37818: ego eimi (i am [he])

[elam]

Red above is correct, as confirmed by the book of Revelation in 5 places (Rev. 1:4,1:8,4:8,11:17 and 16:5).

Apostoli & I have filial ties and basically identical backgrounds & therefore opinion.Given his absence from this forum (he has been ill) I'll attempt to pursue his reasoning...

Firstly, it must be stated that Apostoli's reasoning is 100% Trinitarian in the context of the teaching of the Orthodox Churches (RCC,EOC,ROC,OOC), which is reasoned exclusively from the scriptures.

What the "ego emi" crowd fail to address in John 8, is verses 49 & 50 "Jesus answered, I have not a devil; but I honour my Father, and ye do dishonour me. And I seek not mine own glory: there is one that seeketh and judgeth".

If Jesus was claiming to be God almighty, he would have been seeking his own glory, something he explicitly excludes for himself, redirecting the glory to God, his Father.

Another verse the "ego emi" crowd fail to address is John 8:42 = "Jesus said unto them, If God were your Father, ye would love me: for I proceeded forth and came from God; neither came I of myself, but he sent me".

In short: Jesus is saying he did not come of his own volition but subordinated himself to the will of God almighty, his Father. For what purpose? Scripture consistently states Jesus' activity was for the glorification of God almighty, his Father.

[Unitarian101]

Hello 37818,

Here is the final response to your post #222 on the "Derail from Orthodox Anathema Service on Christology" thread...

The LXX is what the Jews, Jesus' disciples and the early church used. The LXX is the scriptures that the NT writers used as everybody, Jew or Christian with a meagre religious education will tell you!

An aside: By Jesus time Hebrew was basically lost. Outside of the temple few could read it, next to nobody spoke it and even in the temple next to no one understood it. That is why in the Jewish services of the time, a reading of the Hebrew was explained by a reading from the Aramaic Targums.

Nice try at avoidance. The issue is that in your "innocence" you made a huge thing about Jesus using the phrase "ego eimi" (english: I am). We both know you thought this was a chest beater "got him" but unfortunately for you and a lot of Sunday school evangelists, Jesus uses "ego eimi" in its common meaning "I am [insert predicate]", it has no other signification. In the Hebrew of Exodos 3:14 YHWH says "Ehyeh asher Ehyeh" and tells Moses to tell the Israelites that his name is "Ehyeh" In the Greek of the LXX this is translated "ego eimi ho on" (english: I am the being or I am the existent one) and God's name is given as "ho on" (english: the being or the existent one). So if Jesus is going to claim to be YHWH as you seem to want, then he wouldn't be using "ego eimi", but "ho on" or more particularly "ego eimi ho on".

In John 8:58-59 when those that had come to believe he was the Messiah wanted to stone him (John 8:30 the last referents in John 8), Jesus had just declared that he had existed since before Abraham was born, which harkens back to John 8:40. Which if you read Gen 18. Jesus' claim is self evident, for the man Abraham saw, Abraham identified as YHWH.

Always best to read and follow scripture and take the direct approach rather than come up with stupidities that can't be supported. Which is why the link between Ex 3:14 & the "I am" was thrown out the window decades ago, many Biblical scholars now link the "I am" to a text in Isaiah.

Now why would he do that and not reveal himself as the Messiah to John? As I keep telling you, read the scriptures. Jesus never revealed himself as the Messiah to any Jew including the disciples. He did hint at it to the blind man he had healed, and he told the Samaritan woman directly that he was the awaited Messiah. As for A.Peter's realisation, Jesus told Peter God the Father had revealed it to him.

Be careful how you read this verse. There is only one person speaking, that is YHWH, and he speaks as the ultimate King of Israel, the redeemer of Israel and the commander of Israel's armies.

Interestingly, the Hebrew word translated "beside" could just as easily be rendered "without" thus we could read "without me [there is] no God", which fits the OT very nicely.

Then how come you keep insisting the Son is unbegotten just like his Father? But putting your silliness aside the "first and the last" is a direct reference to what precedes eg: there is no other King, redeemer or general that you have ever had or will have (cp. David's census of the Israelites. He thought his victories were from his and his armies prowess. So God chastened all of his kingdom).

