Bible-Discussion.com
Private Bible Studies and Christian Fellowship Available - Ask Nobby

FAQ

Contact

Profile

Why not "before Abraham I was"?

Goto page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 Next

Bible-Discussion.com Forum Index -> The Trinity Discussion.

Author

Message

Steven3
Lion King

Joined: 10 Jul 2007
Posts: 1205

Location: UK

Posted: Wed Jul 11, 2007 5:22 pm Post subject: Why not "before Abraham I was"?

Open question: Why didn't Jesus say (John 8:58) "before Abraham I was" if he meant "before Abraham I was"? * and please no one claim he was quoting Ex3:14 "ho Oon" without first bothering to check how it reads in the Greek OT.

apocatastasis
King of the Jungle

Joined: 15 Feb 2004
Posts: 1827

Posted: Wed Jul 11, 2007 5:27 pm Post subject:

Hi Steven, My take on this is that Jesus was speaking to His eternal existence as Spirit. He was, is and will be. _________________ "Overcome anger by love. Overcome evil by good. Overcome the miser by giving. Overcome the liar by truth."

Steven3
Lion King

Joined: 10 Jul 2007
Posts: 1205

Location: UK

Posted: Wed Jul 11, 2007 5:32 pm Post subject:

Hi Apoc

apocatastasis wrote:

Hi Steven,

My take on this is that Jesus was speaking to His eternal existence as Spirit. He was, is and will be.

So why didn't he say "Before Abraham I was, I am and I will be"? He could have done, it makes more grammatical sense than what he did say.
S

knuckle
Young Wolf

Joined: 18 Sep 2006
Posts: 501

Posted: Wed Jul 11, 2007 5:51 pm Post subject:

Hi Steven--------- The omni-presence in time?You have gotten my attention,please continue. much love---------knuckle

apocatastasis
King of the Jungle

Joined: 15 Feb 2004
Posts: 1827

Posted: Wed Jul 11, 2007 6:02 pm Post subject:

Steven wrote:

So why didn't he say "Before Abraham I was, I am and I will be"?

There is often more than one way to say something, in any language. I agree with knuckles that Jesus is speaking to his omnipresence through all time.

Quote:

He could have done, it makes more grammatical sense than what he did say.

Could you elaborate on this? Thanks.
_________________
"Overcome anger by love. Overcome evil by good. Overcome the miser by giving. Overcome the liar by truth."

Steven3
Lion King

Joined: 10 Jul 2007
Posts: 1205

Location: UK

Posted: Wed Jul 11, 2007 6:50 pm Post subject:

Hi Apocatastasis
Remind me that I must ask at some point if that indicates universalism Smile

apocatastasis wrote:

Steven wrote:

So why didn't he say "Before Abraham I was, I am and I will be"?

There is often more than one way to say something, in any language.

Forgive me but I beg to disagree. I'm a qualified commerical-legal translator, so rarely face the option of having two totally equal ways of translating something in a contract. Certainly I can't think of any language, certainly not Greek (or Aramaic in the irrelevant event that was the language John 8:58 was originally spoken in) where "is" and "was" are two ways of saying the same thing.

Quote:

I agree with knuckles that Jesus is speaking to his omnipresence through all time.

Well, sorry, I don't agree. If Jesus/John meant that they should have said so. Using the "was-is-and-is-to-come" verbal string used twice in Revelation for example.

Quote:

He could have done, it makes more grammatical sense than what he did say.

Could you elaborate on this? Thanks.

Well grammatically a present tense verb in a clause after prin, "before", is nonsense. It would have made more sense to say "I was", unless there was a very good reason for not doing so.
S.

apocatastasis
King of the Jungle

Joined: 15 Feb 2004
Posts: 1827

Posted: Wed Jul 11, 2007 7:00 pm Post subject:

Steven wrote:

Remind me that I must ask at some point if that indicates universalism

Yes, it does. Wink

Apoc wrote:

There is often more than one way to say something, in any language.

