Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
What does Jesus claim about Himself and the Kingdom of God? It really depends on which gospel you read.John 8:58, "Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was I am!"
Any Jew of that period would have immediately recognized that statement as a claim to be God.
Actually they wouldn't and neither should we based on the Greek and the KJV.
He didn't if you don't want to include John in your Bible. John 8:58 is a clear reference to what God said from the burning bush to Moses--
New International Version
God said to Moses, "I AM WHO I AM. This is what you are to say to the Israelites: 'I AM has sent me to you.'"
Every Jew who read heard that claim from the writer John instantly understood its significance. And most REJECTED it, because by the time John was written, Jewish Christians had been killed off in droves and Christianity was spreading very much to Gentiles. John is even an apologetic to the Roman people to place the blame of Jesus' crucifixion on the Jews. Matthew and Mark plainly state that Jesus was delivered to the Roman soldiers; John just as plainly states that he was delivered to the Jews. Matthew and Mark declare that he was crucified by the soldiers; John declares that he was crucified by the Jews--(19:16-17). Were it not that John elsewhere (19:23) contradicts himself and states that the soldiers crucified him, the conclusion would be, after reading John and Matthew, that he was crucified by the Jews.
Later, in Acts, Peter doesn't blame the Romans (Luke, the author, was a Gentile apologetic)--Peter declares that the Jews executed him. Addressing the Sanhedrim, he says: "The God of our fathers raised up Jesus, whom ye slew and hanged on a tree" (Acts 5:30). Peter is unlikely have to been so accusatory to the Jews as they were the primary thrust of his missionary work--even in Rome--and he still carefully observed Jewish law, even refraining from eating with Gentiles after James sent a delegation to (Antioch off the top of my head), to see how the work was going among the Jews. Paul chided him for doing so. There is no way Peter laid the blame for crucifixion on the Jews whom he was recruiting.
As I stated, it's all in which of the gospels you want to read exclusively of others.
You've just stated your choice.
Actually 3;14 is a prelude to VS 15.
Plus neither the Hebrew not the Greek match in Ex 3:14 and John 8:58 as to meaning or grammar. People who do not know better are unaware of the failure in the use of those verses.
Such a translation [in English] as “I am what I am” appears to be ruled out completely by the fact that the verbs [in Hebrew] here are imperfects. “I am” is the normal translation of the Hebrew perfect, not an imperfect. ... The translation offered here relates this explanation of the name to covenants with the patriarchs. As such it was a basis of assurance concerning Yahweh’s presence and support. This thought is made explicit in the verse that follows, and the proper name Yahweh, the memorial name, is made synonymous with the description “I shall continue to be what I have always been.” This makes the description a restatement of Yahweh’s faithfulness an assurance that he will fulfill the covenants with Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.—J. Wash Watt, Professor of Old Testament, New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary, 1930-1968, A DistinctiveTranslation of Exodus With An Interpretative Outline, 1977, pp. 140–1.
The translation I am [in English] is doubly false: the tense is wrong, being present; and the idea is wrong, because am [in such an incorrect translation] is used in the sense of essential existence. All those interpretations which proceed upon the supposition that the word is a name of God as the self-existent, the absolute, of which the Septuagint’s ho ohn is the most conspicuous illustration, must be set aside ... the nature of the verb [in Hebrew] and the tense peremptorily forbid them.—A.B. Davidson, “The Theology of the Old Testament”, in The International TheologicalLibrary, 1920, p. 55.
The verb eimi...Sometimes it does express existence as a predicate like any other verb, as in ego eimi (Jo. 8:58)—A.T. Robertson, A Grammar ofthe Greek New Testament in the Light of Historical Research, p. 394.
Existence NOT identity. The translators of the KJV saw that and people who read it are blinded by men who try and change it. And these scholars are all Trinitarians too.
To answer the original queston, "Does the Bible say Jesus is God? "
Jesus said, "I and my Father are one"
John 10;30
KJV John 17:21 That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me. 22 And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one:
Guess based on your assertion we also are all God.
Maybe you do not understand the meaning of the word "one" in the verse.
A unity of fellowship, of will, and of purpose between the Father and the Son is a frequent theme in the Fourth Gospel...and it is tersely and powerfully expressed here [John 10:30] but to press the words so as to make them indicate identity of ousia [substance or, essence] is to introduce thoughts which were not present to the theologians of the first century.—J.H. Bernard, A Critical and ExegeticalCommentary of the Gospel According to St. John, in loc. cit.
