![\"Jesus3](\"https:\/\/wp-media.patheos.com\/blogs\/sites\/572\/2018\/01\/Jesus3-Copy.jpg\")
<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
Very in-depth discussion on whether Jesus is God or not.<\/p>\n
PART\u00a0THREE<\/p>\n
GO TO PART\u00a0ONE<\/a><\/p>\n GO TO PART\u00a0TWO<\/a><\/p>\n GO TO PART\u00a0FOUR<\/a><\/p>\n \u00a0<\/p>\n 11) JOHN 8:58 Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n EGW EIMI is without significances, as it was a common phrase in Greek. For example, the blind man stated such in John 9:9, while Peter used the very same words in Acts 10:21.<\/span><\/p>\n Of course the lack of the implied predicate is the real issue (but the fact that John 8:24, 28 do have an implied predicate invalidates them as any proof text.)<\/span><\/p>\n Context is supremely important, as always. The relevant point is not that no one else ever said \u201cI am\u201d in other contexts, but that eternal existence was being described by the peculiar phrase: not \u201cbefore x was, I was,\u201d but rather, \u201cbefore x was, I am.\u201d Thus Robertson writes:<\/p>\n Undoubtedly here Jesus claims eternal existence with the absolute phrase used of God. The contrast between\u00a0genesthai<\/i>\u00a0(entrance into existence of Abraham) and\u00a0eimi<\/i>\u00a0(timeless being) is complete . . . (WPN, V, 158-159)<\/p><\/blockquote>\n The Jews again immediately understood the import of the statement, which is why they tried to stone Jesus for blasphemy (8:59). Why would they do this if Jesus was merely saying something as innocuous as \u201cI am Jesus\u201d?! I don\u2019t know what an \u201cimplied predicate\u201d means. The fact remains that no predicate exists in any of these passages (Jn 8:24, 28, 58).<\/p>\n ***<\/p>\n You are here thinking in English, not Greek.<\/span><\/p>\n That would make perfect sense, since I don\u2019t know Greek. But Roberston, Vincent, and other Greek scholars\u00a0do\u00a0<\/i>(which is exactly why I cite them).<\/p>\n Greek often drops the predicate because of implication, and so in John 8:24 and 28, while it is not in the text, this is normal Greek grammar as per the implication of such. There is no theological significance. Neither is there any eternal statement within EGW EIMI as Robertson falsely states.<\/span><\/p>\n You are here thinking in heretical Arian categories, not orthodox trinitarian ones. I accept what the Greek scholar Robertson says about it.<\/p>\n There is no temporal element in it other than that there is a present state of being. EIMI is the present tense of \u201cto be,\u201d thus, taking the Greek construction into account; we find that Jesus was in a state of being before Abraham, though we are never told for how long before Abraham.<\/span><\/p>\n Just from a common-sense perspective, how is this coherent? You argue:<\/p>\n 1. Only a present state is referred to. That\u2019s nonsense (in the literal meaning of that word). It is contradictory and incoherent, but \u201ctimeless existence\u201d is perfectly sensible and non-contradictory. Given the manmy biblical indications of Jesus\u2019 eternal existence, that interpretation is the most reasonable one. The Bible doesn\u2019t contradict itself.<\/p>\n We can dismiss EGW EIMI as being a name by two simple points. First, by the fact that it was simply a standard part of the Greek language. This is evident by the fact that others used it.<\/span><\/p>\n They said \u201cI am\u201d in normal discourse, but so what? They didn\u2019t use it in the\u00a0sense\u00a0<\/i>that Jesus did. He used it in the sense of Exodus 3:14, where God said to Moses:<\/p>\n I AM THAT I AM: and he said, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, I AM hath sent me unto you.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n As usual, Jesus was claiming to be God.<\/p>\n ***<\/p>\n And when one translates Ex 3:14 so poorly, you can definitely get that idea. The Hebrew text here reads EHYEH ASHER EHYEH. Referencing Ex 3:12 in your KJV (or any other Bible), you will find the phrase \u201cI will be.\u201d This is properly translated from the Hebrew word EHYEH. It is not, and should not be translated as I AM, but as I WILL BE. For example,\u00a0The Interpreter\u2019s One-Volume Commentary on the Bible<\/i>:<\/span><\/p>\n The meaning of is obscured by the conventional translation I am who I am., which implies that God is the ground of his own existence. The Hebrew verb denotes, not abstract being, but manifestation in a definite character, or name; and its form indicates habitual manifestation in past, present, or future. Since English requires a tense, the best rendering is \u2018I will be as I will be.\u2019<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n Further, Rabbi Jordan D. Cohen writes:<\/span><\/p>\n Moses perceived that the people would want to know which attribute of God they can expect to encounter; that is, what their experience of God will be, and what is going to happen to them. God\u2019s answer, then, leaves things open-ended. Ehyeh-Asher-Ehyeh is based on the future tense conjugation of the Hebrew verb meaning \u201cto be.\u201d Often translated as \u201cI Am Who I Am,\u201d the phrase is more accurately translated as \u201cI Will Be That Which I Will Be.\u201d The people will come to know God through their unfolding experiences together.<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n But what of the LXX? Here it reads EGW EIMI hO WN. In this rendering, God is not claiming to be the I AM, but he is claiming to be the hO WN (THE BEING). Thus, Brenton properly renders Ex 3:14 LXX as, \u201cAnd 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.