Quote:

Forgive me but I beg to disagree.

I'm all ears. This should be interesting.

Quote:

I'm a qualified commerical-legal translator, so rarely face the option of having two totally equal ways of translating something in a contract.

I should hope that Biblical terminology is not like the terminology of contracts!

Quote:

Certainly I can't think of any language, certainly not Greek (or Aramaic in the irrelevant event that was the language John 8:58 was originally spoken in) where "is" and "was" are two ways of saying the same thing.

But I never claimed it was. What I said was that the present tense indicates that Jesus' existence trasncends time altogether.

Quote:

If Jesus/John meant that they should have said so.

I think they certainly did say so in the verse in question.

Quote:

Using the "was-is-and-is-to-come" verbal string used twice in Revelation for example.

The above verbal string speaks to the same concept in vies in John 8:58. Eternity is always existing.

Quote:

Well grammatically a present tense verb in a clause after prin, "before", is nonsense. It would have made more sense to say "I was", unless there was a very good reason for not doing so.

But "I am" is in the present tense. Am I missing your point somehow?
_________________
"Overcome anger by love. Overcome evil by good. Overcome the miser by giving. Overcome the liar by truth."

Steven3
Lion King

Joined: 10 Jul 2007
Posts: 1205

Location: UK

Posted: Wed Jul 11, 2007 7:18 pm Post subject:

Hi A.

Quote:

Apoc wrote:

There is often more than one way to say something, in any language.

Forgive me but I beg to disagree.

I'm all ears. This should be interesting.

Well, for example, in the usual universalist "all" verses, some grammatical improvement in the Greek grammar could make them genuinely universalist, for example Wink

Quote:

I should hope that Biblical terminology is not like the terminology of contracts!

You'd be surprised, there's quite a lot of legalese in certain sections of the 66 books. It is in Leviticus LXX for example.

Quote:

But I never claimed it was. What I said was that the present tense indicates that Jesus' existence transcends time altogether.

Firstly why would you say that when the Bible says several times that God gave him immortality.

Quote:

Using the "was-is-and-is-to-come" verbal string used twice in Revelation for example.

The above verbal string speaks to the same concept in vies in John 8:58. Eternity is always existing.

Maybe it is or maybe it isn't, but seeing as the Bible doesn't discuss Eternity beyond God being as Moses said “from everlasting to everlasting” or promise it, how would that be relevant? The Bible is concerned with immortality, not eternity. That only goes in one direction:

Example 1: You didn't exist before you were born did you? And yet you, presumably, hope for immortality.

Example 2: "the same yesterday, today and forever", not “from everlasting to everlasting”.

Do you see the point that eternity is a one-way street in both of these examples?

[quote]

Quote:

Well grammatically a present tense verb in a clause after prin, "before", is nonsense. It would have made more sense to say "I was", unless there was a very good reason for not doing so.

Quote:

But "I am" is in the present tense. Am I missing your point somehow?

I'm just saying that "Before Abraham I was-am-will be" would be better if Christ intended it to be understood as "Before Abraham I was-am-will be", but he didn't say it. That's only what people want him to have said.
S

apocatastasis
King of the Jungle

Joined: 15 Feb 2004
Posts: 1827

Posted: Wed Jul 11, 2007 7:30 pm Post subject:

Steven wrote:

Well, for example, in the usual universalist "all" verses, some grammatical improvement in the Greek grammar could make them genuinely universalist, for example

I'll take the bait, but not in this thread. Would you like to discuss the Biblical merits for universalism in another thread?

Quote:

You'd be surprised, there's quite a lot of legalese in certain sections of the 66 books. It is in Leviticus LXX for example.

I've never seen any terminology in the bible that remotely resembles that of modern contracts. Wink

Quote:

Firstly why would you say that when the Bible says several times that God gave him immortality.

Simply because immortality has no beginning. Smile

Quote:

The Biblical concept of eternity, in my opinion, is intrinsic to the Biblical notion of immortality. The Scriptural notion of a temporally-transcendent eternity is expressed succintly in the was-is-will be string, or do you understand this expression differently?

