Preexistence

Participant

Nick…….Are we not also to become one with Jesus and the Father. “That they might become one as we are”, I in you and we in them. Nick there is ONE GOD in ALL and Through (ALL) not outside but in and through ALL. Again had you known what SPIRIT means you could easily see this brother. IMO

love and peace……………………………………………gene

April 17, 2009 at 8:13 pm#127896

Participant

Quote (Nick Hassan @ April 17 2009,11:07)

Hi G,
The Spirit of Christ emanates from God and never is separate from God.
Thus Christ is in God and God is in Christ
Now ONE

That is why true Christians are instructed to keep the unity of the Spirit of God.

April 18, 2009 at 2:31 am#127920

Participant

Kerwin………..I agree we are to keep the unity of the spirit , So it behooves us to know what Spirit is. Jesus said the (WORDS) ARE SPIRIT and LIFE. So we are to keep the WORDS He spoke and if we do we are keeping the unity of the SPIRIT, Seeing Spirits are WORDS. IMO

peace and love to you and yours…………………………..gene

April 18, 2009 at 6:08 am#127931

gollamudi

Participant

Amen all brothers and sisters of Heaven net,
May God help us to keep the unity of spirit as all of you agreed so far. May we all be united with God and Christ with the same Spirit which is from God.

Thanks
Adam

April 21, 2009 at 9:59 am#128258

gollamudi

Participant

Hi all,
Here is one more explanation on John 5:58;

“Before Abraham was, I Am”.

These words, spoken by our Savior in Jn.8:58, have led to much controversy and confusion. Some use this verse to prove the Messiah's pre-existence. Others use it to prove the trinity doctrine. And then there are those who use it to prove Yahshua is the great “I AM” of Ex.3:14. So, is Yahshua is also Yahweh the Father??.

The phrase “I am” is “ego eimi” in Greek. Since the Greek New Testament records Yahshua using “ego eimi” many times, Christian theologians term these sayings, “The I Am's of Jesus”. It is believed that each of these occurrences implies Yahshua's identity as the “I AM” of Ex.3:14. Can this be true? Can our Savior, the Son of Yahweh, actually be the “I AM,” can he also be Yahweh?

Ex.3:14-15 reads, “And Elohim said unto Moses, I AM THAT I AM: and He said, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, I AM hath sent me unto you. And Elohim said moreover unto Moses, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, Yahweh, Elohim of your fathers, Elohim of Abraham, Elohim of Isaac, and Elohim of Jacob, hath sent me unto you: this is my name forever, and this is my memorial unto all generations.” Therefore, the “I AM” in this passage, is identified as “Yahweh,” or rather, is representing Yahweh. Through this representative authority, this messenger to Moses is able to use the Name of the Divine Creator of all, Yahweh.

One thing which must be clearly understood at this point of our discussion, is that The Father Creator Elohom called Yahweh, is “Spirit,” as Yahshua clearly taught us in Jn. 4:24. And, He is the only one “who only has immortality, dwelling in unapproachable light, whom no one has seen or is able to see, to whom be respect and everlasting might.” 1 Tim. 6:16. “No one has ever seen Elohim,” (Yahweh) Jn. 1:18. All Scripture then being correctly understood, would have to lead us to the conclusion, that all apparent communications between “Yahweh” and man, is through a Messenger (angel) Representative speaking with the full authority and power of Yahweh, and is thereby able to use the Divine Name in the “first” person.

And what does Yahweh say in Ps.2:7? “I will declare the decree: Yahweh hath said unto me, Thou art my Son; this day have I begotten thee.” Yahweh is the Father of Yahshua. Yahshua is the Son of Yahweh. Yahshua is not Yahweh (the Son is not the Father). Therefore, it stands, that Yahshua (the Son of Yahweh) cannot be the “I AM” who is (Yahweh). That alone should be sufficient to discredit the belief that Yahshua was claiming to be the “I AM.” But let's look into the matter a little farther.

It is believed that Jn.8:59 further supports the position that Yahshua is the “I AM.” Why else would the Yahudain(Jews) try to stone him? He obviously blasphemed in the eyes of the Yahudain, a stone-able offense. Or did he? Is the mere utterance of “ego eimi” a blasphemy? Does the use of “ego eimi” automatically identify the speaker as Yahweh, the I AM, and thereby trigger a stone-able offense?

Several individuals aside from Yahshua used “ego eimi” as well. In Lu.1:19, the angel Gabriel said, “Ego eimi Gabriel.” In Jn.9: 9, the blind man whose sight was restored by Yahshua said, “Ego eimi.” In Acts 10:21, Peter said, “Behold, ego eimi (I am) he whom ye seek.” Obviously, the mere use of “ego eimi” does not equate one to the “I Am” of Ex.3:14. But perhaps the Savior's use of it was somehow different.

