What is Jesus saying here?

[TrevorL]

Greetings again Lon,

The thrust of our disagreements are about the nature of 'the only begotten' Son.

Yes, and perhaps more wide-ranging. I appreciate your post, but cannot agree with the way you view most of the Scriptures that you allude to or quote. I do not agree with Arianism, as I do not believe in the pre-existence of Jesus. Yes, Jesus is unique, the full revelation of God His Father.

Kind regards
Trevor

 

[Lon]

aGreetings again Lon,

Yes, and perhaps more wide-ranging. I appreciate your post, but cannot agree with the way you view most of the Scriptures that you allude to or quote. I do not agree with Arianism, as I do not believe in the pre-existence of Jesus. Yes, Jesus is unique, the full revelation of God His Father.

Kind regards
Trevor

So 'the Glory I had with you before the world' means nothing to you. As I said, 1) untenable scripturally, and 2) ignores and harms scripture truths. That onus is upon you. Trinitarians don't do this. You can try, but we embrace EVERY scripture. Unitarians/Arians? Trample, severely.

 

[TrevorL]

Greetings again Lon,

So 'the Glory I had with you before the world' means nothing to you.

I find some of the terms of John 17:3-5 are interesting, and I doubt that it is teaching the Trinitarian or Arian concepts, or of the pre-existence of Jesus as God the Son or the Son of God.
John 17:3–5 (KJV): 3 And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent. 4 I have glorified thee on the earth: I have finished the work which thou gavest me to do. 5 And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was.

A few comments /questions:
Verse 3 sets the context, and this states that God the Father is the only true God and therefore Jesus is not God the Son.
Verse 3, God has sent Jesus Christ, and therefore Jesus is not God the Son.
Verse 4, Jesus has glorified the Father, not the Trinity.
Verse 4, Jesus finished the work given him by God the Father, and therefore Jesus is not God the Son.
Verse 5, again addressing God, the Father, Jesus asks God to be glorified with God the Father’s own self, and hence Jesus is not God the Son.
Verse 5, why does Jesus use the term “before the world was”, and not “before my incarnation” if the Trinity is correct?

Looking at the more difficult phrase “the glory which I had with thee” which is perhaps the only phrase in the whole of verses 3-5 which you base your assumption. My answer is that the glory which Jesus had with God before the creation is an allusion to the New Creation Psalm, where God the Father anticipated glorifying the Son of Man, Jesus who is also the Son of God. Please note that it is written in the past tense, even though it was future.
Psalm 8:4–6 (KJV): 4 What is man, that thou art mindful of him? and the son of man, that thou visitest him? 5 For thou hast made him a little lower than the angels, and hast crowned him with glory and honour. 6 Thou madest him to have dominion over the works of thy hands; thou hast put all things under his feet:

Kind regards
Trevor

 

[Lon]

Greetings again Lon,

I find some of the terms of John 17:3-5 are interesting, and I doubt that it is teaching the Trinitarian or Arian concepts, or of the pre-existence of Jesus as God the Son or the Son of God.
John 17:3–5 (KJV): 3 And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent. 4 I have glorified thee on the earth: I have finished the work which thou gavest me to do. 5 And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was.

A few comments /questions:
Verse 3 sets the context, and this states that God the Father is the only true God and therefore Jesus is not God the Son.

Remember I HALF agree with you. Where we depart is where YOU start speculating INSTEAD of just reading what it means. As soon as YOU stop making assumptions, you'll be Biblical. Notice that English also, conveys equivalence 'and' here. For a great Greek discussion, read here.

Verse 3, God has sent Jesus Christ, and therefore Jesus is not God the Son.

Again, 'assumption' Trevor. "IF" we just stick with the text, 'we' don't make mistakes. "IF" we make assumptions, we have an awful lot of room for all kinds and many, mistakes. Secondly, most Unitarians only read and know English. I do agree with you that English often gives grounds for Arianism/Unitarianism and thought.

Verse 4, Jesus has glorified the Father, not the Trinity.

Verse 5 means its reciprocal doesn't it?

Verse 4, Jesus finished the work given him by God the Father, and therefore Jesus is not God the Son.

Again, remember I half agree with you. The Son is not the Father. John 20:17 is similar for our agreement. I'm not arguing that the Son is the Father here. I agree with you there indeed is a difference between Father and Son. Scripture itself instructs us and both must/necessarily have to be true that Jesus 'has a God' and that Thomas said to Jesus "You are the Lord and God of me." Therefore, I don't assume. When I first heard 'Trinity' I was told "it is confusing, we simply believe the scriptures and have to let God explain all of this. We read the scriptures and try to not have any one scripture trampled as we pull it all together." That was always the endeavor and It is the best tack because it doesn't try to assume anything. It is the most faithful Biblically because that is all it tries to be. I freely admit the shortcoming with you.

Verse 5, again addressing God, the Father, Jesus asks God to be glorified with God the Father’s own self, and hence Jesus is not God the Son.

Er, no, simply He is not God the Father at that point. You are making what 'seems' a reasonable assumption, but it is an assumption nevertheless and it is what Trinity doctrine tries to eschew.

Verse 5, why does Jesus use the term “before the world was”, and not “before my incarnation” if the Trinity is correct?

Good question. We can make assumptions, but what does the phrase, by itself and with context, mean? It means He had glory with His Father before Creation. Are you thinking that isn't part of the Triune doctrine? Can you reframe your question if you believe it doesn't? Thanks.