\u201d Jesus never once identifies himself as \u201cTHE BEING,\u201d and we can thus be certain that John 8:58 is in no way a reference to Ex 3:14.<\/span><\/p>\n You quote a Jewish rabbi; I will quote the great convert from Judaism: Alfred Edersheim, from his\u00a0Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah<\/i>:<\/p>\n He had spoken of Abraham seeing His day; they took it of His seeing Abraham\u2019s day, and challenged its possibility. Whether or not they intended thus to elicit an avowal of His claim to eternal duration, and hence to Divinity, it was not time any longer to forbear the full statement, and, with Divine emphasis, He spake the words which could not be mistaken: \u2018Verily, verily, I say unto you, before Abraham was, I AM.\u2019It was as if they had only waited for this. Furiously they rushed from the Porch into the Court of the Gentiles, with symbolic significance, even in this, to pick up stones, and to cast them at Him . . . It had been the first plain disclosure and avowal of His Divinity . . .\u00a0(Vol. 2, Chapter 8<\/a>an)<\/p><\/blockquote>\n ***<\/p>\n Second, in 8:58, but the use as a proper name simply does not fit. Let us consider:<\/span><\/p>\n Before Abraham came into existence, Dave.<\/span> Do these make sense? No.<\/span><\/p>\n Those names do not denote pure existence. \u201cDave\u201d (as I should know) means \u201cbeloved.\u201d So that sentence makes no sense. But if a timeless being calls Himself \u201cI am,\u201d as God did in the burning bush (precisely using the phrase as a name) and as Jesus did, it makes perfect sense, because the logical and relational contrast is between \u201cbefore a certain being began, I existed. I am (I always was and always will be; I was never not existing).\u201d<\/p>\n There is nothing within the verb EIMI that denotes eternal existence though. There is no linguistic basis for such a statement, only theology. It simply is the present tense of \u201cto be.\u201d Nothing more, nothing less. EGW EIMI does not state \u201cI always was and always will be; I was never not existing.\u201d That is simply a priori assumption placed on the text.<\/span><\/p>\n ***<\/span><\/p>\n If EGW EIMI is a proper name, it is functioning exactly as Dave and Steve do in these two accounts, and this is completely ungrammatical, so we know this perspective to be invalid.<\/span><\/p>\n Rather, your logic is invalid, because it would also rule out \u201cJehovah\u201d (that is, YHWH, as the Jews referred to God) using \u201cI am\u201d as a name for Himself. We know that this happened; therefore it is possible.<\/p>\n Jehovah does not ever use \u201cI am\u201d as a name for himself though. Rather, he uses EHYEH ASHER EHYEH, or EGW EIMI hO WN. Never EGW EIMI. You are removing historical context of the tetragrammaton and the divine name usage of the Hebrew text all together in your above comment.<\/span><\/p>\n ***<\/span><\/p>\n Does it somehow denote eternal existence though? Well taking EIMI to its root form, we simply get ES, which means \u201cto be.\u201d In effect, EIMI is showing a state of being. In this case, a present state of being. Now, PRIN is an adverb showing him in a prior state, that is \u201cbefore Abraham,\u201d and more specifically before his coming into existence. So, he is a state of being before Abraham. That is all that is stated by this. A specific time limit is not placed, it could be eternity or it could be one hour. It does not say.<\/span><\/p>\n Then Jesus should have said \u201cI was\u201d (which would denote existence prior to Abraham, but not necessarily eternal existence. Instead, He used \u201cI am\u201d \u2014 which implies eternal existence since it is a present tense applied to a distant past, and because God the Father used it, and we both agree that He is eternal. Greek lexicons agree (as always) with the orthodox trinitarian interpretation:<\/p>\n . . .\u00a0ego eimi<\/i>\u00a0as a self-designation of Jesus in Jn. 8:58 (cf. 8:24; 13:19) stands in contrast to the\u00a0genesthai<\/i>\u00a0applied to Abraham. Jesus thus claims eternity. As he is equal to the Father (5:18 ff.), what is ascribed to the Father is attributed to him, too (cf. Is. 43:10 LXX). The context and the\u00a0ego<\/i>\u00a0formulation are both Jewish. The point is not Jesus\u2019 self-identification as the Messiah (\u201cI am he\u201d) but his supratemporal being. (Kittel, TDNT, 207)<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Likewise, Marvin Vincent\u2019s\u00a0Word Studies in the New Testament\u00a0<\/i>(Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1946; originally 1887; vol. 2 of 4, 181; hereafter \u201cWSN\u201d) states:<\/p>\n Jesus\u2019 life was from and to eternity. Hence the formula for absolute, timeless existence, I am (ego eimi<\/i>).<\/p><\/blockquote>\n The Commentary on the Whole Bible<\/i>, by Robert Jamieson, A.R. Fausset, and David Brown (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan: 1961; originally 1864; hereafter \u201cJFB\u201d) states:<\/p>\n The words rendered \u201cwas\u201d and \u201cam\u201d are quite different. The one clause means, \u2018Abraham was\u00a0brought into being<\/i>\u2018; the other, \u2018I exist<\/i>.