Quote:

Example 1: You didn't exist before you were born did you? And yet you, presumably, hope for immortality.

Example 2: "the same yesterday, today and forever", not “from everlasting to everlasting”.

Do you see the point that eternity is a one-way street in both of these examples?

Not at all. Please explain.

Quote:

I'm just saying that "Before Abraham I was-am-will be" would be better if Christ intended it to be understood as "Before Abraham I was-am-will be", but he didn't say it.

I don't see the functional difference.

Quote:

That's only what people want him to have said.

I have no preference either way.
_________________
"Overcome anger by love. Overcome evil by good. Overcome the miser by giving. Overcome the liar by truth."

Steven3
Lion King

Joined: 10 Jul 2007
Posts: 1205

Location: UK

Posted: Wed Jul 11, 2007 7:47 pm Post subject:

Hi A.

apocatastasis wrote:

I'll take the bait, but not in this thread. Would you like to discuss the Biblical merits for universalism in another thread?

No, I was just teasing Wink

been there done that.

Quote:

Firstly why would you say that when the Bible says several times that God gave him immortality.

Simply because immortality has no beginning. Smile

Only if you already have it from before the beginning:

1 Timothy 6:16 who alone has immortality, who dwells in unapproachable light, whom no one has ever seen or can see. To him be honor and eternal dominion. Amen.

Otherwise, sorry, yes it does have a beginning:

Romans 2:7 to those who by patience in well-doing seek for glory and honor and immortality, he will give eternal life;

1 Corinthians 15:53-54 For this perishable body must put on the imperishable, and this mortal body must put on immortality. When the perishable puts on the imperishable, and the mortal puts on immortality, then shall come to pass the saying that is written: “Death is swallowed up in victory.”

Quote:

In the text immortality = immortality, and eternity = eternity, from everlasting = from everlasting, to everlasting = to everlasting. They aren't the same thing. The main point being this:

from = from
to = to

Quote:

Not at all. Please explain.

In both these examples (1. you before your conception, 2. Christ on resurrection) time is linear and goes forward not backward. God is not promising to backdate immortality effective from Gen1:1, it's a future event 1Co15:23-24.

Quote:

I'm just saying that "Before Abraham I was-am-will be" would be better if Christ intended it to be understood as "Before Abraham I was-am-will be", but he didn't say it.

I don't see the functional difference.

The difference is that Christ existed c.AD29 when he said this in the present. He was (in AD29) already greater than Abraham and "before" him because Abraham was a moldering heap of molecules c.AD29 (and still is). Otherwise Abraham would be nth-born from the dead and Jesus was not the "firstborn" nor the only "door".

Quote:

That's only what people want him to have said.

I have no preference either way.

Are you sure Wink

you really don't want, just a little, Jesus to have said "before Abraham I was-is-will be". It's what most good folk want Jesus to have said...
S.

apocatastasis
King of the Jungle

Joined: 15 Feb 2004
Posts: 1827

Posted: Thu Jul 12, 2007 4:46 am Post subject:

Steven wrote:

No, I was just teasing been there done that.

I'm sure you've been there and done when it comes to debating the Trinity, yet that hasn't stopped you here. Very Happy

Quote:

God alone is immortal. We are immortal only insofar as we participate in God's timeless immortality.

Quote:

Otherwise, sorry, yes it does have a beginning:

Romans 2:7 to those who by patience in well-doing seek for glory and honor and immortality, he will give eternal life;

No need to be sorry, my friend. Indeed, eternal (that which is without beginning or end) life is a gift.

Quote:

1 Corinthians 15:53-54 For this perishable body must put on the imperishable, and this mortal body must put on immortality. When the perishable puts on the imperishable, and the mortal puts on immortality, then shall come to pass the saying that is written: “Death is swallowed up in victory.”

Yes, we will put on immortality, but this in no way implies that immortality has a beginning.