Looking at the more difficult phrase “the glory which I had with thee” which is perhaps the only phrase in the whole of verses 3-5 which you base your assumption. My answer is that the glory which Jesus had with God before the creation is an allusion to the New Creation Psalm, where God the Father anticipated glorifying the Son of Man, Jesus who is also the Son of God. Please note that it is written in the past tense, even though it was future.

All of us 'try' to make sense of tricky passages, and so I appreciate that BUT at this point, your theology idea/assumption is driving your deduction. Is it plausible? Yes. The next question, however, has to be 'does it do damage to any other scripture text or this one?' Then, "how clear is this from the text? How much am I assuming? Is there any other scripture or theologian that agrees? Why and who are they?" etc.

Psalm 8:4–6 (KJV): 4 What is man, that thou art mindful of him? and the son of man, that thou visitest him? 5 For thou hast made him a little lower than the angels, and hast crowned him with glory and honour. 6 Thou madest him to have dominion over the works of thy hands; thou hast put all things under his feet:

Kind regards
Trevor

Colossians 1:15-20 says that the Son created all things so while I appreciate a working theory, those theories must be tested and this particular needs a lot of work to check against other scriptures as well as the whole body getting to weigh in on whether it is acceptable (orthodox) to all of us. To date, we have decided that this is too far of a stretch as well as tramples, does harm, to other scriptures. -Lon

 

[TrevorL]

Greetings again Lon,

Remember I HALF agree with you. Where we depart is where YOU start speculating INSTEAD of just reading what it means. As soon as YOU stop making assumptions, you'll be Biblical. Notice that English also, conveys equivalence 'and' here.

Life eternal depends upon coming to know God and Jesus. I do not read any equivalence here, but two beings. And is and. Jesus is talking to God, His Father.

For a great Greek discussion, read here.

I could not follow what the article is trying to teach, but did not spend much time on this.

Again, 'assumption' Trevor. "IF" we just stick with the text, 'we' don't make mistakes. "IF" we make assumptions, we have an awful lot of room for all kinds and many, mistakes. Secondly, most Unitarians only read and know English. I do agree with you that English often gives grounds for Arianism/Unitarianism and thought.

"Sent" implies that God the Father initiated the process and is greater than Jesus the Servant. No Trinity here.

Verse 5 means its reciprocal doesn't it?

No, the glory that Jesus was to receive was going to be granted to him in the future, when he was raised from the dead and exalted to sit at the right hand of God John 12:28.

It is the most faithful Biblically because that is all it tries to be. I freely admit the shortcoming with you.

The Trinity or whatever version that you endorse is not what the Scriptures teach. The Scriptures teach that there is one God, the Father and our Lord Jesus Christ is the Son of God.

Er, no, simply He is not God the Father at that point. You are making what 'seems' a reasonable assumption, but it is an assumption nevertheless and it is what Trinity doctrine tries to eschew.

Being glorified with God the Father's own self is not God the Son returning to his own former glory.

Good question. We can make assumptions, but what does the phrase, by itself and with context, mean? It means He had glory with His Father before Creation. Are you thinking that isn't part of the Triune doctrine? Can you reframe your question if you believe it doesn't? Thanks.

No, I am saying that Jesus would not use creation if he had only been incarnated 33 years earlier. If we met someone a year ago, and also yesterday, we would not speak only about our meeting a year ago and ignore the fact that we met yesterday. I suggest that Jesus has in mind the glory promised in Psalm 8:4-6 in the context of the creation, a Psalm which Trinitarians avoid. Along with Psalm 110:1 these are the most quoted and expounded OT passages and Trinitarians cannot understand these.

Kind regards
Trevor

 

[Lon]

Greetings again Lon,

Life eternal depends upon coming to know God and Jesus. I do not read any equivalence here, but two beings. And is and. Jesus is talking to God, His Father.n.

It makes sense, you make grammatical mistakes with your John 17 assumption as well. He would have said rather "the glory You had for me before..." if He had wanted that assumption. The question: Do you WANT a theology built off of assumptions? Are the truths of God VERY important?

I could not follow what the article is trying to teach, but did not spend much time on this.

Gotcha.

"Sent" implies that God the Father initiated the process and is greater than Jesus the Servant. No Trinity here.

Then you don't realize we 'half' agree with you as well as half disagree. We recognize both what the verse says and importantly, what it doesn't say.

No, the glory that Jesus was to receive was going to be granted to him in the future, when he was raised from the dead and exalted to sit at the right hand of God John 12:28.

I covered this just above. There was a very good way to say this 'if' that was the intended meaning and He didn't say that.

The Trinity or whatever version that you endorse is not what the Scriptures teach.

Incorrect and simply an assertion. I realize it isn't what you 'think' scripture means, but that sheds light on apprehension, not scripture scarcity.

The Scriptures teach that there is one God, the Father and our Lord Jesus Christ is the Son of God.

"Only" and 'begotten' at that. We half agree with you but insist scripture teaches something more in clarity.

Being glorified with God the Father's own self is not God the Son returning to his own former glory.

YOU are making that assertion. As I said, be VERY careful when coming between Son and Father (and you are with this theory of yours and others').

No, I am saying that Jesus would not use creation if he had only been incarnated 33 years earlier. If we met someone a year ago, and also yesterday, we would not speak only about our meeting a year ago and ignore the fact that we met yesterday.