If, in fact, Yahshua spoke Greek to the Yahudain (which is doubtful), he used the phrase “ego eimi” at least twenty times and yet, in only one instance did the Yahudain seek to stone him (Jn.8: 58). Yahshua said, “I am the bread of life” to a large crowd in Jn.6: 35 & 48, yet no one opposed him. In verse 41, the Yahudain murmured because he said, “I am (ego eimi) the bread which came down from heaven.” But in verse 42, the Yahudain questioned only the phrase, “I came down from heaven” and ignored “ego eimi.” The same is true of verses 51; 52.

In Jn.8: 12, 18, 24, & 28, Yahshua used “ego eimi” with Pharisees present (vs.13) and yet, no stoning. He, again, used it four times in Jn.10:7, 9, 11, & 14 with no stoning. Yahshua said to his disciples, “…that…ye may believe that I am (ego eimi)” in Jn.13:19 without them batting an eye.

An interesting account occurs in Jn.18 when the Yahudain came to arrest Yahshua in the Garden of Gethsemane. When the chief priests and Pharisees said they were seeking Yahshua of Nazareth, Yahshua said to them, “Ego eimi.” At that they fell backward to the ground, surprised and startled, that the one they were seeking, had the fortitude to confront them face to face. What followed will make it clear that Yahshua was not claiming to be the “I AM.”

After Yahshua's arrest, the Yahudain took him to Annas first (vs.13). Then they took him to Caiaphas (vs.24) and eventually to Pilate (vss.28, 29). A parallel account is found in Mt.26: 57-68. Notice, in particular, verse 59. The same men that had fallen backward to the ground were in attendance when the council sought false witnesses against Yahshua to put him to death. Verse 60 says they couldn't find any. Eventually two came forward. Interestingly, they didn't bear false witness about what Yahshua said in Jn.8:58, but about his reference to destroying the temple and building it again in three days. Where were all those witnesses from Jn.8: 58?

The point about Mt.26 is, why would false witnesses be sought if they had true witnesses in attendance? The arresting officers heard Yahshua say “Ego eimi.” They could have stoned him right there in the garden for blasphemy, but they didn't. They could have reported the supposed blasphemy to the council, but they didn't. Why not? Because it wasn't blasphemy, nor was it a stone-able offense. He was merely identifying himself as Yahshua of Nazareth. The fact of the matter is, the Greek phrase “Ego eimi”, simply means “I am the one”, or “I am He.”

This brings us back to Jn.8: 58. Why did the Yahudeans seek to stone him on that occasion? The context of Jn.8 shows that Yahshua;

1) accused the Yahudain of “judging after the flesh” (vs.15).
2) said they would die in their sins (vss.21,24).
3) implied they were in bondage (vss.32,33).
4) said they were servants of sin (vs.34).
5) said they were out to kill him (vss. 37,40).
6) implied they were spiritually deaf (vs.43,47).
7) said their father was the devil (vs.44).
8) said they were not of Elohim (vs.47).
9) accused them of dishonoring him (vs.49).
10) accused them of not knowing Yahweh (vs.55).
11) accused them of lying (vs.55).

Aside from that, the Yahudain misunderstood Yahshua's words leading them to believe;

1) that he accused them of being born of fornication (vs.41).
2) Yahshua had a devil (vs.52).
3) that he was exalting himself above Abraham (vs.53).
4) that he saw Abraham (vs.56).

Yahshua's words in verse 58 were the culmination of an encounter that was so offensive to the Yahudain that they couldn't restrain themselves anymore. They simply couldn't take it anymore so they sought to stone him, not because of two simple words, “ego eimi,” but because he was making himself out to be greater than their beloved father Abraham. They sought to stone him illegally.

So what does Jn. 8: 58 really mean?

Let's look at the context of Yahshua's statement. It begins in verse 51 with the thought of eternal life; “If a man keeps my saying, he shall never see death.” The Yahudain thought since Abraham and the prophets were dead, Yahshua must have a demonic teaching. The context is eternal life. Then in verse 56 Yahshua says Abraham “rejoiced to see my day.” He did not say he saw Abraham as the Yahudain misunderstood. How did Abraham see Yahshua's day? Heb.11:13 says, “These all died in faith, not having received the promises, but having seen them afar off, and were persuaded of them, and embr
aced them, and confessed that they were strangers and pilgrims on the earth.” He saw Yahshua's day by faith.

Yahshua then resumed the context of his initial conversation by saying, “Before Abraham was, I am the 'coming' one.” “was” is from the Greek “ginomai” meaning, “to come into being, to be born,… to arise.” In the Greek, the tense of the word is NOT pure “past” tense. It is 2 Aorist, middle voice, infinitive, meaning past tense action without any indication that the act was completed. What Yahshua actually said 'literally' was, “Before Abraham “comes” to be born, I am he. In other words, before Abraham comes to be born (at his resurrection into eternal life), I am he, (the “coming” one).” Yahshua was the eternal coming one (the Messiah, deliverer) in the plan of Yahweh from the beginning. Confirmation of this understanding comes to us from Figures of Speech used in the Bible by E.W. Bullinger, pgs. 521,522. Under the heading “Heterosis (Of Tenses),” sub-heading “The Present for the Future,” he writes “This is put when the design is to show that some thing will certainly come to pass, and is spoken of as though it were already present.” He then lists some examples such as Mt.3: 10b, “therefore every tree which bringeth not forth good fruit is [shall be] hewn down;” and Mk.9:31a, “For he taught his disciples, and said unto them, The Son of man is [shall be] delivered into the hands of men, and they shall kill him; and after that he is killed, he shall rise the third day.” Included among this list of examples of Heterosis is Jn.8: 58. In other words, although properly written, “Before Abraham comes into being, I am (the one)” with “I am the one” in the simple present tense, the meaning points to the future, “Before Abraham comes to be born, I am the one.”

