- This topic is empty.
- Posts
Quote The teaching from Jesus was NOT, I am CURRENTLY with you, so you should know these things. It was, I HAVE BEEN with you for such a long time that you should BY NOW know these things. Kerwin, what was Jesus saying? (If we set aside the secret message which may or may not be contained within, what was he saying to those around him?)
Quote (mikeboll64 @ Oct. 17 2012,04:08) Quote (Gene Balthrop @ Oct. 16 2012,09:42) And indeed Abraham rejoiced to see His Day (a future event), that also proves Jesus had not yet come into existence, or Abraham would have already been seeing his day, becasue he would have already been alive during his lifetime.
Gene,I have rejoiced to see “The Day of the Lord”, as prophesied many times throughout scripture. Does that mean the Lord doesn't yet exist?
Mike……it's not saying the day of The Lord now is it, it's referencing the day of Jesus the Christ.We all know The Lord God preexisted don't we, but Jesus is quite another subject. Good try at confusing the issue though. IMO
Peace and love…………………gene
Quote (david @ Oct. 20 2012,14:08) Mike. You just don't get it. It was a secret code, a hidden message that Jesus gave to us, which coincidentally supports the trinity belief. “I am” mike. It's so obvious. He said “I am,” a verb which is extremely rare and hardly ever used. Why would he do that? It was a secret message!
That's what the Trinitarians keep telling me.
Kerwin isn't a Trinitarian, but a non-preexister, so the “secret code” Jesus revealed to him is different than the one Jesus revealed to the Trinitarians.
He posted his secret code once before, but I forgot what it was. Hopefully he will indulge me and post it again.
How have you been, David?
Quote (Gene Balthrop @ Oct. 20 2012,15:19) Quote (mikeboll64 @ Oct. 17 2012,04:08) Quote (Gene Balthrop @ Oct. 16 2012,09:42) And indeed Abraham rejoiced to see His Day (a future event), that also proves Jesus had not yet come into existence, or Abraham would have already been seeing his day, becasue he would have already been alive during his lifetime.
Gene,I have rejoiced to see “The Day of the Lord”, as prophesied many times throughout scripture. Does that mean the Lord doesn't yet exist?
Mike……it's not saying the day of The Lord now is it, it's referencing the day of Jesus the Christ.We all know The Lord God preexisted don't we, but Jesus is quite another subject. Good try at confusing the issue though. IMO
Peace and love…………………gene
I didn't confuse the issue, Gene. I only showed you scripturally how your reasoning was flawed.Quote How have you been, David? –mike
Scale of 1-10, with 8 being great, and 10 being horrible, I would say a solid “6.”
Quote (david @ Oct. 21 2012,07:21) Quote The teaching from Jesus was NOT, I am CURRENTLY with you, so you should know these things. It was, I HAVE BEEN with you for such a long time that you should BY NOW know these things. Kerwin, what was Jesus saying? (If we set aside the secret message which may or may not be contained within, what was he saying to those around him?)
David……..Have you ever thought that it was GOD himself (in) Jesus speaking that through Jesus first person. Notice the response “my Lord (Jesus) AND my God. God was with then all abiding in Jesus through the Christos (anointing). God was truly Present through the Anointing and So was Jesus (the man) present also. Therefore the reply my Lord “AND” my GOD IMOpeace and love to you and yours…………………………….gene
Quote (mikeboll64 @ Oct. 21 2012,09:09) Quote (Gene Balthrop @ Oct. 20 2012,15:19) Quote (mikeboll64 @ Oct. 17 2012,04:08) Quote (Gene Balthrop @ Oct. 16 2012,09:42) And indeed Abraham rejoiced to see His Day (a future event), that also proves Jesus had not yet come into existence, or Abraham would have already been seeing his day, becasue he would have already been alive during his lifetime.
Gene,I have rejoiced to see “The Day of the Lord”, as prophesied many times throughout scripture. Does that mean the Lord doesn't yet exist?
Mike……it's not saying the day of The Lord now is it, it's referencing the day of Jesus the Christ.We all know The Lord God preexisted don't we, but Jesus is quite another subject. Good try at confusing the issue though. IMO
Peace and love…………………gene
I didn't confuse the issue, Gene. I only showed you scripturally how your reasoning was flawed.