Like you've done here, you'd need two sentences to convey such, and that simply isn't the scriptural case. It means you necessarily (by the scriptures and grammar) have to entertain the other. The ONLY reason you'd not want to do that, is if you are holding up an idea over and above God speaking and His revelation. I never want to be even accused of doing that. When/if it ever happens, I sit up and take notice. My theology is 'checkable' by the rest of Christianity. Unitarians/Arians? Sort of, but they don't like it and entrench. Just give me what scripture says and without our respective assumptions. After? I may hold 'tentatively' to an idea but it will always be up for scrutiny. I DO have a few scriptural ideas that aren't in sync with the rest of at least most, of Christendom. Because of that, I have a bit of humility when presenting those ideas and always with a listening ear to what others have to say about it.

I suggest that Jesus has in mind the glory promised in Psalm 8:4-6 in the context of the creation, a Psalm which Trinitarians avoid. Along with Psalm 110:1 these are the most quoted and expounded OT passages and Trinitarians cannot understand these.

Kind regards
Trevor

As has been discussed in two responses: the idea doesn't sync well with this nor other scriptures. One of the first things I do with a theory, especially if I want to give it to others, is 'listen' to what they think as well as what issues and problems such an idea casts over the rest of scripture. Organically (body of Christ), Spiritually, and being responsible theologically, requires I proceed careful with my speculations and especially when they are not in sync and challenge other scripture and the rest of the Body of Christ. Part of the reason we are segmented these days is because we don't take this responsibility as seriously as we used to do so. Because we are called to share all good things with instructors, and because we are to encourage one another with scripture, there is also a tendency for us all to go our own way and 'do what is right in our own eyes (Judges lesson), we don't get scrutinized nor invite it as often as we should. These thus become separating issues. I'm pretty convinced if we had a few Unitarians 'allowed' in our Triune churches, those would be corrected carefully and gently. Scripture does, despite protest, support a Triune model. "Somehow Jesus is God." I cannot say it otherwise than to say scripture says so and I must/necessarily accept it. -Lon

 

[TrevorL]

Greetings again Lon,

It makes sense, you make grammatical mistakes with your John 17 assumption as well. He would have said rather "the glory You had for me before..." if He had wanted that assumption. The question: Do you WANT a theology built off of assumptions? Are the truths of God VERY important?

I will still maintain my view of this, partly based upon the fact that Psalm 8:4-6 is spoken in the past tense. God speaks as if it is already accomplished, and Jesus enters into the same thinking, the same assurance that he will overcome sin, will be crucified, will die, but will be resurrected and glorified. This was a vision that sustained Jesus in his trials.

I'm pretty convinced if we had a few Unitarians 'allowed' in our Triune churches, those would be corrected carefully and gently. Scripture does, despite protest, support a Triune model. "Somehow Jesus is God." I cannot say it otherwise than to say scripture says so and I must/necessarily accept it.

My daughter and son-in-law did not change their view when they attended a Baptist Church for a period of time when they were in partial isolation in a country region. All the Trinitarians on this forum and others have not changed my view. Most of our members in our meeting are ex-Trinitarians, and there is no hint that they are not now convinced that there is One God the Father and that our Lord Jesus Christ is the Son of God. I do not know personally of any ex-Christadelphians who believe the Trinity.

Kind regards
Trevor

 

[Lon]

Greetings again Lon,

I will still maintain my view of this, partly based upon the fact that Psalm 8:4-6 is spoken in the past tense. God speaks as if it is already accomplished, and Jesus enters into the same thinking, the same assurance that he will overcome sin, will be crucified, will die, but will be resurrected and glorified. This was a vision that sustained Jesus in his trials.

What matters if is it is demonstrably viable. You are always free to believe what you want UNLESS you are in a body, the Body of Christ, then you have to demonstrate that the position is viable.

My daughter and son-in-law did not change their view when they attended a Baptist Church for a period of time when they were in partial isolation in a country region.

It is a 'hope' not an inevitability.

All the Trinitarians on this forum and others have not changed my view.

At the very least, I've given you reason for pause. I can't change your view, I can give you reasons to entertain the scriptures as they are.

Most of our members in our meeting are ex-Trinitarians, and there is no hint that they are not now convinced that there is One God the Father and that our Lord Jesus Christ is the Son of God. I do not know personally of any ex-Christadelphians who believe the Trinity.

Kind regards
Trevor

Realize less than 1% of you believe as you do, and as is demonstrable, by laymen with laymen grasps of scripture. I do believe there is grace, and that sins against the Son can be forgiven, but as I said, it is, as far as I know scripture, it must be forgiven. It is a strike against Him and His nature and robs Him. Work on the apology" for the REASON you did it, when the time comes. Also standing before Him, -Lon

 

[TrevorL]

Greetings again Lon,

Realize less than 1% of you believe as you do, and as is demonstrable, by laymen with laymen grasps of scripture.

I am not troubled by statistics or the layman label, except to say that I am concerned that few accept what I believe is the truth. I repeat that I would consider it very difficult to convince a Christadelphian that the Trinity is correct.

My daughter could not continue attending the Baptists, partly because they were labelled as non-Trinitarians, but mostly members of that particular church thought that they received messages from God, or because they possessed the Holy Spirit. She was especially pestered by one neurotic woman who would approach her and say "I have a message for you", and then say something which my daughter considered preposterous. The church did not restrain this woman because it was their expected norm and practice. As far as laymen, I doubt that many Baptists know and understand their Bible, and have a confused simplistic view of the Trinity.

Our lunch time class at work proved that to me, even when one member had a copy of the Minister's sermon and was trying to endorse and explain it. The two main messages were anti-abortion and Psalm 23 restoring of the soul was somehow restoring or renewing or refreshing our immortal soul. Throughout our various discussions the Baptist and ex-Baptist now Pentecostal had different perspectives on most subjects. I consider that it would dishonour Jesus if I joined in full fellowship with these people and their beliefs.

