Thank you very much for this Episode. This verse was bothering me since I started to question the nature of God and Jesus. Not because of it's meaning or the context, but grammatically. "Why is 'I am' in the present form?" "Why would John write it this way?" "Is it intentional or is it just clumsy written?" "What actually is the aorist tense?" For some reason every time I was looking into the aorist tense I ended up with the understanding that, that is a tense that is somehow connected to the past tense. After listening to this episode I checked your claim and it holds up :) Finally the sentence makes sense without changing the grammar.
I have one question though. Shouldn't the right translation be something like: "...Truly, truly, I say to you, I am (he) before Abraham will be (becomes)? Isn't it a more natural sentence in English when the "I am" stands before the "Abraham becomes"? Is there a rule that says that it shouldn't be translated this way? In Greek the words in a sentence often in different places than in English. For Example the order of the words in the beginning of this verse are "Said to them Jesus". But every translation I know writes "Jesus said to them". Even Russian translations do this, although in Russian it works either way. It doesn't fell awkward to say "Said to them Jesus". Is there a reason why it shouldn't be done here? There are only five words in this part and they are not connected with an "and" (like in the verse 57) or "but" or something similar. Btw. I forgot to tell in the last comment that I did not only check on the internet but I also looked up if there where other instances in John where the aorist tense is connected with either the present or the future tense. I found examples in John 3,9, 5,4, 5,6 and 5,14.
I really like “I am he before Abraham will be”. I think you’re right that reversing the sentence makes more sense for an English speaker. Also thanks for the cross references from John. I like to think I’ve done my homework before I put something out there on the internet, but it’s also reassuring to see more helpful evidence
Excellent work Sam. Some of my commentary on John 8: Jesus again spoke to them, saying, “I am the Light of the world This is a reference to the messianic Isaiah 42 I will keep you and appoint you to be a covenant for the people and a light to the nations (cf. Isa 49:6, 51:4). In referencing Isaiah 42, Jesus was implying his identity as the Messiah ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ unless you believe that I am he (ἐγώ εἰμι) you will die in your sins... When you have lifted up the Son of Man, then you will know that I am he (ἐγώ εἰμι) ἐγώ εἰμι is a phrase of self-identification e.g., "It is I" or "I am so-and-so (the bread, the light, etc)". A myth commonly perpetuated in Christian circles takes ἐγώ εἰμι as the Great I AM of Exodus 3:14. However, the actual Greek words in Exodus 3:14 is ὁ ὢν, not ἐγώ εἰμι. Here, the Jews were asking Jesus his identity (Jn 8:25). Jesus provided some clarity in calling himself "the Son of Man" (a likely reference to messianic figure of Daniel 7:14 And behold, with the clouds of heaven, one like a son of man was coming). Additionally, John's readers should not miss Jesus' implicit claim to be the Messiah as we are also privy to Jn 3:14 just as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, so must the Son of Man be lifted up. Unless they believe that he is the Messiah, they will die in their sins. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ He who sent Me is true; and the things which I heard from Him, these I say to the world... The one who is of God hears the words of God; for this reason you do not hear them, because you are not of God. Another reference to Deu 18:18. Jesus is the prophet who speaks the words of God which he heard from God. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Truly, truly I say to you, if anyone follows My word, he will never see death 52 The Jews said to Him, “Now we know that You have a demon. Abraham died, and the prophets as well. 7th misunderstanding. Jesus was not speaking of the first physical death that everyone will experience, including his believers. But of the second death that those who believe in him as the Messiah will never see. In other words, Jesus was talking about a future resurrection of God's people. The central message of Jesus in John 8 is his implied identity as the Messiah who brings the Resurrection ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ but I do know Him [God], and I follow His word [God's word]. Cf. the Word became flesh. Jesus is the living embodiment of God's word; he lived and followed it completely. He is God's word personified; the word incarnate. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Your father Abraham was overjoyed that he would see My day, and he saw it and rejoiced. The common view among commentators is that "My day" refers to the Messiah's second coming (cf. Luke 17:22); the day of resurrection where there will be great rejoicing. By faith, Abraham saw the promises from afar (cf. Heb 11:13). Jesus' answer addressed both questions in Jn 8:53 (are you greater than Abraham? who are you?). Being the Messiah who shall resurrect Abraham, Jesus is greater. And Jesus was making himself to be the Messiah. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ So the Jews said to Him, “You are not yet fifty years old, and You have seen Abraham?” 8th misunderstanding. Jesus never said that Abraham saw him or that he saw Abraham. Yet the murderous crowd was eager to misconstrue his words and put him on a spot by asking an absurd loaded question. An example of a loaded question is "have you stopped beating your wife?". Both Yes and No are wrong answers. If Jesus said Yes, they could assert that he was crazy and turn the people against Jesus. If Jesus said No, then he would be contradicting his answer in Jn 8:56 as the loaded question presupposed Jesus was claiming to have seen Abraham some 2000 years ago. I think Jesus was wise in not addressing the loaded question but went back to reiterated his answer in Jn 8:56. See below. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ “Truly, truly I say to you, before Abraham γενέσθαι, ἐγώ εἰμι γενέσθαι means come into being. It is an aorist infinitive. Aorist infinitives communicate perfective aspect, they do not communicate time. γενέσθαι occurs 37 times in NT and is mostly used in the context of future events and translated in the present tense (90%, 32/36). This is another translator's dilemma: in English, all verbs communicate time. biblehub.com/greek/genesthai_1096.htm I opine that the common translation in past tense "before Abraham was" is contextually weak and may mislead readers. In the ongoing context of death and resurrection, "before Abraham γενέσθαι" could likely mean "before Abraham is raised to life". ἐγώ εἰμι - for the 3rd time in John 8, Jesus used ἐγώ εἰμι (see Jn 8:24, 28). Jesus persisted in his implicit claim to be the Messiah, in all sincerity (truly, truly, I say to you) for people to believe and not die in their sins. We may understand John 8:58 as a reiteration of John 8:56 in answer to the questions in John 8:53 (are you greater than Abraham? who are you?). "Before Abraham is raised to life" speaks of the Messiah's superiority as the one who will resurrect Abraham. "I am he [the Son of Man]" implies his identity as the Messiah. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ You are seeking to kill Me... Therefore they picked up stones to throw at Him The murderous crowd was seeking a justified reason to kill Jesus. Yet they found no legitimate accusation against him. Like what happened to Stephen, the infuriated mob abandoned the need to justify and tried to stone Jesus without any accusation or trial. Of noteworthy, at Jesus' trial where they tried to find justification to put Jesus to death, the events in John 8 were not mentioned but the events in John 2 were. Matt 26:59 Now the chief priests and the entire Council kept trying to obtain false testimony against Jesus, so that they might put Him to death. 60 They did not find any, even though many false witnesses came forward. But later on two came forward, 61 and said, “This man stated, ‘I am able to destroy the temple of God and to rebuild it in three days.
1:02:25 I think you're the first knowledgeable person I have seen to offer a similar approach/explanation of 8:58 to me, where we shy away from the common "was" translation. I have asked a couple of people who know Greek well whether translating it with a present or future tense was reasonable/possible. They basically said that it's possible, but weren't really interested in looking more into it. When I was questioning the translation/interpretation, I was going down the thought path of something like, "what if Jesus is claiming to be greater than Abraham by saying that he is the messiah before Abraham is." I was trying to think outside the box to come up with an explanation of 8:58... Does anyone know of anyone else that acknowledges the "becomes/comes to be" instead of "was" as a viable translation?
John 8 Jesus again spoke to them, saying, “I am the Light of the world This is a reference to the messianic Isaiah 42 I will keep you and appoint you to be a covenant for the people and a light to the nations (cf. Isa 49:6, 51:4). In referencing Isaiah 42, Jesus was implying his identity as the Messiah ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ unless you believe that I am he (ἐγώ εἰμι) you will die in your sins... When you have lifted up the Son of Man, then you will know that I am he (ἐγώ εἰμι) ἐγώ εἰμι is a phrase of self-identification e.g., "It is I" or "I am so-and-so (the bread, the light, etc)". A myth commonly perpetuated in Christian circles takes ἐγώ εἰμι as the Great I AM of Exodus 3:14. However, the actual Greek words in Exodus 3:14 is ὁ ὢν, not ἐγώ εἰμι. Here, the Jews were asking Jesus his identity (Jn 8:25). Jesus provided some clarity in calling himself "the Son of Man" (a likely reference to messianic figure of Daniel 7:14 And behold, with the clouds of heaven, one like a son of man was coming). Additionally, *John's readers should not miss Jesus' implicit claim to be the Messiah as we are also privy to Jn 3:14 just as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, so must the Son of Man be lifted up. Unless they believe that he is the Messiah, they will die in their sins. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ He who sent Me is true; and the things which I heard from Him, these I say to the world... The one who is of God hears the words of God; for this reason you do not hear them, because you are not of God. Another reference to Deu 18:18. Jesus is the prophet who speaks the words of God which he heard from God. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Truly, truly I say to you, if anyone follows My word, he will never see death 52 The Jews said to Him, “Now we know that You have a demon. Abraham died, and the prophets as well. 7th misunderstanding. Jesus was not speaking of the first physical death that everyone will experience, including his believers. But of the second death that those who believe in him as the Messiah will never see. In other words, Jesus was talking about a future resurrection of God's people. The central message of Jesus in John 8 is his implied identity as the Messiah who brings the Resurrection ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ but I do know Him [God], and I follow His word [God's word]. Cf. the Word became flesh. Jesus is the living embodiment of God's word; he lived and followed it completely. He is God's word personified; the word incarnate. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Your father Abraham was overjoyed that he would see My day, and he saw it and rejoiced. The common view among commentators is that "My day" refers to the Messiah's second coming (cf. Luke 17:22); the day of resurrection where there will be great rejoicing. By faith, Abraham saw the promises from afar (cf. Heb 11:13). Jesus' answer addressed both questions in Jn 8:53 (are you greater than Abraham? who are you?). Being the Messiah who shall resurrect Abraham, Jesus is greater. And Jesus was making himself to be the Messiah. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ So the Jews said to Him, “You are not yet fifty years old, and You have seen Abraham?” 8th misunderstanding. Jesus never said that Abraham saw him or that he saw Abraham. Yet the murderous crowd was eager to misconstrue his words and put him on a spot by asking an absurd loaded question. An example of a loaded question is "have you stopped beating your wife?". Both Yes and No are wrong answers. If Jesus said Yes, they could assert that he is crazy and turn the people against Jesus. If Jesus said No, then he would be contradicting his answer in Jn 8:56 as loaded question presupposed Jesus claimed to have seen Abraham some 2000 years ago. I think Jesus was wise in not addressing the loaded question but went on to reiterated his answer in Jn 8:56. See below. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ “Truly, truly I say to you, before Abraham γενέσθαι, ἐγώ εἰμι γενέσθαι means come into being. It is an aorist infinitive. Aorist infinitives communicate perfective aspect, they do not communicate time. γενέσθαι occurs 37 times in NT and is mostly used in the context of future events and translated in the present tense (90%, 32/36). This is another translator's dilemma: in English, all verbs communicate time. biblehub.com/greek/genesthai_1096.htm I opine that the common translation in past tense "before Abraham was" is contextually weak and may mislead readers. In the ongoing context of death and resurrection, "before Abraham γενέσθαι" could likely mean "before Abraham is raised to life". ἐγώ εἰμι - for the 3rd time in John 8, Jesus used ἐγώ εἰμι (see Jn 8:24, 28). Jesus persisted in his implicit claim to be the Messiah, in all sincerity (truly, truly, I say to you) for people to believe and not die in their sins. We may understand John 8:58 as a reiteration of John 8:56 in answer to the questions in John 8:53 (are you greater than Abraham? who are you?). "Before Abraham is raised to life" speaks of the Messiah's superiority as the one who will resurrect Abraham. "I am he [the Son of Man]" implies his identity as the Messiah. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ You are seeking to kill Me... Therefore they picked up stones to throw at Him The murderous crowd was seeking a justified reason to kill Jesus. Yet they found no legitimate accusation against him. Like what happened to Stephen, the infuriated mob abandoned the need to justify and tried to stone Jesus without any accusation or trial. Of noteworthy, at Jesus' trial where they tried to find justification to put Jesus to death, the events in John 8 were not mentioned but the events in John 2 were. Matt 26:59 Now the chief priests and the entire Council kept trying to obtain false testimony against Jesus, so that they might put Him to death. 60 They did not find any, even though many false witnesses came forward. But later on two came forward, 61 and said, “This man stated, ‘I am able to destroy the temple of God and to rebuild it in three days.
