Why did Jesus not say "I am God" in the gospels?

[tonychanyt]

εγω ειμι - I am

This does not spell "I am God". I am talking about the string of text, not the meaning of the text.

The Jews immediately understood what Jesus was saying.

I am not asking about what the Jews were thinking in this thread. For that see Did Jesus claim to be God? and follow up there.

 

[Der Alte]

Let string G1 = "I am God".
Why did Jesus not say G1 in the Gospel?
Jesus knew he was God but decided not to proclaim it at the time. Why?
Paul explained in Philippians 2:
He gave us his example of servant humility.
Jesus did imply that he was God in the Gospels.

The mistranslation of harpagmos in Philp 2:6 as "robbery" is unfortunate. The translation as "grasped" is also incorrect. The preface of the NIV explains the long search for the correct meaning. The correct meaning was not learned until 1972 following the establishing of the Thesaurus Linguae Graecae in Irvine Ca. which aided scholars in correctly translating many obscure words.
ETA:

The Committee on Bible Translation worked at updating the New International Version of the Bible to be published in 2011
In it's notes under "Progress in Scholarship" it discusses the following change:
When the NIV was first translated, the meaning of the rare Greek word αρπαγμον /harpagmos, rendered ‟something to be grasped,” in Philippians 2:6 was uncertain. But further study has shown that the word refers to something that a person has in their possession but chooses not to use to their own advantage. The updated NIV reflects this new information, making clear that Jesus really was equal with God when he determined to become a human for our sake: ‟[Christ Jesus], being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be used to his own advantage.”
See full translators notes at: Bible Gateway NIV Translator’s Notes
A short excerpt from the 25 page Harvard theological review article αρπαγμον /harpagmos, by Roy Hoover, referenced in the NIV.
‘O petros de arpagmon ton dia stavrou thanton epoieito dia tas soterious elpidas”
(And Peter considered death by means of the cross harpagmon on account of the hope of salvation, Comm in Luc 6)
“Tines…ton thanaton arpagma themenoi ten ton dussebon moxtherias”
(Since some regarded death as harpagma in comparison with the depravity of ungodly men. Hist. Eccl VCIII,12.2)
Not only are arpagma and arpagmos used synonymously in these two statements, but they are used synonymously by the same author in reference to the same object—death—and in expressions whose form precisely parallels that of the arpagmos remark in Phil 2:6.
What he [Eusebius] wants to say, rather, is that because of the hope of salvation crucifixion was not a horror to be shunned, but an advantage to be seized.
“Arpagma” is used exactly this way in Hist. Eccl. VIII,12.2. At this point Eusebius is recounting the sufferings of Christians in periods of persecution. Some believers in order to escape torture threw themselves down from rooftops. There can be no suggestion of “robbery” or of violent self-assertion in this remark, nor can self-inflicted death under such circumstances be considered an unanticipated windfall.
Roy W. Hoover, Harvard Theological Review (1971) 95-119, pg. 108

https://georgehawke.files.wordpress.com/2013/01/2011-niv-translators-notes.pdf

 

[tonychanyt]

The mistranslation of harpagmos in Philp 2:6 as "robbery" is unfortunate. The translation as "grasped" is also incorrect. The preface of the NIV explains the long search for the correct meaning. The correct meaning was not learned until 1972 following the establishing of the Thesaurus Linguae Graecae in Irvine Ca. which aided scholars in correctly translating many obscure words.
ETA:

The Committee on Bible Translation worked at updating the New International Version of the Bible to be published in 2011​

In it's notes under "Progress in Scholarship" it discusses the following change:​

When the NIV was first translated, the meaning of the rare Greek word αρπαγμον /harpagmos, rendered ‟something to be grasped,” in Philippians 2:6 was uncertain. But further study has shown that the word refers to something that a person has in their possession but chooses not to use to their own advantage. The updated NIV reflects this new information, making clear that Jesus really was equal with God when he determined to become a human for our sake: ‟[Christ Jesus], being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be used to his own advantage.”​

See full translators notes at: Bible Gateway NIV Translator’s Notes​

A short excerpt from the 25 page Harvard theological review article αρπαγμον /harpagmos, by Roy Hoover, referenced in the NIV.​