He says the same at Rev 21:6 The beginning and end of what? The first and last of what? You might want to think upon Rev 21:1 to start getting some real answers. as for 22:13 have a read of Rev 22:12,14.

I would have been more inclined to use Rev 1:8.

Matthew Henry in his commentary has this to say "...God the Father, which may be taken either essentially, for God as God, or personally, for the first person in the ever-blessed Trinity, the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ; and he is described as the Jehovah who is, and who was, and who is to come, eternal, unchangeable, the same to the Old-Testament church which was, and to the New-Testament church which is, and who will be the same to the church triumphant which is to come."

Matthew Henry makes the observation that in vs 4-8 we have a progression: The Spirit, the Son and then the Father. In vs5 it says that "[Jesus has] made us to be a kingdom, to be priests unto his God and Father; to [the Father] be the glory and the dominion for ever and ever. Amen".

Now what do you make of that?

I don't know how many times I have to say it but once again I'll say it and hopefully you remember what I say: I accept that the memra of YHWH=the Word of God=the angel of his presence=the angel of YHWH=the Son of God, was the God of the Israelites. So I'd expect to find equivalent scriptures in the OT & NT that have reference to his earthly function.

Red above is correct, as confirmed by the book of Revelation in 5 places (Rev. 1:4,1:8,4:8,11:17 and 16:5).

[apostoli]

I've replied to your post on the thread "YHWH (1 or 3)"...

Part of your post did deal with "ego eimi"...though not John 8:58...I was of two minds whether to keep it here or not, but given most of it was off topic I decided not...

Just one comment: where we encounter the text "I am [he]" all commentators I've ever come across point to Isaiah and the Jewish expectation of their Saviour, their Messiah. That fits the context of the verses...

[37818]

Read your post #5, your remarks are self contradictory, especially as a response to my post #4.

In post #3 you demanded as an intended provocation (I had a good laugh at your pretense of outrage): "Do you or do you not believe YHWH is the Father, Son of God and the Holy Spirit? That the Persons, God the Father, Son of God and Holy Spirit are YHWH? Yes or no."

I replied in post #4 "Do Christians baptise in the name (singular) of the Father, Son & Spirit? Three distinct persons (hypostases), one name." You failed to respond to that point. If you had responded to that remark, you probably wouldn't have contradicted yourself in your post #5.

You didn't answer yes or no to my yes and no question. Referring to a post number does not show any contradiction. Maybe someone else who agrees with you might be kind enough to quote me. And show and explain the contradiction.

As for baptizing in the name[singular] of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. I see no problem with that truth.

You insist that "I am [he]" by Jesus in John 8:24 is not Himself referring to Himself being the "I AM" of Exodus 3:14. I read your arguments. You are wrong. Jesus statement "that ye shall die in your sins: for if ye believe not that I am [he], ye shall die in your sins," has everything to do with believing, not only Him to be the Christ, but God in the flesh (John 1:10 etc). So if His deity is not meant, then as for dying in one's sins, denying His deity has nothing to do with it. Is that what you really think?

[apostoli]

Hello 37818,

As is your habit when you are unable to respond to the current argument of a thread, you attempt to derail the topic by changing the subject = introduce a new topic. So I've opened a new thread to attend to your inquiries = "YHWH (1 or 3)".

I encourage you to do some study and contribute to the topic "ego eimi". Otherwise, if you wish to pursue your latest inquiry please do so on the thread "YHWH (1 or 3)"...

[apostoli]

Ah, quote me. An let us address said contradiction.

Read your post #5, your remarks are self contradictory, especially as a response to my post #4.

In post #3 you demanded as an intended provocation (I had a good laugh at your pretense of outrage): "Do you or do you not believe YHWH is the Father, Son of God and the Holy Spirit? That the Persons, God the Father, Son of God and Holy Spirit are YHWH? Yes or no."

I replied in post #4 "Do Christians baptise in the name (singular) of the Father, Son & Spirit? Three distinct persons (hypostases), one name." You failed to respond to that point. If you had responded to that remark, you probably wouldn't have contradicted yourself in your post #5.