\u2019 The statement therefore is not that\u00a0Christ came into existence before Abraham did\u00a0<\/i>(as Arians affirm is the meaning), but that He never\u00a0came\u00a0<\/i>into being at all, but\u00a0existed<\/i>\u00a0before Abraham had a being; in other words, existed before\u00a0creation<\/i>, or\u00a0eternally<\/i>\u00a0(as ch. 1:1). (p. 1047)<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Nobody is saying that the verse indicates Christ coming into being. Rather, the truth of the matter is that there is nothing implied for the amount of prior existence. It could be a month, a year, eternity. It does not say! You can quote these commentaries, but not one of these deal with the fact of the construction. John 8:58 is an established example of the Present of Past Action idiom (PPA). A number of Greek grammars can be referenced on this fact. As long as you continue to think of it as English, you will continue to make these errors because you ignore the Greek idiom. In this particular case, PRIN is setting the EGW EIMI in the past. That is, Jesus was in a state of being (EIMI) prior to Abraham. That is the only thing stated here. Nothing more.<\/span><\/p>\n ***<\/p>\n Regarding this, there are a variety of alternative translations to this verse. For example, C.B. Williams renders this as \u201cI existed before Abraham was born.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n An eternal being\u00a0would\u00a0<\/i>exist before Abraham; correct . . . but \u201cam\u201d and \u201cexisted\u201d are not exactly synonyms.<\/p>\n Yes, in Greek they could be considered synonyms. The initial definition provided by Thayer is actually \u201cto exist.\u201d Liddell-Scott and many other provide \u201cto exist\u201d as well, so lexically, they are very much synonyms. But that said, yes an eternal being would exist before Abraham, as would angels, who are not eternal.<\/span><\/p>\n ***<\/span><\/p>\n On this verse, the Lockman foundation, the people behind the NASB, have stated regarding the footnote stating \u201cI have been\u201d as an alternate translation from the 1970 edition, that \u201cThe translation \u201cI have been\u201d was originally given simply as a smoother, more grammatically correct (in English) rendering\u2026\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n So that said, John 8:58 simply proves Jesus\u2019 prior existence, nothing more.<\/span><\/p>\n The fact remains that \u201cI am\u201d is the overwhelming choice of Greek scholars. I have found 30 translations which use it: KJV, RSV, NRSV, NASB, ASV, NIV, NEB, REB, NAB, TEV, MLB, NKJV, CEV, Phillips, Amplified, Jerusalem, Confraternity, Rotherham, Barclay, Weymouth, Wuest, Douay, Darby, Knox, Geneva, Montgomery, Norlie, Jay Green Interlinear, Bible in Basic English, Young\u2019s Literal Translation.<\/p>\n It is hardly the \u201coverwhelming choice\u201d that you make it out to be.<\/span><\/p>\n It certainly is among the\u00a0most-used\u00a0<\/i>and\u00a0most well-known<\/i>\u00a0Bible translations. Your list below contains scarcely\u00a0any\u00a0<\/i>of those. And there is a reason for that. The \u201cI am\u201d rendering is indeed the best. It\u2019s relevant to see what the majority of scholars think about that point (that\u2019s why, after all, you and I have both been citing scholars all through this dialogue. Their opinions\u00a0mean<\/i>\u00a0something).<\/p>\n You note the NASB as one translation that does it, but do not forget the 1970 ed. footnote renders it as \u201cI have been.\u201d Further, here are just some of the translations with alternate renderings:<\/span><\/p>\n New American Standard Bible (NASB) (margin 1960-1973 editions): Or, \u201cI have been.\u201d<\/span> My attempt is not to see who can provide the most translations that agree with them, but rather I go into length in providing translations that agree with this rendering to show the errors of this line of proof. One or One Hundred Translations, the issue that needs to be addressed is the grammar. It\u2019s pure foolishness to reason that the most translations wins or establishes a point more than the other. Quoting someone when you aren\u2019t fit to conclude if the information is accurate or not would not be a valid argument; you are disproving your witness, and not fit to quote them on any other grounds than your theological bias, and that\u2019s circular reasoning in its purest form.<\/span><\/p>\n Very well, then; I\u2019ll take up your challenge. I have allowed you to go on and on about this on my website. Now it is my turn. Since I know nothing about either Greek or Hebrew grammar and linguistics, I will cite more people who\u00a0do<\/i>\u00a0(if what I have already cited is not enough), and I will add some relevant exegetical arguments also. Christian apologist Sam Shamoun, in a superb Internet article responding to Muslim arguments against Jesus and trinitarianism, writes:<\/p>\n First, in the book of Revelation Christ identifies himself as \u201cthe Being\u201d who has eternally existed, i.e. Yahweh:<\/p>\n \u201cLook! He is coming with the clouds; every eye will see him, even those who pierced him; and on his account all the tribes of the earth will wail. So it is to be. Amen. \u2018I am the Alpha and Omega\u2019, says the Lord God,\u00a0\u2018The Being\/The One\u00a0<\/b>(ho on<\/i>)\u00a0who is and who was and who is to come, the ALMIGHTY<\/b>\u00a0(pantokrator<\/i>)\u2019.\u201d Revelation 1:7-8<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Jesus Christ, the coming pierced One, identifies himself as \u201cThe Being\u201d (ho on<\/i>) who eternally exists, the Almighty. The phrase \u201cwho is and who was\u201d refers to the eternal nature of God, and hence implicitly affirms that Jesus is Yahweh:<\/p>\n \u201cAnd the angels of the waters say, `You are just, O Holy One,\u00a0who are and who were<\/b>, for you have judged these things; because they shed the blood of saints and prophets, you have given them blood to drink. It is what they deserve!