Some translators believe this verse should be translated, “Before Abraham existed, I existed.” However, neither Greek verb is in the perfect past tense. “was” is in the aorist 'infinitive' (or imperfect past) tense and “am” is in the present first person indicative tense. Let's look a little closer at “was.” Concerning the aorist tense, A Manual Grammar of the Greek New Testament by Dana and Mantey says, “It has time relations only in the indicative, where it is past and hence augmented.” The verb ginomai 'was' (to have been born) is in the Greek aorist (infinitive) tense, not the indicative. Therefore it should not be understood as being in the past tense. This same reference says of the infinitive, “The aorist infinitive denotes that which is eventual or particular, …” Abraham will eventually resurrect (to have been born) which is why the Greek uses the aorist infinitive. The meaning is, “Before Abraham comes to be born” not “Before Abraham was (or 'existed').”

In conclusion, Yahshua was not declaring that he is the great “I AM” of Ex.3:14. There are many occurrences in the Greek, which proves that the term “I am” is a very common phrase, a verb of existence, meaning “I am He” or “I am the one.” This phrase by it's self is not a 'stone-able' offense, for it is used many times. As we have already shown, there were a lot of implications in this chapter which ground into the minds and heart of the Yahudain leaders. All the offenses combined, culminated at this point, into the prophesied path (end result) for Yahshua.

Yahshua was not declaring himself to be Yahweh, or the eternal self existing one, and Yahshua was not declaring his pre-existence. He was, from the beginning of Yahweh's plan, to be the Messiah, the deliverer, the King of Israel, the Son of Yahweh, the Son of the great “I Am.” The son had an eternal purpose (as do all of us) in the plan of the Father, but the son did not have a pre-existing life, or “life in himself” as a “Mighty One” or a deity from eternity past, for the Father Yahweh gave the son to have life in himself. (John 5:26).

Source:http://assemblyoftrueisrael.com/Documents/I_AM.htm

May God bless you
Adam

April 21, 2009 at 8:23 pm#128312

Participant

Adam…………Amen, Amen, Amen, brother you have as Jodi would say Nailed it brother, Thanks, I knew God was with you from the very start brother, i could see His Spirit in you my brother. Now continue in the Spirit and give us what It Shows you, it is giving you strong and sound reasoning, For the edification of our Lord Jesus and His and our GOD, the FATHER.

Love and peace to you and yours……………………gene

April 21, 2009 at 8:38 pm#128315

Participant

G,
Jesus said his words are Spirit and life.
By whose authority do you apply this to all men?

April 21, 2009 at 9:07 pm#128336

Participant

Nick………..whose applying anything to all men, you either believe it or Not it's just that simple, no one is saying you or anyone else has to believe what i or anyone else says. But i do believe I have the Spirit of GOD in me and am quite able to recognize the truth when i Hear it. I full well Know Jesus' WORD (ARE) SPIRIT and LIFE, Its you remember who doesn't understand what SPIRIT IS not me. IMO

love and peace to you Nick…………………………..gene

April 21, 2009 at 9:09 pm#128337

Participant

G,
You do not have such authority?
Then do not do it even though it satisfies your intellect.

We do not add to scripture our thoughts and improve it but only make it impure.

April 21, 2009 at 9:25 pm#128346

Participant

Nick……….. I have as much authority as your do Nick, and if you disagree with what i post then produce your evidence that I am adding or subtracting anything to scripture, instead of Just mouthing off about it like you some how know. In fact this request has been made of you by many and i never see you respond, you just try to trash what someone is saying as if you have the proper understand and they don't, so what give you the right to make any judgement calls like that. IMO

love and peace………………………….gene

April 21, 2009 at 11:47 pm#128391

Participant

Quote (Gene @ April 22 2009,04:07)

love and peace to you Nick…………………………..gene

And yet you don't believe since you want to extend that life to all men and by doing so you make Jesus out to be a liar for it is not his words that grant life any longer according to you.

April 22, 2009 at 12:53 am#128404

Participant

G,
I have no authority to add to scripture so neither have you.
Write your own bible and use the words God gave us in the Bible He wrote.

