Why Did God Tell Israel That He is One?

[LeviR]

However the verse didn't use ginomai. It used genesthai, which is conjugated, and is aorist. The word ginomai is not aorist, it is a verb. When conjugated it changes.

There is PLENTY of scriptural justification for saying "was" or "was born". Abraham WAS in Jesus past. The word genesthai is aorist simple past. An even that occurred once in the past, and is not continuing. If Jesus was simply a man, or a man with the job of prophet (as there have been quite a few in history), you have no hope of attaining salvation. Men can't die for even there own sin, much less someone else's. You can read scripture all the way through, and it does not once include human sacrifice in the sacrificial system, does it?

Anyone examining the uses of that verb genesthai in all the context would have to honestly admit that John 8:58 is the oddball and seems to be the result of doctrinal bias.

 

[LeviR]

@TMSO
In Jesus’ encounter with those Jews in John 8, he said to them “Why do ye not understand my speech?”
Throughout their encounter, the Jews were clueless of his speech. They didn’t even know he was speaking of the Father earlier in the conversation.
To claim Jesus was directly responding to their question by saying he existed before Abraham doesn’t work in the context of the entire conversation. And we can point to other conversations where Jesus does the same thing. Either change the topic or reply in a way to baffle them. It only pissed them off more.

 

[TMSO]

Anyone examining the uses of that verb genesthai in all the context would have to honestly admit that John 8:58 is the oddball and seems to be the result of doctrinal bias.

Yes, your take is the oddball.

 

[TMSO]

@TMSO
In Jesus’ encounter with those Jews in John 8, he said to them “Why do ye not understand my speech?”
Throughout their encounter, the Jews were clueless of his speech. They didn’t even know he was speaking of the Father earlier in the conversation.
To claim Jesus was directly responding to their question by saying he existed before Abraham doesn’t work in the context of the entire conversation. And we can point to other conversations where Jesus does the same thing. Either change the topic or reply in a way to baffle them. It only pissed them off more.

Explain why in the other passage Jesus says He is "I AM", it knocked the people back and down to the ground?

 

[LeviR]

@

Yes, your take is the oddball.

If Abraham wasn’t to be raised from the dead, I’d say you were probably right. But since he is……

 

[LeviR]

Explain why in the other passage Jesus says He is "I AM", it knocked the people back and down to the ground?

3Judas then, having received a band of men and officers from the chief priests and Pharisees, cometh thither with lanterns and torches and weapons. 4Jesus therefore, knowing all things that should come upon him, went forth, and said unto them, Whom seek ye? 5They answered him, Jesus of Nazareth. Jesus saith unto them, I am he. And Judas also, which betrayed him, stood with them. 6As soon then as he had said unto them, I am he, they went backward, and fell to the ground.
7Then asked he them again, Whom seek ye? And they said, Jesus of Nazareth. 8Jesus answered, I have told you that I am he: if therefore ye seek me, let these go their way.

It sounds to me he is simply acknowledging that he is Jesus of Nazareth.

They were looking for Jesus in the dark of night. When Jesus knew they had come he went forth to them and asked who they were looking for. When they said they were looking for him he acknowledged himself to be him. So it seems they were surprised that he whom they were looking for approached them and was standing right in front of them. That’s probably why the went backward and fell.
They may have been planing to ambush him.

 

[LeviR]

They got ambushed instead.

 

[David1701]

Actually, you failed. Because you make up your own definition and think it’s correct.
Where does the verb mean “came to be”? Other than in you own head.

The verb meaning “came to be” or “was born” is ἐγενήθη

You need to start telling the truth.

John 8:58 (W.E.B.) Jesus said to them, “Most certainly, I tell you, before Abraham came into existence, I AM.

Robertson's Word Pictures

Before Abraham was (πριν Αβρααμ γενεσθα). Usual idiom with πριν in positive sentence with infinitive (second aorist middle of γινομα) and the accusative of general reference, "before coming as to Abraham," "before Abraham came into existence or was born."