Kind regards
Trevor

 

[Lon]

Greetings again Lon,

I am not troubled by statistics or the layman label, except to say that I am concerned that few accept what I believe is the truth. I repeat that I would consider it very difficult to convince a Christadelphian that the Trinity is correct.

Give me one that is well-read and knows grammar rules.

My daughter could not continue attending the Baptists, partly because they were labelled as non-Trinitarians, but mostly members of that particular church thought that they received messages from God, or because they possessed the Holy Spirit.

They normally believe the gifts are not extent for today. Southern Baptists do have a good number of Charismatic churches, however.

She was especially pestered by one neurotic woman who would approach her and say "I have a message for you", and then say something which my daughter considered preposterous. The church did not restrain this woman because it was their expected norm and practice. As far as laymen, I doubt that many Baptists know and understand their Bible, and have a confused simplistic view of the Trinity. It depends on which Baptist denomination. You are correct there are several that aren't well-read.

Our lunch time class at work proved that to me, even when one member had a copy of the Minister's sermon and was trying to endorse and explain it. The two main messages were anti-abortion and Psalm 23 restoring of the soul was somehow restoring or renewing or refreshing our immortal soul. Throughout our various discussions the Baptist and ex-Baptist now Pentecostal had different perspectives on most subjects.

Makes sense. You've come across some in the Unitarian churches who you disagree with too, I'm sure.

I consider that it would dishonour Jesus if I joined in full fellowship with these people and their beliefs.

I'd likely as well. I don't believe the exceptional gifts of the Spirit are extent (not meaning He cannot give any of them whenever He wants, but I believe it will be a BIG deal at that point).

Kind regards
Trevor

 

[TrevorL]

Greetings again Lon,

Give me one that is well-read and knows grammar rules.

I am content at the moment with three Hebrew scholars in my fellowship, two from many years ago, and one present. When I first joined a forum 17 years ago he had a long running thread on the Yahweh Name and had three or four Trinitarians opposing his understanding of the Yahweh Name as "I will be" and "He who will be". He was involved with Biblical languages at a University, but also he was in effect endorsing the two earlier scholars. I have not seen a satisfactory Trinitarian explanation of the Yahweh Name and Exodus 3:14. A proper understanding of the OT excludes most of the wrong views based upon obscure or ambiguous NT passages.

They normally believe the gifts are not extent for today. Southern Baptists do have a good number of Charismatic churches, however.

There seems to have been a charismatic wave in the local Baptist churches and some division as a result. An older Baptist left his church for another and he stated to me at the time about this and said, "THAT is NOT the Holy Spirit".

Makes sense. You've come across some in the Unitarian churches who you disagree with too, I'm sure.

Yes, we have an ebb and flow of people and ideas, and I have moved to where I feel reasonably comfortable.

Kind regards
Trevor

 

[Lon]

Greetings again Lon,

I am content at the moment with three Hebrew scholars in my fellowship, two from many years ago, and one present. When I first joined a forum 17 years ago he had a long running thread on the Yahweh Name and had three or four Trinitarians opposing his understanding of the Yahweh Name as "I will be" and "He who will be". He was involved with Biblical languages at a University, but also he was in effect endorsing the two earlier scholars. I have not seen a satisfactory Trinitarian explanation of the Yahweh Name and Exodus 3:14. A proper understanding of the OT excludes most of the wrong views based upon obscure or ambiguous NT passages.

I've enough Hebrew for that conversation. The problem with the theory is that there are plenty of orthodox Jewish commentaries preserved that disagree. Jesus would have been aware of them and while He did correct the Sadducees, this one, which would be pretty important never came up. All O.T. names and renames surround the action or new direction taking place, thus what was needed in the story line is the point of the name and contextually defined.

 

[TrevorL]

Greetings again Lon,

I've enough Hebrew for that conversation.

I was introduced to the subject of the Yahweh Name at a Young People's weekend when I was 19, and the youth leader also prompted a few more aspects in the years following. This has been an interest ever since, and some of my understanding has been consolidated as a result of the forum thread 17 years ago. I have a copy of his thread for reference, and have also been in contact with him recently to consolidate some of my understanding of the title of God "Elohim". My Hebrew teacher who is a Trinitarian confirmed that Exodus 3:14 should be rendered "I will be". Christadelphians respect the exposition of this subject of God Manifestation by the most prominent pioneer in our fellowship, John Thomas in his book Eureka, An Exposition of the Apocalypse Volume 1 pages 87-111 which he then uses to explain the various aspects of the Symbolic Son of Man in Revelation 1. I have posted a thread "The Yahweh Name" as a brief summary and introduction to this subject.

All O.T. names and renames surround the action or new direction taking place, thus what was needed in the story line is the point of the name and contextually defined.

As far as context of Exodus 3:14 is concerned, I suggest that all of Exodus 3 is important, and Exodus 3:12 and Exodus 6:1-8 establishes the correct interpretation of "I will be", teaching of God's future activity of delivering Israel out of Egypt and bringing them into the Land. The reason why Trinitarians want to maintain "I Am" is to attempt to incorrectly link this with John 8:58, which I suggest should be translated as "I am he", the same as John 8:24,28; 9:9.