Quote:

In the text immortality = immortality, and eternity = eternity

I understand that. The Biblical notion of a timeless eternity is still implied by the Biblical notion of immortality, however. Immortality consists in imperishability, afterall.

Quote:

...from everlasting = from everlasting, to everlasting = to everlasting. They aren't the same thing. The main point being this:

from = from
to = to

I'm not sure what you are trying to say here.

Quote:

I agree, and I don't think I've said anything that contradicts this.

Quote:

Ok. But let's get to the thick of our disagreement here, or can we agree that Christ was speaking to His eternal existence? BTW, I thought of an example of where the Bible says the same thing in two different ways, and a most relevant example at that! When Jesus said "I am the first and the last" wasn't He basically saying that He is the one who was, is and will be? Both expressions speak to an eternity which transcends time.

Quote:

Are you sure you really don't want, just a little, Jesus to have said "before Abraham I was-is-will be". It's what most good folk want Jesus to have said...

I could care less. Very Happy

_________________
"Overcome anger by love. Overcome evil by good. Overcome the miser by giving. Overcome the liar by truth."

Steven3
Lion King

Joined: 10 Jul 2007
Posts: 1205

Location: UK

Posted: Thu Jul 12, 2007 7:12 am Post subject:

Hi A.

apocatastasis wrote:

Steven wrote:

No, I was just teasing been there done that.

I'm sure you've been there and done when it comes to debating the Trinity, yet that hasn't stopped you here. Very Happy

Well, that's true yes. The difference is I think that a true Universalist (i.e. someone who wants Hitler and Cain to end up saved), is simply a harder proposition than the Trinity. Most "believers in the Trinity" don't really believe it anyway, or "it's a mystery", so there's a high rate of return on asking a few basic questions and giving a few basic answers.

Quote:

Yes, we will put on immortality, but this in no way implies that immortality has a beginning.

A when.. then... construction implies a beginning.

Quote:

...from everlasting = from everlasting, to everlasting = to everlasting. They aren't the same thing. The main point being this:

from = from
to = to

I'm not sure what you are trying to say here.

You're equating "to ever" with "from ever" (forgive the Graeco-English), but the Bible doesn't do that.

Quote:

I agree, and I don't think I've said anything that contradicts this.

Then maybe I've misread you, which is possible of course, but as long as we're on the same page that "made immortal" means "to eternity" not "from eternity".

Quote:

Ok. But let's get to the thick of our disagreement here, or can we agree that Christ was speaking to His eternal existence?

His eternal pre-existence? No, why should we agree that? Christ wasn't yet immortal when he said it, so didn't have "to ever", let alone "from ever". It'd be simpler to stick with the text and think he said "I am" because, when he said it, c.AD29, he was.

I suppose he could have risked saying "Before Abraham I will be", because he had a fairly sure hope and promise of receiving immortality:
John 5:26 For as the Father has life in himself, so he has granted the Son also to have life in himself.

He could also have said "Before Abraham I was" since God, Peter says, had "foreknown" him before he existed, so it's not an enormous stretch.

But he didn't. We have to at least canvas the possibility that Christ may not have been a Trinitarian Rolling Eyes

Quote:

BTW, I thought of an example of where the Bible says the same thing in two different ways, and a most relevant example at that! When Jesus said "I am the first and the last" wasn't He basically saying that He is the one who was, is and will be? Both expressions speak to an eternity which transcends time.

Well they're in the same ballpark I guess, but Rev4:18 “Holy, holy, holy, is the Lord God Almighty, who was and is and is to come!” is clearly about "from everlasting" because it nearly cites Ex3:14 LXX.

Wheras the use of "first and last" applied to Christ would depend on what the original "first and last" in Is41:4, 44:6, 48:12 re. God are about. The context of all three verses seems to be about power and uniqueness rather than "from everlasting", and likewise Rev 1:17, 2:8, 22:13 when John applies this language to Christ.

Quote:

Are you sure you really don't want, just a little, Jesus to have said "before Abraham I was-is-will be". It's what most good folk want Jesus to have said...

