Preexistence of Christ

MisterE

Member
Sep 20, 2024
263
34
I saw this article on another Forum.
Preexistence of Christ

The reaction of Jesus' critics to his statement-attempting to stone him (John 8:59)-confirms that they thought he was making a divine claim. Had Jesus stated only that he had been alive longer than Abraham, they might have regarded such a claim as crazy (as they apparently did with regard to his earlier comments, vv. 48-57), but not as an offense meriting stoning.

Of the offenses for which Jews practiced stoning, the only one that seems to fit the context here is blasphemy. Claiming to be older than Abraham might have been judged crazy, but it would not have been judged as blasphemy. Speaking as if one were Abraham's eternal God, on the other hand, would be quickly deemed blasphemous by Jesus' critics, who of course did not recognize his divine claims as valid. In another passage in his Gospel, John comments on the failure of many of the people to believe in Jesus despite the many miracles they had witnessed him perform. