Gospel of John 1:14

[tabibito]

Will Jesus saying, "before Abraham was, I Am" qualify?

Sorry, but no. All that says is that Jesus had existed since before Abraham was born. A similar claim (apparently) could be made by any number of the angels.

[Esther]

Sorry, but no. All that says is that Jesus had existed since before Abraham was born. That is (apparently) a claim that any number of the angels could make.

The angels are never referred to nor refer to themselves as I Am. God alone gives Himself this strange name?

[tabibito]

The angels are never referred to nor refer to themselves as I Am. God alone gives Himself this strange name?

Except that in (Koine Greek) the Septuagint, the name that God gives himself is "the being/living one," not "I am." "ho ōn," not "egō eimi."
The man blind from birth, whom Jesus healed. People were wondering if the healed man was the same person who had been born blind. He said


"I am (egō eimi)." I don't think it would be reasonable to assume that he was claiming to be God.

[Esther]

Except that in (Koine Greek) the Septuagint, the name that God gives himself is "the being/living one," not "I am." "ho ōn," not "egō eimi."
The man blind from birth, whom Jesus healed. People were wondering if the healed man was the same person who had been born blind. He said


"I am (egō eimi)." I don't think it would be reasonable to assume that he was claiming to be God.

Ok I think this is what is called shifting the goal posts so I'm out. I only read the Bible in English, with no denominational or scholarly spectacles.

[tabibito]

Ok I think this is what is called shifting the goal posts so I'm out. I only read the Bible in English, with no denominational or scholarly spectacles.

The Bible does not make mention of "I am" as a term identifying Jesus as God. That information came from outside the Bible, with a flawed exposition of the Koine Greek interpretation of egō eimi. You do indeed have denominational or "scholarly" spectacles informing your reading.

[Mountain Man]

Altogether too much weight being assigned to the presence or absence of the definite article, "the." Either a word game, or the author doesn't know a whole lot about Koine Greek.



Nice. Jesus is the personification of the ideal human.



A reference to the ascended Jesus. It does not refer to Jesus as he was during the term after becoming flesh until (probably) during the week following the resurrection. I have already stipulated that Jesus is both God and man since shortly after the resurrection.



Near as I can tell, the Son of Man is lord of the sabbath because the Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath. And why does Matthew 9:8 pass without comment?

As I stated before, the Jews had no concept of the Son of Man as God. It was generally agreed that he was the messiah, and the favoured concept was that he was Metatron (highest of the archangels) transformed to become a human. Beyond that, a wide difference of opinion was expressed. Among them, he was to be strictly human, a scion of either the royal line, or of the priestly line, or perhaps there might be two messiahs, one of the royal line and one of priestly line. Nothing in the Jewish concepts allowed that he was God himself.

Among a host of exposition about the Son of Man:

https://jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/13236-savior Who says that that being was Bar Nash [(the Son of Man)]? It was the All Holy Himself.https://jewishencyclopedia.com/artic...342-man-son-of

The Son of Man, the messiah, was not expected to be God himself.



Logos died - certainly. For Kenotic Christology, that presents a knotty expositional problem. For standard Christology, it presents a knotty problem.



You will note (or should) that the charge of blasphemy did not stick.



Nope. The trial ended without such a determination. If there had been such a determination, there would have been no trial before Pilate; only a representation (if that) for permission to enact the sentence. Jesus was sentenced by Rome to execution under Roman law - as the manner of execution attests. Had he been convicted under Jewish law, the execution would have been by stoning.



John 10: 24-25
24 [(The Jews said)] If You are the Christ, tell us plainly.”
25 Jesus answered them, “I told you, and you do not believe
So Jesus had already told the Jews that he was the Christ, that is, someone anointed by God.

John 10:30
“I and the Father are one.”
I interpret that comment according to the expansion provided by Jesus' prayer in Gethsemane.
John 17:11 - Jesus ask that the disciples be one in the same way that Jesus and the Father are one. The disciples "being one" isn't intended that they somehow become a single being, and their oneness is of the same kind as the oneness of Jesus and the Father. Peter did not become James, nor James Peter, in this hoped for oneness, nor do their morphe, omoioma, and schema combine to form a new, single being.
Even worse for the claim that Jesus declared himself God when he said, "I and the Father are one" is John 17:22-23, which shows this oneness to be unity in love and purpose.



He had authority from God - said as much himself: John 5:26-27; John 17:1-2.

So - once again, you have presented a group of verses that, depending on interpretation, might indicate that Jesus was and claimed to be God.

Saying it's just my interpretation sounds suspiciously like I made my point, but you wish to continue disagreeing anyway.

When Jesus said, "I and the Father are one," the pharisees immediately understood that he was claiming to be God, and there is nothing in the text to suggest that they were wrong. On the contrary, Jesus doubled down on the claim. And of course the charge of blasphemy at Jesus' trial didn't stick, because when Jesus said he was God, he was simply speaking the truth.

Any supposed discrepancies you see in scripture are easily explained by Jesus' dual nature as both essentially God and essentially man.

[tabibito]

Saying it's just my interpretation sounds suspiciously like I made my point, but you wish to continue disagreeing anyway.

But the wording can often be legitimately understood the way you want it to be understood, with other understandings being equally legitimate - which is to say, the texts are ambiguous. When a correct understanding of ambiguous texts is achieved, that understanding won't conflict with explicit texts. If Jesus had explicitly said "I am God," ambiguous texts which might be understood to say either (that Jesus is God or that he is not) don't derive their correct meaning from an arbitrarily decided understanding, but by an understanding informed by the explicit text. The alternative is to arbitrarily decide the meaning and by dint of verbal prestidigitation (playing word games) attempt to make the (contrary to the desired meaning) explicit text seem to say what it does not.