April 22, 2009 at 3:44 am#128451

Participant

Kerwin……..So Jesus did not say (ALL manor of SIN shall be forgiven Man) and it does not say GOD has concluded (ALL) under sin that He Might Have Mercy on (ALL) right. And again GOD is not willing that any Parish right, And it does not say God works all thing after the council of His own will right, Your inability to understand Death in a Spiritual sense of the Problem, You only see death in a Physical sense, there are many forms of death. You say i am making Jesus out to be a liar , prove it. Jesus Said He did not come to condemn anyone , but you and others do, How do you know your fate is not going to be the same as those you confine to death. Have you not read “He who condemns another condemns Himself” and again “Judge not lest in the manor which you Judge you shall be Judge”. And again who are you O man who judges 't another man servant He shall stand or fall to His own master and Stand He will for GOD is able to Make Him stand. To preach Jesus and GOD and to deny the POWER there of ,is the liars. NOT ME. Even Jesus said about the rich man what is (IMPOSSIBLE) with Man all things are Possible with GOD. I Agree with Him completely. GOD is quite able to save (ALL) his CREATION , in fact it says He WILL, If you want I will quote it for you. Remember the fearful and unbelieving shall have there Part of the LAKE of FIRE> Right. Dome and gloom preachers don't know the Love of GOD. They are poor representatives of our loving Heavenly Father. They condemn others but i notice never themselves why is that , is it because they have given themselves a position they rally don't have. Or is it there darkened Heart do not see the LOVE and MERCY of a LOVING FATHER who gave His own Son as a ransom for the WORLD. Your own mouths shows you are far from the Love and Mercy of GOD, who would have (ALL) men saved, and Saved they will be, Rather you and Nick like it or NOT. IMO

gene

April 22, 2009 at 3:48 am#128452

Participant

Quote (Nick Hassan @ April 22 2009,12:53)

G,
I have no authority to add to scripture so neither have you.
Write your own bible and use the words God gave us in the Bible He wrote.

Nick……….you sure seem to take liberty when you want to brother, IMO and others also. Nick you parrot the word and some of us will strive to give the understanding OK.

peace and love……………..gene

April 22, 2009 at 4:04 am#128455

epistemaniac

Participant

Quote (gollamudi @ April 21 2009,21:59)

Hi all,
Here is one more explanation on John 5:58;

“Before Abraham was, I Am”.

This brings us back to Jn.8: 58. Why did the Yahudeans seek to stone him on that occasion? The context of Jn.8 shows that Yahshua;

Aside from that, the Yahudain misunderstood Yahshua's words leading them to believe;

1) that he accused them of being born of fornication (vs.41).
2) Yahshua had a devil (vs.52).
3) that he was exalting himself above Abraham (vs.53).
4) that he saw Abraham (vs.56).

So what does Jn. 8: 58 really mean?

Let's look at the context of Yahshua's statement. It begins in verse 51 with the thought of eternal life; “If a man keeps my saying, he shall never see death.” The Yahudain thought since Abraham and the prophets were dead, Yahshua must have a demonic teaching. The context is eternal life. Then in verse 56 Yahshua says Abraham “rejoiced to see my day.” He did not say he
saw Abraham as the Yahudain misunderstood. How did Abraham see Yahshua's day? Heb.11:13 says, “These all died in faith, not having received the promises, but having seen them afar off, and were persuaded of them, and embraced them, and confessed that they were strangers and pilgrims on the earth.” He saw Yahshua's day by faith.

Source:http://assemblyoftrueisrael.com/Documents/I_AM.htm

May God bless you
Adam

Hi all….. here are a few more explanations of John 8:58…

“Jesus said to them, I most solemnly assure y o u, before Abraham was born, I am. The Jews had committed the error of ascribing to Jesus a merely temporal existence. They saw only the historical manifestation, not the eternal Person; only the human, not the divine. Jesus, therefore, reaffirms his eternal, timeless, absolute essence. For the introductory clause (“I most solemnly assure y o u”) see on 1:51. The appropriate character of this clause, as being used here to introduce a very sublime truth, is immediately evident.
Over against Abraham's fleeting span of life (see Gen. 25:7) Jesus places his own timeless present. To emphasize this eternal present he sets over against the aorist infinitive, indicating Abraham's birth in time, the present indicative, with reference to himself; hence, not I was, but I am. Hence, the thought here conveyed is not only that the second Person always existed (existed from all eternity; cf. 1:1, 2; cf. Col. 1:17), though this, too, is implied; but also, and very definitely, that his existence transcends time. He is therefore exalted infinitely above Abraham. See also on 1:18; and cf. 1:1, 2. The “I am” here (8:58) reminds one of the “I am” in 8:24. Basically the same thought is expressed in both passages; namely, that Jesus is God! Moreover, what he states here in 8:58 is his answer not only to the statement of the Jews recorded in 8:57 but also to that found in 8:53.
—Baker New Testament Commentary