Mike…….If my reasoning was flawed then show where it was , are you saying it was not talking about the “Day of Jesus”? Then what was it talking about. Mystery Religion tries to make all kinds of things fit where it is not suppose to fit.Saying something “COULD” be read this way or that way when the context shows it is not read any other way is what confuses people Mike. While there are cases where that could be true, but this is certainly not one of those Mike. IMO
peace and love to you and yours……………………………………..gene
Quote (Gene Balthrop @ Oct. 21 2012,09:30) Mike…….If my reasoning was flawed then show where it was………..
1. You said that since Abraham rejoiced to see the day of Jesus, it means Jesus couldn't have existed before that “day”.2. I pointed out that the “day” of our Lord is not yet upon us, but that doesn't mean our Lord doesn't already exist.
Quote (mikeboll64 @ Oct. 21 2012,01:14) Kerwin, That is all very nice and fine. It is clear that there is no end to the lengths to which you will go to keep 8:58 from teaching what it SO OBVIOUSLY teaches.
Tell me…………… does rendering “ego eimi” in John 14:9 as “I have been” change the teaching? Does it alter anything? Or, better yet, does the present tense “I am” even make sense in the context?
What is the USUAL way of saying the following, Kerwin:
1. For the past 3 years I AM with you……………
2. For the past 3 years I HAVE BEEN with you………..
The obvious and HONEST answer is #2 – and you know it. Jesus was wondering why, AFTER ALREADY BEING WITH PHILIP FOR SUCH A LONG TIME, Philip didn't understand certain things.
He was not saying, “I am RIGHT NOW with you FOR SUCH A LONG TIME that you should know these things.”
Therefore, the way that virtually EVERY English translation renders 14:9 conveys the OBVIOUS intent of what Jesus was saying to Philip.
Like I said, you can play word games and try to find little “alibis” based on idiomatic problems that occur when translating Greek into English if it makes your heart happy. But you're not fooling anyone here, Kerwin. We are all fully capable of reading between the lines and figuring out that you are only going to such great and nonsensical lengths because you don't LIKE the teaching in 8:58.
Tell me once again what TEACHING Jesus was delivering in YOUR interpretation of 8:58. What was he teaching the Pharisees, in your opinion?
Mike,First, watch out about applying our culture standards to the people of that time and place.
Second, “I am with you always” is not equivalent to “I have been with you always”
The difference is “I have been” leaves the future ambiguous while “I am” does not. Assuming certain translator are correct, the question becomes whether Jesus intends to leave the future ambiguous or not when the ancient present indicative is there. That then become interpretation in addition to translation. Interpretation is where bias finds an opportunity.
Quote (david @ Oct. 21 2012,02:21) Quote The teaching from Jesus was NOT, I am CURRENTLY with you, so you should know these things. It was, I HAVE BEEN with you for such a long time that you should BY NOW know these things. Kerwin, what was Jesus saying? (If we set aside the secret message which may or may not be contained within, what was he saying to those around him?)
David,Literally: Truly, Truly, before Abraham is to become; I am.
Interpretation: Truly, Truly, before Abraham is to become (the father of many nations); I am (the Seed).
To all,
I have coursework to do that I am putting off, so I will hopefully have less time here and more time for it. I will try to post at least a little.
Quote (kerwin @ Oct. 22 2012,20:06) Quote (david @ Oct. 21 2012,02:21) Quote The teaching from Jesus was NOT, I am CURRENTLY with you, so you should know these things. It was, I HAVE BEEN with you for such a long time that you should BY NOW know these things. Kerwin, what was Jesus saying? (If we set aside the secret message which may or may not be contained within, what was he saying to those around him?)
David,Literally: Truly, Truly, before Abraham is to become; I am.
Interpretation: Truly, Truly, before Abraham is to become (the father of many nations); I am (the Seed).
Kerwin ……….This is correct as applying to that scripture, Jesus was implying he existed (in scripture) before Abraham did, and therefor was greater in importance to those Pharisees then Abraham , who they trusted in was.You have presented it correctly Kerwin IMO.
peace and love to you and yours………………………………gene
Quote (Gene Balthrop @ Oct. 22 2012,18:59) Quote (kerwin @ Oct. 22 2012,20:06) Quote (david @ Oct. 21 2012,02:21) Quote The teaching from Jesus was NOT, I am CURRENTLY with you, so you should know these things. It was, I HAVE BEEN with you for such a long time that you should BY NOW know these things. Kerwin, what was Jesus saying? (If we set aside the secret message which may or may not be contained within, what was he saying to those around him?)
David,Literally: Truly, Truly, before Abraham is to become; I am.
Interpretation: Truly, Truly, before Abraham is to become (the father of many nations); I am (the Seed).
