You're not reading the context of the surrounding passages, he's not calling himself God otherwise he'd have been charged and convicted of heresy right there in the temple.
This passage that you used in response to the new covenant doesn't even apply and has absolutely nothing to do with it.
Nevertheless it would save a great deal of theological/philosophical time if it was understood that the starting point for considering the identity of God is simply "I AM".
False. The name YHWH is never used in the Greek. I know; I read the New Testament in Greek. Even in Old Testament quotes where the Hebrew uses YHWH, the New Testament uses Kurios = Lord.
I assume that you are a Jehovah's Witness. The Jehovah's Witness "bible" changes the New Testament so that some uses of the word Kurios (the ones not referring to Jesus) are changed to "Jehovah."
No, that's not what I mean and I'm not a Jehovah's Witness - I'm orthodox Lutheran. I'm referring to John's usage of "ego eimi" which is the Greek equivalent of YHWH.
this is a digressed topic start a new thread if you want to talk about this.
God of the New Covenant.
The phrase egо̄ eimi is a reference to Exodus 3:14, and it's a claim to divinity, but it's not "the Greek equivalent of YHWH." You can see that it isn't, because it's not used in Old Testament quotes where the Hebrew original has YHWH.
Exodus 3:14 in Greek says: egо̄ eimi Ho О̄n ... Ho О̄n apestalke me pros humas (I am THE ONE WHO IS ... THE ONE WHO IS has sent me to you). The Hebrew original does not use YHWH.
I could keep going, but that is sufficient for now.
Many would disagree with you there. Read Wikipedia:
"In Protestant commentaries it is often stated that "whenever John reports Jesus as saying ego eimi, a claim to deity is implicit."
That is actually exactly what I said. My words were "The phrase egо̄ eimi is a reference to Exodus 3:14, and it's a claim to divinity."
However, egо̄ eimi is not "the Greek equivalent of YHWH," and is not used in Old Testament quotes where the Hebrew original has YHWH.
I'm not sure if you're misunderstanding me or deliberately misrepresenting me, but I am sure that further conversation would be pointless.
Kindly refer this below website for a good understanding and then read below my explanation...Why is it that the Jews do not use YHWH?
They claim it is too sacred.
But they are told to "proclaim his name" in Isaiah 12:4 and to call upon it in Psalms 105:1, so who came up with the idea of not saying Yahweh's name? It cannot have come from YHWH himself, as He told them to proclaim his name and I am unaware of any point in the Bible where the Jews are told (by Yahweh) to refer to Yahweh as "Adonai".
So what is going on here, and more importantly WHO thought they could countermand Yahweh himself?
I guess that you completely forgot that this is YOUR TOPIC that you brought up?
So if you can't answer the question below, a simple "I have no idea where I read God of the New Covenant, cuz it's not in the NT bible written by the witnesses"....will suffice.
Can you show me a passage in the NT that was authored by a witness of Jesus ministry quoting him talking about the "New Covenant"?
You haven't answered my question.
Matthew 26:28
Jeremiah 31:31
What do these two passages mean to you?
Just explain in your own words.
Curious...
Can you show me a passage in the NT that was authored by a witness of Jesus ministry quoting him talking about the "New Covenant"?
It would have to come from one of these testimonies.
Matthew, John, James, Peter, Jude.
This is a fair point to make about this specific occurrence of this statement.
The specific "before Abraham was, I am" statement occurs in John 8. If it truly were a heretical claim being made, Jesus would be openly arrested long before John 18 (when he is arrested). The Pharisees would not have bothered investigating the healing in John 9:13-34 but could have easily and openly convicted Jesus of Heresy on the statement in John 8 alone.
But such is not what this thread is about so could we not take that line any further please.
Jesus was almost stoned, was looked for to be arrested and many other things in direct relation to His statements like this.
Scripture explains He wasn’t because it wasn’t His time, over and over.
How is that fair?
If the Pharisees thought this was heresy they would have hunted him down, not let him preach for another 10 chapters.
You know well that scripture shows them about to Stone Him and They do hunt for Him, but they know they have to take Him secretly to avoid showing their abuse of Jewish Law!
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?