\u2019 And I heard the altar respond, \u2018Yes, O Lord,the ALMIGHTY<\/b>\u00a0(pantokrator<\/i>), your judgements are true and just!'\u201d Rev. 16:5-7 NRSV<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Therefore, Jesus in Revelation 1:8 is claiming to be the eternal God Yahweh.Second, Jesus\u2019 \u201cI AM\u201d statements tie in with the Hebrew\u00a0Ani Hu\u00a0<\/i>references of Isaiah:<\/p>\n \u201cListen to me, O Jacob, and Israel, whom I called:\u00a0I AM HE\u00a0<\/i>(ani hu<\/i>);\u00a0I am the First, and I am the Last<\/i>.\u201d Isaiah 48:12 NRSV<\/p><\/blockquote>\n That the phrase \u201cI AM\u201d in Isaiah implies Deity can be clearly seen in the following verses:<\/p>\n \u201cNow then, listen, you wanton creature (i.e. Babylon), lounging in your security and saying to yourself, \u2018I AM\u00a0<\/b>(Greek Septuagint-\u00a0ego eimi<\/i>),\u00a0and there is none besides me<\/b>\u2019\u2026 You have trusted in your wickedness and have said, \u2018No one sees me.\u2019 Your wisdom and knowledge mislead you when you say to yourself, \u2018I AM, and there is none besides me<\/b>.'\u201d Isaiah 47:8, 10<\/p><\/blockquote>\n God rebukes Babylon for claiming to be the \u201cI AM\u201d, believing herself to be a God like Yahweh. Hence, the \u201cI AM\u201d is used to denote absolute Deity and sovereignty, being used as a synonym for Yahweh.Compare Yahweh\u2019s words with Jesus:<\/p>\n \u201cThen Jesus, knowing all that was to happen to him, came forward and asked them, \u2018Whom are you looking for?\u2019 They answered, \u2018Jesus of Nazareth.\u2019 Jesus replied, \u2018I AM HE<\/b>\u2018 (ego eimi<\/i>)\u2026 When Jesus said to them, \u2018I am he,\u2019\u00a0they stepped back and fell to ground<\/b>.\u201d John 18:4-6 NRSV<\/p><\/blockquote>\n The fact that the soldiers fell to the ground when Jesus uttered the words \u201cI AM\u201d affirms that the phrase served to identify Christ as Yahweh God. Otherwise, there would be no reason for the soldiers\u2019 falling down to the ground.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n *<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Finally, Jesus applies the very title of Yahweh in Isaiah 48:12, \u201cFirst and Last,\u201d to himself in Revelation 1:17-18:<\/p>\n \u201cWhen I saw him, I fell at his feet as though dead. But he placed his right hand on me, saying, `Do not be afraid;\u00a0I am the First and the Last, and the living one. I was dead, and see I am alive forever and ever<\/b>, and I have the keys of Death and Hades\u2019.\u201d NRSV<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Hence, from no matter what angle we look at it, there is no escaping the fact that Jesus does identify himself as Yahweh God.(\u201cI am or I was?\u201d<\/a>)<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Shamoun writes: \u201cGreek scholars such as Daniel B. Wallace explain why John 8:58 cannot be classified as a historical present\u201d:<\/p>\n The text reads:\u00a0prin \u2018Abraam genesthai ego eimi<\/i>\u00a0(\u201cbefore Abraham was, I am\u201d). On this text, Dennis Light wrote an article in defense of the\u00a0New World Translation<\/i>\u00a0in the\u00a0Bible Collector<\/i>\u00a0(July-December, 1971). In his article he discusses\u00a0ego eimi\u00a0<\/i>which the\u00a0New Word Translation\u00a0<\/i>renders, \u201cI have been.\u201d Light defends this translation by saying, \u201cThe Greek verb\u00a0eimi<\/i>, literally present tense, must be viewed as a historical present, because of being preceded by the aorist infinitive clause referring to Abraham\u2019s past\u201d (p. 8). This argument has several flaws in it: (1) The fact that the present tense follows an aorist\u00a0infinitive<\/i>\u00a0has nothing to do with how it should be rendered. In fact, historical presents are usually wedged in between aorist (or imperfect)\u00a0indicatives<\/i>, not infinitives. (2) If this is a historical present, it is apparently the only historical present in the NT that uses the equative verb\u00a0eimi<\/i>. The burden of proof, therefore, lies with the one who sees\u00a0eimi\u00a0<\/i>as\u00a0ever<\/i>\u00a0being used as a historical present. (3) If this is a historical present it is apparently the only historical present in the NT that is in other than the third person.The translation of the\u00a0New World Translation<\/i>\u00a0understand the implications of\u00a0ego eimi<\/i>\u00a0here, for in their footnote to this text in the\u00a0NWT<\/i>, they reveal their motive for seeing this as a historical present: \u201cIt is not the same as\u2026 (ho ohn<\/i>, meaning \u2018the Being\u2019 or \u2018The I Am\u2019) at Exodus 3:14,\u00a0LXX<\/i>.\u201d In effect, this is a negative admission that if\u00a0ego eimi\u00a0<\/i>is not a historical present, then Jesus is here claiming to be the one who spoke to Moses at the burning bush, the I AM, the eternally existing one, Yahweh (cf. Exod. 3:14 in the LXX,\u00a0ego eimi ho on<\/i>).