“Not only does Jesus affirm what the question of the Jews asks, with the solemn formula of verity and authority he affirms vastly more. Amen, amen, I say to you, before Abraham came to be, I am. The aorist γενέσθαι (πρίν with the infinitive after a positive verb, R. 977, 1091) marks the historical point of time when Abraham came into existence as against the time prior to that point when Abraham did not exist. This aorist is in contrast to εἰμί; which Jesus predicates of his own person (ἐγώ), here a finite verb not the mere copula (R. 394). As the aorist sets a point of beginning for the existence of Abraham, so the present tense “I am” predicates absolute existence for the person of Jesus, with no point of beginning at all. That is why Jesus does not use the imperfect ἤμην, “I was”; for this would say only that the existence of the person of Jesus antedates the time of Abraham and would leave open the question whether the person of Jesus also has a beginning like that of Abraham (only earlier) or not. What Jesus declares is that, although his earthly life covers less than fifty years, his existence as a person (ἐγώ) is constant and independent of any beginning in time as was that of Abraham. For what Jesus here says about himself in comparison with Abraham is in the nature of the case true of him in comparison with any other man, no matter how far back the beginning of that man's existence lies. “I am” = I exist. Thus with the simplest words Jesus testifies to the divine, eternal pre-existence of his person.
To speak of an “ideal” existence before the days of Abraham is to turn the solemn assurance of Jesus into a statement that means nothing. Unacceptable are also all other efforts to empty out this divine “I am” and to substitute for the fact and reality of existence before Abraham something merely mental, whether this occurred in the mind of Jesus or in that of God. Yet this “I am” is nothing new; by means of two tiny words it states only what Jesus has testified and continues to testify of himself in many other words in other connections. Thus, too, it forms the parting of the w
ays for faith and unbelief.
Yes, Jesus has seen Abraham—the deduction of the Jews is right in every respect, only it should go much farther.
59) As Jesus had made his meaning clear to the Jews in the first place, so also he did in this final word. They understand its full import, namely that, if the existence of the person of Jesus antedates that of Abraham in absolute continuation, he declares himself to be God. To them this is rank blasphemy. They took up stones, therefore, in order to throw at him; but Jesus was hidden and went out of the Temple. The Jews, with what they deemed blasphemy ringing in their ears, proceed to carry out Lev. 24:13-16 upon Jesus, and this without formal legal proceedings but by an immediate act of popular justice. This haste and irregularity is the expression of the murderous hate in the hearts of these Jews, rushing now that they feel they have caught Jesus in flagrante delicto to make short work of it and to be rid of him once for all. The stoning mentioned by Josephus, Ant. 17, 9, 3, is of quite a different type.
—Lenski New Testament Commentary

“The answer of Jesus to the Jews was an intriguing double amēn (“I tell you the truth”) announcement that focused both on time and status: “Before Abraham was, I am” (egō eimi, 8:58). This statement can of course lead to a great deal of speculation concerning the nature of time itself in relation to the nature of God. Certainly the juxtaposing of the past tense concerning Abraham with both the prior time and the present tense as they relate to Jesus explodes all natural reasoning concerning time.
Extending the present into the past does not compute in most of our minds. It is a confusion to the way we think. But God does not fit into the teacups of our minds. More pertinent for our purposes, however, is the fact that Jesus claimed to be “I am” over against Abraham. That claim was a reminder of the claims for God in the Old Testament over against creation (cf. Ps 90:2; Isa 42:3–9) and of the self-designation for the comforting God of Isaiah (41:4; 43:3, 13). The claim of Jesus, therefore, was clearly recognized from the Jews’ perspective to be a blasphemous statement they could not tolerate. Accordingly, they again made their judgment call, and their verdict implied death by stoning (John 8:59; cf. Lev 24:11–16; 1 Kgs 21:10–13).
—New American Commentary