Sam, This is very good and I will share it with others. The one point of departure I have is when you discuss the meaning of “born of water”. I lean more toward the interpretation that it means spiritual cleansing rather than baptism. Some folks I want to share with will object to that, but hopefully they won’t throw out the baby with the baptism water. Thank you.
Did you see Vervaeke's comment on person being a poor translation of hypostasis in the 'Why Christianity' conversation with Pageau and Hall? It's around 1hr and 4min mark. I'm very curious for your take on that segment of that conversation.
All my critiques aside, Sam, it truly puzzles me that you aren't a pastor. Your teaching skills are exceptional, and you have a remarkable ability to communicate with both kindness and confidence.
@@transfigured3673 Here's a question for you, Sam. There's no pressure to respond. Regardless of whether you currently have a home gathering, this question stands on its own. Do you see the Peterson sphere stuff, especially your Peterson/PVK meetup, as something that competes with or has the potential to complement a unitarian home gathering? I remember you mentioning your previous attempts at home church gatherings and how they didn’t pan out as expected, which is why I’m curious.
I believe, Sam, that your interpretation of John 8:58 may be leaning towards the overly esoteric to the point where it would have just been too unecessarily confusing to his audience. Jesus wanted them to understand. The first thing that I believe is important to recognize is that Jesus is referring to himself in the present moment, prior to his resurrection and ascension. He is drawing a comparison between a pre-glorified Abraham and his own pre-glorified state. Therefore, suggesting that Jesus is discussing a newly created version of himself in opposition to a future glorified Abraham, I think is a misunderstanding. Instead, I believe he is asserting that he is self-identifying as the Messiah mentioned in scripture (Genesis 3:15) prior to Abraham's original birth. In this context, the Messiah does not need to be his new creation glorified self in order to refer to himself in the present as the prophesied messiah. In other words, he is essentially asserting that he stands in their presence as the manifestation of the archetype of the OT prophetic foretype (as all unmanifest prophecy is a foretype), rather than representing the archetypal man of the fallen Adamic foretype. This distinction, I think, is crucial to understand.
I think this is also a viable interpretation. That the messiah is prophesied before Abraham. I do think there is something a little esoteric about the way Jesus talks and so it warrants a less than obvious interpretation which is why the audience kept misunderstanding. Although, I think it every translation for the last 2000 years had translated it the way I suggest, it wouldn't sound esoteric at all, it would just seem commonsensical through repetition. I think we often understand how what makes sense to us really is just the result of repetition and not good underlying reasons.
@@transfigured3673 Do you think their misunderstanding came from a lack of spiritual insight or rather a flawed interpretation of who the messiah would be, i.e., a conquering political figure?
@@transfigured3673 Your take on “before Abraham, I am” makes grammatical sense but seems to require a good number of qualifications. Apologetically, how would you as a biblical unitarian put this in one summarized paragraph statement?
@@transfigured3673 IDK what happened to my other comment. But here it is again. I think you’ve quite well have set these parameters: (1) Jesus is a man; 2) the Jews misunderstood Jesus; (3) there’s no indication of preexistence; and (4) ‘I am’ (ego eimi) is not ‘I am that I am’ (ego eimi ho own) in Exodus 3:14, hence, it’s not saying Jesus is God almighty. Having set the parameters, why can’t we be simply agnostic on what “before Abraham, I am”? How would this approach help (or hurt?) our biblical unitarian apologetic efforts? Now, there’s an interesting short video by Dan McClellan (love or hate him) that says ‘I am’ is a cryptic statement referencing a relationship between the Tetragrammaton and Jesus. I’d like to hear your take on it sometime. Here’s the link. ua-cam.com/video/UQCGQRgzqvE/v-deo.htmlsi=KIBDmfjhHd5O9mKY
Well, it was an eloquent hour and a half, but not particularly enlightening - at least not in relation to the title of the video. "Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham comes to be, I am he" - Even if I grant you that translation, your explanation of equating Abraham's "coming to be" with his yet future resurrection makes very little sense to me (and I would argue to any of his listeners of the time and throughout time). Jesus already has spoken of Abraham as a living person IN THE PRESENT. God is not a God of the dead, but the living. He speaks of Lazarus being in his bosom. There would be no reason to think of Abraham's becoming as some yet future resurrection. The most logical interpretation and understanding was the one the Jews right in front of him had - that he was speaking of Abraham's mortal existence. And as far as the "I am (he)" part, John uses that construction again in Jn. 18:6. The reaction of the people present is once more rather telling about the meaning of those words. I know I'm just some dude on the internet, but perhaps it would be wise to consider if one is "kicking against the goads" in these matters. If that is indeed what is happening, I pray the scales may fall off for you as well. Peace
@@transfigured3673 Oh, I agree with you about the theme of misunderstanding. This particular dude agreed with much of what you had to say throughout. The main point of disagreement just happened to relate to the key topic of the video. I don't think "Abraham's becoming" really adds any weight to the idea of his resurrection being in view. There is nothing else in the passage that really suggests that as a possibility. The argument seems to hinge purely on a particular point of grammar - one that may be being played with/broken here on purpose! (John does similar things in Revelation regarding grammar). Nor does "I am he" negate the possibility of invoking the divine name/tetragrammaton. (see passage noted in previous comment) While the theme of misunderstanding is certainly crucial to understanding the book of John, one must be careful not to read the book purely through that lens - as though his listeners must always be wrong about everything. It seems to this dude that the main misunderstanding in view in this passage is the "heavenly origin/belonging" of Jesus contrasted with the "worldly origin/belonging" of the Jews he is engaging with. They do not want to accept his divine mission (which may include being divine, but I also wouldn't pin that argument on this one dialogue alone).
Good question, I would need help to make an approximation of a back translation to aramaic. But it is also possible that some of the dialogues in John actually happened in greek.
"...for the teachers of religion of the different sects understood the same passages of scripture so differently as to destroy all confidence in settling the question by an appeal to the Bible."
@34:50 for me “birth” and/or “begetting” is a theme that’s present in the Old Testament… Ex: God “begetting” (spiritually) King David and/or Solomon (Psalm 2:7)
**Exodus 3:14** has God saying **I am that I am** (LXX Ego Eimi Ho on **ἐγώ εἰμι ὁ ὤν** I am the eternal one) but does **not** say tell them Ego Eimi(I AM) has sent you, but rather HO ON **ὁ ὤν**(The ETERNAL one) has sent you... all the authors of the NT used the **LXX** Septuagint as their OT source material, if they wanted to say Jesus was Identifying with the **I AM** of Exodus they would have used **Ho On** not Ego Eimi
Just because it was written after doesn't mean it was downstream of Paul. John was a Christian before Paul. John knew Jesus. Paul mentions John as a pillar of the church. John seems to have been in Ephesus before Paul visited or wrote a letter. Stylistically, John seems pretty independent of Paul. Yet the same theology is there. The "everything is Paul's fault" idea is just dumb. Maybe Paul just had the same theology as most of the other Christians around him?
@@transfigured3673 It is certainly possible that Paul was influenced by "John". But that doesn't really work with Paul's insistence that he didn't. That is the traditional Christian approach. That Jesus, James, Paul, John, Peter were all in accord almost completely. If that is true: 1) Paul isn't as important as everyone thinks and makes him. 2) They all turned their back on Jesus.
@faturechi what? "disciples of Paul"? None of the gospel authors can be definitively established as a disciple of Paul. The Gospels are filled with events in the life of Christ, while the Pauline epistle are notoriously unfamiliar with any of that or even almost anything Jesus said. There is an entire movement called dispensationalism based on the premise that Paul taught a completely different message of salvation than Christ. Sorry your arguments don't seem to be based on any facts.
Wouldnt it fit better to say Jesus spoke in a parabolic way, not a theological way ? I cannot recall which verse, but in Matthew, its said that "jesus spoke in parables, and without a parable, He did not speak "....that means everything He said was a parable...Isaiah spoke of one coming, that would speak with "dark sayings and stammering lips"....Great lesson. Thank you so much for sharing the truth.
"Why are there so many bizarre parallels between Paul and the Gospels and other parts of scripture?" Because the Gospels were written after Paul by Paulinists, so there is a direct influence.