Kind regards
Trevor

 

[Lon]

Greetings again Lon,

I was introduced to the subject of the Yahweh Name at a Young People's weekend when I was 19, and the youth leader also prompted a few more aspects in the years following. This has been an interest ever since, and some of my understanding has been consolidated as a result of the forum thread 17 years ago. I have a copy of his thread for reference, and have also been in contact with him recently to consolidate some of my understanding of the title of God "Elohim". My Hebrew teacher who is a Trinitarian confirmed that Exodus 3:14 should be rendered "I will be". Christadelphians respect the exposition of this subject of God Manifestation by the most prominent pioneer in our fellowship, John Thomas in his book Eureka, An Exposition of the Apocalypse Volume 1 pages 87-111 which he then uses to explain the various aspects of the Symbolic Son of Man in Revelation 1. I have posted a thread "The Yahweh Name" as a brief summary and introduction to this subject.

"Will be" is fine. "Am" is the state of being expressed. Because your interest was Unitarian/Trinitarian, twice removed, your thread wouldn't have garnered a lot of attention other than someone specifically interested in a name study.

As far as context of Exodus 3:14 is concerned, I suggest that all of Exodus 3 is important, and Exodus 3:12 and Exodus 6:1-8 establishes the correct interpretation of "I will be", teaching of God's future activity of delivering Israel out of Egypt and bringing them into the Land. The reason why Trinitarians want to maintain "I Am" is to attempt to incorrectly link this with John 8:58, which I suggest should be translated as "I am he", the same as John 8:24,28; 9:9.

Kind regards
Trevor

It cannot be argued as far as I know Greek. Both the LXX and Greek N.T. are identical so it means it is problematic for Christadelphians everywhere.

Exodus 3:14 καὶ εἶπεν ὁ θεὸς πρὸς Μωυσῆν ἐγώ εἰμι ὁ ὤν καὶ εἶπεν οὕτως ἐρεῗς τοῗς υἱοῗς Ισραηλ ὁ ὢν ἀπέσταλκέν με πρὸς ὑμᾶς

John 8:58 Εἶπεν αὐτοῖς Ἰησοῦς Ἀμὴν ἀμὴν λέγω ὑμῖν πρὶν Ἀβραὰμ γενέσθαι ἐγὼ εἰμί

John 8:59 So they picked up stones to throw at him, but Jesus hid himself and went out of the temple.

 

[TrevorL]

Greetings again Lon,

"Will be" is fine. "Am" is the state of being expressed.

I am not sure if you are agreeing that the correct translation is “I will be”, or that “I AM” is acceptable and that you prefer this based on what you say in the rest of your post.

Because your interest was Unitarian/Trinitarian, twice removed, your thread wouldn't have garnered a lot of attention other than someone specifically interested in a name study.

Yes, but I suggest that the real reason is that Trinitarians are not really interested in what God reveals about Himself in Exodus 3:14 because it does not support the Trinitarian perspective. The best they can do is to insist on “I Am”, seeking to connect this with John 8:58. The NT is based upon the teaching of the OT revelation concerning the One God, Yahweh. Trinitarian teaching is based upon Greek philosophy and a wrong interpretation of the NT. They then try to impose their wrong interpretation of the NT upon the OT, but it does not fit.

It cannot be argued as far as I know Greek. Both the LXX and Greek N.T. are identical so it means it is problematic for Christadelphians everywhere.
Exodus 3:14 καὶ εἶπεν ὁ θεὸς πρὸς Μωυσῆν ἐγώ εἰμι ὁ ὤν καὶ εἶπεν οὕτως ἐρεῗς τοῗς υἱοῗς Ισραηλ ὁ ὢν ἀπέσταλκέν με πρὸς ὑμᾶς
John 8:58 Εἶπεν αὐτοῖς Ἰησοῦς Ἀμὴν ἀμὴν λέγω ὑμῖν πρὶν Ἀβραὰμ γενέσθαι ἐγὼ εἰμί
John 8:59 So they picked up stones to throw at him, but Jesus hid himself and went out of the temple.

You failed to show the English translation of the LXX. The “I am” portion of the LXX does not correspond to the supposed “I Am” portion of the Hebrew and the English based upon the Hebrew.
Exodus 3:14 (KJV): And God said unto Moses, I AM THAT I AM: and he said, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, I AM hath sent me unto you.
Exodus 3:14 (LXX - Brenton's translation): "And God spoke to Moses, saying, I am THE BEING; and he said, Thus shall ye say to the children of Israel, THE BEING has sent me to you.”
"I am the being" (ego eimi ho on) - not "I am what I am". This shifts the emphasis to "The Being", not "I am" as the shortened Name of God, and this is taken up again in the second use of "The Being". While it is translated as present tense, it becomes problematic to those who want to make a connection with John 8:58, 24, 28 (the "I am" sayings of Jesus), as instead of saying "I AM has sent me", the LXX for this phrase says "THE BEING" has sent me. I do not think that the LXX overrules the Hebrew and Hebrew scholars who support “I will be”. I suggest that here, the LXX is actually a poor translation of the Hebrew of Exodus 3:14.

Kind regards
Trevor

 

[Lon]

Greetings again Lon,

I am not sure if you are agreeing that the correct translation is “I will be”, or that “I AM” is acceptable and that you prefer this based on what you say in the rest of your post.


Yes, but I suggest that the real reason is that Trinitarians are not really interested in what God reveals about Himself in Exodus 3:14 because it does not support the Trinitarian perspective. The best they can do is to insist on “I Am”, seeking to connect this with John 8:58. The NT is based upon the teaching of the OT revelation concerning the One God, Yahweh. Trinitarian teaching is based upon Greek philosophy and a wrong interpretation of the NT. They then try to impose their wrong interpretation of the NT upon the OT, but it does not fit.