“In saying, You are not yet fifty years old…and you have seen Abraham! (v. John 8:57), the opponents focus on Jesus' vision of Abraham, not Abraham's of him. It could be that they are simply pointing out that Jesus is not several thousand years old. This seems to be a stupid response to Jesus' cryptic saying, but the opponents are not the only dull ones in this Gospel, for similar responses are given even by Jesus' true disciples (for example, John 11:12). But it could be that they are saying that Jesus “cannot have seen Abraham in paradise because he is too young for such a (mystical) vision” (Schnackenburg 1980b:223). Rudolf Schnackenburg objects that the tense of have seen (heorakas, a perfect) suggests “a long-standing relationship between Jesus and the ancestor of the Jews” (Schnackenburg 1980b:223). Yet the perfect tense need not suggest this at all, and, on the other hand, such an interpretation would fit quite well with the concern throughout this Gospel with the claims of the Jewish mystics.
In any case, not only has Abraham seen Jesus' day (whether during his lifetime or from heaven), but Jesus is aware of this fact, which means he has seen Abraham either in heaven or during Abraham's lifetime, whether by mystical vision or through his existence at the time of Abraham.
Jesus' reference to Abraham sounds to the opponents like an incredible claim to spiritual experience. His reply to their incredulity pushes his claim far beyond the idea of vision whether mystical or otherwise, whether of the past or through ascents into heaven: I tell you the truth…before Abraham was born, I am! (v. John 8:58). He is not just making a statement of his age, for then he would have said something like, “Before Abraham was born, I was” (Carson 1991:358). Rather, he is now using in an unambiguous way the divine I AM (Harner 1970:26-30). The I AM was the name of God revealed to Moses, though the Greek expression (ego eimi) is not that used in the Septuagint in Exodus 3:14 (ho on). The phrase ego eimi is used of the divine name in Isaiah (Isaiah 41:4; Isaiah 43:10, Isaiah 43:25; Isaiah 45:18; Isaiah 46:4; Isaiah 47:8, Isaiah 47:10; Isaiah 51:12; Isaiah 52:6). Isaiah 43:10 is a particularly significant passage since it includes a reference to the Lord's chosen servant (pais) who is his witness, “so that you may know and believe and understand that I am he [hoti ego eimi]. There was no other god before me nor will there be after me.” This strong statement of monotheism is the very thing the opponents think Jesus' claim is denying.
By using the I AM Jesus is claiming to have existed not just at the time of Abraham, but from eternity. This is not only a statement about his salvific work, though that is implied here as it was in God's self-identification at the bush (Schnackenburg 1980b:224). Rather, he is saying that his words and deeds are not about God; they are in fact God's own words and deeds. He speaks in language of oneness, though he has just clearly expressed distinctness also (vv. John 8:54-55). Jesus is God, though not simply by way of identification with Yahweh, for there is also distinction. He is not simply a human being who has been taken up into the divine counsels and made an agent of God unlike any other, but neither is he simply God in a suit of flesh. Rather, as the later church counsels said, he is fully God and fully man. Such formulations are based on revelation such as found in this passage.
Clearly this is the climax of the revelation that has been unfolding during the Feast of Tabernacles. People have been wondering if Jesus is the Prophet or the Messiah. “But messianic categories are transcended when Jesus offers Himself as the source of living water, and as the light of the world, and finally pronounces the ego eimi which affirms the mystery of His own eternal being, in unity with the Father” (Dodd 1953:351).
—The IVP New Testament Commentary Series

“Jesus' climactic reply, “Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was born, I am,” was nothing less than a claim to full deity. The Lord once again took for Himself the sacred name of God Obviously, as the eternal God (John 1:1-2), He existed before Abraham's time. Homer Kent explains, “By using the timeless 'I am' rather than 'I was,' Jesus conveyed not only the idea of existence prior to Abraham, but timelessness—the very nature of God himself (Exod. 3:14)” (Light in the Darkness [Grand Rapids: Baker, 1974], 128-29).—MacArthur New Testament Commentary, The

also see
“The New Testament Testimony to the Fact of the Preexistence of Jesus
B. B. Warfield in his essay, 'The Person of Christ According to the New Testament' points out that the writings of the New Testament were completed within a very short period of time, most of them in a period of twenty years. It is 'all the product of a single movement, at a single stage of its development, and therefore presents in its fundamental teaching [emphasis added] a common character. There is small trace of developing ideas as much recent so-called biblical research seeks out. Of course Jesus, John the Baptist, the Synoptics, Paul, Peter and Hebrews do not present doctrine in exactly the same way, but they do support exactly the same set of historical and revealed truths.' I agree that, as Warfield goes on to say, 'In its fundamental teaching, the New Testament lends itself… more readily to what is called dogmatic [systematic] than to what is called genetic treatment.'
Among these truths is the preexistence of the Son of God, our Lord Jesus Christ. Already in the New Testament, long before any counsel
or synod formulated any formal, written creed or definition, the eternal preexistence of the Word made flesh (John 1:14) was a dogma (in the best sense of that word) in the church of the apostolic age. The teaching always appears incidentally 'as a thing understood by all, needing to be alluded to rather than formally expounded.'
Some of Jesus' parables show that the preexistence of Christ is assumed by the text. In the parable (i.e. allegory) of the wicked husbandman, the owner of the vineyard (God), in addition to other servants (the O. T. prophets), 'had one more to send, a beloved son; he sent him last' (Mark 12:6 nasb). In the allegorical symbolism of the Parable of the Pounds (Luke 19:11-27) the nobleman Vent [emphasis added] into a far country.' The nobleman of course is Jesus Himself and the kingdom He was to 'receive' is 'his own' (John 1:11), the Jewish people who 'did not receive him.' Afterward He was 'to return.' Whence He came and whither return are obviously heaven.
A. The greatest weight must be attached to Jesus' own awareness of preexistence and His testimony to that awareness. He is best qualified to speak, as He Himself claimed, 'Even if I do bear witness about myself, my testimony is true, for I know where I came from and where I am going' (John 8:14). This was His rebuff to the Pharisees' denying value to His testimony (v. 13). He laid claim to the fact that Bethlehem was a step down from previous existence when to Nicodemus He spoke of Himself as Him 'who descended from heaven' (John 3:13). Again the thought appears when He asked some defiant Jews, 'what if you were to see the Son of Man ascending to where he was before?' (John 6:62). Later as the mystery of His Passion was settling in, and in the solemn truthfulness of 'death-bed' prayer, He cried out, 'And now, Father, glorify me in your own presence with the glory that I had with you before the world existed' (John 17:5). About forty times in John's Gospel alone Jesus used expressions that, while not directly claiming preexistence, do imply it. I cite only one more example, from John 8:42 (kjv), 'I proceeded forth and came from God.'
B. Some of John's testimony to Christ's preexistence has already been cited, for he it is who was quoted in most of the above paragraphs. As the 'Beloved Disciple' his insights (perhaps John even shared some special revelation) gave him a special right to speak to this matter. The striking opening of John's Gospel (John 1:1-3) puts the Word at 'the beginning.' He carries the same dual witness (his own and Jesus' quoted words) on into 1 John where our Lord is 'that eternal life, which was with the Father, and was manifested unto us' (1 John 1:1, 2) and in the book of Revelation where Jesus speaks as 'the Alpha and the Omega,… who is and who was and who is to come, the Almighty' (Rev. 1:8 et al).
C. The forerunner, John the Baptist, more than hinted at preexistence when he said Jesus 'was before me' (John 1:15) and Paul, as usual, making doctrinal statements to support ethical-practical exhortation, places Christ, the 'Rock that followed them,' with Israel in the wilderness trek (1 Cor. 10:4-9) and preexisting 'in the form of God' (Phil. 2:6) and 'before all things' (Col. 1:17).