Or, Paul was just a pretty normal Christian who agreed with most of the other Christians around his time. The "everything is Paul's fault" just doesn't really hold water. I think John is the best example of that. He is clearly unique from Paul in terms of style, vocab, and focus but you can see all the same basic theological ingredients and broad agreement.
@@transfigured3673 Certainly, it's compatible with either hypothesis. My point is that parallels between Paul and gospels are not evidence one way or the other, given that everyone agrees the gospels were written later; and there's nothing that disproves Pauline influence. "Paul's fault" is an odd way to put it. An Ebionite conceivably might think Paul is at fault for distorting the true teachings. To a mere opinionated outsider, it's neither good nor bad if a given idea is a Pauline innovation.
@nathanielkrause4191 actually it seems a big problem in Christianity today is trying to reconcile and harmonize the Gospels with the Pauline epistles. Not sure what you're talking about.
@@asphilosophyusa I'm not really all that sure what you have in mind, either. What's a major example that comes to mind of the difficulties in reconciling the Gospels with the Pauline epistles?
@nathanielkrause4191 the contradictions are endless. There is an entire movement called "dispensationalism" which is based on the premise that Jesus and Paul preached completely different gospels, or messages about salvation. Where Jesus and Paul don't flatly conflict, Paul also makes up a lot of stuff the neither Jesus nor any of the prophets taught. I find it hard to believe anyone who claims to be familiar with the Bible wouldn't be aware of these facts.
I don't understand how Jacob interpreted John 8:31, as it's pretty clear to me that the Jews here are speaking about themselves as never being enslaved in their liftime and not speaking of their ancestoral history.
@@yosefrazin6455 The Jews in this context are reacting to Jesus' assertion that they are currently in bondage, yet they fail to grasp the true meaning behind his words. They interpret his statement as a reference to physical enslavement, unaware that he is actually speaking about their spiritual condition-being enslaved by sin.
@@EmJay2022 correct but I am talking about what the Jews are saying not what jesus means. And they seem to be saying something that isn't just about their current condition but about their ancestry
@@yosefrazin6455 I genuinely find it difficult to grasp how you or others have come to this conclusion. Could you please explain it in more detail? I'm curious about how you interpret the Jews in John 8:33 as referring to the past instead of the present.
I was trying to say all this in my back and forts polemics With Gavin’s followers in the comments section of the video which Gavin may or may not have dedicated to you. However this is much more extensive and clear. I recommend John C Hamers lecture on the two authors of the Gospel of John. The original reading of the Niccodemus passage was the following: ”Jesus answered, “Very truly I tell you, no one can enter the kingdom of God unless they are born of THE SPIRIT . 6 Flesh gives birth to flesh, but the Spirit[b] gives birth to spirit. 7 You should not be surprised at my saying, ‘You[c] must be born again.’ 8 The wind blows wherever it pleases. You hear its sound, but you cannot tell where it comes from or where it is going. So it is with everyone born of the Spirit.” The phrase ”and of water ” was added by the second author of John.
What evidence is there for that? Why would it be weird at all for Jesus to mention baptism? We know Jesus was baptized and that his followers baptized in his name. So what evidence is there for this reading?
@transfigured3673 The method used is litterary criticism and that brings forth the evidence but lets just start with a simple example. If water was there in the original reading then the verse would have ended in the following way: Jesus answered, “Very truly I tell you, no one can enter the kingdom of God unless they are born of water and the Spirit. 6 Flesh gives birth to flesh, but the Spirit[b] gives birth to spirit. 7 You should not be surprised at my saying, ‘You[c] must be born again.’ 8 The wind blows wherever it pleases. You hear its sound, but you cannot tell where it comes from or where it is going. So it is with everyone born OF WATER AND of the Spirit.”[d] To put it in a more complicated way. The original author of John was ”John1” who wrote John 1-20 and the final redactor was ”John2” who wrote John 21 and had great respect for ”John1” but who felt that John 1-20 was a bit too metaphorical and so ”John2” added the last chapter to make sure that the physical aspect would not be lost and redacted some parts of John 1-20. Here is the Link to Hamers lesson: m.ua-cam.com/video/jwMyoZcUVN8/v-deo.html&pp=ygUMY2VudHJlIHBsYWNl
You make a lot of good points, I just took "Before Abraham was, I AM" as Jesus saying or explaining he was the messiah prophesied before Abraham. Before Abraham was, I existed. meaning he existed in the word or was mentioned as one greater than Abraham to come. When you read the following verses, bare in mind Moses wrote the history of Abraham. Have these following verses in mind for a bigger context of John 8:58 Joh 5:39 Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me. Joh 5:40 And ye will not come to me, that ye might have life. Joh 5:41 I receive not honour from men. Joh 5:42 But I know you, that ye have not the love of God in you. Joh 5:43 I am come in my Father's name, and ye receive me not: if another shall come in his own name, him ye will receive. Joh 5:44 How can ye believe, which receive honour one of another, and seek not the honour that cometh from God only? Joh 5:45 Do not think that I will accuse you to the Father: there is one that accuseth you, even Moses, in whom ye trust. Joh 5:46 For had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me: for he wrote of me. Joh 5:47 But if ye believe not his writings, how shall ye believe my words?
In short, I would like to a conversation on the evolution of ideas through time. And if we are currently having a breakdown of species (of Christianity); a reversal of some speciation that has gone on for 2,000 years
Here is some info, Not that I agree with it. Origen of Alexandria (c. 184-253 AD) was an early Christian scholar, theologian, and philosopher whose writings significantly shaped Christian thought. Origen is one of the earliest and most influential theologians who made connections between the "I am" statements in the Gospel of John and the divine name of God in the Old Testament, particularly Exodus 3:14. While his works don’t always focus exclusively on this connection, they reveal how early Christian thinkers like him understood Jesus' divinity in relation to the God of Israel. Key Writings of Origen Related to the "I Am" and Divine Name Connection: 1. Commentary on the Gospel of John This is one of Origen's most significant works, where he provides detailed exegesis of the Gospel of John, focusing on its theological depth, especially regarding the nature of Jesus as the Logos (Word). Origen frequently explores the meaning of Jesus' words and actions in the Gospel, and he emphasizes the divine nature of Christ throughout the commentary. Origen on John 1:1: He focuses heavily on the Logos theology - the idea that Jesus, as the pre-existent Word of God, was with God from the beginning. This is important because, for Origen, the Logos is the same eternal being who revealed Himself to Moses in the burning bush as "I AM." "The Word was with God, and the Word was God… God is all that exists in an absolute sense, and therefore God's Word also is all that exists, but in relation to the first existence" (Commentary on John, Book II, Chapter 2). Implicit Connection to Exodus 3:14: While Origen doesn’t explicitly comment on John 8:58 in the Commentary on John (at least in the surviving portions of the work), his broader theological framework suggests that he viewed the "I am" statements as revelations of Jesus' eternal, divine nature, much like God's self-revelation to Moses as "I AM WHO I AM" in Exodus 3:14. He constantly refers to Christ's pre-existence, eternal nature, and oneness with God, reflecting an early recognition of Jesus’ use of "I am" as an evocation of the divine name. "Thus, the Word of God who was from the beginning, through whom all things were made, is also the one who reveals God throughout the Scriptures..." (Commentary on John, Book II, Chapter 4). 2. Contra Celsum (Against Celsus) In this apologetic work, Origen defends Christianity against the criticisms of the Greek philosopher Celsus. In Book VI, Origen speaks at length about Jesus as the divine Logos, the mediator between God and humanity. He argues that Jesus was more than a mere man, consistently pointing to His eternal, divine nature. Christ's Pre-existence: Origen asserts that Christ existed before His incarnation and that He was active throughout the Old Testament. This is part of Origen's broader understanding of Christ as the one who revealed God in both the Old and New Testaments. This theme is tied to his view of Christ’s identification with the divine being who appeared to Moses in the burning bush: "He [Jesus] was before all things, He is the Word of God, who was with God, and was God, and who appeared from time to time in human form, to those to whom it was fitting to appear, and who at last became man" (Contra Celsum, Book VI, Chapter 47). This statement reflects Origen’s belief that Jesus, the eternal Logos, had manifested Himself before His incarnation, implying that the one who appeared in Exodus 3:14, saying "I AM," was indeed the pre-existent Christ. 3. On First Principles (De Principiis) In this foundational theological text, Origen lays out his understanding of the nature of God, Christ, and creation. His emphasis on the pre-existence of Christ and the eternality of the Logos reinforces his belief that Jesus' identity was directly connected to the God of the Old Testament. Divine Names and Jesus' Eternal Nature: While Origen does not provide a verse-by-verse commentary on Exodus 3:14, he consistently argues that the names and titles attributed to God in the Old Testament (including "I AM") should also be understood as applying to Jesus: "God said to Moses, 'I AM WHO I AM,' and 'Say this to the people of Israel, 'I AM has sent me to you'… Christ also says, 'Before Abraham was, I am,' because He was not made, He was not created; He exists without beginning" (On First Principles, Book I, Chapter 2). This text reveals Origen's belief in Jesus as the eternal Word, co-equal with God the Father, using similar language as God in the Old Testament. Summary of Origen's Theological Position: Jesus as the Pre-existent Logos: Origen's Christology is centered on the understanding of Jesus as the Logos (the Word), eternally present with God. In this sense, Jesus is identified as the one who spoke with Moses in the burning bush, revealing Himself as "I AM." Implicit Connection to Exodus 3:14: Although Origen may not have explicitly connected John 8:58 to Exodus 3:14 in the surviving texts, his theological framework (Jesus as the eternal Logos and the God who reveals Himself to humanity) strongly suggests that he understood these passages as speaking about the same divine being. Defending the Divinity of Christ: Throughout his writings, particularly in his Commentary on John and Contra Celsum, Origen defends the view that Jesus is divine, eternal, and pre-existent, qualities that make Him the same "I AM" who spoke to Moses. Conclusion: Origen of Alexandria, through his extensive writings, played a crucial role in developing the theological understanding of Jesus as the pre-existent Logos, closely linking Jesus' "I am" statements in the Gospel of John with the divine name revealed to Moses in Exodus 3:14. While Origen doesn’t always make a direct one-to-one comparison between John 8:58 and Exodus 3:14, his broader theological work suggests that he saw these passages as revealing the same eternal truth about Jesus’ divine identity. References: Origen, Commentary on the Gospel of John, Book II, available in English translation in "The Ante-Nicene Fathers", Vol. 9. Origen, Contra Celsum, available in "The Fathers of the Church" series, Book VI, Chapter 47. Origen, On First Principles, Book I, Chapters 2-3, available in "The Fathers of the Church" series.