[37818]

Guess you don't realise you are contradicting yourself again! Read and think upon what you have written...

Ah, quote me. An let us address said contradiction.

[apostoli]

So because I affirmed they where the same YHWH, not two YHWH's. You conflate my argument of one deity with persons.
Yes. Since it is the only-begotten Son who appears (John 1:18; John 14:6).

Guess you don't realise you are contradicting yourself again! Read and think upon what you have written...

[37818]

Remember, it is you who denied Genesis 19:24 referred to two persons (hypostases) = the YHWH in heaven and the one residing on earth whom Abraham recognised as YHWH (Genesis 18).

So because I affirmed they where the same YHWH, not two YHWH's. You conflate my argument of one deity with persons.

Also, have you not read that no one has ever seen God and lived, and yet Abraham spoke with him face to face and provided him (the YHWH residing on earth) with refereshment. (Genesis 18)

Yes. Since it is the only-begotten Son who appears (John 1:18; John 14:6).

[apostoli]

Do you or do you not believe YHWH is the Father, Son of God and the Holy Spirit? That the Persons, God the Father, Son of God and Holy Spirit are YHWH? Yes or no.

Do Christians baptise in the name (singular) of the Father, Son & Spirit? Three distinct persons (hypostases), one name.

Remember, it is you who denied Genesis 19:24 referred to two persons (hypostases) = the YHWH in heaven and the one residing on earth whom Abraham recognised as YHWH (Genesis 18). You put yourself in opposition to pretty well most Christian groups = the RCC,EOC,ROC,OCC, Lutherans, Anglicans ,the Reformed churches, most Protestants and whoever accepts the Trinitarian teaching of Nicea.etc

Also, have you not read that no one has ever seen God and lived, and yet Abraham spoke with him face to face and provided him (the YHWH residing on earth) with refereshment. (Genesis 18)

[Jedidiah]

The LXX is what the Jews, Jesus' disciples and the early church used. The LXX is the scriptures that the NT writers used as everybody, Jew or Christian with a meagre religious education will tell you!

Oh really?

[37818]

Do you or do you not believe YHWH is the Father, Son of God and the Holy Spirit? That the Persons, God the Father, Son of God and Holy Spirit are YHWH? Yes or no.

[apostoli]

Hello 37818,

Here is the final response to your post #222 on the "Derail from Orthodox Anathema Service on Christology" thread...

You really should try to find the context of a verse. Have a read of vs25 "Then they said to Him, “Who are You?” And Jesus said to them, “Just what I have been saying to you from the beginning". What had Jesus been telling them from the beginning? He certainly wasn't claiming to be "the being" of Ex 3:14, the LXX rendering "ego eimi ho on" = "I am the being" = "Thus you shall say to the children of Israel, HO ON has sent me to you."  I suggest Jesus was referring to himself as the Messiah. Now have a read of vs28-30 "Then Jesus said to them, When you lift up the Son of Man, then you will know that I am He, and that I do nothing of Myself; but as My Father taught Me, I speak these things. And He who sent Me is with Me. The Father has not left Me alone, for I always do those things that please Him. As He spoke these words, many believed in Him." It is little wonder they now believed in him, given he cited Isaiah's prophecy concerning the Messiah!

You cite the LXX which is a translation, not actually what translates from the Hebrew, the "ho on" is more an interpretation of YHWH for the "I AM" than a translation of the "I AM."

The LXX is what the Jews, Jesus' disciples and the early church used. The LXX is the scriptures that the NT writers used as everybody, Jew or Christian with a meagre religious education will tell you!

An aside: By Jesus time Hebrew was basically lost. Outside of the temple few could read it, next to nobody spoke it and even in the temple next to no one understood it. That is why in the Jewish services of the time, a reading of the Hebrew was explained by a reading from the Aramaic Targums.