The liberal but honest presentation of Paul's affirmations by F. R. Craddock required thirty-five pages for a mere survey of Paul's affirmations, allusions to and assumptions of this doctrine—already accepted among the readers of his Epistles.
Craddock shows how Paul relates the preexistent Christ to the original creation, to the incarnation and to history. The most pertinent is, of course, the preexistent Christ in creation as in two of the outstanding passages, 1 Corinthians 8:5, 6 and Colossians 1:15-20. In the first Paul says although there are 'so-called' gods on earth and in heaven 'for us there is one God, the Father, from whom are all things… and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things and through whom we exist.' In the second, Christ is 'the image of the invisible God… all things were created through him and for him. And he is before all things, and in him all things hold together.'
The teaching of Christ's preexistence is not being announced in these great passages; rather it is assumed as an acknowledged fact, helpful for solving other theological and practical problems. In 1 Corinthians 8:5, 6 the problem is theological—monotheism versus polytheism. Paul directs their attention to the agreed fact that 'for us there is [only] one God… and one Lord, Jesus Christ.' The readers needed to be reminded of these accepted theological roots. In the Colossians passage the same polytheism ('thrones… dominions… principalities… authorities') needed to be dislodged from the minds of the former polytheists of the congregation not yet quite purged of pagan superstitions. In Corinth the worship of heathen gods was manifest in lingering attendance at the local pagan shrines and the meals served there (chap. 8), in Colosse the worship of angels, though we do not know what form it took.
Being now centuries removed from overt polytheism in our outlook it seems unnecessary to prove the non-existence of supernatural spooks or spirits who must be honored or placated. But this was necessary then and in many parts of Christendom still is necessary. In theological parlance Paul is saying: the God and Christ of redemption is the God and Christ of creation and providence also. The so-called gods of heathenism have no more power to control crops, fortunes, health, winning or losing than power to save, which is none at all. The Redeemer and the providential Lord of creation are the same Lord Jesus.
The Apostle treats the preexistence theme as an aspect of incarnation. The goal is to inculcate moral and spiritual virtues. Among these virtues is generosity, 'For you know the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, that though he was rich [emphasis added], yet for your sake he became poor,' etc. (2 Cor. 8:9), and unselfishness,' Do nothing out of selfish ambition or vain conceit' (Phil. 2:3 niv). The author is employing the moral leverage in the example of the preexistent Christ who in not hanging on to equality with God but humbling Himself, took our humanity to save us (Phil. 2:4-11).
He elsewhere employs the dogma of the preexistence as a rhetorical support in the perennial task, familiar to every pastor, of raising money for benevolent purposes. If they are to 'remember the poor' (Gal. 2:10) he reminds them they have Barnabas and Paul as models, but no less so the example of Jesus cited above (2 Cor. 8:9; Rom. 15:27). Thus not only are creation by the preexistent Christ and redemption by the same incarnate Lord twin doctrines, but the preexistence is also part and parcel of salvation doctrine too or Paul would not be coaching his 'second string' evangelists toward sanctification by appeals to it, as he does in these communications.
Let us take note of a final example. The new Christians at Corinth were prone to indulge their baser appetites by concessions to the immoral rites of idolatrous worship prevalent in this city. To encourage them toward better things he directed these former heathen to the direct spiritual assistance Christ gave to the Israelites at the time of the Exodus and wilderness wanderings, viz.: 'I want you to know, brothers, that our fathers were all under the cloud, and all passed through the sea, and all were baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea, and all ate the same spiritual food, and all drank the same spiritual drink. For they drank from the spiritual Rock that followed them, and the Rock was Christ' (1 Cor. 10:1-4). He then goes on to warn the new people of God at Corinth against similar sins of self-indulgence, idolatry, frivolity and fornication which brought about destruction of the Israelites o
f old. The point of the passage is that Christ was present as bread of life and water of life to ancient Israel and is still present now, faithful to provide strength to escape every temptation (1 Cor. 10:11-13). The rest of chapter 10 continues the lesson against self-indulgences of various kinds.
D. The Epistle to the Hebrews carries forward the same sequence of preexistence followed by incarnation. The opening paragraph says God who spoke in the Old Testament dispensation by prophets has spoken in the present dispensation finally by a son. This particular son, the Epistle goes on to say, happens to be the Son, the One by whom God made the worlds. 'eing… the express image' (kjv; 'exact imprint esv; 'exact representation' niv) of God's person, He is the One who purged our sins and then returning to heaven 'sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high.' This with different emphasis and a different name ('my Son,' Heb. 1:5), is the preexistence theology of John, chapter 1, where the One by whom God created the world is the Word.
Hebrews 2:9-18 is arguably the greatest Christological passage in the Bible. It is devoted to explaining the nature of the incarnation itself and the divine purposes for the event and its sequel in the life, death, resurrection and ascension of the Savior. The personal transaction of the preexistent Son is well put in verse 14, 'Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same.' The King James Version, just cited, cannot be much improved upon, except to note that like every Version I can recall consulting, for some strange reason it reverses 'blood and flesh' of the Greek, which is to be regretted. The author intended to emphasize not merely the humanity of incarnate deity but as Friederich Bleek explains: 'The whole sensuous corporeal nature of man, which he has in common with the brutes.' The emphasis is on the 'infirmity, decay, and transitoriness' of being part of a material world. Koinoneo is the word rendered 'partakers' conveying what human beings naturally have in common by virtue of existence. Metecho is here rendered not partake which might have a passive meaning, not different especially from koinoneo. But the translators of 1611 rightly rendered it by an unmistakably active expression, 'took part.' The Son of God, so to speak, saw human kind in a material, physical world and took part in their humanity in order to die for them, as the last part of verse 14 says. He stepped up to the table, so to speak, and took part with them by means of the event of incarnation. A parallel of precise sense is the contrast of forebear, a passive notion, with bear for, an active idea.
The preexistent 'Jesus' (see Heb. 2:9) reached out and took our human nature. There is a realism here that has nothing at all in common with the mythical or occult mysticism to which some modern New Testament scholarship would assign this teaching. Nor is there the least maudlin sentimentality at Christmas often associated with popular folk-celebration about the manger scene of popular imagination and commercial exploitation. To those who would deny the propriety of such, F. F. Bruce replies:
The man who says, 'I could not have a high opinion of a God who would (or would not) do this or that,' is not adding anything to our knowledge of God; he is simply telling us something about himself. We may be sure that all God does is worthy of Himself, but here our author singles out one of God's actions and tells us that 'it became him'—that it was a fitting thing for him to do.
E. This theology is pervasive on through the book of Revelation—never introduced, as liberal religion would have it, as an interpretation of people's religious experiences, but report of what Jesus and the Apostles had said from the beginning. Nor is it the fruit of theological reflection by the Jewish or Jew-Gentile church, as liberal New Testament theology would have it, but as received truth addressed to Christians who already believed and had believed it for thirty years before Paul wrote Philippians 2:5-9.
—Culver's Systematic Theology

