A theological question for Unitarians

[NicholasMarks]

So how would you explain the 'Ego eimi' statements in John, then, NM?

I am sorry Anchorman but I don't see what you see in the words of John.

You must remember that Jesus was the exact replica of his father and his work was exclusively to deliver God's word and that word is righteousness. The beauty of this being two separate beings is that each are bearing witness for the other, which means that Almighty God isn't alone in his righteous stance...others are able to grasp the importance of it as well, and Jesus, by being born sinless, retaining his sinlessness and being reborn from crucifixion because of his sinlessness tells us plainly that fleshy beings such as you and I can do something similar too, and earn similar attributes. In fact Jesus says that in death he went down to the place we all go to in death but because of his righteous nature he was able to return...be resurrected...and this tells us we can be reborn as well, but it is in our own hands...we have to follow Jesus accurately and thereby, never see death. Those who don't have any righteous strength won't return via this efficient responsible route and we know that many just get jammed in that place awaiting return prior to God's Judgement...and many of these will go to the fiery lake of sulphur if they ignore their last opportunity for repentance.

[Brownie]

Quote from: Floo on Today at 02:02:41 PM
Brownie, I don't mean to be rude but sometimes your posts directed at me are like teaching your granny to suck eggs!  I don't believe for one second the story of Adam and Eve is factual, my post is directed at those who believe the Biblical stories to be true in every detail.

Oh gosh, I honestly didn't mean to come over like that.  I am so sorry.

--------------

Anchor, you used the term 'Ego eimi'.
I understood that to mean, "I have been", or "I was before", when strictly translated from Greek.  So do we know, precisely, what Jesus meant?

I am more than comfortable to believe in the Blessed Trinity but can see it is a debatable issue, I deliberately won't say, "Controversial", because there is no need for that to be the case.

[floo]

Quote from: Floo on Today at 02:02:41 PM
Brownie, I don't mean to be rude but sometimes your posts directed at me are like teaching your granny to suck eggs!  I don't believe for one second the story of Adam and Eve is factual, my post is directed at those who believe the Biblical stories to be true in every detail.

Oh gosh, I honestly didn't mean to come over like that.  I am so sorry.

--------------

Anchor, you used the term 'Ego eimi'.
I understood that to mean, "I have been", or "I was before", when strictly translated from Greek.  So do we know, precisely, what Jesus meant?

I am more than comfortable to believe in the Blessed Trinity but can see it is a debatable issue, I deliberately won't say, "Controversial", because there is no need for that to be the case.

Don't worry if we were perfect we would be very hard to live with. That is one thing I certainly don't need to concern myself with, as perfection and me is an oxymoron!

[Anchorman]

Brownie: There are a few possibilities in the 'ego eimi' sayings of Christ in John. When one looks at them, they follow typical Jewish teaching rote modals of the time - Jesus is clearly trying to make His point very firmly in a way that His hearers would not mistake. All the more jarring when He comes out with the "Before Abraham was, I AM" in John 8. There can be no real ambiguity there. He clearly takes upon Himself the Name - the Name that devout jews would not even utter. In taking the Name, He implicitly takes on the full personhood attached to it - in other words, He claims divinity. Since He made it clear that there is only One God; in claiming the divine Name for Himself, he must have believed Himself to be God. OK, atheists and non Christians are very free to dispute His claim; however the claim remains - a core doctrine of the faith.

[Brownie]

I don't see it that way.   Jesus saying, "Before Abraham, I am", just says to me that he was planned before Abraham;  if Jesus is God's idea of Himself as a human being, it fits that 'the idea' was always with God - but doesn't make 'the idea' God.  Jesus was a created being.

[NicholasMarks]

Brownie: There are a few possibilities in the 'ego eimi' sayings of Christ in John. When one looks at them, they follow typical Jewish teaching rote modals of the time - Jesus is clearly trying to make His point very firmly in a way that His hearers would not mistake. All the more jarring when He comes out with the "Before Abraham was, I AM" in John 8. There can be no real ambiguity there. He clearly takes upon Himself the Name - the Name that devout jews would not even utter. In taking the Name, He implicitly takes on the full personhood attached to it - in other words, He claims divinity. Since He made it clear that there is only One God; in claiming the divine Name for Himself, he must have believed Himself to be God. OK, atheists and non Christians are very free to dispute His claim; however the claim remains - a core doctrine of the faith.