Kerwin ……….This is correct as applying to that scripture, Jesus was implying he existed (in scripture) before Abraham did, and therefor was greater in importance to those Pharisees then Abraham , who they trusted in was.You have presented it correctly Kerwin IMO.
peace and love to you and yours………………………………gene
Gene,I was interpreting it according to those nations whom are Abraham's children through faith in the Seed who is Jesus Christ.
If you choose the past tense of to become as an translation of the aorist your understanding works and differs little from my understanding.
If you use the NWT “I have been” it makes the claim, Jesus will be before Abraham in the future became, ambiguous but not that he is now and was in the past.
It appears that the preexistence believers see a “I was” where it does not exist.
k
Quote I was interpreting it according to those nations whom are Abraham's children through faith in the Seed who is Jesus Christ. and who are those nations
Quote (kerwin @ Oct. 23 2012,18:38) Quote (Gene Balthrop @ Oct. 22 2012,18:59) Quote (kerwin @ Oct. 22 2012,20:06) Quote (david @ Oct. 21 2012,02:21) Quote The teaching from Jesus was NOT, I am CURRENTLY with you, so you should know these things. It was, I HAVE BEEN with you for such a long time that you should BY NOW know these things. Kerwin, what was Jesus saying? (If we set aside the secret message which may or may not be contained within, what was he saying to those around him?)
David,Literally: Truly, Truly, before Abraham is to become; I am.
Interpretation: Truly, Truly, before Abraham is to become (the father of many nations); I am (the Seed).
Kerwin ……….This is correct as applying to that scripture, Jesus was implying he existed (in scripture) before Abraham did, and therefor was greater in importance to those Pharisees then Abraham , who they trusted in was.You have presented it correctly Kerwin IMO.
peace and love to you and yours………………………………gene
Gene,I was interpreting it according to those nations whom are Abraham's children through faith in the Seed who is Jesus Christ.
If you choose the past tense of to become as an translation of the aorist your understanding works and differs little from my understanding.
If you use the NWT “I have been” it makes the claim, Jesus will be before Abraham in the future became, ambiguous but not that he is now and was in the past.
It appears that the preexistence believers see a “I was” where it does not exist.
Kerwin…….I do agree with that also. Jesus was not referencing a Preexistence as regards to him living before Abraham.peace and love to you and yours………………………………….gene
Quote (kerwin @ Oct. 22 2012,02:53) “I am with you always” is not equivalent to “I have been with you always“
Agreed. Similarly, when Jehovah comissions Moses to go to Pharaoh, there is some discussion over whether Jehovah was saying, “Don't fear, for I AM with you”, or , “Don't fear, for I WILL BE with you”.But the same doesn't apply to John 14:9 because of the other perfect tense words used:
John 14:9 KJV
Jesus saith unto him, Have I been so long time with you, and yet hast thou not known me, Philip? he that hath seen me hath seen the Father;“Known”, “seen”, and “seen” are all in the perfect tense – describing things that HAVE already occured in the PAST.
It is because of these past occurances that translators generally recognize the present tense “eimi” as an idiomatic problem, and render it as perfect tense to match the other perfect tense words in the statement.
“AM I with you so long and still you HAVEN'T KNOWN me?” doesn't make sense, Kerwin. While, “HAVE I BEEN with you so long and still you HAVEN'T KNOWN me?” does.
You must lose the word “always” in your above statement, because the teaching wasn't about Jesus ALWAYS being with Philip now and forever. Instead, it was that Jesus HAD ALREADY BEEN among Philip in the past, and Philip should HAVE KNOWN him by now.
Likewise, in 8:58, the second aorist “ginomai” indicates a past tense – ie: “before Abraham became“, not “before Abraham becomes“.
And just like “known” and “seen” in 14:9, the past tense “became” indicates that the present tense “eimi” is an idiomatic problem of translation, and should also be translated as a perfect tense “I have been” – just like virtually every English translation renders the problematic present tense “eimi” in 14:9.
See Kerwin? It is because of the past tense words associated with the present tense “eimi” that we must understand “eimi” also as a past or perfect tense, so the context of the teaching flows in a consistent manner.
The words, “BEFORE Abraham BECAME” match up with “I WAS”, or “I HAVE BEEN”. Those words do NOT match up with “I AM”.
Let your bias go, and try to let the scriptures teach you. Try not to rely on idiomatic loopholes in the translation UNLESS the results render a coherent scriptural teaching.