<\/p>\n (Daniel B. Wallace,\u00a0Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics<\/i>, Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1996, 530-531)<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Christian apologist Robert M. Bowman Jr., comments on a 1957 Watchtower article which asserted that John 8:58 involved the \u201chistorical present,\u201d:<\/p>\n The article in question was unable to cite any scholarly writings of any kind in support of their claim that John 8:58 was an historical present. Instead, they simply quoted definitions and illustrations of the idiom from two textbooks in Greek Grammar, Hadley and Allen\u2019s\u00a0Greek Grammar\u00a0<\/i>and A. T. Robertson\u2019s massive\u00a0Grammar<\/i>. Ironically, these two sources themselves disprove that John 8:58 is an historical present, sometimes in the very words quoted by the\u00a0Watchtower<\/i>! The following points prove beyond reasonable doubt that the historical present is irrelevant to John 8:58.1. The historical present is an idiom in which past events are narrated, story-telling fashion, in the present tense, as a vivid, dramatic way of projecting the reader or listener into the narrative. In John 8:58, on the other hand, Jesus\u2019 words do not tell a story or describe a past event, but instead simply state a comparison between Abraham and Jesus.<\/p>\n All of the Greek grammars agree on this understanding of the historical present. Hadley and Allen are cited by the\u00a0Watchtower<\/i>\u00a0itself as stating that the idiom is used \u2018in vivid narration.\u2019 Robertson agrees. Some Grammars distinguish between the historical present used in records (sometimes called \u2018annalistic\u2019 use) and that used in narratives (usually called the \u2018dramatic\u2019); a few divide the dramatic between the historical narratives and reports of dreams and visions. According to Robertson, the New Testament uses the dramatic form of the historical present; but in any case, Christ\u2019s words n John 8:58 do not fit any of these categories of historical presents.<\/p>\n This idiom is common in all languages, including English;\u00a0Funk and Wagnall\u2019s Standard Desk Dictionary<\/i>\u00a0defines it as \u2018the present tense used to narrate a past event.\u2019 In English it is most common in conversation, not writing. Robert Funk gives the following sentence as an example: \u2018Then these guys come in see, and I say to them, \u201cWhere do you think you\u2019re going?\u201d\u2018 In both Greek and English, then, the historical present is defined and used the same way. There is simply no valid way to define historical presents to include John 8:58.<\/p>\n (Robert M. Bowman, Jr.,\u00a0Jehovah\u2019s Witnesses, Jesus Christ, & the Gospel of John<\/i>, Grand Rapids, MI; Baker Book House, 1995, 100-101)<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Bowman continues his analysis of John 8:58:<\/p>\n What is it about this contrast between\u00a0genesthai<\/i>\u00a0and\u00a0eimi\u00a0<\/i>that has led to such a solid consensus throughout the centuries among biblical scholars that the words contrast created origin with uncreated eternal existence? By itself, of course, the word\u00a0eimi\u00a0<\/i>does not connote eternal preexistence. However, placed alongside\u00a0genesthai\u00a0<\/i>and referring to a time anterior to that indicated by\u00a0genesthai<\/i>, the word\u00a0eimi\u00a0<\/i>(or its related forms), because it denotes simple existence and is a durative form of the verb\u00a0to be<\/i>, stands in sharp contrast to the aorist\u00a0genesthai\u00a0<\/i>which speaks of \u2018coming into being.\u2019 It is this sharp contrast between\u00a0being<\/i>\u00a0and\u00a0becoming<\/i>\u00a0which makes it clear that in a text like John 8:58\u00a0eimi\u00a0<\/i>connotes eternality, not merely temporal priority . . .He (Jesus) chose the term that would most strongly contrast the created origin in time of Abraham with his own timeless eternality, the present tense verb\u00a0eimi<\/i>\u2026 Thus, had Jesus wished to say what JWs understand him to have said\u2014that he merely existed for a long time before Abraham\u2014he could have said so by saying, \u2018Before Abraham came into existence, I\u00a0was<\/i>,\u2019 using the imperfect tense\u00a0emen\u00a0<\/i>instead of the present tense\u00a0eimi<\/i>. (This point was made by Chrysostom and Augustine, and reaffirmed by such Reformers as Calvin, and is also a standard observation found in most exegetical commentaries on John and never, to this author\u2019s knowledge, disputed in such works.) Such a statement would have left open the question of whether or not Jesus had always existed, or whether (like the angels) he had existed from the earliest days of the universe\u2019s history. Or, had he wished to make it clear that (as JWs believe) he had himself come into existence some time prior to Abraham, he could have said so by stating, \u2018Before Abraham came into existence, I\u00a0came into existence<\/i>\u2019 (by using the first person aorist\u00a0egenomen<\/i>\u00a0instead of\u00a0eimi<\/i>), or perhaps more simply, \u2018I came into existence before Abraham.\u2019 Having said neither of these things, but rather, having chosen terms which went beyond these formulations to draw a contrast between the created and the uncreated, Jesus\u2019 words must be interpreted as a claim to eternality.\u00a0(Bowman,\u00a0ibid<\/i>., 114-116)<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Prominent biblical commentator D.A. Carson, writes about John 8:58 in his commentary on John (PNTC series):<\/p>\n Once more Jesus solemnly announces, I tell you the truth. If he had wanted to claim only that he existed before Abraham, it would have been simpler to say, \u2018before Abraham was, I was.\u2019 Instead, bringing forward the use of\u00a0ego eimi\u00a0<\/i>found in vv. 24, 28, Jesus says, \u2018before Abraham was born, I am.\u2019 Whatever doubts may attach themselves to whether or not\u00a0ego eimi<\/i>\u00a0should be taken absolutely in vv. 24, 28, here there can be none.