Naturally I must take you to task here Anchorman. The key to righteousness is believing in a simplistic way what we are told by those who explicitly teach the truth.

In the beginning was the 'word'. The word is a particular expression...it is a profound understanding which without Jesus would be almost impossible to understand. Jesus was that word made flesh so that Jesus was delivering righteousness exactly as Almighty God had taught his Heavenly subjects of whom Jesus was one.

So you might ask...what is the substance behind Almighty God's word of righteousness??

John tells us...It is the light of the world...or, put another way...total understanding of the entire universe.

 

[ekim]

the term 'Ego eimi'.
I understood that to mean, "I have been", or "I was before", when strictly translated from Greek.  So do we know, precisely, what Jesus meant?

There are some who believe that the writer of the 4th Gospel was a Hellenist Jew who was steeped in the Logos philosophy and is a possible reason why it doesn't correspond too well with the other three Gospels.  I believe that 'Ego eimi' is present tense and means 'I am being'.  It could be that 'being' represented the eternal state which is always present and the God as Supreme Being is omnipresent.  I doubt whether a Jesus would declare himself to be Supreme.  If he did then he must have spent a lot of time talking to himself (like you?    ).  Are you simply being or are you thinking, emoting, talking, walking etc. etc. which is temporal?

[Brownie]

Smashing, ekim.

[Dicky Underpants]

In taking the Name, He implicitly takes on the full personhood attached to it - in other words, He claims divinity. Since He made it clear that there is only One God; in claiming the divine Name for Himself, he must have believed Himself to be God. OK, atheists and non Christians are very free to dispute His claim; however the claim remains - a core doctrine of the faith.

Gor blimey: you of all people taking John's gospel as accurate historical reportage. No doubt that was the message that 'John' himself wished to convey, and therefore made up some poetic speeches for Jesus to say that conveyed this. But even there the author (or authors) of 'John' is (are) not consistent. Doesn't this gospel also have Jesus saying "my Father in heaven is greater than I"?

All a bit of private grief, though.

[Hope]

There are some who believe that the writer of the 4th Gospel was a Hellenist Jew who was steeped in the Logos philosophy and is a possible reason why it doesn't correspond too well with the other three Gospels.  I believe that 'Ego eimi' is present tense and means 'I am being'.  It could be that 'being' represented the eternal state which is always present and the God as Supreme Being is omnipresent.  I doubt whether a Jesus would declare himself to be Supreme.  If he did then he must have spent a lot of time talking to himself (like you?    ).  Are you simply being or are you thinking, emoting, talking, walking etc. etc. which is temporal?

ekim, there is an alternative explanation for why the 4th Gospel doesn't "... correspond too well with the other three Gospels."

Not only was it written later than the Synoptics, it was also written in order to correct a number of misinterpretations and even heresies that had become common.  In other words, it had a very different purpose to the Synoptics.

[Hope]

Gor blimey: you of all people taking John's gospel as accurate historical reportage. No doubt that was the message that 'John' himself wished to convey, and therefore made up some poetic speeches for Jesus to say that conveyed this. But even there the author (or authors) of 'John' is (are) not consistent. Doesn't this gospel also have Jesus saying "my Father in heaven is greater than I"?

But what does he mean when he says 'greater', DU?  The Greek word used is μεῖζων. 

By the way, he doesn't use the term 'I' but 'all'.  Eugene Peterson, in his 'The Message' translates the sentence thus:

The Father who put them under my care is so much greater than the Destroyer and Thief.

[Anchorman]

I'd kinda go with Hope here, DU; From what I know of the history of John, and its' universal acceptance by diverse Christian groups throughout the area by the end of the first century, its authorship was accepted, its' content deemed in accordance with the message preached, not only by Paul, but from Jerusalem and later Antioch.

[NicholasMarks]

I'd kinda go with Hope here, DU; From what I know of the history of John, and its' universal acceptance by diverse Christian groups throughout the area by the end of the first century, its authorship was accepted, its' content deemed in accordance with the message preached, not only by Paul, but from Jerusalem and later Antioch.

