What is Jesus saying in John 8:58 and what is he not saying?

[God's Truth]

That is not enough.

It is enough.

Since Jesus Christ was to be about his Father's business, it is not unusual that the son would do the same things as the Father.

I am proving they are one and the same.

There is no such thing as what you are saying. You are saying everyone who has a business and sends his son can say the exact same thing about the son as to the Father.


You even said that anyone saying they are a shepherd is the same as when God says He is the Shepherd, or when it is said Jesus is the Shepherd.

Can Jesse say when you see David you see me?

For example if a father is a shepherd and the son is in the father's business, it would not be unusual for the son to be a shepherd, at least in some capacity, as well.

I do see what you are saying, except consider this: the Bible says that God is the Shepherd, not one of the Shepherds. The Bible also says that Jesus is the Shepherd. We know that it is the same Shepherd because there is only one.

Here is another attempt to try to make it clear what I am saying: the Bible says God is THE Redeemer, not A Redeemer.

So that shows there is one ultimate Redeemer.

Since Jesus is THE Redeemer---he must be the same ONE the Redeemer as the Father.

David, as a shepherd, watched over his father's flocks, why? because they were in the same business. Jesse told David what to do. David obeyed and did quite well, He actually protected the flock from a lion and a bear..

I do see what you are saying, thanks for being patient with me.

Now consider what I have already said about shepherds compared to shepherd.

Jesse and David were father and son, and they were shepherds. Notice the plural in the word 'shepherds'.

Now God is THE SHEPHERD over people.

Jesus is that same Shepherd, and not one of the Shepherds over people.

Now you might at this time talk about Jesus putting Peter over his flock.

However, it still doesn't make Peter THE SHEPHERD over the flock. Jesus is still the Shepherd.

It is like the King of kings, the GOOD Shepherd is God, and Jesus is the same GOOD Shepherd---the Shepherd over Shepherds.

God is light, so is Jesus Christ, and for that matter so are all believers. Since we are lights does that mean we are God also?

We are children of the light. We are not 'THE" light. God is 'the' Light, and Jesus is that same light. They both are the light and make children.

Let's say you have a business, and you teach your son the business, and your son says and does EXACTLY what you teach him to say and do. He is your good son and when he meets others concerning the business, and anyone who meets your son is like meeting you.

We are humans and our children have flesh and blood from us. Even if you could clone yourself, you still could NOT clone your spirit, because our spirits come from God, not our parents.

Now Jesus' Father is God, it means that Jesus has God's Spirit.

Jesus is God the Father come as a Son of man.

Jesus' Spirit is God the Father's Spirit come as a man.

When we see Jesus, we can say I see the Father.

God the Father is invisible and His body is the body of Jesus.

 

[oatmeal]

It is enough.


I am proving they are one and the same.

There is no such thing as what you are saying. You are saying everyone who has a business and sends his son can say the exact same thing about the son as to the Father.


You even said that anyone saying they are a shepherd is the same as when God says He is the Shepherd, or when it is said Jesus is the Shepherd.

Can Jesse say when you see David you see me?



I do see what you are saying, except consider this: the Bible says that God is the Shepherd, not one of the Shepherds. The Bible also says that Jesus is the Shepherd. We know that it is the same Shepherd because there is only one.

Here is another attempt to try to make it clear what I am saying: the Bible says God is THE Redeemer, not A Redeemer.

So that shows there is one ultimate Redeemer.

Since Jesus is THE Redeemer---he must be the same ONE the Redeemer as the Father.


I do see what you are saying, thanks for being patient with me.

Now consider what I have already said about shepherds compared to shepherd.

Jesse and David were father and son, and they were shepherds. Notice the plural in the word 'shepherds'.

Now God is THE SHEPHERD over people.

Jesus is that same Shepherd, and not one of the Shepherds over people.

Now you might at this time talk about Jesus putting Peter over his flock.

However, it still doesn't make Peter THE SHEPHERD over the flock. Jesus is still the Shepherd.

It is like the King of kings, the GOOD Shepherd is God, and Jesus is the same GOOD Shepherd---the Shepherd over Shepherds.




We are children of the light. We are not 'THE" light. God is 'the' Light, and Jesus is that same light. They both are the light and make children.