TRINITARIAN New Testament Greek scholar W. E. Vine when discussing the Greek word for “one†says: “(b) metaphorically [figuratively], union and concord, e.g., John 10:30; 11:52; 17:11, 21, 22....†- An Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words, p. 809.
Robert Young commented on this knowledge of the word “one†at John 10:30 in his Young’s Concise Critical Bible Commentary: “The particle en [hen] being of the neuter gender, can hardly signify ‘one being, i.e. one God,’ but rather ‘one in will, purpose, counsel...†- p. 62, Baker Book House, 1977.
Plus neither the Hebrew not the Greek match in Ex 3:14 and John 8:58 as to meaning or grammar. People who do not know better are unaware of the failure in the use of those verses.
Such a translation [in English] as “I am what I am” appears to be ruled out completely by the fact that the verbs [in Hebrew] here are imperfects. “I am” is the normal translation of the Hebrew perfect, not an imperfect. ... The translation offered here relates this explanation of the name to covenants with the patriarchs. As such it was a basis of assurance concerning Yahweh’s presence and support. This thought is made explicit in the verse that follows, and the proper name Yahweh, the memorial name, is made synonymous with the description “I shall continue to be what I have always been.” This makes the description a restatement of Yahweh’s faithfulness an assurance that he will fulfill the covenants with Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.—J. Wash Watt, Professor of Old Testament, New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary, 1930-1968, A DistinctiveTranslation of Exodus With An Interpretative Outline, 1977, pp. 140–1.
The translation I am [in English] is doubly false: the tense is wrong, being present; and the idea is wrong, because am [in such an incorrect translation] is used in the sense of essential existence. All those interpretations which proceed upon the supposition that the word is a name of God as the self-existent, the absolute, of which the Septuagint’s ho ohn is the most conspicuous illustration, must be set aside ... the nature of the verb [in Hebrew] and the tense peremptorily forbid them.—A.B. Davidson, “The Theology of the Old Testament”, in The International TheologicalLibrary, 1920, p. 55.
The verb eimi...Sometimes it does express existence as a predicate like any other verb, as in ego eimi (Jo. 8:58)—A.T. Robertson, A Grammar ofthe Greek New Testament in the Light of Historical Research, p. 394.
Existence NOT identity. The translators of the KJV saw that and people who read it are blinded by men who try and change it. And these scholars are all Trinitarians too.
So the Jews had no reason to try to stone Jesus for making a statement that where He did not claim to be God---even though later in the same gospel at 10:33 the Jews say they are going to stone Him for blasphemy "because that thou, being a man, makest thyself God." That was right after 10:30 where Jesus claimed "I and my Father are one.'
The repetition of the I AM statements of Jesus within John do themselves point to the intention of the author to identify Jesus with God. And even if you contend it does not, that leaves you stuck with John 1:1, 14, requiring further explanatory work.
Quite interesting that the Jews of the time misunderstood Jesus, too. Guess they couldn't get their grammar correct either.
Unless, of course, you are discounting the gospel of John in its entirety because of its late publication date--and that in itself is not an entirely implausible decision.
Quote:
These are significant in that they are a reflection of the divine name in Exodus 3:14, where the God of the burning bush answers Moses' question about his name. In the LXX we read, Ἐγώ εἰμι ὁ ὤν, "I am who I am" (ESV).
This most clearly surfaces in John 8:55 (sic 58), "Jesus said to them, 'I tell you the solemn truth, before Abraham came to be, I am!'” (πρὶν Ἀβραὰμ γενέσθαι ἐγὼ εἰμί).
But on the other side of the spectrum we see ἐγώ εἰμι used without any reference to God's name. When Jesus identifies himself as the Messiah to the Samaritan woman he says, "I, the one speaking to you, am he (ἐγώ εἰμι)” (4:26). When Jesus comes walking on the water he says to the disciples, “It is I; do not be afraid (ἐγώ εἰμι· μὴ φοβεῖσθε)” (see also 8:18; 13:19). Even the man born blind can say, “I am the man (ἐγώ εἰμι)" (9:9). And yet given John's affection for deeper meanings, one wonders if Exodus 3:14 isn't floating in the back of his mind even in these passages.