I am (εγω ειμ). Undoubtedly here Jesus claims eternal existence with the absolute phrase used of God. The contrast between γενεσθα (entrance into existence of Abraham) and ειμ (timeless being) is complete. See the same contrast between εν in 1:1 and εγενετο in 1:14. See the contrast also in Ps 90:2 between God (ε, art) and the mountains (γενηθηνα). See the same use of ειμ in John 6:20; John 9:9; John 8:24; John 8:28; John 18:6.

 

[David1701]

@David1701

Ἐγένετο…. Means came to pass. Or came to be

γενέσθαι……Means come to pass or come to be

“was born” is ἐγενήθη

You’re using the wrong verb

γενέσθαι ….Means “ to be born”

You can say, “before Abraham was born” . Or “before Abraham to be born”.

To say “before Abraham was born” …..πρίν Ἀβραάμ ἐγενήθη

Yes, it's infinitive, but it's also aorist (simple past). Before Abraham came to be, I AM.

 

[David1701]

Greetings David1701,

I noticed that you carefully avoided the other "I am he" reference:
John 8:28 (KJV): 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.
Jesus is NOT claiming to be Deity in this use of "I am he". Jesus speaks concerning his absolute dependence on God, his Father.

Start telling THE TRUTH.

I did mention John 8:28, without quoting it. The "he", in "I am he" was added by the translators and is not in the original, as I posted.

John 8:28 (W.P.N.T.) Then Jesus said to them: “When you lift up the Son of Man, then you will know that I am and that I do nothing from myself; but just as my Father has taught me, these things I speak.

I am not in the least intimidated by your judgement. It is evident from your lack of discernment in the above post that you are in no way qualified to draw the line as to who or what is acceptable before God. Jesus is the only one qualified to make such a decision and he is both just and very merciful. If there is already a line drawn, two sides of the fence as it were, I feel much more comfortable with my belief that there is One God the Father and that our Lord Jesus Christ is the Son of God.
1 Corinthians 4:3–5 (KJV): 3 But with me it is a very small thing that I should be judged of you, or of man’s judgment: yea, I judge not mine own self. 4 For I know nothing by myself; yet am I not hereby justified: but he that judgeth me is the Lord. 5 Therefore judge nothing before the time, until the Lord come, who both will bring to light the hidden things of darkness, and will make manifest the counsels of the hearts: and then shall every man have praise of God.

Intimidation was not the point. The point is that everyone who rejects the Lord Jesus Christ as God manifest in the flesh is an anti-Christ, a deceiver and a liar. He is someone who not only does not have the life of God in him, but is also a heretic. That is your condition, if you reject the Lord Jesus Christ's godhood. This is simply fact.

Also, anyone who rejects the Lord Jesus Christ as God, is rejecting the Father as well (no matter what he may claim to the contrary). Even the Pharisees knew that Jesus saying that he is the Son of God, means that he is God, which is why they accused him (falsely) of blasphemy.

 

[Red Baker]

Clement of Rome (1st Century)
The Father alone is God; Jesus is the Son of God, born a mortal man, raised to immortality; the Holy Spirit is God’s power.

Heresy

Ignatius of Antioch (1st Century)
The Father alone is God; Jesus is the Son of God, born a mortal man, raised to immortality ; the Holy Spirit is God’s power.

Heresy~The Holy Spirit is not a power of God, but, He is God, without any qualifications.

Ignatius of Antioch (1st Century)
The Father alone is God; Jesus is the Son of God, born a mortal man, raised to immortality ; the Holy Spirit is God’s power.

Polycarp of Smyrna (1st-2nd Century)
The Father alone is God; Jesus is the Son of God, born a mortal man, raised to immortality; the Holy Spirit is God’s power.

Papias of Hierapolis (1st-2nd Century)
The Father alone is God; Jesus is the Son of God, born a mortal man, raised to immortality; the Holy Spirit is God’s power.

Each following each other's heresy.