I could care less. Very Happy

Ahah, okay Smile

TBax
King Kong

Joined: 24 Oct 2005
Posts: 2127

Posted: Thu Jul 12, 2007 1:03 pm Post subject:

Steven3,

Hi, Very Happy

Steven3 wrote:

Open question: Why didn't Jesus say (John 8:58) "before Abraham I was" if he meant "before Abraham I was"?

He kind of did say that. Any way you translate it it shows Jesus existed before Abraham.

John 8:57 Therefore the Jews said to him: “You are not yet fifty years old, and still you have seen Abraham?” 58 Jesus said to them: “Most truly I say to YOU, Before Abraham came into existence, I have been.”

King James-John 8:57 The Jews therefore said to Him, "You are not yet fifty years old, and have You seen Abraham?"

58 Jesus said to them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was born, I am."

The context is about how old Jesus is and how he was able to see Abraham.

How do you understand that verse Steven?

Take care. Very Happy

_________________
Agape,
TBax

apocatastasis
King of the Jungle

Joined: 15 Feb 2004
Posts: 1827

Posted: Thu Jul 12, 2007 4:04 pm Post subject:

[quote"TBax"]How do you understand that verse Steven? [/quote] I ditto that. _________________ "Overcome anger by love. Overcome evil by good. Overcome the miser by giving. Overcome the liar by truth."

apocatastasis
King of the Jungle

Joined: 15 Feb 2004
Posts: 1827

Posted: Thu Jul 12, 2007 4:45 pm Post subject:

Hi S.

Steven wrote:

The difference is I think that a true Universalist (i.e. someone who wants Hitler and Cain to end up saved), is simply a harder proposition than the Trinity.

1. I don't know what you mean by "a true Universalist."

2. I don't know what you mean when you say that a true universalist is simply a harder proposition than the Trinity.

3. The Scriptural Univeralist doesn't necessarily want hitler and Cain to be saved, they simply believe that the Bible teaches that they will be saved.

Quote:

Most "believers in the Trinity" don't really believe it anyway, or "it's a mystery"

Good observation. Very Happy

Quote:

A when.. then... construction implies a beginning.

In this case, the beginning of eternal life is not in view. Rather, it is the beginning of our "putting on" immortality. There is a difference, I believe.

Quote:

...as long as we're on the same page that "made immortal" means "to eternity" not "from eternity".

Negative. It is logically impossible for eternity to have a beginning. Think about it. Wink

Quote:

Christ wasn't yet immortal when he said it....

That is a good point and takes us to the crux of the Trinity/incarnation dilemma. I believe that there is a paradox at hand. To put it simply, Christ has two natures: One nature is of Spirit and is eternal whereas the other nature was flesh and had a beginning and an end. His flesh became immortal upon Resurrection.

Quote:

But he didn't. We have to at least canvas the possibility that Christ may not have been a Trinitarian

Christ certainly was not a Trinitarian. Very Happy

Quote:

Well they're in the same ballpark I guess....

C'mon, you can give a little more that that, can't you? Very Happy

Quote:

Rev4:18 “Holy, holy, holy, is the Lord God Almighty, who was and is and is to come!” is clearly about "from everlasting" because it nearly cites Ex3:14 LXX.

I agree. And the same language is applied to Christ in Revelation 1:4. Shocked

Quote:

Wheras the use of "first and last" applied to Christ would depend on what the original "first and last" in Is41:4, 44:6, 48:12 re. God are about. The context of all three verses seems to be about power and uniqueness rather than "from everlasting", and likewise Rev 1:17, 2:8, 22:13 when John applies this language to Christ.

I don't see where you are coming from. Care to expound?
_________________
"Overcome anger by love. Overcome evil by good. Overcome the miser by giving. Overcome the liar by truth."

Display posts from previous:

	Bible-Discussion.com Forum Index -> The Trinity Discussion.	All times are GMT - 8 Hours Goto page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 Next
Page 1 of 7