hope this helps

blessings.
ken

April 22, 2009 at 4:15 am#128456

Participant

Hi E,
Thanks but scripture speaks without help.

April 22, 2009 at 4:49 am#128461

Participant

Quote (Gene @ April 22 2009,10:44)

gene

If you are interpreting scripture is a way to bring them into conflict with one another then you obviously interpreting them wrong. Jesus clearly stated that he is the way to the Father and yet you are saying that is not true because you want to give life even to those that reject Jesus' teachings. Either Jesus is the way to eternal life as he teaches or he is a liar and you cannot have it both ways.

April 22, 2009 at 8:42 am#128485

Participant

Kerwin…….prove it show me where i am interpreting scripture bring them in to conflict with one another. Jesus is the (WAY) he is (NOT) the eternal life, Jesus is the way to the Father , but the FATHER is also the way to Jesus, Have you not read “NO MAN (CAN) COME UNTO ME UNLESS THE FATHER DRAW HIM. Salvation is a work of GOD not Man. Men hate that thought because of their PRIDE it irks them to think they are (ONLY) saved BY GRACE. But GOD has done it that way so no one can boast as to their salvation, bing from anything to do with themselves. It is either (ALL) GOD'S WORK or nothing, it is not a joint effort as Pride would like it to be. Salvation is a CREATION BY GOD ALONE PERIOD> IMO

peace and love to you and yours………………………………..gene

April 22, 2009 at 11:14 am#128496