Let's say you have a business, and you teach your son the business, and your son says and does EXACTLY what you teach him to say and do. He is your good son and when he meets others concerning the business, and anyone who meets your son is like meeting you.

We are humans and our children have flesh and blood from us. Even if you could clone yourself, you still could NOT clone your spirit, because our spirits come from God, not our parents.

Now Jesus' Father is God, it means that Jesus has God's Spirit.

Jesus is God the Father come as a Son of man.

Jesus' Spirit is God the Father's Spirit come as a man.

When we see Jesus, we can say I see the Father.

God the Father is invisible and His body is the body of Jesus.

It is enough.

Sure by your standards, it is probably more than enough.

But not by the standards of God's word.

I am proving they are one and the same.

Good luck with that!

There is no such thing as what you are saying. You are saying everyone who has a business and sends his son can say the exact same thing about the son as to the Father.

Sure there is!

If Bob is in the engine repair business and his son is in business with him, the son can precisely and perfectly accurately say that he is the engine repair business. Of course, it would be more accurate for the son to say, I am in the engine repair business with my father. but that only adds accuracy, it does not negate the shorter statement.

Jesus Christ did not claim to do the role of the Father, "I must be about my Father's business"

Jesus Christ followed the lead of his Father, as I clearly showed by showing to you the verses John 5:17-24 Which you might want to read more closely.

¹⁷ But Jesus answered them, My Father worketh hitherto, and I work.

¹⁸ Therefore the Jews sought the more to kill him, because he not only had broken the sabbath, but said also that God was his Father, making himself equal with God.

¹⁹ Then answered Jesus and said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, The Son can do nothing of himself, but what he seeth the Father do: for what things soever he doeth, these also doeth the Son likewise.

²⁰ For the Father loveth the Son, and sheweth him all things that himself doeth: and he will shew him greater works than these, that ye may marvel.

²¹ For as the Father raiseth up the dead, and quickeneth them; even so the Son quickeneth whom he will.

The above clearly shows that Jesus followed his Father's lead.

Likewise we read that Jesus did not follow his own will but set aside his own will in order to do his Father's will.


John 4:34
Jesus saith unto them, My meat is to do the will of him that sent me, and to finish his work.

John 6:38
For I came down from heaven, not to do mine own will, but the will of him that sent me.

Philippians 2:8

And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross.

Jesus willfully learned of his Father thus allowing God to instill the Father's will into the lifestyle and actions and words of His son.

That is how the parent/child relationship should work if we are doing God's will.

You even said that anyone saying they are a shepherd is the same as when God says He is the Shepherd, or when it is said Jesus is the Shepherd.

Not at all, if you read closely, I am applying your "logic" to David as well as to Jesus Christ, if your logic is correct, then by rights, by your logic, David and all other shepherds are God as well, thus showing the fallacy of your logic.

Can Jesse say when you see David you see me?

Yes,

David was not an alligator, he was the son of Jesse and by nature and nurture showed characteristics of Jesse, his father.

David learned to believe God from someone, Jesse learned and became a shepherd from someone.

 

[God's Truth]

Sure by your standards, it is probably more than enough.

But not by the standards of God's word.

That is just stupid and wrong.

You think you are God?

You DO think you are God! Don't you?

 

[God's Truth]

Jesus is God the Father comes as a Son of man.

How does Jesus LIVE in the saved if he is NOT GOD?

You can't answer that because you are full of falseness.

 

[oatmeal]

That is just stupid and wrong.

You think you are God?

You DO think you are God! Don't you?

Are you claiming that you are the judge of what God's standards are?

You are doing what you are accusing me of!

You might want to consider that God knows what He is talking about all the time. It is our job to find out what He is talking about. Not our job to tell him what He is talking about.

Jesus is the son of God, that is what scriptures tell us over and over and over again. About 68 times at the last count. Never does it claim Jesus to be "God the Son"

Jesus did not say, "I am I am"

 

[God's Truth]

Are you claiming that you are the judge of what God's standards are?

You are doing what you are accusing me of!

You might want to consider that God knows what He is talking about all the time. It is our job to find out what He is talking about. Not our job to tell him what He is talking about.