It wouldn't matter when both statements are identical AND the Name God gave Moses. Hebrew did have a few ways to distinguish, but it was a language where most nouns had multiple applications. It means that His name stood for 'am' a state of being/existence in all its forms. As I said, there are many Jewish commentaries, especially on this passage.

You failed to show the English translation of the LXX. The “I am” portion of the LXX does not correspond to the supposed “I Am” portion of the Hebrew and the English based upon the Hebrew.

Who cares? I know Greek. You'd need to put up translations to scrutiny. I can skip those parts, you are stuck.

Exodus 3:14 (KJV): And God said unto Moses, I AM THAT I AM: and he said, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, I AM hath sent me unto you.
Exodus 3:14 (LXX - Brenton's translation): "And God spoke to Moses, saying, I am THE BEING; and he said, Thus shall ye say to the children of Israel, THE BEING has sent me to you.”
"I am the being" (ego eimi ho on) - not "I am what I am". This shifts the emphasis to "The Being", not "I am" as the shortened Name of God, and this is taken up again in the second use of "The Being". While it is translated as present tense, it becomes problematic to those who want to make a connection with John 8:58, 24, 28 (the "I am" sayings of Jesus), as instead of saying "I AM has sent me", the LXX for this phrase says "THE BEING" has sent me. I do not think that the LXX overrules the Hebrew and Hebrew scholars who support “I will be”. I suggest that here, the LXX is actually a poor translation of the Hebrew of Exodus 3:14.

Kind regards
Trevor

No, in fact it doesn't. Even those who cannot read Greek can compare the bolded fairly easily: LXX Exodus 3:14 ἐγὼ εἰμί John 8:58 ἐγὼ εἰμί. Were you paying attention? They are exact. RATHER you might argue that it isn't the first time the terms are identical and try to stand on that, because they are translated different BUT the next verse, contextually, means something significant. It doesn't matter how many Christadelphians there are, just if, indeed, they can read Hebrew and how well they did when it came to grammar rules in school. It is academic and answered quite well in academic circles. Try contextually, to put "I am" or "I AM" in those instances. Most often it works well. You are trying to answer it with 'theology' and nothing more. Let academics inform your truth, THEN build your faith off of that. Make sure He and His word are true and the rest will enfold in the proper way. It is noble to be dedicated to your Christadelphian church, warts and all but MAKE SURE to recognize where they may have been wrong. It might have been okay to be faithful to Sadducees, but when they were corrected, it'd have been a good idea for all Sadducees to leave off the incorrect theology and believe Jesus' correction. In Him -Lon

 

[TrevorL]

Greetings again Lon,

It wouldn't matter when both statements are identical AND the Name God gave Moses. Hebrew did have a few ways to distinguish, but it was a language where most nouns had multiple applications. It means that His name stood for 'am' a state of being/existence in all its forms. As I said, there are many Jewish commentaries, especially on this passage.

The scholars who I have read state that "Ehyeh" in Exodus 3:14 is best represented by "I will be" the same as Exodus 3:12 and also necessitated by what is stated in Exodus 6:1-8, rather than speculating the full range of tenses and ideas relating to the state of being/existence. The fact that Yahweh, that is "He will be", and the fact that He was speaking to Moses, necessitates that Yahweh exists. Moses knew that Yahweh existed as he had already witnessed the Angel in the bush and heard the declaration concerning God by the Angel. So my understanding of the context weighs heavily in my conclusion. The whole theme of the forum article that I mentioned was to support the future tense of the Yahweh Name, "I will be", "He will be", mainly against those who wanted only the present tense "I Am". If and when you address Exodus 3:12 and Exodus 6:1-8 I will consider your objection.

No, in fact it doesn't. Even those who cannot read Greek can compare the bolded fairly easily: LXX Exodus 3:14 ἐγὼ εἰμί John 8:58 ἐγὼ εἰμί. Were you paying attention? They are exact.

The same Greek words that appear in the LXX and John 8:58 and are translated in English as “I am” also appear in the following:
John 10:7 (KJV): Then said Jesus unto them again, Verily, verily, I say unto you, I am the door of the sheep.
I have seen some posts that claim that the “I am” portion of this is referring to Exodus 3:14, but I suggest that this is a different meaning.

Also the same words also appear in the same context immediately before John 8:58, and I suggest that John 8:58 should be understood as part of the theme of whether or not Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God.
John 8:24,28 (KJV): 24 I said therefore unto you, that ye shall die in your sins: for if ye believe not that I am he, ye shall die in your sins.
28 Then said Jesus unto them, When ye have lifted up the Son of man, then shall ye know that I am he, and that I do nothing of myself; but as my Father hath taught me, I speak these things.

RATHER you might argue that it isn't the first time the terms are identical and try to stand on that, because they are translated different BUT the next verse, contextually, means something significant.

Yes, I would suggest that their actions were based upon ALL that Jesus had said, as well as the fact that the leaders that opposed Jesus tried to stir up the mob on the basis of their deliberate muddying of the waters.

It doesn't matter how many Christadelphians there are, just if, indeed, they can read Hebrew and how well they did when it came to grammar rules in school. It is academic and answered quite well in academic circles.

I have confidence in the scholars that I have relied upon on this subject, some Christadelphians, some Trinitarians.

