Is Jesus Elohim?

[liamconnor]

Much heat has been exerted in attempting to show that Jesus was not YHWH.

Can we say that Jesus was Elohim? On what Biblical grounds (linguistic playing the largest part) can we say Yes or No?

IF the answer remains No, why has this identification not loomed as large for antagonists towards the Trinity? What is it about the specific name "YHWH" that is touchy? Put another way, "Is calling Jesus Elohim less offensive than calling him YHWH to non-trinitarians?"

[Checkpoint]

Much heat has been exerted in attempting to show that Jesus was not YHWH.

Can we say that Jesus was Elohim? On what Biblical grounds (linguistic playing the largest part) can we say Yes or No?

IF the answer remains No, why has this identification not loomed as large for antagonists towards the Trinity? What is it about the specific name "YHWH" that is touchy? Put another way, "Is calling Jesus Elohim less offensive than calling him YHWH to non-trinitarians?"

As I see it, the answer is no because there was no Jesus prior to the Logos becoming flesh.

Very well, Is Jesus Elohim Incarnate?

No, he is the Logos incarnated, not as the man/God but as the only-begotten Son of God.

He is the image of the invisible God, the express image of His person.

He is the one who on the cross said, "My God, My God, why have You forsaken me?"

He is the resurrected one who said, "go to my brothers and say to them, ‘I am ascending to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God'.�

[marco]

So when Jesus said "before Abraham was, I AM" he was speaking of the Logos and not himself?

We may not be so far apart after all.

When we have a declaration by Christ starting "I am..." it is reasonable to believe he is employing some figure of speech, as was his wont. He wasn't a shepherd or a vine. And he loved a paradox or a challenging statement: become as little children; the least shall be greatest. He believed he was dispensing the word of God in its latest, crisp edition, the word of his Father. Abraham WAS in the past: I AM now. There is also a naughty nudge towards I am that I am, but not a serious one I think. It is another rendition of I am the bread of life. The eternal message, my word, existed before Abraham, and I now propagate that news. The crowd could see he was a young man, much younger than Abraham's 175 years, and he was teasing them, rousing them, making them think just as he did when he urged them to "be born again." All challenges - even today. But nothing literal about any of them!

[liamconnor]

[Replying to post 11 by Checkpoint]

No, he is the Logos incarnated, not as the man/God but as the only-begotten Son of God.

So you would side with Arian? "There was a time when he was not" and therefore God became a Father prior to creation?

[liamconnor]

[Replying to post 12 by marco]

When we have a declaration by Christ starting "I am..." it is reasonable to believe he is employing some figure of speech, as was his wont. He wasn't a shepherd or a vine. And he loved a paradox or a challenging statement: become as little children; the least shall be greatest. He believed he was dispensing the word of God in its latest, crisp edition, the word of his Father. Abraham WAS in the past: I AM now.

What a feat of linguistic gymnastics you have just accomplished! YOu ahve somehow taken what clearly says "Before (π�ὶν) Abraham, I AM" and turned it into a contrast between a dead man and a living man!


Regardless of whether the historical Jesus made the statement, the author of John most certainly identified Jesus with the God of the O.T.

[Checkpoint]

[Replying to post 11 by Checkpoint]

No, he is the Logos incarnated, not as the man/God but as the only-begotten Son of God.

So you would side with Arian? "There was a time when he was not" and therefore God became a Father prior to creation?

Whatever, I don't side with or against, as such.

I just chart my own course according to what I see or don't see in scripture; words, passages, and concepts.

If the shoe fits...!

Not prior to creation but prior to being incarnated.

[marco]

What a feat of linguistic gymnastics you have just accomplished! YOu ahve somehow taken what clearly says "Before (π�ὶν) Abraham, I AM" and turned it into a contrast between a dead man and a living man!


Regardless of whether the historical Jesus made the statement, the author of John most certainly identified Jesus with the God of the O.T.

Well the difference between our respective approaches is that I have offered reasons, with references, to support my view. You have made a simple statement of your interpretation of John.

I have simply illustrated that there is richness in many of Christ's aphorisms. They seemed to have been spoken with the intention of making his audience think and react. His listeners focused on the dead Abraham rather than the living Christ. Their faith required rebirth into the thinking of Jesus and Christ's words have eternal truth, surpassing Abraham's stay on earth. He said as much himself; so to say that "before Abraham was, I am" - makes fine metaphorical sense in line with his previous statements about himself.

To take the words to mean that Christ literally predates Abraham is to understand that by rebirth he means re-emergence from a mother's womb. A great deal of thought or, as you disparagingly say, linguistic gymnastics, is required to penetrate many of Christ's statements. The strange words are either grains of linguistic gold, or they are senselessly literal. And I don't for a moment believe that Christ, the self-proclaimed bread of life, offered literal nonsense for digestion.