When Jesus said, "I and the Father are one," the pharisees immediately understood that he was claiming to be God, and there is nothing in the text to suggest that they were wrong. On the contrary, Jesus doubled down on the claim. And of course the charge of blasphemy at Jesus' trial didn't stick, because when Jesus said he was God, he was simply speaking the truth.

Jesus made the comment in John 10:30. In John 10:34-37, Jesus gives exposition that refutes the Jews' allegations. Those to whom the scripture was given, scripture calls "gods" (and it is a legitimate claim) - but Jesus himself had done no more than declare himself the son of God. He doesn't affirm that he had called himself God, but reiterates that he had said "I am the Son of God." He also states that the Father had sanctified him and sent him into the world.

Any supposed discrepancies you see in scripture are easily explained by Jesus' dual nature as both essentially God and essentially man.

I see discrepancies between scripture and a number of churches' precepts. Argument supporting the churches' precepts that conflict with scripture make it seem that the Biblical record is contradictory.

[Sparko]

Except that in (Koine Greek) the Septuagint, the name that God gives himself is "the being/living one," not "I am." "ho ōn," not "egō eimi."
The man blind from birth, whom Jesus healed. People were wondering if the healed man was the same person who had been born blind. He said


"I am (egō eimi)." I don't think it would be reasonable to assume that he was claiming to be God.

Jesus was not speaking Greek, he spoke Aramaic. And the Pharisees certainly thought he was claiming to be God and that is why they tried to stone him.

Even under your strange "abdication" idea, Jesus was still The Son, wasn't he? So he could still claim to be God.

[tabibito]

Jesus was not speaking Greek, he spoke Aramaic. And the Pharisees certainly thought he was claiming to be God and that is why they tried to stone him.

No - in all probability he was speaking Aramaic, perhaps Hebrew. In that case, he would have said either "anaki" or "ani" (I) (which normally translate to Koine Greek as "egō eimi"). The word that God uses in Exodus 3:14 to identify himself is "ehyeh" (the existing (one)) - matching ho ōn, not egō eimi. But the original argument propounding that Jesus is identifying himself as God when he says egō eimi is based on the Koine Greek, not on the Hebrew or Aramaic. That argument is flawed from the outset, as anyone who looks at the Koine Greek (even without knowing Koine Greek; but relying on lexicons) can easily determine.

Even under your strange "abdication" idea, Jesus was still The Son, wasn't he? So he could still claim to be God.

Has it occurred to you to wonder whether godhood is an intrinsic characteristic of God, or just his office? If being god is what he is, not who he is, there would be no change of who he was in transforming from God to become human, only in what he was.

In translation, Philippians 2:6-7 is rendered to show that Logos lay aside his "equality with God." Can he be not equal to God and still be God?

[Sparko]

No - in all probability he was speaking Aramaic, perhaps Hebrew. In that case, he would have said either "anaki" or "ani" (I) (which normally translate to Koine Greek as "egō eimi"). The word that God uses in Exodus 3:14 to identify himself is "ehyeh" (the existing (one)) - matching ho ōn, not egō eimi. But the original argument propounding that Jesus is identifying himself as God when he says egō eimi is based on the Koine Greek, not on the Hebrew or Aramaic.

It is obvious from the context that he was referring to himself as being equal with or being God. The pharisees recognized it and tried to stone him for it. And it wasn't the only time he equated himself to God.

Like CS Lewis said,

“I am trying here to prevent anyone saying the really foolish thing that people often say about Him: I’m ready to accept Jesus as a great moral teacher, but I don’t accept his claim to be God. That is the one thing we must not say. A man who was merely a man and said the sort of things Jesus said would not be a great moral teacher. He would either be a lunatic — on the level with the man who says he is a poached egg — or else he would be the Devil of Hell. You must make your choice. Either this man was, and is, the Son of God, or else a madman or something worse. You can shut him up for a fool, you can spit at him and kill him as a demon or you can fall at his feet and call him Lord and God, but let us not come with any patronizing nonsense about his being a great human teacher. He has not left that open to us. He did not intend to.”

Has it occurred to you to wonder whether godhood is an intrinsic characteristic of God, or just his office?

It is his nature. There is only one God. He is uncreated, infinite, everlasting, etc. God can't stop being God.

[tabibito]

It is his nature. There is only one God. He is uncreated, infinite, everlasting, etc. God can't stop being God.

I edited my post while you were answering, so I'll repeat the key point here:
In translation, Philippians 2:6-7 is rendered to show that Logos lay aside his "equality with God." Can he be not equal to God and still be God?


ETA: then,

does Jesus deny that he is equal with the Father?

[Sparko]

I edited my post while you were answering, so I'll repeat the key point here:
In translation, Philippians 2:6-7 is rendered to show that Logos lay aside his "equality with God." Can he be not equal to God and still be God?


ETA: then,

does Jesus deny that he is equal with the Father?

He is the Son, and is functionally subordinate to the Father but is ontologically equal to the Father (both are fully God).

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

Jesus was not speaking Greek, he spoke Aramaic.

Be careful now Sparko.

Some here think that rural Galileans were fluent in Greek!

[Esther]

You do indeed have denominational or "scholarly" spectacles informing your reading.

I am sure I have been influenced by teachings and books but do not belong to any church or specific denomination.

[tabibito]

Be careful now Sparko.

Some here think that rural Galileans were fluent in Greek!

Some here think that a person who had spent some decades mixing in Greek and Roman society was a rural Galilean.

What will you be telling us next? That a high school dropout could not obtain a university degree?
or perhaps that a janitor could not solve a problem that had continued to vex academics for some years?