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Kenneth S. Wuest, well-known Greek scholar and Bible translator himself, wrote in his article: \u201cThe Deity of Jesus in the Greek Texts of John and Paul,\u201d\u00a0Bibliotheca Sacra<\/i>, July 1962, 220-221:<\/p>\n The AV reports our Lord as saying to the Jews, \u201cBefore Abraham was, I am\u201d (John 8:58 AV). \u201cWas\u201d is\u00a0ginomai<\/i>, the verb of \u201cbecoming,\u201d not\u00a0eimi<\/i>, the verb of being. It is ingressive aorist, signifying entrance into a new condition. Our Lord said, \u201cBefore Abraham came into existence, I am.\u201d He does not contrast Abraham\u2019s previous existence with His eternity of existence, but Abraham\u2019s coming into existence with His eternal being. There is a contrast between Abraham as a created being and our Lord as uncreated, the self-existent, eternal God.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n The great Bible scholar C.H. Dodd concurs:<\/p>\n The implication is that Jesus does not stand within the temporal series of great men, beginning with Abraham and continuing through the succession of the prophets, so as to be compared with them. His claim is not that He is the greatest of the prophets, or even greater than Abraham himself. He belongs to a different order of being. The verb\u00a0genesthai\u00a0<\/i>is not applicable to the Son of God at all. He stands outside the range of temporal relations. (C. H. Dodd,\u00a0The Interpretation of the Fourth Gospel<\/i>, Cambridge: Cambridge University, 1985 [1953], 261)<\/p><\/blockquote>\n The late Catholic scholar Raymond E. Brown wrote:<\/p>\n Against this background the absolute use of \u2018I AM\u2019 by the Johannine Jesus becomes quite intelligible; he was speaking in the same manner in which Yahweh speaks in Deutero-Isaiah. For instance, in John 8:28 Jesus promises that when the Son of Man is lifted up (in return to the Father), \u2018then you will know\u00a0ego eimi<\/i>\u2019; in Isaiah 43:10 Yahweh has chosen Israel, \u2018that you may know and believe me and understand\u00a0ego eimi.<\/i>\u2019 The absolute Johannine use of \u2018I AM\u2019 has the effect of portraying Jesus as divine with (pre)existence as his identity, even as the Greek Old Testament understood the God of Israel. (Raymond E. Brown,\u00a0Introduction to New Testament Christology<\/i>, Paulist Press; Mahwah, NJ 1994, 139)<\/p><\/blockquote>\n For an extremely in-depth further treatment of these grammatical issues concerning John 8:58, see the helpful and informative\u00a0article by Sam Shamoun, cited above (I have linked it), and two additional excellent articles delving into John 8:58, the \u201cI AM\u201d passages of the Old Testament, and related issues, by this same writer (one<\/a> \/ two<\/a>).<\/p>\n 12) JOHN 10:30-33 I and {my} Father are one. (31) Then the Jews took up stones again to stone him. (32) Jesus answered them, Many good works have I shewed you from my Father; for which of those works do ye stone me? (33) The Jews answered him, saying, For a good work we stone thee not; but for blasphemy; and because that thou, being a man, makest thyself God.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n I believe there is more to the surrounding context than what\u2019s being presented within this verse. How can you just leave out Jesus\u2019 response to these very charges as if they are of no importance to the issue? I can only hope you may have done this in error, not by intentional dishonesty.<\/span><\/p>\n No need to become alarmed; I\u2019m happy to deal with all your objections as you raise them. \u201cI and my Father are one\u201d is certainly a striking statement of equality with God the Father. One wonders what sort of language it takes if this is so easily dismissed as not meaning what it plainly means.<\/p>\n There are a few factors that must be examined from this context. First, we must take note of Jesus\u2019 reply.<\/span><\/p>\n Joh 10:34 Jesus answered them, Has it not been written in your Law, \u201cI said, you are gods\u201d? 35 If He called those gods with whom the Word of God was, and the Scripture cannot be broken, 36 do you say of Him whom the Father sanctified and sent into the world, You blaspheme, because I said, I am Son of God?<\/span><\/p>\n Now the fact that Jesus quotes from Psalms 82:6 with the plural \u201cgods\u201d in his defense is of significant interest. This shows us that the QEOS that they said Jesus was making himself was not the definite Almighty God, but something else. After all, were he claiming to be the Almighty God, quoting this verse would be of no value in defense. And thus we find significance in the fact that QEOS is John 10:33 that QEOS is anarthrous, and can validly be translated as \u201ca god.\u201d This really goes to show us that contextually, Jesus\u2019 claim was not to be God.<\/span><\/p>\n ***<\/p>\n First of all, this argument doesn\u2019t work within the Arian framework of polytheism, because it would prove\u00a0too\u00a0<\/i>much. You believe Jesus is \u201ca god.\u201d To my knowledge you don\u2019t believe that all men are gods (like the Mormons) and like Jesus in that respect, for we were not all \u201cGod\u2019s first and greatest creation\u201d and primary ambassador to mankind. We didn\u2019t all die on behalf of men\u2019s sins, etc. Jesus is unique. So if all Jesus was saying that He was \u201ca god\u201d merely in the sense that everyone is \u201ca god,\u201d then we have massive polytheism, rather than the monotheism and condemnation of polytheism which is established from many biblical passages (see the section on monotheism and polytheism in my\u00a0paper on the Holy Trinity<\/a>\u00a0for these proofs). Jesus claims that He is \u201cone\u201d with the Father: quite different from the rest of us.