"I am the Alpha and the Omega, saith the Lord God, who is [oh on] and who was and who is to come, the Almighty." -- Revelation 1:8. ASV

"And when I saw him, I fell at his feet as one dead. And he laid his right hand upon me, saying, Fear not; I am the first and the last, and the Living one; and I was dead, and behold, I am alive for evermore, and I have the keys of death and of Hades." -- Revelation 1:17, 18. ASV

Nice try at avoidance. The issue is that in your "innocence" you made a huge thing about Jesus using the phrase "ego eimi" (english: I am). We both know you thought this was a chest beater "got him" but unfortunately for you and a lot of Sunday school evangelists, Jesus uses "ego eimi" in its common meaning "I am [insert predicate]", it has no other signification. In the Hebrew of Exodos 3:14 YHWH says "Ehyeh asher Ehyeh" and tells Moses to tell the Israelites that his name is "Ehyeh" In the Greek of the LXX this is translated "ego eimi ho on" (english: I am the being or I am the existent one) and God's name is given as "ho on" (english: the being or the existent one). So if Jesus is going to claim to be YHWH as you seem to want, then he wouldn't be using "ego eimi", but "ho on" or more particularly "ego eimi ho on".

In John 8:58-59 when those that had come to believe he was the Messiah wanted to stone him (John 8:30 the last referents in John 8), Jesus had just declared that he had existed since before Abraham was born, which harkens back to John 8:40. Which if you read Gen 18. Jesus' claim is self evident, for the man Abraham saw, Abraham identified as YHWH.

Always best to read and follow scripture and take the direct approach rather than come up with stupidities that can't be supported. Which is why the link between Ex 3:14 & the "I am" was thrown out the window decades ago, many Biblical scholars now link the "I am" to a text in Isaiah.

Jesus to John identifies Himself as the Lord God.

Now why would he do that and not reveal himself as the Messiah to John? As I keep telling you, read the scriptures. Jesus never revealed himself as the Messiah to any Jew including the disciples. He did hint at it to the blind man he had healed, and he told the Samaritan woman directly that he was the awaited Messiah. As for A.Peter's realisation, Jesus told Peter God the Father had revealed it to him.

"Thus saith the LORD the King of Israel, and his redeemer the LORD of hosts; I [am] [the first, and I [am] the last; and beside me [there is] no God." -- Isaiah 44:6.

Be careful how you read this verse. There is only one person speaking, that is YHWH, and he speaks as the ultimate King of Israel, the redeemer of Israel and the commander of Israel's armies.

Interestingly, the Hebrew word translated "beside" could just as easily be rendered "without" thus we could read "without me [there is] no God", which fits the OT very nicely.

There are not two "first and lasts."

Then how come you keep insisting the Son is unbegotten just like his Father? But putting your silliness aside the "first and the last" is a direct reference to what precedes eg: there is no other King, redeemer or general that you have ever had or will have (cp. David's census of the Israelites. He thought his victories were from his and his armies prowess. So God chastened all of his kingdom).

"I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, the first and the last." -- Revelation 22:13.

He says the same at Rev 21:6 The beginning and end of what? The first and last of what? You might want to think upon Rev 21:1 to start getting some real answers. as for 22:13 have a read of Rev 22:12,14.

I would have been more inclined to use Rev 1:8.

Matthew Henry in his commentary has this to say "...God the Father, which may be taken either essentially, for God as God, or personally, for the first person in the ever-blessed Trinity, the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ; and he is described as the Jehovah who is, and who was, and who is to come, eternal, unchangeable, the same to the Old-Testament church which was, and to the New-Testament church which is, and who will be the same to the church triumphant which is to come."

Matthew Henry makes the observation that in vs 4-8 we have a progression: The Spirit, the Son and then the Father. In vs5 it says that "[Jesus has] made us to be a kingdom, to be priests unto his God and Father; to [the Father] be the glory and the dominion for ever and ever. Amen".

Now what do you make of that?

I don't know how many times I have to say it but once again I'll say it and hopefully you remember what I say: I accept that the memra of YHWH=the Word of God=the angel of his presence=the angel of YHWH=the Son of God, was the God of the Israelites. So I'd expect to find equivalent scriptures in the OT & NT that have reference to his earthly function.