Jehovah`s Witness/3.ego eimi
Continuing with the discussion on the phrase “ego eimi” at John 8:58,
I believe you are somewhat confused, and it’s understandable as to why. Your whole Christology is easily shattered when put under scrutiny.
First you were proclaiming that Jesus’ words in John 8:58 “is not referring to identity” but then later you contradict this by proposing the notion that the Jews by their reaction thought Jesus was claiming “to be the Messiah”. You were also postulating that it was because of the whole dialogue of chapter 8.
But then you throw up you arms in exasperation by saying that there is “no way of putting a definite answer to” the reason the Jews wanted to kill Him.
Can you recognize that all this contradictive speculation is because of your Christology?
I wonder if you even realize this.
That then leads into you last response where you ascribed a statement to me, which I never made, and then you go on and ask why I said it.
You can see by all of this why I think you are confused. Therefore I leave it to you to either let your confusion continue, or instead, challenge those assumption and half truths surrounding your form of Christology.
The choice is yours.
EDIT 14 June 2015
Hi Cos, I went back and found an old question you sent to edit it. I thought I would give you mt skype ID as it many be easier to talk through this.
If you haven't got Skype it is easily downloaded and you don't need a camera to use it but you do need a microphone
I will edit this page in a couple of days and remove this message.
Thank you for your thoughts,
No I am not confused at all. I still maintain that there is no way of knowing exactly why the religious leaders wanted to stone him. It is "possible"
that Jesus was referring to himself as the Messiah with the words word "ego eimi", with Messiah
being the implied predicate. Personally I do not think so. I raised that possibility, not because I thought it, but, because I understood you to think that Jesus was discussing identity. So if identity is what you were arguing, then the idea of Jesus identifying himself as the Messiah is a possibility as to what the identiry was and not that he was saying he was equal to God. I will still argue that the Grammar and context shows Jesus last comments was about his age, and nothing else
and that his listeners did not associate those comments with anything else. I will argue that, to think otherwise, is due to ones wrongly informed assumptions of their Christology.
I am of the conviction that it was the whole conversation that got up the nose of the religious leaders and that is what is caused them to want to stone him. The use of the conjunction “oun” indicates that it was the whole conversation that annoyed them and not just the last statement of Jesus.
Of the conjunction you partly quoted Thayers Greek Lexiocn which says “a conjunction indicating that something follows from another necessarily.... Hence, it is used in drawing a conclusion and in connecting sentences together logically,” I have no problems with that explanation but where does it say it is tied to the exact preceding words
of Jesus – the other speaker. My Thayers says “a conjunction indicating that something follows from another necessarily.... Hence, it is used in drawing a conclusion and in connecting sentences together logically, then, therefore, accordingly, consequently, these things being so
“ (italics original underline mine). The list of words that Thayers gives there, shows that “oun” not limited to the prcceding few words but can include all of the converstaion.
Strongs says “apparently a primary word; (adverbially) certainly, or (conjunctionally) accordingly: — and (so, truly), but, now (then), so (likewise then), then, therefore, verily, wherefore.
Liddel and Scott gives more evidence “oun” refering to a converstaion. It gives this information “ really, at all events, used ... to dismiss a perplexing subject”
So to limit their reaction to just a few words needs to be supported by other instances and it is not. If they thought he was blaspheming, then that would have been raised at the trial in stead of looking for false accustaions. That was not one of the charges.
John 8:58 does nothing more that tell us something about the age of Jesus. It does nothing to teach if he was created or not, (we do not use it to teach his creation) or if he is without a beginning. All
it does is say he excisted before Abraham
Again I have to prologise for the wrong quote I attributed to you. Lest see if I can explain where I went wrong.
In preprepared a lengthy answer that I have not sent (not yet completed) and spending many hours on it, I got mixed up in the various quotes I had prepared from different authorities. I had several word processing pages open on which I had various materials. The material I had found and was putting to getter, all had to do with grammar. It suddenly struck me that your argument did not revolve around gramma but “blasphemy”. So I thought why am, I spending so much time on the grammar? With that in mind I was trying to find out just what it was your argument is and reading through all you have written I can not find a clear statement of what your position is. (This next bit is where my thoughts were when I put in that quote
) I have assumed from what you have said that your position is that Jesus was saying, and the religious leaders understood, that Jesus had always existed. That is what was on my mind. While I was trying to clarify that, I found on one of the open word processing pages (which just happened to be the page of the answer I have not sent you) an area between “Quote and end quote” and I assumed it was a quote I had made from one of your previous posts. And seeing I was tired mentally after spending several hours sitting in front of the computer, and that it had been about three days since you asked the question, so I was in a hurry to get an answer to you, I did not check it properly.
I hope you could follow that.
I have never been so embarrassed in the mistakes I have made in the last couple of replies to you. Again I apologise for not being more careful. So I hope I have have learnt not to rush and not to spend so much time in one session, and if I am going to quote someone make sure it is their quote.
In my research I recently found an interesting discussion on John 8:58 between two non JWs. I have not finished reading it as the site is hard to follow but you might find it interesting as well.
It is copy of an online debate between Jason BeDuhn (author of “Truth in Translation: Accuracy and Bias in English Translations of the New Testament" ) and Rob Bowman (author of “The Jehovah's Witnesses, Jesus Christ, and the Gospel of John ” ) on John 8:58 Both have opposing views of the text
You have to go down of the page and find reference (15318 ) to see the start of the conversation