Try contextually, to put "I am" or "I AM" in those instances. Most often it works well. You are trying to answer it with 'theology' and nothing more. Let academics inform your truth, THEN build your faith off of that. Make sure He and His word are true and the rest will enfold in the proper way. It is noble to be dedicated to your Christadelphian church, warts and all but MAKE SURE to recognize where they may have been wrong. It might have been okay to be faithful to Sadducees, but when they were corrected, it'd have been a good idea for all Sadducees to leave off the incorrect theology and believe Jesus' correction.

I appreciate your advice, and you still continue to denigrate my position and my fellowship, but I have examined this subject carefully over many years. I do not slavishly follow what I am taught and Christadelphians do not produce clones. There is a large ebb and flow of people and ideas, and I have formed my understanding by considering a wide range of ideas, within and outside my fellowship. Nevertheless as a result I assess my position as "Central" with respect to Christadelphian teachings.

Kind regards
Trevor

 

[Lon]

Greetings again Lon,

The scholars who I have read state that "Ehyeh" in Exodus 3:14 is best represented by "I will be" the same as Exodus 3:12 and also necessitated by what is stated in Exodus 6:1-8, rather than speculating the full range of tenses and ideas relating to the state of being/existence. The fact that Yahweh, that is "He will be", and the fact that He was speaking to Moses, necessitates that Yahweh exists. Moses knew that Yahweh existed as he had already witnessed the Angel in the bush and heard the declaration concerning God by the Angel. So my understanding of the context weighs heavily in my conclusion. The whole theme of the forum article that I mentioned was to support the future tense of the Yahweh Name, "I will be", "He will be", mainly against those who wanted only the present tense "I Am". If and when you address Exodus 3:12 and Exodus 6:1-8 I will consider your objection.

Here is a fairly full discussion of meaning and pronunciation. Note that the fullest consensus is 1) YHWH with a,e pronunciation as most likely upon scholastic understanding and 'am/to be' given as "or" is the meaning but that the state of being is difficult to pin down in English. It means context and etymology is the best indicator for translation.

The same Greek words that appear in the LXX and John 8:58 and are translated in English as “I am” also appear in the following:
John 10:7 (KJV): Then said Jesus unto them again, Verily, verily, I say unto you, I am the door of the sheep.
I have seen some posts that claim that the “I am” portion of this is referring to Exodus 3:14, but I suggest that this is a different meaning.

Of course. Anyone who understands grammar understands this passage has a modifier/metaphor. The former does not. Do you grasp the significance? If not, only a class for understanding grammar rules, revisited, will qualify to help you do so. There is a NECESSITY of understanding the difference because there is a difference, despite an attempt to draw the similarity (which indeed, isn't close enough by structure).

Also the same words also appear in the same context immediately before John 8:58, and I suggest that John 8:58 should be understood as part of the theme of whether or not Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God.
John 8:24,28 (KJV): 24 I said therefore unto you, that ye shall die in your sins: for if ye believe not that I am he, ye shall die in your sins.

See here. Notice that 'he' is in parenthesis, meaning it is there, in English, to help understanding the text, importantly 'and that is all.' It means it is simply 'okay' to add if it helps convey a thought but "It is NOT in the text." Make sense? You wouldn't want to build a theology off of 'what is NOT in the text.' Do you understand why, then, most scholars are triune? It is because any addition is NOT in the Greek text. It is imported. That is why the Watchtower version of John 1:1 is so heinous. It literally is not what the Greek says. The addition, a frivolity in English, was backward inserted as damage to the Greek text.

28 Then said Jesus unto them, When ye have lifted up the Son of man, then shall ye know that I am he, and that I do nothing of myself; but as my Father hath taught me, I speak these things.

Note that it is the same here as well.

Yes, I would suggest that their actions were based upon ALL that Jesus had said, as well as the fact that the leaders that opposed Jesus tried to stir up the mob on the basis of their deliberate muddying of the waters.

Note your own words: "would suggest." It is important to always realize (for me too) where we suggest rather than what we both know implicitly. Above, I give what we both can verify in certainty. Here, what we both know, for certain, is that right after "ἐγώ εἰμι" immediately preceded an attempt of stoning Him to death. We also know that there is no extra information in the former sentence. We simply have 'Before Abraham existed, I am." We then both know the LXX was written giving us indication of how best to understand the Name given to Moses.

I have confidence in the scholars that I have relied upon on this subject, some Christadelphians, some Trinitarians.

It is fine to rely on scholasticism but we also should look at the whole AND the majority for checking.

I appreciate your advice, and you still continue to denigrate my position and my fellowship, but I have examined this subject carefully over many years. I do not slavishly follow what I am taught and Christadelphians do not produce clones. There is a large ebb and flow of people and ideas, and I have formed my understanding by considering a wide range of ideas, within and outside my fellowship. Nevertheless as a result I assess my position as "Central" with respect to Christadelphian teachings.

Kind regards
Trevor

I'm not sure denigrate is the verb I was going for. I do want to suggest that 1% is already in that position, necessarily as the usurper of the rest. In that sense, there is/may be seen a mutual sense of this. We need to grasp that both of our views and the bodies behind them can be seen as denigrating, eschewing the other. What I'm rather going for is, is stating the necessity of scholasticism, taught correctly. I sincerely believe that scholastic grasp is the bulk of need for proper grasp (As I hope is demonstrable in this and previous posts). In Him, -Lon

 

[TrevorL]

Greetings again Lon,

Note that the fullest consensus is 1) YHWH with a,e pronunciation as most likely upon scholastic understanding and 'am/to be' given as "or" is the meaning but that the state of being is difficult to pin down in English. It means context and etymology is the best indicator for translation.