Jesus is the son of God, that is what scriptures tell us over and over and over again. About 68 times at the last count. Never does it claim Jesus to be "God the Son"

Jesus did not say, "I am I am"

You bring Jesus to your level when trying to figure out the truth, and that is a grave error.

Jesus is God the Father come as a Son.

 

[God's Truth]

oatmeal

Are you the one who said you don't have Jesus' Spirit inside you?

 

[oatmeal]

You bring Jesus to your level when trying to figure out the truth, and that is a grave error.

Jesus is God the Father come as a Son.

How is it that I am bringing Jesus to my level?

He is a man.. Scriptures are absolutely clear and very repetitive that Jesus is a man.

I am a man, We have that in common.

If that causes you a problem, then I would suggest you pay more attention to scripture instead of your threeology.

John 14:12 is very clear, by Jesus own words, I can do the same works as Jesus Christ did and note carefully greater works!

If you believe Jesus is God, then the God Jesus is telling you and me that we can do equal works to God and greater works than God does.

Are you going to something equal to John 3:16? or greater? Are you going to do an equal work to Genesis 1:1 or greater?

The "Jesus is God/trinity"threeology causes problems that are not only unsolvable but sheer lunacy!

 

[oatmeal]

oatmeal

Are you the one who said you don't have Jesus' Spirit inside you?

I am

 

[God's Truth]

I am

You are not saved if you don't have Jesus' Spirit inside you.

 

[oatmeal]

You are not saved if you don't have Jesus' Spirit inside you.

Where does scripture say that?

​​​​​​

 

[God's Truth]

How is it that I am bringing Jesus to my level?

You know you didn't come from heaven, so then you look for a way to show Jesus didn't come from heaven.

You are put in heaven after you are saved. JESUS IS FROM HEAVEN BEFORE HE CAME TO EARTH.

You say you can do things greater than Jesus.

YOU KNOW YOU DON'T raise someone dead in a grave for four days.

Jesus told HIS APOSTLES that they would do what he did and greater---YOU ARE NOT AN APOSTLE.

He is a man.. Scriptures are absolutely clear and very repetitive that Jesus is a man.

Jesus is a man and you are a man---BUT YOUR MOTHER GOT PREGNANT BY HAVING INTERCOURSE WITH YOUR FATHER and JESUS' MOTHER DID NOT.

I am a man, We have that in common.

If that causes you a problem, then I would suggest you pay more attention to scripture instead of your threeology.

I just want to help you in perchance that you might have a powerful testimony as I do.

John 14:12 is very clear, by Jesus own words, I can do the same works as Jesus Christ did and note carefully greater works!

That was said to APOSTLES.

Name all these greater works than JESUS CHRIST that you do.

If you believe Jesus is God, then the God Jesus is telling you and me that we can do equal works to God and greater works than God does.

Are you going to something equal to John 3:16? or greater? Are you going to do an equal work to Genesis 1:1 or greater?

The "Jesus is God/trinity"threeology causes problems that are not only unsolvable but sheer lunacy!

Did you read that scripture? YOU ARE NOT GOD'S only begotten son. Your blood does not take away the sins of the world.

Come to your senses.

 

[God's Truth]

Where does scripture say that?

​​​​​​

2 Corinthians 13:5 Examine yourselves to see whether you are in the faith; test yourselves. Do you not realize that Christ Jesus is in you--unless, of course, you fail the test?

Romans 8:9 You, however, are not in the realm of the flesh but are in the realm of the Spirit, if indeed the Spirit of God lives in you. And if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, they do not belong to Christ.

Galatians 4:6 And because you are sons, God sent the Spirit of His Son into our hearts, crying out, “Abba, Father!”

Ephesians 3:17 so that Christ may dwell in your hearts through faith. And I pray that you, being rooted and grounded in love,

John 17:23 I in them and you in me—

John 17:26 I have made you known to them, and will continue to make you known in order that the love you have for me may be in them and that I myself may be in them.”

 

[Wick Stick]

Good question.