If one was going to "incarnate" why not just come as oneself. You might still have the problem of convincing people you are Messiah but is there even a point to sending a son if in reality it is "you" in human form? This might not be on-topic, or even make sense. Or maybe just a question for trinitarians.
the way I understand the Trinity question is not tied to Jesus per se. I can say I have an only begotten son from God the Father that's meant for me to bear, as much as those who are like me, and that Son is my Theology, how I see God. My defense of my theology is the same as defending my God, even though I can recognize that my Theology is not exactly the right one. The Holy Spirit is then the theological discourse and words, that I ended up learning to be able to bear the only begotten son that's for me to bear. Note that, if not clear, I consider that the pronoun I is meant to be instantiated by the reader for himself, I might as well use we, but I think trinity has a personal way of seeing it. To the community, I'm not sure whether the classical trinity is okay 😊 perhaps I got my idea across, Happy to discuss.
@@AdamDylanMajor I don't fully understand your response. My question may not have been clear. I too see Jesus as God's only begotten Son, Messiah, second Adam, obedient and to the Father and given power and authority. The "story" of Jesus is important, beautiful and inspiring. My question is if trinity doctrine doesn't remove the purpose of the father/son relationship. The trinity seems to say just kidding, I am Jesus, Jesus is me. Switch it out as necessary. It would have been more honest, in theory, instead of pretending to send His Son, to say I'm coming down to earth to be your Messiah and obedient to myself. Why the pretense? And perhaps this is why some human's think they are or can become gods.
@@annamaemiller1557 Maybe I was the one not clear enough. I think that the role of Jesus in the Trinity is more of a performance thing. It's like when an actor plays a role for a character in a novel. It could have been someone else, but the casting chose Jesus. I think there's something very profound in how the life of Jesus conveys the lessons. Not understanding Jesus is like hearing Descartes say "I think therefore I am" and then preaching that Descartes is therfore he is, and that there's nothing left to say for us in the grand scheme. When you hear me say "hello to you" part of you heard you saying it to me, and that's what pushes you to enact it. In reality, just me saying "hello to you" doesn't require a response on your part because I'm welcoming myself through your inner voice reading what you hear. That's how I see Jesus' ministry, as someone who could say to people, "you are the truth and the way and the life, you can't get to the father except through yourself", but the world was not ready for that, nor is it ready for that now, so Jesus said it in a way that can bind the ego of the listener, for the good of the sapling, that needs to be bound to a pole to grow upright. I think that ultimately, once people grow, they will realize Jesus was saying what they had trouble saying about themselves, that for lack of spiritual maturity, they were not able to express. This, to me, is the idea behind the gospel, not one of dependency but one of co-sonship, which at the same time recognizes our elder brother.
@@annamaemiller1557 I guess I wasn't clear either. I see Jesus more as a performer of something deeper inside us. As externalizing something which is within us already, only waiting for us to seize it. Namely, the only begotten son to each one of us, that is unique so far as we are unique, in that the only person worthy of the pronoun me is myself.
John 8:58 is a number of things, but it isn't a text meant to clearly teach that Jesus is God. If you read the flow of the text without overthinking it, the simplest conclusion is that Jesus is talking about being older than Abraham, but not literally. I'm a nonTrinitarian who believes that Jesus is 100% human (not God or god or angel), but I truly do think that Jesus is talking about being older than Abraham...yet not literally. I believe that Jesus' choice of words is "opportunistic", in the sense that He seeks to speak within the context of the conversation, but also to communicate something different from what the Jews are concerned with in the immediate context, which is literal age. And He does this several times in the book of John and in the Gospel in general. When speaking with the Samaritan woman at the well in John 4, He speaks of living water because water is the subject of discussion, yet not literal water. When the Pharisees are questioning Him in the temple, He speaks about a temple because it fits the context of the discussion, yet not the literal temple building or premises. When being questioned about the washing of hands before eating, He spoke about things that go into the mouth and come out because it fit the context of the discussion, yet He wasn't speaking about food coming out of a man's mouth, but words. When speaking with the Jews about bread, He declares Himself to be bread of life, and His flesh to be the food that they must eat in order to live because it fits the context where the Jews had just spoken of Moses giving their fathers bread in order for them to live, yet He's not literally speaking about people cannibalizing Him to survive the wilderness. He's talking about people eating (believing) His flesh (His words). For this is how "a man shall not live on bread alone but on every word that proceeds from the mouth of God". Jesus' words are the Father's words, and He personifies those words in and/or as His flesh. "My words are not Mine but His who sent Me"; "The words that I have spoken to you are Spirit and they are life". Flesh = life and words = life in the exact same passage, and the word became flesh 5 chapters earlier. The same thing is happening in John 8:58. He's speaking about being older than Abraham because it's what the Jews asked about in John 8:57. But He's not speaking about literal age. He's speaking about Abraham existing (and being chosen) for His sake rather than He for Abraham's sake. And the apostles do a wonderful job of elaborating on this in their letters e.g "He was foreknown before the foundation of the world", and "We were chosen in Him before the foundation of the world". The point is that Jesus is the key component for all of God's plans for mankind. He is the foundation upon which God based all His decisions and actions...including creating Abraham. But He's very much a human being born in the 1st Century. That's why even those who came before Him couldn't inherit the promises yet. It's because the human being called Jesus didn't exist yet. However, the promises were still based on this human being who would be born in the 1st Century.
John 8:58 is quite similar to the "Why do they call the Christ the Son of David when David calls Him Lord?" Again, Jesus isn't denying that He's descended from David. That would be very awkward for the Gospel authors who still insisted that He was. What He's doing is similar to John 8:58, where He is pointing to the fact that He is "greater than David", not in age, but in priority, as in David was created, chosen and anointed because from him would come the Messiah. In this way, David is as much a beneficiary of the Messiah as everyone else is, including even Abraham whose "Seed" was given or chosen as the proper heir to the blessings that God blessed him with. "In you all nations shall be blessed" speaks to Abraham's lineage, and not necessarily Abraham himself. For even Abraham had many sons, but not all of them received that blessing. Same goes for Isaac, Jacob, David etc. Because "in you" is referring to the Messiah, the reason why Noah found grace before God, the reason why Abraham was chosen apart from his works, the reason why David was called from the field to be anointed and found grace before God even after committing what should be a mortal sin etc. It was all because of one man - Jesus Christ our Lord.
Good question. I should make a video on that topic. But for now, Will Barlow did an excellent presentation on that. ua-cam.com/video/i6bWGHceSJ8/v-deo.html
@@transfigured3673 thanks. a related question would then be whether christendom in its majority and throughout history actually committed and is committing blasphemy by elevating Jesus as the highest object of worship and prayer next to God (and the Spirit).
I don't agree that the blueprint is in Earth and the real deal in Heaven. Its much the opposite, since the mention of the heavens comes first and then Earth, in the beginning of Genesis
Well, real deal does enter into creation. It doesn't take in heaven. We can get baptized now, we can take communion now, we can experience the new birth now.
@transfigured3673 yes, speaking of which have you ever noticed how one can see the presence of a father Jonah and a son Jonah through the three days and three nights stay in the belly of the fish? I think the boulder on the tomb is testimony to how the belly gets bulged by being full in pregnancy, the removal of the rock freeing the resurrected being in a reincarnation fashion 😊
Because you seek to refute the passages that clearly prove that Jesus IS God you KNOW the passages. so there is n point in seeking to refute you not because you are correct but because you are contumacious what you proclaim here is rank heresy. not because t church says so but because the Bible says so. Denying the divinity of Christ you do not know Christ and you deny Him. so you deny the Father as well
I think you do protest too much. If it was so clear, Trinitarians wouldn't go into murderous rage every time somebody points out the emperor wears no clothes.
maybe at least check to see if I have made some videos on those passages you have in mind. If you have suggestions on which passages you would like to see me cover in the future, let me know. Plenty more videos to make.
@@transfigured3673I have a suggestion. I was raised in a trinitarian faith but now feel like a black sheep because of the questions I have asked and for presenting writings from the early church fathers along with much scripture. One passage I have never heard anyone speak on concerning the father and son is Romans 8:9-11. I point to this passage and ask for an explanation but all I get in response is “we can’t fully understand the trinity.” I respond with, “maybe that’s because we misunderstand who Christ is.” With this and the idea of subjugation, I can’t see how Jesus could ever claim to be the Father.
Consider the possibility that you do not know who Joshua/Yehoshua is and therefore have denied the true Joshua. If you deny Joshua, you have denied His Father. If you claim Joshua is God, you deny the one True God. If you claim God is Joshua, you deny the true Joshua, the man God appointed, the Messiah.
This is the best explanation of this verse from a available Unitarian perspective that I’ve heard the date. Thank you.
Thanks for listening! That's a high compliment
Thank you very much for this Episode.
This verse was bothering me since I started to question the nature of God and Jesus. Not because of it's meaning or the context, but grammatically. "Why is 'I am' in the present form?" "Why would John write it this way?" "Is it intentional or is it just clumsy written?" "What actually is the aorist tense?"
For some reason every time I was looking into the aorist tense I ended up with the understanding that, that is a tense that is somehow connected to the past tense. After listening to this episode I checked your claim and it holds up :)
Finally the sentence makes sense without changing the grammar.
I have one question though.
Shouldn't the right translation be something like: "...Truly, truly, I say to you, I am (he) before Abraham will be (becomes)?
Isn't it a more natural sentence in English when the "I am" stands before the "Abraham becomes"? Is there a rule that says that it shouldn't be translated this way?
In Greek the words in a sentence often in different places than in English. For Example the order of the words in the beginning of this verse are "Said to them Jesus". But every translation I know writes "Jesus said to them". Even Russian translations do this, although in Russian it works either way. It doesn't fell awkward to say "Said to them Jesus". Is there a reason why it shouldn't be done here? There are only five words in this part and they are not connected with an "and" (like in the verse 57) or "but" or something similar.
Btw. I forgot to tell in the last comment that I did not only check on the internet but I also looked up if there where other instances in John where the aorist tense is connected with either the present or the future tense. I found examples in John 3,9, 5,4, 5,6 and 5,14.
I really like “I am he before Abraham will be”. I think you’re right that reversing the sentence makes more sense for an English speaker. Also thanks for the cross references from John. I like to think I’ve done my homework before I put something out there on the internet, but it’s also reassuring to see more helpful evidence
Excellent work Sam.