<\/p>\n ***<\/p>\n First of all, You may find yourself not knowing as much as you thought about the beliefs and understandings of that of Jehovah\u2019s Witnesses, and your above comments reveal that as truth, and this is not the first time we note this within this discussion\u2019s framework. We are not Arian and we are not polytheists.<\/span><\/p>\n Arians believed that Jesus was not eternal but created by the Father in order to be an instrument to create the world. It is clear that Arianism is the historical precedent for Jehovah\u2019s Witness belief. You may think you are unique but you are not; it is just a recycling of a heresy which originated in the 4th century. There may be some minor differences (e.g., Arius believed that the Holy Spirit was a person), but in the essentials Arianism and Watchtower theology are the same.<\/p>\n We do not believe all men are gods (in the divine sense), nor do we believe that all become such.<\/span><\/p>\n And that is exactly why I wrote: \u201cTo my knowledge you don\u2019t believe that all men are gods (like the Mormons).\u201d<\/p>\n But properly, God in Hebrew denotes one being mighty and strong, nothing more. Psalms 82:6 uses ELOHIYM in a sense of ones having authority, being mighty in their authority to pass judgment. These ones called gods are not worshipped or anything of the sort. They are mighty, and so ELOHIYM is applied to them. Mountains are even called EL, but they are certainly not alive. Yet, they are mighty in size. Your quoted comments also seem to validate our understanding.<\/span><\/p>\n You miss my point entirely. I suggest that you read it again, very carefully. You don\u2019t seem to grasp the implications of what you are arguing. Furst, you reduce Jesus from God to a mere man and creature (but still God\u2019s greatest creation). Now by the above incoherent argument, you make Him no different from the rest of us, by applying Ps 82:6 to Him in a way that applies to all men (as you argued earlier). That takes away any uniqueness that Jesus has even in Jehovah\u2019s Witness theology.<\/p>\n ***<\/p>\n Since the Bible teaches monotheism, exactly what, then, did Jesus mean when He said \u201cyou are gods?\u201d We must find a meaning which doesn\u2019t reduce to pantheism (everyone and everything is god), and which preserves Jesus\u2019 special, preeminent role and the utter uniqueness of God. Thus I will turn to the commentators and lexicons to provide a clear answer to our \u201cdilemma\u201d. Robert M. Bowman, Jr., an expert on trinitarian theology, writes:<\/p>\n . . . there are a few passages in Scripture which seem to call men \u201cgod\u201d or \u201cgods\u201d . . . In practice, the question of whether the Bible ever calls men \u201cgods\u201d in a positive sense focuses exclusively on Psalm 82:6 (\u201cI said, \u2018you are gods'\u201d) and its citation by Jesus in John 10:34-35.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n *<\/p>\n The usual view among biblical expositors for centuries is that Psalm 82 refers to Israelite judges by virtue of their position as judges representing God; it is, therefore, a figurative usage which applies only to those judges and does not apply to men or even believers in general . . .<\/p><\/blockquote>\n As will be seen, Irenaeus applies this to believers.<\/span><\/p>\n An alternative interpretation agrees that the \u201cgods\u201d are Israelite judges, but sees the use of the term \u201cgods\u201d as an ironic figure of speech. Irony is a rhetorical device in which something is said to be the case in such a way as to make the assertion seem ridiculous (compare Paul\u2019s ironic \u201cyou have become kings\u201d in 1 Corinthians 4:8, where Paul\u2019s point is that they had\u00a0not<\/i>\u00a0become kings). According to this interpretation, the parallel description of the \u201cgods\u201d as \u201csons of the Most High\u201d (which, it is argued, is not in keeping with the Old Testament use of the term \u201csons\u201d of God), the condemnation of the judges for their wicked judgment, and especially the statement, \u201cNevertheless, you will die as men,\u201d all point to the conclusion that the judges are called \u201cgods\u201d in irony.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n This is amazing then, because this totally removes the historical usage of these verses, as will be seen.<\/span><\/p>\n If the former interpretation is correct, then in John 10:34-35 Jesus would be understood to mean that if God called wicked judges \u201cgods\u201d how much more appropriate is it for Him, Jesus, to be called God, or even the Son of God. If the ironic interpretation of Psalm 82:6 is correct, then in John 10:34-35 Jesus\u2019 point would still be basically the same. It is also possible that Jesus was implying\u00a0that the Old Testament application of the term \u201cgods\u201d to wicked judges was fulfilled (taking \u201cnot to be broken\u201d to mean \u201cnot to be unfulfilled,\u201d cf. John 7:23) in Himself as the true Judge (cf. John 5:22,27-30; 9:39). Those wicked men were, then, at best called \u201cgods\u201d and \u201csons of the Most High\u201d in a special and figurative sense; and at worst they were pseudo-gods and pseudo-sons of God. Jesus, on the other hand, is truly God (cf. John 1:1,18; 20:28; 1 John 5:20) and the unique Son of God (John 10:36; 20:31; etc.)<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\n2. But it also somehow refers to a time \u201cbefore Abraham\u201d (which contradicts #1).