And then there are the in-between verses, where it is not clear if Jesus is simply identifying himself, or if he is making a veiled reference to the Tetragrammaton. For example, "This is why I said to you that you would die in your sins, for if you do not believe that I am he (ἐγώ εἰμι), you will die in your sins” (8:24). "When you lift up the Son of Man, then you will know that I am he" (8:28; cf. 18:5, 6, 8).
This is a good example of how a phrase can have a range of meaning, just like words, and you need to be aware of its range. And you have to be aware of the personal tendencies of the writer.
So is Jesus referencing God's name in 18:5? I doubt it. There is nothing in the context that suggests this. But what about 8:24 and 28? My guess is, from the coming clear reference in v 55 (sic 58), that there is a veiled reference to Exodus 3.
------------------------------
The ESV footnote for John 8:58 states in part "Rather, he (Jesus) uses the present tense I am in speaking of existence more than 2000 years earlier. Thus he claims an existence apart from time that is true only of God."
Further review of the possible connection of Jesus I am statements should also be reviewed with Isaiah 41:4 "I, the Lord, the first, and the last, I am he." Isaiah 44:6b, "I am the the first and the last; besides me there is no god. Isaiah 48:12, "Listen to me, O Jacob, and Israel, whom I called! I am he; I am the first, and I am the last."
There can be no reasonable doubt that John was tying Jesus into the I AM statements of YAHWEH, not just in Exo 3:14, but in the Isaiah statements as well. The Jesus of John is indeed God.
Last edited by Wardendresden; 11-09-2013 at 11:14 PM..
So the Jews had no reason to try to stone Jesus for making a statement that where He did not claim to be God---even though later in the same gospel at 10:33 the Jews say they are going to stone Him for blasphemy "because that thou, being a man, makest thyself God." That was right after 10:30 where Jesus claimed "I and my Father are one.'
The repetition of the I AM statements of Jesus within John do themselves point to the intention of the author to identify Jesus with God. And even if you contend it does not, that leaves you stuck with John 1:1, 14, requiring further explanatory work.
Quite interesting that the Jews of the time misunderstood Jesus, too. Guess they couldn't get their grammar correct either.
Unless, of course, you are discounting the gospel of John in its entirety because of its late publication date--and that in itself is not an entirely implausible decision.
The ESV footnote for John 8:58 states in part "Rather, he (Jesus) uses the present tense I am in speaking of existence more than 2000 years earlier. Thus he claims an existence apart from time that is true only of God."
Further review of the possible connection of Jesus I am statements should also be reviewed with Isaiah 41:4 "I, the Lord, the first, and the last, I am he." Isaiah 44:6b, "I am the the first and the last; besides me there is no god. Isaiah 48:12, "Listen to me, O Jacob, and Israel, whom I called! I am he; I am the first, and I am the last."
There can be no reasonable doubt that John was tying Jesus into the I AM statements of YAHWEH, not just in Exo 3:14, but in the Isaiah statements as well. The Jesus of John is indeed God.
I guess HaShem did not tell Moses that HaShem was the beginning and end, nor did He claim the I AM as His name despite the fact that He told Moses to tell the people that it was the God said to Moses, “I am who I am. This is what you are to say to the Israelites: ‘I am has sent me to you.’†(Exo 3:14).
If you say He is indeed the I AM, then clearly in John, Jesus has claimed the same title.
You forget what John was trying to tell Christians. You may not agree with it, many don't, but denying it is historically incorrect. John was telling Christians that Jesus and God were the same. Unless you are proposing another doctrine that Jesus was a "different" I AM. But that would be YOUR doctrine, not the doctrine of the author of John.
If so where?.........if not what was the message?......world Peace?......I think the message among others is learn to care, learn to get along, Foster good will. But not to the exclusion of the rest of the messages.
In those very words? "Jesus is God." No. But if you can tell me how anyone except God could say to a storm, "Peace. Be still," I'd be interested in hearing more.
So the Jews had no reason to try to stone Jesus for making a statement that where He did not claim to be God---even though later in the same gospel at 10:33 the Jews say they are going to stone Him for blasphemy "because that thou, being a man, makest thyself God." That was right after 10:30 where Jesus claimed "I and my Father are one.'
The repetition of the I AM statements of Jesus within John do themselves point to the intention of the author to identify Jesus with God. And even if you contend it does not, that leaves you stuck with John 1:1, 14, requiring further explanatory work.
Quite interesting that the Jews of the time misunderstood Jesus, too. Guess they couldn't get their grammar correct either.