Some of my commentary on John 8:
Jesus again spoke to them, saying, “I am the Light of the world
This is a reference to the messianic Isaiah 42 I will keep you and appoint you to be a covenant for the people and a light to the nations (cf. Isa 49:6, 51:4).
In referencing Isaiah 42, Jesus was implying his identity as the Messiah
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
unless you believe that I am he (ἐγώ εἰμι) you will die in your sins... When you have lifted up the Son of Man, then you will know that I am he (ἐγώ εἰμι)
ἐγώ εἰμι is a phrase of self-identification e.g., "It is I" or "I am so-and-so (the bread, the light, etc)". A myth commonly perpetuated in Christian circles takes ἐγώ εἰμι as the Great I AM of Exodus 3:14. However, the actual Greek words in Exodus 3:14 is ὁ ὢν, not ἐγώ εἰμι.
Here, the Jews were asking Jesus his identity (Jn 8:25). Jesus provided some clarity in calling himself "the Son of Man" (a likely reference to messianic figure of Daniel 7:14 And behold, with the clouds of heaven, one like a son of man was coming). Additionally, John's readers should not miss Jesus' implicit claim to be the Messiah as we are also privy to Jn 3:14 just as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, so must the Son of Man be lifted up.
Unless they believe that he is the Messiah, they will die in their sins.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
He who sent Me is true; and the things which I heard from Him, these I say to the world... The one who is of God hears the words of God; for this reason you do not hear them, because you are not of God.
Another reference to Deu 18:18. Jesus is the prophet who speaks the words of God which he heard from God.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Truly, truly I say to you, if anyone follows My word, he will never see death 52 The Jews said to Him, “Now we know that You have a demon. Abraham died, and the prophets as well.
7th misunderstanding. Jesus was not speaking of the first physical death that everyone will experience, including his believers. But of the second death that those who believe in him as the Messiah will never see. In other words, Jesus was talking about a future resurrection of God's people.
The central message of Jesus in John 8 is his implied identity as the Messiah who brings the Resurrection
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
but I do know Him [God], and I follow His word [God's word].
Cf. the Word became flesh. Jesus is the living embodiment of God's word; he lived and followed it completely. He is God's word personified; the word incarnate.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Your father Abraham was overjoyed that he would see My day, and he saw it and rejoiced.
The common view among commentators is that "My day" refers to the Messiah's second coming (cf. Luke 17:22); the day of resurrection where there will be great rejoicing. By faith, Abraham saw the promises from afar (cf. Heb 11:13).
Jesus' answer addressed both questions in Jn 8:53 (are you greater than Abraham? who are you?). Being the Messiah who shall resurrect Abraham, Jesus is greater. And Jesus was making himself to be the Messiah.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
So the Jews said to Him, “You are not yet fifty years old, and You have seen Abraham?”
8th misunderstanding. Jesus never said that Abraham saw him or that he saw Abraham. Yet the murderous crowd was eager to misconstrue his words and put him on a spot by asking an absurd loaded question.
An example of a loaded question is "have you stopped beating your wife?". Both Yes and No are wrong answers.
If Jesus said Yes, they could assert that he was crazy and turn the people against Jesus. If Jesus said No, then he would be contradicting his answer in Jn 8:56 as the loaded question presupposed Jesus was claiming to have seen Abraham some 2000 years ago.
I think Jesus was wise in not addressing the loaded question but went back to reiterated his answer in Jn 8:56. See below.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
“Truly, truly I say to you, before Abraham γενέσθαι, ἐγώ εἰμι
γενέσθαι means come into being. It is an aorist infinitive. Aorist infinitives communicate perfective aspect, they do not communicate time. γενέσθαι occurs 37 times in NT and is mostly used in the context of future events and translated in the present tense (90%, 32/36). This is another translator's dilemma: in English, all verbs communicate time.
biblehub.com/greek/genesthai_1096.htm
I opine that the common translation in past tense "before Abraham was" is contextually weak and may mislead readers. In the ongoing context of death and resurrection, "before Abraham γενέσθαι" could likely mean "before Abraham is raised to life".
ἐγώ εἰμι - for the 3rd time in John 8, Jesus used ἐγώ εἰμι (see Jn 8:24, 28). Jesus persisted in his implicit claim to be the Messiah, in all sincerity (truly, truly, I say to you) for people to believe and not die in their sins.
We may understand John 8:58 as a reiteration of John 8:56 in answer to the questions in John 8:53 (are you greater than Abraham? who are you?). "Before Abraham is raised to life" speaks of the Messiah's superiority as the one who will resurrect Abraham. "I am he [the Son of Man]" implies his identity as the Messiah.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
You are seeking to kill Me... Therefore they picked up stones to throw at Him
The murderous crowd was seeking a justified reason to kill Jesus. Yet they found no legitimate accusation against him. Like what happened to Stephen, the infuriated mob abandoned the need to justify and tried to stone Jesus without any accusation or trial.
Of noteworthy, at Jesus' trial where they tried to find justification to put Jesus to death, the events in John 8 were not mentioned but the events in John 2 were.
Matt 26:59 Now the chief priests and the entire Council kept trying to obtain false testimony against Jesus, so that they might put Him to death. 60 They did not find any, even though many false witnesses came forward. But later on two came forward, 61 and said, “This man stated, ‘I am able to destroy the temple of God and to rebuild it in three days.
1:02:25 I think you're the first knowledgeable person I have seen to offer a similar approach/explanation of 8:58 to me, where we shy away from the common "was" translation. I have asked a couple of people who know Greek well whether translating it with a present or future tense was reasonable/possible. They basically said that it's possible, but weren't really interested in looking more into it. When I was questioning the translation/interpretation, I was going down the thought path of something like, "what if Jesus is claiming to be greater than Abraham by saying that he is the messiah before Abraham is." I was trying to think outside the box to come up with an explanation of 8:58... Does anyone know of anyone else that acknowledges the "becomes/comes to be" instead of "was" as a viable translation?
John 8
Jesus again spoke to them, saying, “I am the Light of the world
This is a reference to the messianic Isaiah 42 I will keep you and appoint you to be a covenant for the people and a light to the nations (cf. Isa 49:6, 51:4).
In referencing Isaiah 42, Jesus was implying his identity as the Messiah
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
unless you believe that I am he (ἐγώ εἰμι) you will die in your sins... When you have lifted up the Son of Man, then you will know that I am he (ἐγώ εἰμι)
ἐγώ εἰμι is a phrase of self-identification e.g., "It is I" or "I am so-and-so (the bread, the light, etc)". A myth commonly perpetuated in Christian circles takes ἐγώ εἰμι as the Great I AM of Exodus 3:14. However, the actual Greek words in Exodus 3:14 is ὁ ὢν, not ἐγώ εἰμι.
Here, the Jews were asking Jesus his identity (Jn 8:25). Jesus provided some clarity in calling himself "the Son of Man" (a likely reference to messianic figure of Daniel 7:14 And behold, with the clouds of heaven, one like a son of man was coming). Additionally, *John's readers should not miss Jesus' implicit claim to be the Messiah as we are also privy to Jn 3:14 just as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, so must the Son of Man be lifted up.
Unless they believe that he is the Messiah, they will die in their sins.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
He who sent Me is true; and the things which I heard from Him, these I say to the world... The one who is of God hears the words of God; for this reason you do not hear them, because you are not of God.
Another reference to Deu 18:18. Jesus is the prophet who speaks the words of God which he heard from God.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Truly, truly I say to you, if anyone follows My word, he will never see death 52 The Jews said to Him, “Now we know that You have a demon. Abraham died, and the prophets as well.
7th misunderstanding. Jesus was not speaking of the first physical death that everyone will experience, including his believers. But of the second death that those who believe in him as the Messiah will never see. In other words, Jesus was talking about a future resurrection of God's people.
The central message of Jesus in John 8 is his implied identity as the Messiah who brings the Resurrection
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
but I do know Him [God], and I follow His word [God's word].
Cf. the Word became flesh. Jesus is the living embodiment of God's word; he lived and followed it completely. He is God's word personified; the word incarnate.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Your father Abraham was overjoyed that he would see My day, and he saw it and rejoiced.
The common view among commentators is that "My day" refers to the Messiah's second coming (cf. Luke 17:22); the day of resurrection where there will be great rejoicing. By faith, Abraham saw the promises from afar (cf. Heb 11:13).
Jesus' answer addressed both questions in Jn 8:53 (are you greater than Abraham? who are you?). Being the Messiah who shall resurrect Abraham, Jesus is greater. And Jesus was making himself to be the Messiah.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
So the Jews said to Him, “You are not yet fifty years old, and You have seen Abraham?”
8th misunderstanding. Jesus never said that Abraham saw him or that he saw Abraham. Yet the murderous crowd was eager to misconstrue his words and put him on a spot by asking an absurd loaded question.
An example of a loaded question is "have you stopped beating your wife?". Both Yes and No are wrong answers.
If Jesus said Yes, they could assert that he is crazy and turn the people against Jesus. If Jesus said No, then he would be contradicting his answer in Jn 8:56 as loaded question presupposed Jesus claimed to have seen Abraham some 2000 years ago.
I think Jesus was wise in not addressing the loaded question but went on to reiterated his answer in Jn 8:56. See below.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
“Truly, truly I say to you, before Abraham γενέσθαι, ἐγώ εἰμι
γενέσθαι means come into being. It is an aorist infinitive. Aorist infinitives communicate perfective aspect, they do not communicate time. γενέσθαι occurs 37 times in NT and is mostly used in the context of future events and translated in the present tense (90%, 32/36). This is another translator's dilemma: in English, all verbs communicate time.
biblehub.com/greek/genesthai_1096.htm
I opine that the common translation in past tense "before Abraham was" is contextually weak and may mislead readers. In the ongoing context of death and resurrection, "before Abraham γενέσθαι" could likely mean "before Abraham is raised to life".
ἐγώ εἰμι - for the 3rd time in John 8, Jesus used ἐγώ εἰμι (see Jn 8:24, 28). Jesus persisted in his implicit claim to be the Messiah, in all sincerity (truly, truly, I say to you) for people to believe and not die in their sins.