Tertullian (2nd-3rd Centuries)
Father, Son and Holy Spirit all share the same essence and co-exist equally as God, yet the Son was somehow ‘begotten’ by the Father and there was a time when he did not exist

He brought light back to the people, this short confession has truth.

Origen (2nd-3rd Centuries)
The Father alone is ‘very God’; the Son has always existed, being eternally ‘generated’ by Him; the Holy Spirit’s divinity is derived from the Son

This is rank heresy.

Clement of Alexandria (2nd-3rd Centuries)
The Father alone is God; Jesus and the Holy Spirit are pre-existent divine beings created by Him

Heresy.

Arius (3rd-4th Centuries)
Jesus is the first of God’s creation; a pre-existent divine being

Heresy.

Athanasius (3rd-4th Centuries)
Father, Son and Holy Spirit are equally God; Jesus was and still is, fully God and fully man

Short confession, but what little is said is true.

Council of Chalcedon (AD 451)
Declared that Jesus has two natures (human and divine) but is only one person, without sin; also affirmed that Mary is the Mother of God.

Heresy~Mary was the mother of the Son of God, not the mother of God, God was not begotten, Jesus was~ The Word that was in the beginning, joined Himself to the tabernacle of Jesus of Narareth. By the very fact that Jesus was God's only begotten Son, that made him equal to God. We do agree that Jesus was a complex person~fully man and fully God.

 

[LeviR]

You need to start telling the truth.

John 8:58 (W.E.B.) Jesus said to them, “Most certainly, I tell you, before Abraham came into existence, I AM.

Robertson's Word Pictures

Before Abraham was (πριν Αβρααμ γενεσθα). Usual idiom with πριν in positive sentence with infinitive (second aorist middle of γινομα) and the accusative of general reference, "before coming as to Abraham," "before Abraham came into existence or was born."

I am (εγω ειμ). Undoubtedly here Jesus claims eternal existence with the absolute phrase used of God. The contrast between γενεσθα (entrance into existence of Abraham) and ειμ (timeless being) is complete. See the same contrast between εν in 1:1 and εγενετο in 1:14. See the contrast also in Ps 90:2 between God (ε, art) and the mountains (γενηθηνα). See the same use of ειμ in John 6:20; John 9:9; John 8:24; John 8:28; John 18:6.

Psalm 90:2 is not the Hebrew verb that equates to the Greek. Robertson seems to be looking at the verb as used by the LXX.
Look at the Hebrew. The verb answering to the one being discussed is הָיָה

Need to look at the verb hāyâ ……הָיָה

The verb Robertson is referencing is yālaḏ

 

[LeviR]

@David1701

This verse uses both verbs:

“And Timna was הָיְתָה concubine to Eliphaz Esau's son; and she bare וַתֵּלֶד to Eliphaz Amalek: these were the sons of Adah Esau's wife.” Gen 36:12

And Timna “to be or to become” concubine to Elisha’s Esau’s son, “she bare or bore” to Eliphasz Amalek, these(ones) the sons of Adah Esau’s wife

הָיְתָה Is in the famine form of the verb הית (to be)

הית
Definition: To be, become, come to pass, exist, happen

As can be seen, Robertson references the wrong verb.

 

[David1701]

Psalm 90:2 is not the Hebrew verb that equates to the Greek. Robertson seems to be looking at the verb as used by the LXX.
Look at the Hebrew. The verb answering to the one being discussed is הָיָה

Need to look at the verb hāyâ ……הָיָה

The verb Robertson is referencing is yālaḏ

Yes, he would have been referring to the LXX, as an example of comparative Greek usage.

 

[LeviR]

@David1701

If we were to take the LXX word from psalm 90:2 and place the actual Hebrew word into John 8:58 it would read, “before Abraham to bring forth or bare young, I am.”

That’s funny because Abraham is to bring forth or bare sons through Jesus.