Unless, of course, you are discounting the gospel of John in its entirety because of its late publication date--and that in itself is not an entirely implausible decision.
The ESV footnote for John 8:58 states in part "Rather, he (Jesus) uses the present tense I am in speaking of existence more than 2000 years earlier. Thus he claims an existence apart from time that is true only of God."
Further review of the possible connection of Jesus I am statements should also be reviewed with Isaiah 41:4 "I, the Lord, the first, and the last, I am he." Isaiah 44:6b, "I am the the first and the last; besides me there is no god. Isaiah 48:12, "Listen to me, O Jacob, and Israel, whom I called! I am he; I am the first, and I am the last."
There can be no reasonable doubt that John was tying Jesus into the I AM statements of YAHWEH, not just in Exo 3:14, but in the Isaiah statements as well. The Jesus of John is indeed God.
Here is your problem. Dueling "scholars" are meaningless. The key are FACTS of grammar first, not opinion.
The facts of grammar rule out "I AM". in Hebrew. the Facts of grammar rule our "I AM" in John 8:58.
The Greek "ego eimi" is not the same tense nor a fitting tense for the Hebrew. In fact the translators of the LXX KNEW that hen they actually rendered it "Ego Eimi Ho Own" and then NOT "Ego Eimi" in the second us of "I AM" in the KJV (and other translations), rather "Ho Own". For Jesus to have been referring to Ex 3;14 he would have had to say 'ego eimi ho pown" or kust 'ho own", but je did n't. This is why the translators of the KJV rendered it "I am", so it would be obvious it WAS NOT a reference to EX 3:14.
Other scholars NOT driven by popular opinion or theology show this.
1) “[F]rom before Abraham was, I have beenâ€.—The New Testament, George R. Noyes, D.D., “Professor Of Hebrew And Other Oriental Languages And Dexter Lecturer On Biblical Literature In Harvard Universityâ€, 1869.
2) “[b]efore Abraham was, I have beenâ€.—Syriac-Edition: A Translation of the FourGospels from the Syriac of the Sinaitic Palimpsest, Agnes Smith Lewis, 1886, from a 4th/5th century manuscript. (Syriac is a form of Aramaic.)
3) “[b]efore Abraham existed, I wasâ€.—Syriac Pe****a-Edition: The Syriac New Testament into English from the Pe****to Version, seventh edition, James Murdock, 1896, from 5th century manuscripts.
4) “[b]efore Abraham to be, I wasâ€.-Curetoian Syriac-Edition: The Curetonian Version of the Four Gospels, F. Crawford Burkitt, 1904, from 5th century manuscripts.
5) “[b]efore Abraham cane to be, I wasâ€.—Georgian-Edition: “The Old GeorgianVersion of the Gospel†of John, P. Blake, M. Briere, in Patrologia Orientallis, Vol. XXVI, faxcicle 4, Paris, 1950, from 5th century manuscripts.
6) “[b]efore Abraham was born, I wasâ€.—Ethiopic-Edition: Nouvum Testamentum Æthiopice, T.P. Platt, revised by F. Praetorius, Lepzig, 1899.
7) “I was before Abraham was bornâ€.—The New Testament Or Rather The New Covenant, Samuel Sharpe, 1881.
8) “[b]efore Abraham existed I was already what I amâ€.—The Twentieth Century New Testa- ment, 1904.
9) “[b]efore Abraham came to be, I wasâ€.—The New Testament (in German), Curt Stage, 1907.
10) “[b]efore Abraham became, I, I, am beingâ€.—The Coptic Version of the New Testament in the Southern Dialect, George William Horner, 1911.
11) “[b]efore Abraham came into being, I have existedâ€.—The Documents Of The New Testament, G.W. Wade 1934.
12) “I have existed before Abraham was bornâ€.—The Bible A New Translation, James Moffatt, 1935.
13) “Before Abraham was, I have beenâ€.—The New Testament in Hebrew, Franz Delitzsch, 1937 edition.
14) “I existed before Abraham was bornâ€.—An American Translation, Smith and Goodspeed, 1939.
15) “Before Abraham was born, I wasâ€.— The New Testament According To The Eastern Text, George Lamsa, 1940.
16) “I have been when there had as yet been no Abraham.â€â€”Isaac Salkinson and David Ginsberg, The New Testament in Hebrew, 1941 edition.
17) “I existed before Abraham was born.â€â€”The New Testament of Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, George Swan, 1947.