We may understand John 8:58 as a reiteration of John 8:56 in answer to the questions in John 8:53 (are you greater than Abraham? who are you?). "Before Abraham is raised to life" speaks of the Messiah's superiority as the one who will resurrect Abraham. "I am he [the Son of Man]" implies his identity as the Messiah.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
You are seeking to kill Me... Therefore they picked up stones to throw at Him
The murderous crowd was seeking a justified reason to kill Jesus. Yet they found no legitimate accusation against him. Like what happened to Stephen, the infuriated mob abandoned the need to justify and tried to stone Jesus without any accusation or trial.
Of noteworthy, at Jesus' trial where they tried to find justification to put Jesus to death, the events in John 8 were not mentioned but the events in John 2 were.
Matt 26:59 Now the chief priests and the entire Council kept trying to obtain false testimony against Jesus, so that they might put Him to death. 60 They did not find any, even though many false witnesses came forward. But later on two came forward, 61 and said, “This man stated, ‘I am able to destroy the temple of God and to rebuild it in three days.
Sam, This is very good and I will share it with others. The one point of departure I have is when you discuss the meaning of “born of water”. I lean more toward the interpretation that it means spiritual cleansing rather than baptism. Some folks I want to share with will object to that, but hopefully they won’t throw out the baby with the baptism water. Thank you.
Thanks for sharing. I know why some people might object to that, but I stand by that as what born of water and spirit means.
Sam you are a breath of fresh air.
Sam, what would be tpur format for eucharist administration
Did you see Vervaeke's comment on person being a poor translation of hypostasis in the 'Why Christianity' conversation with Pageau and Hall? It's around 1hr and 4min mark. I'm very curious for your take on that segment of that conversation.
All my critiques aside, Sam, it truly puzzles me that you aren't a pastor. Your teaching skills are exceptional, and you have a remarkable ability to communicate with both kindness and confidence.
Teacher and Pastor are different roles. In propositional religion, they seem confused.
I appreciate that EmJay. We'll see what God has in store. For now, it is incredibly hard to start a church from scratch
@@transfigured3673 Baby steps, right? I know next to nothing about starting a church but I imagine a home church is an excellent foundation.
@@EmJay2022 once my channel reaches a million subs surely there will be enough in Chicagoland to start a 10 person sized church.
@@transfigured3673 Here's a question for you, Sam. There's no pressure to respond. Regardless of whether you currently have a home gathering, this question stands on its own. Do you see the Peterson sphere stuff, especially your Peterson/PVK meetup, as something that competes with or has the potential to complement a unitarian home gathering? I remember you mentioning your previous attempts at home church gatherings and how they didn’t pan out as expected, which is why I’m curious.
I believe, Sam, that your interpretation of John 8:58 may be leaning towards the overly esoteric to the point where it would have just been too unecessarily confusing to his audience. Jesus wanted them to understand. The first thing that I believe is important to recognize is that Jesus is referring to himself in the present moment, prior to his resurrection and ascension. He is drawing a comparison between a pre-glorified Abraham and his own pre-glorified state. Therefore, suggesting that Jesus is discussing a newly created version of himself in opposition to a future glorified Abraham, I think is a misunderstanding. Instead, I believe he is asserting that he is self-identifying as the Messiah mentioned in scripture (Genesis 3:15) prior to Abraham's original birth. In this context, the Messiah does not need to be his new creation glorified self in order to refer to himself in the present as the prophesied messiah. In other words, he is essentially asserting that he stands in their presence as the manifestation of the archetype of the OT prophetic foretype (as all unmanifest prophecy is a foretype), rather than representing the archetypal man of the fallen Adamic foretype. This distinction, I think, is crucial to understand.
I think this is also a viable interpretation. That the messiah is prophesied before Abraham. I do think there is something a little esoteric about the way Jesus talks and so it warrants a less than obvious interpretation which is why the audience kept misunderstanding. Although, I think it every translation for the last 2000 years had translated it the way I suggest, it wouldn't sound esoteric at all, it would just seem commonsensical through repetition. I think we often understand how what makes sense to us really is just the result of repetition and not good underlying reasons.
@@transfigured3673 Do you think their misunderstanding came from a lack of spiritual insight or rather a flawed interpretation of who the messiah would be, i.e., a conquering political figure?
perhaps both. Also just the usual human stubbornness and tendency to resist the truth
36:34 Ben Sira reference. The living food/water stuff in John I think is a Ben Sira reference too.
Excited to listen to this
curious for your thoughts
@@transfigured3673
Your take on “before Abraham, I am” makes grammatical sense but seems to require a good number of qualifications. Apologetically, how would you as a biblical unitarian put this in one summarized paragraph statement?
@@transfigured3673
IDK what happened to my other comment. But here it is again.
I think you’ve quite well have set these parameters: (1) Jesus is a man; 2) the Jews misunderstood Jesus; (3) there’s no indication of preexistence; and (4) ‘I am’ (ego eimi) is not ‘I am that I am’ (ego eimi ho own) in Exodus 3:14, hence, it’s not saying Jesus is God almighty. Having set the parameters, why can’t we be simply agnostic on what “before Abraham, I am”? How would this approach help (or hurt?) our biblical unitarian apologetic efforts?
Now, there’s an interesting short video by Dan McClellan (love or hate him) that says ‘I am’ is a cryptic statement referencing a relationship between the Tetragrammaton and Jesus. I’d like to hear your take on it sometime. Here’s the link.
ua-cam.com/video/UQCGQRgzqvE/v-deo.htmlsi=KIBDmfjhHd5O9mKY
Well, it was an eloquent hour and a half, but not particularly enlightening - at least not in relation to the title of the video.
"Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham comes to be, I am he" - Even if I grant you that translation, your explanation of equating Abraham's "coming to be" with his yet future resurrection makes very little sense to me (and I would argue to any of his listeners of the time and throughout time). Jesus already has spoken of Abraham as a living person IN THE PRESENT. God is not a God of the dead, but the living. He speaks of Lazarus being in his bosom. There would be no reason to think of Abraham's becoming as some yet future resurrection. The most logical interpretation and understanding was the one the Jews right in front of him had - that he was speaking of Abraham's mortal existence.
And as far as the "I am (he)" part, John uses that construction again in Jn. 18:6. The reaction of the people present is once more rather telling about the meaning of those words.
I know I'm just some dude on the internet, but perhaps it would be wise to consider if one is "kicking against the goads" in these matters. If that is indeed what is happening, I pray the scales may fall off for you as well.
Peace
We are all just some dude on the internet. Again, I think assuming that the audience understood what he was saying is a grave mistake.
@@transfigured3673 Oh, I agree with you about the theme of misunderstanding. This particular dude agreed with much of what you had to say throughout. The main point of disagreement just happened to relate to the key topic of the video. I don't think "Abraham's becoming" really adds any weight to the idea of his resurrection being in view. There is nothing else in the passage that really suggests that as a possibility. The argument seems to hinge purely on a particular point of grammar - one that may be being played with/broken here on purpose! (John does similar things in Revelation regarding grammar).
Nor does "I am he" negate the possibility of invoking the divine name/tetragrammaton. (see passage noted in previous comment)
While the theme of misunderstanding is certainly crucial to understanding the book of John, one must be careful not to read the book purely through that lens - as though his listeners must always be wrong about everything. It seems to this dude that the main misunderstanding in view in this passage is the "heavenly origin/belonging" of Jesus contrasted with the "worldly origin/belonging" of the Jews he is engaging with. They do not want to accept his divine mission (which may include being divine, but I also wouldn't pin that argument on this one dialogue alone).
55:30 so instead of the woodenly literal Greek of John what’s the Aramaic of what Jesus actually said?
Good question, I would need help to make an approximation of a back translation to aramaic. But it is also possible that some of the dialogues in John actually happened in greek.
"...for the teachers of religion of the different sects understood the same passages of scripture so differently as to destroy all confidence in settling the question by an appeal to the Bible."
That wouldn't be true if it weren't for those silly meddling trinitarian apologists! Just kidding, i know what you mean.
@34:50 for me “birth” and/or “begetting” is a theme that’s present in the Old Testament…
Ex: God “begetting” (spiritually) King David and/or Solomon (Psalm 2:7)
**Exodus 3:14** has God saying **I am that I am** (LXX Ego Eimi Ho on **ἐγώ εἰμι ὁ ὤν** I am the eternal one) but does **not** say tell them Ego Eimi(I AM) has sent you, but rather HO ON **ὁ ὤν**(The ETERNAL one) has sent you... all the authors of the NT used the **LXX** Septuagint as their OT source material, if they wanted to say Jesus was Identifying with the **I AM** of Exodus they would have used **Ho On** not Ego Eimi
This is 100% correct. I believe I make the exact same points.
22:00 Are you joking? Why would the Gospels which were written after Paul by the disciples of Paul reflect the ideas of Paul?
What evidence do you have that John got his theology from Paul? It seems like the reverse direction of influence would be more likely.
@@transfigured3673 I am not aware that even ANYONE dates John to less than decades after the preaching and letters of Paul.
Just because it was written after doesn't mean it was downstream of Paul. John was a Christian before Paul. John knew Jesus. Paul mentions John as a pillar of the church. John seems to have been in Ephesus before Paul visited or wrote a letter. Stylistically, John seems pretty independent of Paul. Yet the same theology is there. The "everything is Paul's fault" idea is just dumb. Maybe Paul just had the same theology as most of the other Christians around him?
@@transfigured3673 It is certainly possible that Paul was influenced by "John". But that doesn't really work with Paul's insistence that he didn't. That is the traditional Christian approach. That Jesus, James, Paul, John, Peter were all in accord almost completely.
If that is true: 1) Paul isn't as important as everyone thinks and makes him. 2) They all turned their back on Jesus.
@faturechi what? "disciples of Paul"? None of the gospel authors can be definitively established as a disciple of Paul. The Gospels are filled with events in the life of Christ, while the Pauline epistle are notoriously unfamiliar with any of that or even almost anything Jesus said. There is an entire movement called dispensationalism based on the premise that Paul taught a completely different message of salvation than Christ. Sorry your arguments don't seem to be based on any facts.
What about Isaiah 9:6 ?
I highly recommend you check out Sean Finnegan's recent presentation on Isaiah 9:6
Wouldnt it fit better to say Jesus spoke in a parabolic way, not a theological way ? I cannot recall which verse, but in Matthew, its said that "jesus spoke in parables, and without a parable, He did not speak "....that means everything He said was a parable...Isaiah spoke of one coming, that would speak with "dark sayings and stammering lips"....Great lesson. Thank you so much for sharing the truth.
"Why are there so many bizarre parallels between Paul and the Gospels and other parts of scripture?" Because the Gospels were written after Paul by Paulinists, so there is a direct influence.