‘O petros de arpagmon ton dia stavrou thanton epoieito dia tas soterious elpidas”​

(And Peter considered death by means of the cross harpagmon on account of the hope of salvation, Comm in Luc 6)​

“Tines…ton thanaton arpagma themenoi ten ton dussebon moxtherias”​

(Since some regarded death as harpagma in comparison with the depravity of ungodly men. Hist. Eccl VCIII,12.2)​

Not only are arpagma and arpagmos used synonymously in these two statements, but they are used synonymously by the same author in reference to the same object—death—and in expressions whose form precisely parallels that of the arpagmos remark in Phil 2:6.​

What he [Eusebius] wants to say, rather, is that because of the hope of salvation crucifixion was not a horror to be shunned, but an advantage to be seized.​

“Arpagma” is used exactly this way in Hist. Eccl. VIII,12.2. At this point Eusebius is recounting the sufferings of Christians in periods of persecution. Some believers in order to escape torture threw themselves down from rooftops. There can be no suggestion of “robbery” or of violent self-assertion in this remark, nor can self-inflicted death under such circumstances be considered an unanticipated windfall.​

Roy W. Hoover, Harvard Theological Review (1971) 95-119, pg. 108​

https://georgehawke.files.wordpress.com/2013/01/2011-niv-translators-notes.pdf

​

I have trouble understanding your point. Can you quote my words and contradict them?

 

[Der Alte]

I have trouble understanding your point. Can you quote my words and contradict them?

I did already. I quoted your post and mentioned the word "arpagmos" in Philp 2:6 which is incorrectly translated "robbery" in the KJV and incorrectly translated "grasped" in the version you quoted. I linked to a Harvard thesis which explains it. Short version is the form of the word "arpagmos" was not found in any other writing until after 1972 when the TLG database was created. The TLG database revealed some heretofore unknown mss which clarify the meaning. The NIV now reads.
6 who, being in very nature God, did not consider being equal with God something to be used to his advantage.

 

[tonychanyt]

I did already. I quoted your post

Can you put quotation marks when you quote my exact words?

 

[Der Alte]

Can you put quotation marks when you quote my exact words?

I quoted your entire post. I did not dispute anything you said separate from that quote. I specifically addressed only the incorrect translation of the the Greek word ἁρπαγμὸν/ "harpagmon," in all versions until recent times. For many years no other occurrences of that form of the word was known. As I said in my post "harpagmos" has been incorrectly translated as "grasped" and "robbery."

 

[SeventhFisherofMen]

Forget it. I'm not interested in this type of discussion.

dude just gotta say i feel your frustration, after reading everything you wrote i agree 100%

 

[Fireinfolding]

I did already. I quoted your post and mentioned the word "arpagmos" in Philp 2:6 which is incorrectly translated "robbery" in the KJV and incorrectly translated "grasped" in the version you quoted. I linked to a Harvard thesis which explains it. Short version is the form of the word "arpagmos" was not found in any other writing until after 1972 when the TLG database was created. The TLG database revealed some heretofore unknown mss which clarify the meaning. The NIV now reads.
6 who, being in very nature God, did not consider being equal with God something to be used to his advantage.

Thanks for that, this is so good to know, helps tremendously.

 

[tonychanyt]

I quoted your entire post. I did not dispute anything you said separate from that quote. I specifically addressed only the incorrect translation of the the Greek word ἁρπαγμὸν/ "harpagmon," in all versions until recent times. For many years no other occurrences of that form of the word was known. As I said in my post "harpagmos" has been incorrectly translated as "grasped" and "robbery."

Can you quote a specific sentence of mine with quotation marks and then contradict it?

 

[Fireinfolding]

So, why did Jesus not say G1 in the Gospel?

I believe Der Alte gave a better response than I did, " Who, being in very nature God, did not consider being equal with God something to be used to his advantage".

I am so glad for this being added here because its so helpful, especially when you struggle with the wording of something (where its a little unclear) while trying to build on a particular pattern while using supporting verses, this one is good to know.