I accept "I will be, He will be" as the correct meaning from the tense and the context is also supported by Exodus 3:12 and Exodus 6:1-8.. As far as the tense is concerned, one of my mentors used to refer to the listing of "Ehyeh" under the "future tense" in the print edition of Englishman's Concordance. The other entries are future, but the KJV of Exodus 3:14 has "I am". I also have the thorough forum discussion on this future tense.

Of course. Anyone who understands grammar understands this passage has a modifier/metaphor. The former does not. Do you grasp the significance? If not, only a class for understanding grammar rules, revisited, will qualify to help you do so. There is a NECESSITY of understanding the difference because there is a difference, despite an attempt to draw the similarity (which indeed, isn't close enough by structure).

But John 10:7 is similar to the LXX which has "I am the BEING". The LXX does not have "I Am" and the second occurrence of "the BEING" is an evidence that they have translated Exodus 3:14 differently to the KJV translation of Exodus 3:14.

Notice that 'he' is in parenthesis, meaning it is there, in English, to help understanding the text, importantly 'and that is all.' It means it is simply 'okay' to add if it helps convey a thought but "It is NOT in the text." Make sense? You wouldn't want to build a theology off of 'what is NOT in the text.' Do you understand why, then, most scholars are triune? It is because any addition is NOT in the Greek text. It is imported.

When going from one language to another, there is sometimes a necessity to add a word such as he in order to make the proper sense. The KJV translators decided that "I am he" is the correct sense of the Greek of John 8:24,28 in their particular contexts. If you claim that the "I am" portion of John 8:24,28 proves the Trinity, then you seem to disagree with the KJV translators' assessment of the meaning here. Do you suggest that Jesus is claiming to be Deity in John 8:28?

That is why the Watchtower version of John 1:1 is so heinous. It literally is not what the Greek says. The addition, a frivolity in English, was backward inserted as damage to the Greek text.

Yes, the JW interpretation is faulty in John 1:1 and I conjecture that an amateur JW read the interlinear portion of their Diaglott, and ignored Benjamin Wilson's English translation.

Note your own words: "would suggest." It is important to always realize (for me too) where we suggest rather than what we both know implicitly. Above, I give what we both can verify in certainty. Here, what we both know, for certain, is that right after "ἐγώ εἰμι" immediately preceded an attempt of stoning Him to death. We also know that there is no extra information in the former sentence. We simply have 'Before Abraham existed, I am."

They did not understand what Jesus was saying about Abraham who rejoiced to see Jesus' day. They then tried to muddy the waters.

We then both know the LXX was written giving us indication of how best to understand the Name given to Moses.

No, the LXX is not an inspired translation, but is a poor translation both in Exodus 3:14 and very many other places.

It is fine to rely on scholasticism but we also should look at the whole AND the majority for checking.

Yes, and my conclusions are also based upon context and many other aspects.

Kind regards
Trevor

 

[Lon]

Greetings again Lon,

I accept "I will be, He will be" as the correct meaning from the tense and the context is also supported by Exodus 3:12 and Exodus 6:1-8.. As far as the tense is concerned, one of my mentors used to refer to the listing of "Ehyeh" under the "future tense" in the print edition of Englishman's Concordance. The other entries are future, but the KJV of Exodus 3:14 has "I am". I also have the thorough forum discussion on this future tense.

I 'am' is a state of existence that encompasses 'will be.'

But John 10:7 is similar to the LXX which has "I am the BEING". The LXX does not have "I Am" and the second occurrence of "the BEING" is an evidence that they have translated Exodus 3:14 differently to the KJV translation of Exodus 3:14.

Not between John 8:58 however. Again the two aren't comparable in grammatical structure.

When going from one language to another, there is sometimes a necessity to add a word such as he in order to make the proper sense.

Not in this case. "I am," conveys the same meaning. "I am the guy you are asking about," or "I am he," are understood by "I am" as well. Point: "he" "the guy you are asking about" etc. aren't of any necessity but for how they 'might' convey the meaning further.

The KJV translators decided that "I am he" is the correct sense of the Greek of John 8:24,28 in their particular contexts.

It is a translation license that SHOULDN'T change ones theology. That wasn't the purpose. "Yes, I am," would also convey the thought. "I am" is also sufficient to convey the thought AND is a literal word for word translation.

If you claim that the "I am" portion of John 8:24,28 proves the Trinity, then you seem to disagree with the KJV translators' assessment of the meaning here. Do you suggest that Jesus is claiming to be Deity in John 8:28?

As covered in thread, the context drives understanding. We had a lot of 'reading comprehension' instruction in school for this reason. It is paramount to understanding texts.

Yes, the JW interpretation is faulty in John 1:1 and I conjecture that an amateur JW read the interlinear portion of their Diaglott, and ignored Benjamin Wilson's English translation.

They did not understand what Jesus was saying about Abraham who rejoiced to see Jesus' day. They then tried to muddy the waters.

No, the LXX is not an inspired translation, but is a poor translation both in Exodus 3:14 and very many other places.

It wasn't inspired but Jesus nor the Apostles, nor the church fathers spent any great time correcting it.

Yes, and my conclusions are also based upon context and many other aspects.

Kind regards
Trevor

My conclusions are based on 1) clear grammatical, contextual language rules and conveyance and 2) ensuring the conclusion does no damage to any other text of scripture. 3) I also check with the majority. I don't hold to all Catholic thought, but I do check exactly where we differ and why to be responsible for my own departure and deliberation, as well as check if Protestants are correct (research).