The best way to interpret the Holy Bible is to interpret its spiritual message first...All through the Bible we hear about righteousness and that sin violates that righteousness. We certainly get the impression that Almighty God and Jesus are delivering a profound message, hard to understand, but by putting into practice what is being said we begin to realise that God is talking to us scientifically.

That one message that is certainly present throughout the Gospels is that we each have the ability to upbuild a righteous spirit as Jesus said and we must use it righteously...like in the Biblical statement...no one can speak to God unless in spirit and in truth.

The books in the Bible then must carry the theme of righteous good order regardless of who wrote them and John certainly has righteous integrity.

[floo]

The best way to interpret the Bible is to question everything in it, and to put it to the probability test. If it isn't probable, it is unlikely to have happened as stated.

[Anchorman]

The best way to interpret the Holy Bible is to interpret its spiritual message first...All through the Bible we hear about righteousness and that sin violates that righteousness. We certainly get the impression that Almighty God and Jesus are delivering a profound message, hard to understand, but by putting into practice what is being said we begin to realise that God is talking to us scientifically.

That one message that is certainly present throughout the Gospels is that we each have the ability to upbuild a righteous spirit as Jesus said and we must use it righteously...like in the Biblical statement...no one can speak to God unless in spirit and in truth.

The books in the Bible then must carry the theme of righteous good order regardless of who wrote them and John certainly has righteous integrity.

Eh?
What has that got to do with the historicity - or otherwise - of John's Gospel?

[NicholasMarks]

Eh?
What has that got to do with the historicity - or otherwise - of John's Gospel?

Sorry Anchorman...I just noticed that you seemed to be ganging up on John without realising that his word was equally important as the other NT writers.

John said that in the beginning was the 'word' and this is so vitally important in placing the otherwise missing piece in the jig-saw shared between the OT and the NT and is such a vital cog in the wheel of Jesus' teaching that I thought it was worth a mention.

[floo]

Anchorman, NM is the authority on all things Biblical. A herd of pigs have just flown passed my window!

[Anchorman]

Sorry Anchorman...I just noticed that you seemed to be ganging up on John without realising that his word was equally important as the other NT writers.

John said that in the beginning was the 'word' and this is so vitally important in placing the otherwise missing piece in the jig-saw shared between the OT and the NT and is such a vital cog in the wheel of Jesus' teaching that I thought it was worth a mention.

Eh?
Where have I 'ganged up on John'?
I've never disputed the fourth Gospel as part of the Scriptures - far from it!
Unlike you, for example, I quote the COMPLete verse -
"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word WAS god!
(Emphasis mine).
Note that there is no 'a' there, as in the corrupt NWT, NM.
The 'logos' was not 'a god'. 'from god', 'symbolising God', but God.
John, as they say, nails it. Christ Jesus, the 'Logos' - was. and is, God.

[NicholasMarks]

Eh?
Where have I 'ganged up on John'?
I've never disputed the fourth Gospel as part of the Scriptures - far from it!
Unlike you, for example, I quote the COMPLete verse -
"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word WAS god!
(Emphasis mine).
Note that there is no 'a' there, as in the corrupt NWT, NM.
The 'logos' was not 'a god'. 'from god', 'symbolising God', but God.
John, as they say, nails it. Christ Jesus, the 'Logos' - was. and is, God.

The ' word' of God is righteousness Anchorman and Jesus was/is that word made flesh. I may have misread the ganging-up on John...but felt there was a valuable point to be made there anyway.

When attacking  JWs please note you are having a go at a group that take Jesus' righteous teaching very serioucly indeed. They too might be in error but it is a question of whose is the greatest error??

 

[ekim]

In the beginning was the logos, and the logos was toward God, and God was the logos.

It depends upon how logos is translated.  It can mean creative principle, divine wisdom, both of which were seen as divine qualities.  I should have thought that the God in question would not have had a beginning and that the creative principle initiated the 'beginning'.  I have my doubts that Jesus considered himself as God, even if the author of the 4th Gospel thought him so.

[Sassy]

Brownie: There are a few possibilities in the 'ego eimi' sayings of Christ in John. When one looks at them, they follow typical Jewish teaching rote modals of the time - Jesus is clearly trying to make His point very firmly in a way that His hearers would not mistake. All the more jarring when He comes out with the "Before Abraham was, I AM" in John 8. There can be no real ambiguity there.