Biblical Greek usually avoids trying to render the proper name of God, substituting either kyrios (lord), theos (god), or ouranos (heaven) in written format, and expecting the reader to make the mental substitution. But all of those are nouns, so if Jesus is using God's name as a verb perhaps that's a good enough reason for the text to do something different than usual.

The Greek in John 8:58 does actually do something different than just "ego eimi" as its used in other verses for "I am." We also have commentaries from the 4th century onwards linking it to Exodus 3:14 and the (likewise irregular) name of God there.

Sometimes very early Greek manuscripts will simply insert Hebrew lettering for the name of God in the text. I couldn't find an example of that happening for this passage.

I also checked the Peshitta (the Aramaic New Testament, translated from Greek very early). It does not re-translate back to the proper name of God.

Whichever side you're on, there's some evidence. Both positions are tenable. Neither is provable.

Jarrod

 

[oatmeal]

Good question.

Biblical Greek usually avoids trying to render the proper name of God, substituting either kyrios (lord), theos (god), or ouranos (heaven) in written format, and expecting the reader to make the mental substitution. But all of those are nouns, so if Jesus is using God's name as a verb perhaps that's a good enough reason for the text to do something different than usual.

The Greek in John 8:58 does actually do something different than just "ego eimi" as its used in other verses for "I am." We also have commentaries from the 4th century onwards linking it to Exodus 3:14 and the (likewise irregular) name of God there.

Sometimes very early Greek manuscripts will simply insert Hebrew lettering for the name of God in the text. I couldn't find an example of that happening for this passage.

I also checked the Peshitta (the Aramaic New Testament, translated from Greek very early). It does not re-translate back to the proper name of God.

Whichever side you're on, there's some evidence. Both positions are tenable. Neither is provable.

Jarrod

Scripture and the grammar and context indicate that Jesus was not identifying himself but indicating his foreordained preeminence as the seed of the woman that would bruise the head of the serpent as the agent of our redemption and salvation. Even as others were appointed as high priests by God to offer sacrifices for the atonement of his people, even so Jesus was publicly declared the one to do the bruising in Genesis 3:15

 

[Wick Stick]

Scripture and the grammar and context indicate that Jesus was not identifying himself but indicating his foreordained preeminence as the seed of the woman that would bruise the head of the serpent as the agent of our redemption and salvation. Even as others were appointed as high priests by God to offer sacrifices for the atonement of his people, even so Jesus was publicly declared the one to do the bruising in Genesis 3:15

You're welcome to believe whatever you want, but don't try to make it out as though this single verse proves it one way or the other. :dizzy:

As my carefully researched posts demonstrates, either translation is tenable, both grammatically and in context. You'll have to look elsewhere for "proof" - this verse isn't proof one way or the other.

 

[oatmeal]

You're welcome to believe whatever you want, but don't try to make it out as though this single verse proves it one way or the other. :dizzy:

As my carefully researched posts demonstrates, either translation is tenable, both grammatically and in context. You'll have to look elsewhere for "proof" - this verse isn't proof one way or the other.

The context is the key to understanding this passage. However, before we concern ourselves with context, we need to read what is written, not just the verse but the actual words used.

Reading what is written gives me no reason to believe that Jesus is claiming to be the "I am " of Exodus. In fact, since scholars are aware that there is no verb "to be" in the Hebrew language, "I am that I am" should be translated, "I will become what I will become" Of since God does not change, Malachi 3, this must be understood in the context of the revelation of Exodus. Moses was asking who was talking to him. God was not going to reveal his entire self and all his attributes and abilities in one sitting at some burning bush as is evidenced by the truth that the word of God is revealed over centuries by many prophets that God had write down what God wanted written down

If I ask you if you are the one that identifies himself on this website as Wick Stick, a perfectly legitimate answer for you to use is

"I am"

Should I therefore equate you with the "I am", God, of Exodus?

I think not, is why then should I then conclude that Jesus in answering the mob is claiming to be God?

Language need not be that complicated

 

[Wick Stick]

In fact, since scholars are aware that there is no verb "to be" in the Hebrew language...

You're re-counting incorrectly. להיות (Lihiyot) is the verb "to be" in Hebrew.