Or, Paul was just a pretty normal Christian who agreed with most of the other Christians around his time. The "everything is Paul's fault" just doesn't really hold water. I think John is the best example of that. He is clearly unique from Paul in terms of style, vocab, and focus but you can see all the same basic theological ingredients and broad agreement.
@@transfigured3673 Certainly, it's compatible with either hypothesis. My point is that parallels between Paul and gospels are not evidence one way or the other, given that everyone agrees the gospels were written later; and there's nothing that disproves Pauline influence.
"Paul's fault" is an odd way to put it. An Ebionite conceivably might think Paul is at fault for distorting the true teachings. To a mere opinionated outsider, it's neither good nor bad if a given idea is a Pauline innovation.
@nathanielkrause4191 actually it seems a big problem in Christianity today is trying to reconcile and harmonize the Gospels with the Pauline epistles. Not sure what you're talking about.
@@asphilosophyusa I'm not really all that sure what you have in mind, either. What's a major example that comes to mind of the difficulties in reconciling the Gospels with the Pauline epistles?
@nathanielkrause4191 the contradictions are endless. There is an entire movement called "dispensationalism" which is based on the premise that Jesus and Paul preached completely different gospels, or messages about salvation. Where Jesus and Paul don't flatly conflict, Paul also makes up a lot of stuff the neither Jesus nor any of the prophets taught. I find it hard to believe anyone who claims to be familiar with the Bible wouldn't be aware of these facts.
I personally believe that Jesus was not deity prior to His "exaltation/glorification" but became deity afterwards
depending on the details I can agree with that too
@monicashuart-ls1hw a being that is not God becoming God? Nonsense.
I don't understand how Jacob interpreted John 8:31, as it's pretty clear to me that the Jews here are speaking about themselves as never being enslaved in their liftime and not speaking of their ancestoral history.
I think you are correct. But Jacob does live in my head rent free
I hear that but I don't think that works because the people are making a claim going back to Abraham @emjay
@@yosefrazin6455 The Jews in this context are reacting to Jesus' assertion that they are currently in bondage, yet they fail to grasp the true meaning behind his words. They interpret his statement as a reference to physical enslavement, unaware that he is actually speaking about their spiritual condition-being enslaved by sin.
@@EmJay2022 correct but I am talking about what the Jews are saying not what jesus means. And they seem to be saying something that isn't just about their current condition but about their ancestry
@@yosefrazin6455 I genuinely find it difficult to grasp how you or others have come to this conclusion. Could you please explain it in more detail? I'm curious about how you interpret the Jews in John 8:33 as referring to the past instead of the present.
I was trying to say all this in my back and forts polemics With Gavin’s followers in the comments section of the video which Gavin may or may not have dedicated to you.
However this is much more extensive and clear.
I recommend John C Hamers lecture on the two authors of the Gospel of John. The original reading of the Niccodemus passage was the following:
”Jesus answered, “Very truly I tell you, no one can enter the kingdom of God unless they are born of THE SPIRIT . 6 Flesh gives birth to flesh, but the Spirit[b] gives birth to spirit. 7 You should not be surprised at my saying, ‘You[c] must be born again.’ 8 The wind blows wherever it pleases. You hear its sound, but you cannot tell where it comes from or where it is going. So it is with everyone born of the Spirit.”
The phrase ”and of water ” was added by the second author of John.
What evidence is there for that? Why would it be weird at all for Jesus to mention baptism? We know Jesus was baptized and that his followers baptized in his name. So what evidence is there for this reading?
@transfigured3673
The method used is litterary criticism and that brings forth the evidence but lets just start with a simple example. If water was there in the original reading then the verse would have ended in the following way:
Jesus answered, “Very truly I tell you, no one can enter the kingdom of God unless they are born of water and the Spirit. 6 Flesh gives birth to flesh, but the Spirit[b] gives birth to spirit. 7 You should not be surprised at my saying, ‘You[c] must be born again.’ 8 The wind blows wherever it pleases. You hear its sound, but you cannot tell where it comes from or where it is going. So it is with everyone born OF WATER AND of the Spirit.”[d]
To put it in a more complicated way. The original author of John was ”John1” who wrote John 1-20 and the final redactor was ”John2” who wrote John 21 and had great respect for ”John1” but who felt that John 1-20 was a bit too metaphorical and so ”John2” added the last chapter to make sure that the physical aspect would not be lost and redacted some parts of John 1-20.
Here is the Link to Hamers lesson:
m.ua-cam.com/video/jwMyoZcUVN8/v-deo.html&pp=ygUMY2VudHJlIHBsYWNl
You make a lot of good points, I just took "Before Abraham was, I AM" as Jesus saying or explaining he was the messiah prophesied before Abraham. Before Abraham was, I existed. meaning he existed in the word or was mentioned as one greater than Abraham to come. When you read the following verses, bare in mind Moses wrote the history of Abraham. Have these following verses in mind for a bigger context of John 8:58
Joh 5:39 Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me.
Joh 5:40 And ye will not come to me, that ye might have life.
Joh 5:41 I receive not honour from men.
Joh 5:42 But I know you, that ye have not the love of God in you.
Joh 5:43 I am come in my Father's name, and ye receive me not: if another shall come in his own name, him ye will receive.
Joh 5:44 How can ye believe, which receive honour one of another, and seek not the honour that cometh from God only?
Joh 5:45 Do not think that I will accuse you to the Father: there is one that accuseth you, even Moses, in whom ye trust.
Joh 5:46 For had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me: for he wrote of me.
Joh 5:47 But if ye believe not his writings, how shall ye believe my words?
In short, I would like to a conversation on the evolution of ideas through time. And if we are currently having a breakdown of species (of Christianity); a reversal of some speciation that has gone on for 2,000 years
That does sound interesting
Here is some info, Not that I agree with it.
Origen of Alexandria (c. 184-253 AD) was an early Christian scholar, theologian, and philosopher whose writings significantly shaped Christian thought. Origen is one of the earliest and most influential theologians who made connections between the "I am" statements in the Gospel of John and the divine name of God in the Old Testament, particularly Exodus 3:14. While his works don’t always focus exclusively on this connection, they reveal how early Christian thinkers like him understood Jesus' divinity in relation to the God of Israel.
Key Writings of Origen Related to the "I Am" and Divine Name Connection:
1. Commentary on the Gospel of John
This is one of Origen's most significant works, where he provides detailed exegesis of the Gospel of John, focusing on its theological depth, especially regarding the nature of Jesus as the Logos (Word). Origen frequently explores the meaning of Jesus' words and actions in the Gospel, and he emphasizes the divine nature of Christ throughout the commentary.
Origen on John 1:1: He focuses heavily on the Logos theology - the idea that Jesus, as the pre-existent Word of God, was with God from the beginning. This is important because, for Origen, the Logos is the same eternal being who revealed Himself to Moses in the burning bush as "I AM."
"The Word was with God, and the Word was God… God is all that exists in an absolute sense, and therefore God's Word also is all that exists, but in relation to the first existence" (Commentary on John, Book II, Chapter 2).
Implicit Connection to Exodus 3:14: While Origen doesn’t explicitly comment on John 8:58 in the Commentary on John (at least in the surviving portions of the work), his broader theological framework suggests that he viewed the "I am" statements as revelations of Jesus' eternal, divine nature, much like God's self-revelation to Moses as "I AM WHO I AM" in Exodus 3:14. He constantly refers to Christ's pre-existence, eternal nature, and oneness with God, reflecting an early recognition of Jesus’ use of "I am" as an evocation of the divine name.
"Thus, the Word of God who was from the beginning, through whom all things were made, is also the one who reveals God throughout the Scriptures..." (Commentary on John, Book II, Chapter 4).
2. Contra Celsum (Against Celsus)
In this apologetic work, Origen defends Christianity against the criticisms of the Greek philosopher Celsus. In Book VI, Origen speaks at length about Jesus as the divine Logos, the mediator between God and humanity. He argues that Jesus was more than a mere man, consistently pointing to His eternal, divine nature.
Christ's Pre-existence: Origen asserts that Christ existed before His incarnation and that He was active throughout the Old Testament. This is part of Origen's broader understanding of Christ as the one who revealed God in both the Old and New Testaments. This theme is tied to his view of Christ’s identification with the divine being who appeared to Moses in the burning bush:
"He [Jesus] was before all things, He is the Word of God, who was with God, and was God, and who appeared from time to time in human form, to those to whom it was fitting to appear, and who at last became man" (Contra Celsum, Book VI, Chapter 47).
This statement reflects Origen’s belief that Jesus, the eternal Logos, had manifested Himself before His incarnation, implying that the one who appeared in Exodus 3:14, saying "I AM," was indeed the pre-existent Christ.
3. On First Principles (De Principiis)
In this foundational theological text, Origen lays out his understanding of the nature of God, Christ, and creation. His emphasis on the pre-existence of Christ and the eternality of the Logos reinforces his belief that Jesus' identity was directly connected to the God of the Old Testament.
Divine Names and Jesus' Eternal Nature: While Origen does not provide a verse-by-verse commentary on Exodus 3:14, he consistently argues that the names and titles attributed to God in the Old Testament (including "I AM") should also be understood as applying to Jesus:
"God said to Moses, 'I AM WHO I AM,' and 'Say this to the people of Israel, 'I AM has sent me to you'… Christ also says, 'Before Abraham was, I am,' because He was not made, He was not created; He exists without beginning" (On First Principles, Book I, Chapter 2).
This text reveals Origen's belief in Jesus as the eternal Word, co-equal with God the Father, using similar language as God in the Old Testament.
Summary of Origen's Theological Position:
Jesus as the Pre-existent Logos: Origen's Christology is centered on the understanding of Jesus as the Logos (the Word), eternally present with God. In this sense, Jesus is identified as the one who spoke with Moses in the burning bush, revealing Himself as "I AM."
Implicit Connection to Exodus 3:14: Although Origen may not have explicitly connected John 8:58 to Exodus 3:14 in the surviving texts, his theological framework (Jesus as the eternal Logos and the God who reveals Himself to humanity) strongly suggests that he understood these passages as speaking about the same divine being.
Defending the Divinity of Christ: Throughout his writings, particularly in his Commentary on John and Contra Celsum, Origen defends the view that Jesus is divine, eternal, and pre-existent, qualities that make Him the same "I AM" who spoke to Moses.