 

[David1701]

@David1701

If we were to take the LXX word from psalm 90:2 and place the actual Hebrew word into John 8:58 it would read, “before Abraham to bring forth or bare young, I am.”

That’s funny because Abraham is to bring forth or bare sons through Jesus.

Ps. 90:2 is referring to God having brought forth the mountains, not the mountains bringing forth, so the analogy would be, "before Abraham was brought forth, I AM.".

Ps. 90:2 (KJV) Before the mountains were brought forth, or ever thou hadst formed the earth and the world, even from everlasting to everlasting, thou art God.

 

[TrevorL]

Greetings again David1701,

Start telling THE TRUTH. I did mention John 8:28, without quoting it.

You did mention John 8:28 but you avoided what it teaches. Many Trinitarians like to use John 8:24 but very few try to use John 8:28 because it speaks of Jesus as the Son of Man and that he was completely dependent upon God his Father.

The "he", in "I am he" was added by the translators and is not in the original, as I posted.

Well, I have a different perspective on John 8:24 and 28, which should be translated without the "he", which has been added, gratuitously, in many translations.

You used the word "gratuitously" as if "I am he" is a wrong translation. but an honest and genuine assessment is that it is considered necessary to make proper sense of John 8:28 at least. Yes, it is in effect an interpretation, but it is coming down on the side of one of two possible understandings, as far as I am aware at least. "I am" seems to support your view that it is quoting or alluding to Exodus 3:14 while "I am he" seems to favour the view that Jesus is claiming to be the Christ.

One thing I noticed is that you quoted from WPNT. I had to do a search to find out what this abbreviation represents and found out that it is Wilbur Pickering's New Testament, and the following note is attached: "Both the translation and the notes are the responsibility of Wilbur N. Pickering, ThM PhD, being based on his edition of the Greek New Testament". I am not sure if you had to search far and wide to find a translation that supports your point of view, but as far as I am aware most translations add the "he" to John 8:24 and John 8:28.

I could not access a copy of WPNT (available on e-Sword?), but it would be interesting to check how the WPNT translates the "I am" in the following:
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 he.
John 9:8–9 (KJV): 8 The neighbours therefore, and they which before had seen him that he was blind, said, Is not this he that sat and begged? 9 Some said, This is he: others said, He is like him: but he said, I am he.

Kind regards
Trevor

 

[TMSO]

@

If Abraham wasn’t to be raised from the dead, I’d say you were probably right. But since he is……

Um...he isn't the only one. So, there is actually nothing to see here. It is aorist, which means Jesus was speaking about an event that was completed in the past. This has nothing to do with anything but Abraham being born. A past event that was completed in the past. Again, it may be important to some people to completely undermine Jesus, but... a man, a simple man, cannot die for anyone else's sin. There is no provision in the law for a man dying for someone else's sin. It isn't there.

 

[LeviR]

Ps. 90:2 is referring to God having brought forth the mountains, not the mountains bringing forth, so the analogy would be, "before Abraham was brought forth, I AM.".

Ps. 90:2 (KJV) Before the mountains were brought forth, or ever thou hadst formed the earth and the world, even from everlasting to everlasting, thou art God.

To say “ before the mountains were brought forth…”

Does not mean “before the mountains ‘existed’”

Again, it refers to change of condition while the earth was being formed because there is a connection between the mountains coming forth and the birth of the earth. Most likely from being submerged in water.

 

[LeviR]

Um...he isn't the only one. So, there is actually nothing to see here. It is aorist, which means Jesus was speaking about an event that was completed in the past. This has nothing to do with anything but Abraham being born. A past event that was completed in the past. Again, it may be important to some people to completely undermine Jesus, but... a man, a simple man, cannot die for anyone else's sin. There is no provision in the law for a man dying for someone else's sin. It isn't there.

The aorist recognizes the object, not the time. It speaks directly to the object….Abraham. The verb suggests a change in condition of Abraham….the object.
IOW, Abraham is to go from one condition to another. Whether that refers to just Abraham or also all his seed….is another discussion..