In the case of 8:58 and 14:9, your search for such loopholes leads you to a non-coherent bunch of illogical mish-mash.
Quote (kerwin @ Oct. 23 2012,01:38) Quote (Gene Balthrop @ Oct. 22 2012,18:59) Quote (kerwin @ Oct. 22 2012,20:06) David, Literally: Truly, Truly, before Abraham is to become; I am.
Interpretation: Truly, Truly, before Abraham is to become (the father of many nations); I am (the Seed).
Kerwin ……….This is correct as applying to that scripture, Jesus was implying he existed (in scripture) before Abraham did, and therefor was greater in importance to those Pharisees then Abraham , who they trusted in was.You have presented it correctly Kerwin IMO.
Gene,If you choose the past tense of to become as an translation of the aorist your understanding works and differs little from my understanding.
What?!?Kerwin is insisting on the future tense “before Abraham IS TO BECOME“.
Gene is acknowledging the correct past tense “he EXISTED before Abraham DID“.
And Kerwin, knowing that Gene is also a non-preexister, now says that Gene's interpretation “differs little” from his.
Wow! The fact of the matter is as NETNotes explains it here:
The aorist tense is characterized by its emphasis on punctiliar action; that is, the concept of the verb is considered without regard for past, present, or future time. There is no direct or clear English equivalent for this tense, though it is generally rendered as a simple past tense in most translations. The events described by the aorist tense are classified into a number of categories by grammarians. The most common of these include a view of the action as having begun from a certain point (“inceptive aorist”), or having ended at a certain point (“cumulative aorist”), or merely existing at a certain point (“punctiliar aorist”). The categorization of other cases can be found in Greek reference grammars. The English reader need not concern himself with most of these finer points concerning the aorist tense, since in most cases they cannot be rendered accurately in English translation, being fine points of Greek exegesis only. The common practice of rendering an aorist by a simple English past tense should suffice in most cases.
Gene also understands it as a simple past tense in 8:58, while Kerwins hopes to buck against the system and all common logic by making the aorist “ginomai” in 8:58 a future tense.
But Kerwin's future tense theory simply doesn't match the context of the passage:
John 8:56
Your father Abraham rejoiced at the thought of seeing my day; he saw it and was glad.”The bolded words above were also written in the aorist tense, yet it is clear from the context that, as usual, they should be rendered as a simple English past tense. (Perhaps Kerwin would like to see these words in the future tense?
)John 8:57
“You are not yet fifty years old,” the Jews said to him, “and you have seen Abraham!”Uh-oh Kerwin. The bolded words in this verse were written in the PERFECT tense. That means you can't buck the system and pretend that “have seen Abraham” could be the future tense “will see Abraham” – not to mention that, once again, the CONTEXT would not allow for such a translation. In other words, there is no loophole for you to exploit in 8:57, right?
Now, compare the words of the Jews in verse 57 with YOUR interpretation of verse 58: before Abraham IS TO BECOME.
Kerwin, how does the future tense “IS TO BECOME” match the perfect tense “have seen” in verse 57?
IT DOESN'T. Your theory has been solidly debunked.
Mike,
I have heard what net.note states and I have also heard the Prexistarians choice of translation of the the aorist infinitive middle in John 8:58. I have studied the matter and the aorist infinitive verb is simulated in English either as the became”, “came” or the infinitive “to become” as in John 1:12 and Mark 1:17 of the KJV.
My claim is that the choice to translate the aorist infinitive to a past tense is directed by Prexistarian translation bias. As evidence I point to the fact that the “I am” is present tence” and not the past tence “I was”.
Gene's interpretation goes with the Prexistariarians words while essentially meaning the same thing as I understand. He appears to be technically incorrect but functionly correct.
An interesting point, that may or may not be relevant, is that both “I say” and “I am” are present indicatives.
There is no aorist infinitive in John 8:56 or 57 that I can see. There are aorist.
Note: It takes me time to do research and my time is otherwise scheduled at this time.
Quote (mikeboll64 @ Oct. 24 2012,05:12) Gene is acknowledging the correct past tense “he EXISTED before Abraham DID“.
Mike……..I believe Jesus preexisted before Abraham not as a Sentential Being, But preexisted in the Plan and will of God as written in scriptures. Jesus was a Prophesied Son of Man to come into existence by a human Berth process just as all Mankind did with the exception of Adam and Eve. IMOAgain Mike, Jesus did not preexist his berth on this earth as any kind of being in the past. IMO
peace and love to you and yours………………………………..gene
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