[tigger2]

[Replying to post 12 by marco]

When we have a declaration by Christ starting "I am..." it is reasonable to believe he is employing some figure of speech, as was his wont. He wasn't a shepherd or a vine. And he loved a paradox or a challenging statement: become as little children; the least shall be greatest. He believed he was dispensing the word of God in its latest, crisp edition, the word of his Father. Abraham WAS in the past: I AM now.

What a feat of linguistic gymnastics you have just accomplished! YOu ahve somehow taken what clearly says "Before (π�ὶν) Abraham, I AM" and turned it into a contrast between a dead man and a living man!

Regardless of whether the historical Jesus made the statement, the author of John most certainly identified Jesus with the God of the O.T.

.........................................
These translations (most by trinitarians) render ego eimi at John 8:58 as:

(1) “I HAVE BEEN� - alternate reading in 1960 thru 1973 reference editions of NASB
(2) “I HAVE BEEN� - The New Testament, G. R. Noyes
(3) “I HAVE BEEN� - “The Four Gospels� According to the Sinaitic Palimpsest, A. S. Lewis
(4) “I HAVE ALREADY BEEN� - The Unvarnished New Testament
(5) “I HAVE EXISTED� - The Bible, A New Translation, Dr. James Moffatt
(6) “I EXISTED� - The New Testament in the Language of Today, 1964 ed., Beck
(7) “I EXISTED� - An American Translation, Goodspeed
(8) “I EXISTED� - The New Testament in the Language of the People, Williams
(9) “I EXISTED� - New Simplified Bible
(10) “I WAS IN EXISTENCE� - Living Bible
(11) “I WAS ALIVE� - The Simple English Bible
(12)“I WAS� - Young’s Literal Translation of the Holy Bible, 1st ed. (Also see Young’s Concise Critical Commentary, p. 61 of “The New Covenant.�).
(13) “I WAS� - H. T. Anderson
(14) “I WAS� - Twentieth Century New Testament
(15) "I ALREADY WAS" - Worldwide English (New Testament) (WE)
(16) "I EXISTED" - New Living Translation (NLT)

Noted NT Greek scholar Kenneth McKay wrote in his A New Syntax of the Verb in New Testament Greek, An Aspectual Approach:

"Tense...4.2.4. Extension from Past. When used with an expression of either past time or extent of time with past implications (but not in past narrative, for which see 4.2.5), the present tense signals an activity begun in the past and continuing to the present time: Luke 13:7...Lu 15:29....Jn 14:9 [Tosouton khronon meth muoon eimi]..have I been with you so long...? ; Ac 27:33...Jn 8:58 [prin Abraam ego eimi], I have been in existence since before Abraham was born...." - Emphasis added.
...............................

Exodus 3:14 is commonly used in conjunction with John 8:58 to 'prove' that Jesus is YHWH (Jehovah/Yahweh).

And yet a study of all the other uses of ehyeh (the Hebrew word at Ex. 3:14 that is frequently translated as "I am") in all the writings of Moses are translated as "I will be" not "I am."

And even a number of translators render Exodus 3:14 itself as "I will be."

Moffatt’s translation - “I WILL BE�; Byington’s - “I WILL BE�; Rotherham’s - “I WILL BECOME�; Concordant Literal Version - “I-SHALL-COME-TO-BE�; Julia Smith’s - “I SHALL BE�; Leeser’s - “I WILL BE�

In addition are the following alternate readings in footnotes: American Standard Version - “I WILL BE�; NIV Study Bible - “I WILL BE�; Revised Standard Version - “I WILL BE�; New Revised Standard Version - “I WILL BE�; New English Bible - “I WILL BE�; Revised English Bible - “I WILL BE�; Living Bible - “I WILL BE�; Good News Bible - “I WILL BE�; English Standard Version - "I WILL BE" .

When even a few trinitarian scholars eschew the traditional trinitarian interpretation of a 'trinity proof' scripture, it is clearly not really a 'proof.'

For much more on this subject see my full study:
http://examiningthetrinity.blogspot.com ... art-1.html

[liamconnor]

[Replying to post 17 by tigger2]

I know Greek. The verb is "eimi". It is in the present tense. At any rate, the burden of proof rests on those who insist that Jesus was making anything other than a remarkable metaphysical statement: "Before Abraham, I was" is still remarkable.
Please note: I am not interested in proving Jesus is YHWH. I am interesting in demonstrating that certain N.T. authors identified Jesus with YHWH.

The author of the fourth gospel was one of them. In order for us to continue, it is important that you understand the actual debate. We are NOT debating whether Jesus was YHWH. We are not debating whether the historical Jesus thought he was YHWH. We are debating whether certain authors of the N.T. identified him with the YHWH of the old Testament.

To make this clear, let us assume that all the dialogue of the fourth gospel was created by its author; Jesus never spoke a word of it. Thus, what we have is the author's thoughts about Jesus put into Jesus' mouth.