Gonna borrow what you laid out Der Alte, thanks for that. You can be so helpful!

 

[Der Alte]

Can you quote a specific sentence of mine with quotation marks and then contradict it?

Did you not understand my last post? I did not contradict anything in any of your sentences. I merely informed you of recent scholarship which clarifies an incorrect translation of one word in Philp 2:6, "arpagmon" which substantially changes the common understanding of the verse.

 

[Der Alte]

I believe Der Alte gave a better response than I did, " Who, being in very nature God, did not consider being equal with God something to be used to his advantage".

I am so glad for this being added here because its so helpful, especially when you struggle with the wording of something (where its a little unclear) while trying to build on a particular pattern while using supporting verses, this one is good to know.

Gonna borrow what you laid out Der Alte, thanks for that. You can be so helpful!

The pleasure is all mine. The entire article is 25 pages long. I only quoted about a paragraph. Link to the article at the bottom of my post #42.

 

[Der Alte]

In response to the OP I think that Jesus did not say "I am God." because He knew that the Jews would respond in a rage and kill Him. That's what they did when He only claimed to be the Son of God.

 

[NewLifeInChristJesus]

dude just gotta say i feel your frustration, after reading everything you wrote i agree 100%

Thank you for that. Some of these discussions help improve our character more than others, lol.

 

[SeventhFisherofMen]

Thank you for that. Some of these discussions help improve our character more than others, lol.

ya it is a testing of patience i feel. It amazes me to see some of the interactions but that just goes for being online. Sometimes people just want to say the opposite view, sometimes i do it and when i realize it i annoy myself lol

 

[tonychanyt]

I specifically addressed only the incorrect translation of the the Greek word ἁρπαγμὸν/ "harpagmon," in all versions until recent times.

I am having trouble getting your point. How is the above connected to what I wrote in my OP?

 

[Der Alte]

I am having trouble getting your point. How is the above connected to what I wrote in my OP?

In your OP you quoted a version of Philp 2:6 which translated the Greek word "arpagmon" as "grasped," which is a verb. I quoted more recent scholarship which has learned that "arpagmon," a noun, is better translated as "something a person possesses which can be used to their advantage."

 

[concretecamper]

Jn 8:58 Jesus said to them: Amen, amen, I say to you, before Abraham was made, I AM.

 

[tonychanyt]

In your OP you quoted a version of Philp 2:6 which translated the Greek word "arpagmon" as "grasped," which is a verb. I quoted more recent scholarship which has learned that "arpagmon," a noun, is better translated as "something a person possesses which can be used to their advantage."

Who says it is a verb?

something to be grasped,
ἁρπαγμὸν (harpagmon)
Noun - Accusative Masculine Singular
Strong's 725: Spoil, an object of eager desire, a prize. From harpazo; plunder.

 

[Fireinfolding]

You know whats interesting in this situation is that they say he blasphemed because he called God His Father and in doing that they perceived him as... "thou, being a man, makest thyself God" (In John 10:33) . And Jesus just quotes the first line of Psalm 82:6 to them in the following verse (John 10:34)

The full verse below

Psalm 82:6 I have said,
Ye are gods; and all of you are children of the most High.

Ye are gods and children of the most high are tied together in that verse

Jesus reasons with them on their charge and what is written in their own law as he goes on to say,

John 10:35 If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken

John 10:36 Say ye of him, whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world,
Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am the Son of God?

Because if this is written, " Ye are gods" (which are equally shown as the children of God likewise)

How can they say (when he calls God His Father)

Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am the Son of God?

And they believed (according to what he said) that he as a man "maketh himself God"

It was the way they approached him and were equalling things out and he went right for Psalm 82:6

They aren't even accusing him of stating he is God but as a man making himself God by referring God as his Father

But he didn't even use Psalm 45:6-7 to their charge which demonstrates what God says unto the Son as is pointed out in Hebrews 1:8 adressesing the Son as God

Hebrews 1:8 But unto the Son he saith, Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever:
a sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of thy kingdom.

Hebrews 1:9 Thou hast loved righteousness, and hated iniquity;
therefore God, even thy God, hath anointed thee with the oil of gladness above thy fellows.