I know what you're trying to recall here, though. There is no present-tense declension of this word in Hebrew (or related languages) that is used for simple statements of equality. In those cases, no verb is used and it is implied/understood that two things are being equated by the context of the sentence. However, there is a verb, and it is used not only for future tense (will become) but also in perfect and imperfect states of the present tense.

"I am that I am" should be translated, "I will become what I will become"

I wouldn't say that's a good translation, but it's as accurate as what's in our current Bibles. It's actually impossible to fully render the meaning here into English, as there is a double meaning in the original language, and no combination of words in English will carry both meanings.

In one sense, God is refusing to answer the question. Historical context dictates that deities of that place/time in history are typically associated with either a single attribute or domain. Moses is likely asking God to stake His claim, as a sky god, fertility god, sea god, sun god, etc... and God simply refuses to pigeon-hole Himself. "I will be whatever it is right for Me to be," carries the meaning.

But in a second sense, God is identifying Himself in juxtaposition to all the false gods as having an attribute they lack - He is real, and they are not. What god should I tell them sent me? asks Moses. "The One that actually exists."

If I ask you if you are the one that identifies himself on this website as Wick Stick, a perfectly legitimate answer for you to use is

"I am"

Should I therefore equate you with the "I am", God, of Exodus?

I think not. Why then should I then conclude that Jesus in answering the mob is claiming to be God?

That's perfectly reasonable. It's just not the ONLY reasonable interpretation of this verse, as you seem to be insisting.

Language need not be that complicated

Language is complicated, and translation doubly so. The more people that work on it, the more complex it gets. And we're here working on the source that has been handled by more people than probably all other texts combined. So it isn't going to be that simple.

 

[oatmeal]

You're welcome to believe whatever you want, but don't try to make it out as though this single verse proves it one way or the other. :dizzy:

As my carefully researched posts demonstrates, either translation is tenable, both grammatically and in context. You'll have to look elsewhere for "proof" - this verse isn't proof one way or the other.

Actually, I am not welcome to believe whatever I want to.

I am abhor that very notion, because it is repugnant to scripture and God's sole authorship of His word.

for I am not interested in what I want to believe, I want to believe what God's word says.

Jesus was not indicating that he is God, for he is not God, but was indicating that he was what scripture says he was, is and will be.

God knows what he is talking about and Jesus spoke what God told him to speak, that is what prophets do.

God's word is instructive and we insult God and His son if we resort to "it doesn't matter" or "You're welcome to believe whatever you want,"

Get a grip.

Learn to respect the Bible as being God breathed as II Timothy 3:16 could read

 

[oatmeal]

You're re-counting incorrectly. להיות (Lihiyot) is the verb "to be" in Hebrew.

I know what you're trying to recall here, though. There is no present-tense declension of this word in Hebrew (or related languages) that is used for simple statements of equality. In those cases, no verb is used and it is implied/understood that two things are being equated by the context of the sentence. However, there is a verb, and it is used not only for future tense (will become) but also in perfect and imperfect states of the present tense.



I wouldn't say that's a good translation, but it's as accurate as what's in our current Bibles. It's actually impossible to fully render the meaning here into English, as there is a double meaning in the original language, and no combination of words in English will carry both meanings.

In one sense, God is refusing to answer the question. Historical context dictates that deities of that place/time in history are typically associated with either a single attribute or domain. Moses is likely asking God to stake His claim, as a sky god, fertility god, sea god, sun god, etc... and God simply refuses to pigeon-hole Himself. "I will be whatever it is right for Me to be," carries the meaning.

But in a second sense, God is identifying Himself in juxtaposition to all the false gods as having an attribute they lack - He is real, and they are not. What god should I tell them sent me? asks Moses. "The One that actually exists."






That's perfectly reasonable. It's just not the ONLY reasonable interpretation of this verse, as you seem to be insisting.


Language is complicated, and translation doubly so. The more people that work on it, the more complex it gets. And we're here working on the source that has been handled by more people than probably all other texts combined. So it isn't going to be that simple.

Language need not be complicated

If I ask you if you are the one that goes by the username Wick Stick, you could answer

a. I am

b. I am he

Either way, I would not jump to the ridiculous conclusion that you are claiming to be God.

Nor do I jump to the ridiculous conclusion that Jesus was claiming to be God