When we do so, it is obvious that the author (let's call him John, for simplicity) most certainly portrayed Jesus as identifiable with YHWH. When he placed in the mouth of his character, Jesus, the statement "Before Abraham, I am (or was)" he placed Jesus' identity TEMPORALLY before Abraham.

Frankly, when the above parameters are set, the conclusion is overwhelming. John made it seem as if Jesus was God incarnate.

(truth be told, I am not sure what the point of your post was. Were you showing off? Or forcing an occasion to advertise your link?)

[tigger2]

[Replying to post 17 by tigger2]

I know Greek. The verb is "eimi". It is in the present tense. At any rate, the burden of proof rests on those who insist that Jesus was making anything other than a remarkable metaphysical statement: "Before Abraham, I was" is still remarkable.
Please note: I am not interested in proving Jesus is YHWH. I am interesting in demonstrating that certain N.T. authors identified Jesus with YHWH.

The author of the fourth gospel was one of them. In order for us to continue, it is important that you understand the actual debate. We are NOT debating whether Jesus was YHWH. We are not debating whether the historical Jesus thought he was YHWH. We are debating whether certain authors of the N.T. identified him with the YHWH of the old Testament.

To make this clear, let us assume that all the dialogue of the fourth gospel was created by its author; Jesus never spoke a word of it. Thus, what we have is the author's thoughts about Jesus put into Jesus' mouth.

When we do so, it is obvious that the author (let's call him John, for simplicity) most certainly portrayed Jesus as identifiable with YHWH. When he placed in the mouth of his character, Jesus, the statement "Before Abraham, I am (or was)" he placed Jesus' identity TEMPORALLY before Abraham.

Frankly, when the above parameters are set, the conclusion is overwhelming. John made it seem as if Jesus was God incarnate.

(truth be told, I am not sure what the point of your post was. Were you showing off? Or forcing an occasion to advertise your link?)

I do not "show off." I suggest that you read my post more carefully! If it is still too much for you, actually try the link. That's why it's there.

[liamconnor]

[Replying to post 16 by marco]

First, Marco.

In this (and any other) thread I am not attempting to prove, demonstrate, or defend that Jesus is YHWH. That is entirely a matter of faith. What is not a matter of faith is the question of whether certain N.T. authors made statements which identified Jesus with YHWH. That is not a matter of faith; a person can utilize literary analysis and historical knowledge in that inquiry.

So, if you are merely saying that the historical Jesus is not YHWH, well, I have no qualms.

However, if you are saying that based on literary analysis no author of the N.T. ever identified him with YHWH, well I demur.

I will proceed with your statements as if the second were your position. Please affirm or clarify in your next response.

Well the difference between our respective approaches is that I have offered reasons, with references, to support my view. You have made a simple statement of your interpretation of John.

You equally gave an interpretation, which ignored the actual Greek of John. It clearly places in the mouth of Jesus a temporal contrast between Abraham and himself, placing Jesus BEFORE ABraham. The Greek is an infinitive construction: π�ὶν Ἀβ�αὰμ γενέσθαι �γὼ εἰμί.

I have simply illustrated that there is richness in many of Christ's aphorisms. They seemed to have been spoken with the intention of making his audience think and react. His listeners focused on the dead Abraham rather than the living Christ. Their faith required rebirth into the thinking of Jesus and Christ's words have eternal truth, surpassing Abraham's stay on earth. He said as much himself; so to say that "before Abraham was, I am" - makes fine metaphorical sense in line with his previous statements about himself.

Sounds like a fine loose new age interpretation devoid of any familiarity with the time period and with the actual language. The language places Jesus prior to Abraham. There were plenty of ways of saying what you said and it would not have made such a scandal so that they wished to kill him.

To take the words to mean that Christ literally predates Abraham is to understand that by rebirth he means re-emergence from a mother's womb. A great deal of thought or, as you disparagingly say, linguistic gymnastics, is required to penetrate many of Christ's statements.

In this case, mere grammar will testify against you: π�ὶν Ἀβ�αὰμ γενέσθαι �γὼ εἰμί. As far as the author is concerned, Jesus was the logos, "with God, and was God". He "became flesh". This really isn't too hard to comprehend if one reads the gospel. Right or wrong, John clearly identified Jesus with the god of the O.T. in at least a "dualitarian" way (to coin a term which does not include the Spirit).

The strange words are either grains of linguistic gold, or they are senselessly literal. And I don't for a moment believe that Christ, the self-proclaimed bread of life, offered literal nonsense for digestion.

I have no idea what you are trying to say, but it sounds like you have made a faith statement. Why should the historical Jesus never have said something foolish? Was he not a mere man by your estimate?

Again, I am not interested in whether Jesus actually is/was YHWH/Elohim. How could anyone prove that?! It is not accessible to history, or science, or logic, or literary analysis. But one can demonstrate whether the N.T. authors portrayed him as such. And that is what I am doing; and they did.