18) “Before there was an Abraham, I was already there.â€â€”The New Testament (in German), Friedreich Pfaefflin, 1949.
19) “I am here - and I was before Abraham.â€â€”The New Testament, James A. Klist, S.J., and Joseph L. Lilly, C.M., 1954. Footnote in same: “Christ here states (1) that he “was†already “in existence†before Abraham “came into beingâ€; and (2) that, since then he has always been, and “still is,†in existence. The two statements, fused into one grammatical expression, stress the ideaof continuity from before Abraham’s time down to the present
moment and intimate his eternity. The statement in Exod. 3:14 is different: “I am he whose essence it is to be.,†[Christ is disclosing his being before Abraham; but to say that ‘he intimated his eternity’, is reading more into the statement than is there. ed.]
20) “I existed before Abraham was born.â€â€”The Authentic New Testament, Hugh J. Schonfield, 1958.
21) “Before Abraham existed I was existing.â€â€”Biblia Sagrada (Sacred Bible, in Portuguese), Roman Catholic, second edition, 1960.
22) “[O]r, I have beenâ€, (margin)—New American Standard Version, editions of 1960-1973. (Later removed!)
23) “I existed before Abraham was born.â€â€”The New Testament Of Our Lord And Savior Jesus Christ, Translated Into English From The Approved Greek Text Of The Church Of Constantinople And the Church Of Greece, by Metropolitan Archbishop Fan S. Noli, 1961.
24) “I existed before Abraham was born.â€â€”The New Testament In The Language Of The People, Charles B. Williams, 1963, “honored preceptor†of H.E. Dana and Julius R. Mantey. (See: A Manual Grammar of the Greek New Testament, H.E Dana and Julius R. Mantey, 1927-57; p. x.) Mantey, in a review of his former teacher’s translation, said: “Williams’ translation, considering all the factors, is the most accurate and illuminating translation in the English language.â€â€““Introduction†to Williams’ translation; Moody Press. Yet Mantey condemns the New World Translation’s rendering of John 8:58, which has the same meaning as Williams’ rendering!
25) “I tell you in truth,†Jesus told them, “I was before Abraham.â€â€”The New Testament In The Language Of Today, William G. Beck, 1973.
26) “The absolute truth is that I was in existence before Abraham was born.â€â€”The Living Bible, Kenneth Taylor,
1971.
27) “Truly I tell you, I existed even before Abraham was born.â€â€”The Concise Gospel and The Acts, Christopher J. Christianson, 1973.
28) “I am from before Abraham was.â€â€”The Four Gospels And The Revelation, Richmond Lattermore, 1979.
29) “[T]o make sense, one must say “Before Abraham existed, I existed†or “...I have existed.â€â€”A Translator’s Handbook on the Gospel of John, Barclay M. Newman and Eugene A. Nida. 1980.
30) “I was alive before Abraham was born.â€â€”The Simple English Bible, 1981.
31) “I tell you for a positive fact, I existed before Abraham was born.â€â€”The Original New Testament, Hugh J. Schonfield, 1985.
32) “I existed before there was an Abraham.â€â€”The Complete Gospels Annotated Scholars Version, R Miller editor, 1994.
33) “4.2.4.Extension from past. When used with an expression of either past time or extent of time with past implications...the present tense signals an activity begun in the past (e.a.) and continuing to present time; Lu 13:7...Lu 15: 29...Jn 14:9...Ac 27:33...Jn 8:58...I have been in existence since before Abraham was born.†—K.L. McKay, A New Syntax of the Verb in New Testament Greek, Peter Lang, New York, 1994, pp. 41-2.
34) “The verb ‘to be’ is used...in what is presumably its basic meaning of ‘be in existence’, in John 8:58: prin Abraam genesthai ego eimi...which would be most naturally translated ‘I have been in existence since before Abraham was born’...if it were not for the obsession with the simple words ‘I am.’ If we take the Greek words in their natural meaning, as we surely should, the claim to have been in existence for so long is in itself a staggering one, quite enough to provoke the crowd’s violent reaction.â€â€”K.L. McKay, THE EXPOSITORY TIMES,“ I am in John’s Gospelâ€, July 1996, Vol. 17, Number 10, p. 302
So the Jews had no reason to try to stone Jesus for making a statement that where He did not claim to be God---even though later in the same gospel at 10:33 the Jews say they are going to stone Him for blasphemy "because that thou, being a man, makest thyself God." That was right after 10:30 where Jesus claimed "I and my Father are one.'
