context: Mt 14:27; Mk 6:50; 13:6; 14:62; Lk 22:70; J 4:26; 6:20; 8:24, 28; 13:19;"

  The only predicate available that can "be understood from the context" is "teacher and Lord."

  Mondo
• 

  Mondo1

  There are many non-doctrinal churches that doesn't focus on doctrine, but praise and worship and living clean moral lives. I'm not advocating such, but I suspect it might be better than nothing at all.

  For "a god," there are quite a number, but most are older. Some say "a god," others "a divine being," etc.

  Mondo
• 

  UnDisfellowshipped

  I am going to bed for tonight. I will post more soon.

  Here are some links I leave for everyone to ponder through:

  http://www.tektonics.org/jesusclaims/iamwhatiam.html

  http://www.aomin.org/index.php?itemid=666&catid=3

  http://www.forananswer.org/Mars_Jw/JB-RB.Jn8_58.Index.htm

  One last question for you, Mondo1 (for tonight):

  What did "I AM" mean in the following Verses?

  Isaiah 47:8:

  Now, then, hear this, O pleasure seeker, who lives carelessly; who says in her heart, I am, and none else is ; I shall not sit as a widow, nor shall I know the loss of children.

  Isaiah 47:10:

  For you trusted in your evil; you said, No one sees me. Your wisdom and your knowledge; it is turning you back, and you said in your heart,I am and none else is .
• 

  Mondo1

  I'm really not discussing anything new here. This stuff is discussed extensively at this link: Scripturaltruths.com so it may be better to just go and look at all the data. I don't think this text is addressed there actually, but the others all are.

  I only had a chance to briefly skim it once, but Stafford also discusses this quite extensively in Jehovah's Witnesses Defended.

  Now for the specific texts, the first thing I would notice is that these two verses are different from what God says, for he says ANI HU and these only say ANI. So if these are being appealed to in order to show a divine name or title, they definitely are not going to do it.

  Notice that she says, "I and no one else." Literally this would be, "I and only I." In other words, "I'm the greatest among the nations. None of the others compare to me." This would not be a claim to be Jehovah, for such a claim would make little sense given the speaker. It would not be a claim to be the most high God, for to Babylonians, that was Marduk. Albert Barnes hits the nail on the head... he states: "The language of pride. She regarded herself as the principal city of the world, and all others as unworthy to be named in comparison with her."

  Mondo
• 

  Hellrider

  Mondo:

  It isn't any more important than when others use the words! EIMI takes the function of a simple linking verb. How can you ever imagine that a linking verb has any special theological meaning?

  Why not? The origin of the name Yahweh is itself a verb. The point is that "theological meaning" can be applied to any word in given language at any time, it all depends on the authors of the religious texts, and how they use these words. If the authors of the Biblical texts wanted to give EGW EIMI a theological meaning, then that is what they did. The only problem lies in the complexity of the situation that it is a common term used not only by/about God and Jesus, but in other situations too. Now, of course it can`t be proven, but the fact is that "I AM" is used by the Father in the OT all the time, in all the phrases in which he presents himself to his people!

  That night the LORD appeared to him and said, "Iam the God of your father Abraham. Do not be afraid, for Iam with you;

  There above it stood the LORD, and he said: "Iam the LORD, the God of your father Abraham and the God of Isaac.

  And God said to him, "Iam God Almighty.

  Then he said, "Iam the God of your father, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac and the God of Jacob." At this, Moses hid his face, because he was afraid to look at God.

  God said to Moses, "Iam who Iam . This is what you are to say to the Israelites: 'IAM has sent me to you.' "

  "Therefore, say to the Israelites: 'Iam the LORD, and I will bring you out from under the yoke of the Egyptians.

  And I will bring you to the land I swore with uplifted hand to give to Abraham, to Isaac and to Jacob. I will give it to you as a possession. Iam the LORD.' "

  And the Egyptians will know that Iam the LORD when I stretch out my hand against Egypt and bring the Israelites out of it."

  This is what the LORD says: By this you will know that Iam the LORD :

  "I have heard the grumbling of the Israelites. Tell them, 'At twilight you will eat meat, and in the morning you will be filled with bread. Then you will know that Iam the LORD your God.' "

  etc...(I only got to the beginning of Exodus), the list goes on and on and on. A jew or greek reads these words, and every time God himself speaks to the people and presents himself, these words make a significant impression on the reader. Eventually, the phrase I AM, when used by GOD, takes on a special meaning to the reader, and it is this meaning that is the background of G-John. A greek or jew at that time was more than capable of distinguishing between the phrase EGW EIMI when used by others, in "everyday-speak", and when it is used by God, or someone claiming to be God, or equal with God! And this is exactly what the jews believed Jesus was doing, as is shown elsewhere in John:

  John 5:16-18 (ESV): And this was why the Jews were persecuting Jesus, because he was doing these things on the Sabbath. But Jesus answered them, "My Father is working until now, and I am working."This was why the Jews were seeking all the more to kill him, because not only was he breaking the Sabbath, but he was even calling God his own Father,making himself equal with God.

  Why then do they react in the same way (trying to kill him) when he says EGW EIMI in John 8:58? Because his EGW EIMI was a known phrase to greek-speaking jews as a phrase bearing within it a reference to deity, when used in a certain manner, and (as you yourself admit), a reference to everlasting existence.