Conclusion:
Origen of Alexandria, through his extensive writings, played a crucial role in developing the theological understanding of Jesus as the pre-existent Logos, closely linking Jesus' "I am" statements in the Gospel of John with the divine name revealed to Moses in Exodus 3:14. While Origen doesn’t always make a direct one-to-one comparison between John 8:58 and Exodus 3:14, his broader theological work suggests that he saw these passages as revealing the same eternal truth about Jesus’ divine identity.
References:
Origen, Commentary on the Gospel of John, Book II, available in English translation in "The Ante-Nicene Fathers", Vol. 9.
Origen, Contra Celsum, available in "The Fathers of the Church" series, Book VI, Chapter 47.
Origen, On First Principles, Book I, Chapters 2-3, available in "The Fathers of the Church" series.
If one was going to "incarnate" why not just come as oneself. You might still have the problem of convincing people you are Messiah but is there even a point to sending a son if in reality it is "you" in human form? This might not be on-topic, or even make sense. Or maybe just a question for trinitarians.
Seems like a perfectly good and relevant question to me
the way I understand the Trinity question is not tied to Jesus per se. I can say I have an only begotten son from God the Father that's meant for me to bear, as much as those who are like me, and that Son is my Theology, how I see God. My defense of my theology is the same as defending my God, even though I can recognize that my Theology is not exactly the right one. The Holy Spirit is then the theological discourse and words, that I ended up learning to be able to bear the only begotten son that's for me to bear. Note that, if not clear, I consider that the pronoun I is meant to be instantiated by the reader for himself, I might as well use we, but I think trinity has a personal way of seeing it. To the community, I'm not sure whether the classical trinity is okay 😊 perhaps I got my idea across, Happy to discuss.
@@AdamDylanMajor I don't fully understand your response. My question may not have been clear. I too see Jesus as God's only begotten Son, Messiah, second Adam, obedient and to the Father and given power and authority. The "story" of Jesus is important, beautiful and inspiring. My question is if trinity doctrine doesn't remove the purpose of the father/son relationship. The trinity seems to say just kidding, I am Jesus, Jesus is me. Switch it out as necessary. It would have been more honest, in theory, instead of pretending to send His Son, to say I'm coming down to earth to be your Messiah and obedient to myself. Why the pretense? And perhaps this is why some human's think they are or can become gods.
@@annamaemiller1557 Maybe I was the one not clear enough. I think that the role of Jesus in the Trinity is more of a performance thing. It's like when an actor plays a role for a character in a novel. It could have been someone else, but the casting chose Jesus. I think there's something very profound in how the life of Jesus conveys the lessons. Not understanding Jesus is like hearing Descartes say "I think therefore I am" and then preaching that Descartes is therfore he is, and that there's nothing left to say for us in the grand scheme. When you hear me say "hello to you" part of you heard you saying it to me, and that's what pushes you to enact it. In reality, just me saying "hello to you" doesn't require a response on your part because I'm welcoming myself through your inner voice reading what you hear. That's how I see Jesus' ministry, as someone who could say to people, "you are the truth and the way and the life, you can't get to the father except through yourself", but the world was not ready for that, nor is it ready for that now, so Jesus said it in a way that can bind the ego of the listener, for the good of the sapling, that needs to be bound to a pole to grow upright. I think that ultimately, once people grow, they will realize Jesus was saying what they had trouble saying about themselves, that for lack of spiritual maturity, they were not able to express. This, to me, is the idea behind the gospel, not one of dependency but one of co-sonship, which at the same time recognizes our elder brother.
@@annamaemiller1557 I guess I wasn't clear either. I see Jesus more as a performer of something deeper inside us. As externalizing something which is within us already, only waiting for us to seize it. Namely, the only begotten son to each one of us, that is unique so far as we are unique, in that the only person worthy of the pronoun me is myself.
God 1 or God 2? Or as I say ... G-d or God? PVK addressed this well, in regard to apologetic defense of Christianity.
Either I guess.
John 8:58 is a number of things, but it isn't a text meant to clearly teach that Jesus is God. If you read the flow of the text without overthinking it, the simplest conclusion is that Jesus is talking about being older than Abraham, but not literally.
I'm a nonTrinitarian who believes that Jesus is 100% human (not God or god or angel), but I truly do think that Jesus is talking about being older than Abraham...yet not literally.
I believe that Jesus' choice of words is "opportunistic", in the sense that He seeks to speak within the context of the conversation, but also to communicate something different from what the Jews are concerned with in the immediate context, which is literal age.
And He does this several times in the book of John and in the Gospel in general. When speaking with the Samaritan woman at the well in John 4, He speaks of living water because water is the subject of discussion, yet not literal water. When the Pharisees are questioning Him in the temple, He speaks about a temple because it fits the context of the discussion, yet not the literal temple building or premises.
When being questioned about the washing of hands before eating, He spoke about things that go into the mouth and come out because it fit the context of the discussion, yet He wasn't speaking about food coming out of a man's mouth, but words. When speaking with the Jews about bread, He declares Himself to be bread of life, and His flesh to be the food that they must eat in order to live because it fits the context where the Jews had just spoken of Moses giving their fathers bread in order for them to live, yet He's not literally speaking about people cannibalizing Him to survive the wilderness. He's talking about people eating (believing) His flesh (His words). For this is how "a man shall not live on bread alone but on every word that proceeds from the mouth of God". Jesus' words are the Father's words, and He personifies those words in and/or as His flesh. "My words are not Mine but His who sent Me"; "The words that I have spoken to you are Spirit and they are life". Flesh = life and words = life in the exact same passage, and the word became flesh 5 chapters earlier.
The same thing is happening in John 8:58. He's speaking about being older than Abraham because it's what the Jews asked about in John 8:57. But He's not speaking about literal age. He's speaking about Abraham existing (and being chosen) for His sake rather than He for Abraham's sake.
And the apostles do a wonderful job of elaborating on this in their letters e.g "He was foreknown before the foundation of the world", and "We were chosen in Him before the foundation of the world". The point is that Jesus is the key component for all of God's plans for mankind. He is the foundation upon which God based all His decisions and actions...including creating Abraham. But He's very much a human being born in the 1st Century. That's why even those who came before Him couldn't inherit the promises yet. It's because the human being called Jesus didn't exist yet. However, the promises were still based on this human being who would be born in the 1st Century.
John 8:58 is quite similar to the "Why do they call the Christ the Son of David when David calls Him Lord?" Again, Jesus isn't denying that He's descended from David. That would be very awkward for the Gospel authors who still insisted that He was.
What He's doing is similar to John 8:58, where He is pointing to the fact that He is "greater than David", not in age, but in priority, as in David was created, chosen and anointed because from him would come the Messiah. In this way, David is as much a beneficiary of the Messiah as everyone else is, including even Abraham whose "Seed" was given or chosen as the proper heir to the blessings that God blessed him with.
"In you all nations shall be blessed" speaks to Abraham's lineage, and not necessarily Abraham himself. For even Abraham had many sons, but not all of them received that blessing. Same goes for Isaac, Jacob, David etc. Because "in you" is referring to the Messiah, the reason why Noah found grace before God, the reason why Abraham was chosen apart from his works, the reason why David was called from the field to be anointed and found grace before God even after committing what should be a mortal sin etc.
It was all because of one man - Jesus Christ our Lord.
Do you pray to Jesus?
Good question. I should make a video on that topic. But for now, Will Barlow did an excellent presentation on that.
ua-cam.com/video/i6bWGHceSJ8/v-deo.html
@@transfigured3673 thanks. a related question would then be whether christendom in its majority and throughout history actually committed and is committing blasphemy by elevating Jesus as the highest object of worship and prayer next to God (and the Spirit).
It is a good question and one that I have thought a lot about.
i suspect a lot of churches are like that. Thanks for sharing
I’m able to continue lovingly poking you on other channels, and since you’re not deep into the TLC it goes unnoticed 😘😂
Not deep in TLC? NOT DEEP IN TLC?
@@transfigured3673 you have to find my comments first before you can left brain OWN ME WITH FAX AND LOGIC 🫡😎🫢😂
You have to find my comments on other channels first before you can DESTROY me with FAX and/or LOGIC 🫢😆😎😂
WHERE ARE THESE COMMENTS?!?!
@@transfigured3673 aww man, UA-cam censoring my smart alecky responses 😔
Sam 👋🏼
howdy Jeff
It’s him, it’s the Randos United
I don't agree that the blueprint is in Earth and the real deal in Heaven. Its much the opposite, since the mention of the heavens comes first and then Earth, in the beginning of Genesis
Well, real deal does enter into creation. It doesn't take in heaven. We can get baptized now, we can take communion now, we can experience the new birth now.
@transfigured3673 yes, speaking of which have you ever noticed how one can see the presence of a father Jonah and a son Jonah through the three days and three nights stay in the belly of the fish? I think the boulder on the tomb is testimony to how the belly gets bulged by being full in pregnancy, the removal of the rock freeing the resurrected being in a reincarnation fashion 😊
Because you seek to refute the passages that clearly prove that Jesus IS God you KNOW the passages.
so there is n point in seeking to refute you
not because you are correct but because you are contumacious
what you proclaim here is rank heresy.
not because t church says so but because the Bible says so.
Denying the divinity of Christ you do not know Christ and you deny Him. so you deny the Father as well
So instead of refuting the heretic, you slander him with ad hominum.
I think you do protest too much. If it was so clear, Trinitarians wouldn't go into murderous rage every time somebody points out the emperor wears no clothes.
maybe at least check to see if I have made some videos on those passages you have in mind. If you have suggestions on which passages you would like to see me cover in the future, let me know. Plenty more videos to make.
@@transfigured3673I have a suggestion. I was raised in a trinitarian faith but now feel like a black sheep because of the questions I have asked and for presenting writings from the early church fathers along with much scripture.
One passage I have never heard anyone speak on concerning the father and son is Romans 8:9-11. I point to this passage and ask for an explanation but all I get in response is “we can’t fully understand the trinity.” I respond with, “maybe that’s because we misunderstand who Christ is.”
With this and the idea of subjugation, I can’t see how Jesus could ever claim to be the Father.
Consider the possibility that you do not know who Joshua/Yehoshua is and therefore have denied the true Joshua. If you deny Joshua, you have denied His Father. If you claim Joshua is God, you deny the one True God. If you claim God is Joshua, you deny the true Joshua, the man God appointed, the Messiah.
36:34 Ben Sira reference. The living food/water stuff in John I think is a Ben Sira reference too.