\n3. So it is past and present\u00a0simultaneously<\/i>\u00a0(????!!!!).<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\nBefore Abraham came into existence, Steve.<\/span><\/p>\n
\nThe Living New Testament: \u201cThe absolute truth is that I was in existence before Abraham was ever born.\u201d<\/span>
\nThe 20th Century New Testament: \u201cbefore Abraham existed I was.\u201d<\/span>
\nThe New Testament, An American Translation Goodspeed: \u201cI tell you I existed before Abraham was born.\u201d<\/span>
\nThe Complete Bible, An American Translation Goodspeed: \u201cI tell you I existed before Abraham was born.\u201d<\/span>
\nNew Believers Bible, New Living Translation: \u201cI existed before Abraham was even born.\u201d<\/span>
\nThe New Testament, C. B. Williams: \u201cI solemnly say to you, I existed before Abraham was born.\u201d<\/span>
\nThe Book, New Testament: The absolute truth is that I was in existence before Abraham was ever born.\u201d<\/span>
\nThe Living Bible: \u201cI was in existence before Abraham was ever born.\u201d<\/span>
\nThe Four Gospels, Lattimore: \u201cTruly, truly I tell you, I am from before Abraham was born.\u201d<\/span>
\nThe New Testament, From the Peshitta Text, Lamsa: \u201cBefore Abraham was born, I was.\u201d<\/span>
\nAn American Translation, In The Language of Today, Beck: \u201cI was before Abraham.\u201d<\/span>
\nNew Testament Contemporary English Version: \u201cI tell you.that even before Abraham was, I was, and I am.\u201d<\/span>
\nThe Living Scriptures (Messianic Version): \u201cI was in existence before Abraham was ever born.\u201d<\/span>
\nThe Unvarnished New Testament: \u201cBefore Abraham was born, I have already been.\u201d<\/span>
\nThe New Testament, Klist & Lilly: \u201cI am here-and I was before Abraham.\u201d<\/span>
\nThe New Testament in the Language of the People, Williams: \u201cI existed before Abraham was born.\u201d<\/span>
\nThe New Testament, Noyes: \u201cFrom before Abraham was, I have been.\u201d<\/span>
\nA Translation of the Four Gospels, Lewis: \u201cBefore Abraham was, I have been.\u201d<\/span>
\nThe Syriac New Testament, Murdock: \u201cBefore Abraham existed I was.\u201d<\/span>
\nThe Curetonian Version of the Four Gospels, Burkitt: \u201cBefore Abraham came to be, I was.\u201d<\/span>
\nThe Old Georgian Version of the Gospel of John, Blake & Briere: \u201cBefore Abraham came to be, I was.\u201d<\/span>
\nNouvum Testamentum AEthiopice, Platt, Lepzip: \u201cBefore Abraham was born, I was.\u201d<\/span>
\nThe New Testament Or Rather the New Covenant, Sharpe: \u201cI was before Abraham was born.\u201d<\/span>
\nThe 20th Century New Testament 1904: \u201cBefore Abraham existed I was already what I am.\u201d<\/span>
\nThe New Testament, Stage: \u201cBefore Abraham came to be, I was.\u201d<\/span>
\nThe Coptic Version the New Testament in the Southern Dialect, Horner: \u201cBefore Abraham became, I, I am being.\u201d<\/span>
\nThe Documents of the New Testament, Wade: \u201cBefore Abraham came into being, I have existed.\u201d<\/span>
\nThe New Testament in Hebrew, Delitzsh: Before Abraham was, I have been.\u201d<\/span>
\nThe New Testament in Hebrew, Salkinson & Ginsberg: \u201cI have been when there had as yet been no Abraham.\u201d<\/span>
\nThe New Testament of Our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ, Swan: \u201cI existed before Abraham was born.\u201d<\/span>
\nThe New Testament (in German) Pfaefflin: \u201cBefore there was an Abraham, I was already there.\u201d<\/span>
\nThe Authentic New Testament, Schonfield: \u201cI existed before Abraham was born.\u201d<\/span>
\nBiblia Sagdrada, Roman Catholic: \u201cBefore Abraham existed, I was existing.\u201d<\/span>
\nThe New Testament of Our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ, Noli: \u201cI existed before Abraham was born.\u201d<\/span>
\nThe Concise Gospel and The acts, Christianson: \u201cI existed even before Abraham was born.\u201d<\/span>
\nA Translators Handbook to the Gospel of John, Nida: \u201cBefore Abraham existed, I existed, or.I have existed.\u201d<\/span>
\nThe Simple English Bible: \u201cI was alive before Abraham was born.\u201d<\/span>
\nThe Original New Testament, Schonfield: \u201cI tell you for a positive fact, I existed before Abraham was born.\u201d<\/span>
\nThe Complete Gospels Annotated Scholars Version, Miller: \u201cI existed before there was an Abraham.\u201d<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n