Says WHO?

56 Your father Abraham rejoiced to see my day: and he saw it, and was glad.

57 Then said the Jews unto him, Thou art not yet fifty years old, and hast thou seen Abraham?

58 Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am.

[/b]

Jesus is not saying he is, I AM as in God saying this to Moses. He is clearly telling the Jews who questioned him knowing what Abrahan did, that he was not old enough to have seen Abraham. But he said before Abraham, he was.  It would clearly denote capitals if referring to the words God used.

So Jesus is NOT saying he is God or referring to himself as I am but saying he existed before Abraham.

King James Bible
For I came down from heaven, not to do mine own will, but the will of him that sent me.

He clearly takes upon Himself the Name - the Name that devout jews would not even utter.

No he doesn't he clearly states he existed before Abraham. Not the same thing as you twisting it to mean something it doesn't.

In taking the Name, He implicitly takes on the full personhood attached to it - in other words, He claims divinity.

That which proceeds the verse shows that Jesus in that one sentence does not in anyway claim or make himself to be God.

Since He made it clear that there is only One God; in claiming the divine Name for Himself, he must have believed Himself to be God.

You see where you get it all wrong now. NOWHERE THERE OR ANYWHERE DOES JESUS CLAIM TO BE THE FATHER GOD.

John 17:3.
And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.

So stop repeating false teachings. Christ in that one sentence cannot and does not say what you put  into his mouth. He is clear from his teaching that the One True God sent him.

OK, atheists and non Christians are very free to dispute His claim; however the claim remains - a core doctrine of the faith.

  Rubbish, there is no truth and no doctrine at all in your claim. Because Christ has made it clear God sent him.

[NicholasMarks]

In the beginning was the logos, and the logos was toward God, and God was the logos.

It depends upon how logos is translated.  It can mean creative principle, divine wisdom, both of which were seen as divine qualities.  I should have thought that the God in question would not have had a beginning and that the creative principle initiated the 'beginning'.  I have my doubts that Jesus considered himself as God, even if the author of the 4th Gospel thought him so.

John didn't think Jesus was God. He did know that Jesus was God-like...so much so that they were virtually identical...but not actually the same  being. There is so much to be pulled from this knowledge which contradicts so called experts on righteous teaching who seem to say come to them first  and they will show you how Jesus is God full stop...when...if we go to Jesus first we have righteousness from its original source...an everlasting teaching of paramount importance in this day and age.



 

[NicholasMarks]

Says WHO?




Jesus is not saying he is, I AM as in God saying this to Moses. He is clearly telling the Jews who questioned him knowing what Abrahan did, that he was not old enough to have seen Abraham. But he said before Abraham, he was.  It would clearly denote capitals if referring to the words God used.

So Jesus is NOT saying he is God or referring to himself as I am but saying he existed before Abraham.No he doesn't he clearly states he existed before Abraham. Not the same thing as you twisting it to mean something it doesn't.

That which proceeds the verse shows that Jesus in that one sentence does not in anyway claim or make himself to be God.


You see where you get it all wrong now. NOWHERE THERE OR ANYWHERE DOES JESUS CLAIM TO BE THE FATHER GOD.

John 17:3.
And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.

So stop repeating false teachings. Christ in that one sentence cannot and does not say what you put  into his mouth. He is clear from his teaching that the One True God sent him.
  Rubbish, there is no truth and no doctrine at all in your claim. Because Christ has made it clear God sent him.

Just one point I'd like to make here Sassy...which might clear up one point at least. Jesus lived in Heaven before he was spiritually delivered to Mary. There was no need for him to come here to planet Earth and grow up alongside us but he chose to fulfil one of God's requirements...to deliver righteousness to the inhabitants on the Earth. By doing it so perfectly he made himself God-like...higher than the angels in Heaven...but the Holy Bible tells it best...as long as we read it accurately and not via iniquity which tries to populize the difficult concepts.

[floo]

Jesus lived in Heaven before he was spiritually delivered to Mary.

Where in the Bible does it say that?

[NicholasMarks]

Jesus lived in Heaven before he was spiritually delivered to Mary.

Where in the Bible does it say that?

Two or three places...when jesus says...I am not of this world and also when he said...Before Abrahan,  I am.