The repetition of the I AM statements of Jesus within John do themselves point to the intention of the author to identify Jesus with God. And even if you contend it does not, that leaves you stuck with John 1:1, 14, requiring further explanatory work.
Quite interesting that the Jews of the time misunderstood Jesus, too. Guess they couldn't get their grammar correct either.
Unless, of course, you are discounting the gospel of John in its entirety because of its late publication date--and that in itself is not an entirely implausible decision.
The ESV footnote for John 8:58 states in part "Rather, he (Jesus) uses the present tense I am in speaking of existence more than 2000 years earlier. Thus he claims an existence apart from time that is true only of God."
Further review of the possible connection of Jesus I am statements should also be reviewed with Isaiah 41:4 "I, the Lord, the first, and the last, I am he." Isaiah 44:6b, "I am the the first and the last; besides me there is no god. Isaiah 48:12, "Listen to me, O Jacob, and Israel, whom I called! I am he; I am the first, and I am the last."
There can be no reasonable doubt that John was tying Jesus into the I AM statements of YAHWEH, not just in Exo 3:14, but in the Isaiah statements as well. The Jesus of John is indeed God.
Continued.
The last quote answers the phony question about why the Jews wanted to stone Jesus. It is always presented as the only reason that could be. Yet the question Jesus was asked is about his not being 50 years old and yet knowing Abraham.
KJV John 8:57 Then said the Jews unto him, Thou art not yet fifty years old, and hast thou seen Abraham?
Jesus answer was that he was alive when Abraham was. The Greek verb "eimi" is a verb denoting existence not identity. He in effect said he had been alive for some 2000 years. That alone would be enough. Mind you some approximately 200,000,000 other beings can say the same thing. You may have heard of one, his name is Gabriel.
Plus he had already used "ego eimi" of himself (I am) and no one tried to stone him, so it would not be a reason later (See VS 28).
Next in a self serving manner everyone assumes they had a good reason. Did they? Nope, as they on many occasions lied about Jesus and wanted to do him in, like at ... his trial, where they ... had people lie.
Jesus already told us they were looking for an excuse to kill him
37 I know that ye are Abraham's seed; but ye seek to kill me, because my word hath no place in you.
After all they were not above lying as we see:
48 Then answered the Jews, and said unto him, Say we not well that thou art a Samaritan, and hast a devil?
Wow and you would believe they acted with good reason in VS 29?????
Grammar and context eliminate Jesus claiming to be the "I AM". Theology is what drives the insistence in a flawed argument that Jesus made that claim.
Trying addressing the grammar of both the Hebrew and Greek, not just toss out flawed theological answers.
I'm not arguing Jesus is God--that's a matter of faith. I am arguing that JOHN was trying to convey that Jesus is God and that has absolutely NOTHING to do with grammar. It has to do with purpose. And to see purpose you cannot break down the words into grammatical particles.
John had seven I AMs in his writing. And they spent considerably more time pointing to Isaiah than they did to Exodus. And the PURPOSE of that was to point to John's belief of Jesus as God.
Bottom line, you can exegesis all you want, but it does not disprove John's PURPOSE in writing.
The gospel of John answers for the reader, "Who is Jesus?" The answers come in a form of, "Jesus is "greater than"... any human (1:15), greater than Jacob (4:12), greater than Abraham (8:58), greater than any prophet or Moses, (9:17) Jesus is an object of divine worship (9:38).
The motif of I AM statements throughout John are compelling as they tie into ISAIAH where 'Ani hu' in Second Isaiah [Isaiah chapters 40-66] is always attributed to Yahweh. It is a solemn statement or assertion that only he can properly make. If anyone else spoke these words, it would be a sign of presumptuous pride, an attempt to claim equality with Yahweh or displace him.
When Jesus echoes the sayings of Jehovah in Isaiah, he is clearly applying this "language of deity" to himself as Jehovah. If we see one elephant in a cloud, it may be a coincidence, but 15 elephants linked trunk to tail is a pattern of design. So too with Jesus saying "I AM". By itself "I AM" would prove little, but the pattern of His use in various themes that exactly match Isaiah, create an unmistakable mosaic that is a powerful and irrefutable proof of his deity according to John.
Last edited by Wardendresden; 11-10-2013 at 07:29 PM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I'm not arguing Jesus is God