  Of course, I can`t prove this, but this is the background for a 2000-yearold christian tradition on the view on Jesus` words in John 8 and elsewhere. And I believe they are right. You insist on talking about grammar, but grammar is only half the picture. What is even more important than grammar, is how the jews and greeks interpreted/recognised and were familiar with, certain phrases and words. In other words: context.
• 

  Mondo1

  Those texts use EIMI as a linking verb. Sheesh.

  I've already addressed all of this, including the material on John 5.

  You are in a very dangerous place if you are arguing for something theologically that you can't prove. I prefer to believe and accept what I can prove.

  Mondo
• 

  Hellrider

  Those texts use EIMI as a linking verb. Sheesh.

  You just don`t get it, do you. The I AM takes on its own theological meaning when God is using them, because he is using them all the time, all thruout the Torah. This did not go unnoticed by the author of G-John.
  Nevermind. You are to caught up in one tiny detail to see the big picture. It`s called "to not see the forrest for the trees".
• 

  Mondo1

  The problem is I do get it, you don't.

  How else would God define himself with what is stated in the predicates if he didn't say "I am"? Unless you can come up with another way for him to do it that makes sense and is not something totally unusual, then you have no argument. You have to demonstrate that God means something special and theological and that he is not using it as a linking verb, just as everyone else would use it as such. You have to demonstrate that these sentences use it in a unique way, or your argument is completely invalid.

  Mondo
• 

  Hellrider

  LoL, no, I don`t. That is not the point at all! The point is now what "God meant", but what the greeks and greekspeaking jews read in the LXX, what impression this made on them, what caught their eye, what phrases that stood out, and how they interpreted these phrases. Then they wrote the NT on the basis of this, in combination with the stories about Jesus` life. That is the point.

  You have to demonstrate that these sentences use it in a unique way, or your argument is completely invalid.

  In fact, I would like to see the WTS justify grammatically the NWT-translation of " and the Word was a God", without taking into consideration context! And what is the point of me mentioning this? The point is that grammar will only get u so far. Yes, grammatically there is no hO WN in John 8, but there most certainly is no "a" in "and the Word was God". Why then did the WTS shove that "a" in there? Because they have this certain doctrine, and the doctrine was deciding for the translation. In turn, these doctrines are made on the basis of an overall-view on the Bible. The point is that this decision of the WTS was made solely on what they saw as "context", which in reality is their overall Bible-doctrines (anti-trinitarianism). So, when the context tells us that "I AM" was used so much in the OT by God when he presented himself to his people, and we see the jews attempting to stone Jesus in the NT when he is calling himself it, what is the logical conclusion? That "I AM" had taken on status as a title for God, when used by a heavenly being, in a certain way.

  You have to demonstrate that these sentences use it in a unique way, or your argument is completely invalid.

  Well, I tried to do that in John 8 (not with the greek though, my skills are very limited in that), but you dismissed it. Or rather, you tried to explain it away, and when I pointed out that even within your alternative explanation, the term refers to someone heavenly, you just ignored it. Nice going.
• 

  Mondo1

  You really make me wonder if you actually believe the things you write.

  LoL, no, I don`t. That is not the point at all! The point is now what "God meant", but what the greeks and greekspeaking jews read in the LXX, what impression this made on them, what caught their eye, what phrases that stood out, and how they interpreted these phrases. Then they wrote the NT on the basis of this, in combination with the stories about Jesus` life. That is the point .

  And your basis for concluding that they gathered some idea from this in the first century is what? You seem to be assuming a lot.

  In fact, I would like to see the WTS justify grammatically the NWT-translation of " and the Word was a God", without taking into consideration context! And what is the point of me mentioning this? The point is that grammar will only get u so far. Yes, grammatically there is no hO WN in John 8, but there most certainly is no "a" in "and the Word was God". Why then did the WTS shove that "a" in there? Because they have this certain doctrine, and the doctrine was deciding for the translation. In turn, these doctrines are made on the basis of an overall-view on the Bible. The point is that this decision of the WTS was made solely on what they saw as "context", which in reality is their overall Bible-doctrines (anti-trinitarianism). So, when the context tells us that "I AM" was used so much in the OT by God when he presented himself to his people, and we see the jews attempting to stone Jesus in the NT when he is calling himself it, what is the logical conclusion? That "I AM" had taken on status as a title for God, when used by a heavenly being, in a certain way.

  Wrong. There is no indefinite article in Greek, but as English uses one, it is necessary for us to add indefinite articles into English translations. Grammatically, it is entirely justified to add "a" when translating QEOS HN.

  The problem for your argument is that "i am" is not used in the way you claim it is used. It is used within the normal principles of grammar, lending to no special meaning. You are the one demanding that something extraordinary was thought of these words, when you're giving nothing to demonstrate it.

  Well, I tried to do that in John 8 (not with the greek though, my skills are very limited in that), but you dismissed it. Or rather, you tried to explain it away, and when I pointed out that even within your alternative explanation, the term refers to someone heavenly, you just ignored it. Nice going.

  You took verse 58, which uses EIMI in a way completely different than any of the texts you referenced in Isaiah do and different than Exodus 3:14. So you took a nice pile of oranges and tried to throw in an apple to say that it is the same. As McKay notes, the sense of EIMI in 8:58 is "to exist," which is not at all the sense in Isaiah or in the other places where Jesus and God use the verb (or where the verb is implied and the pronoun is used).

  Mondo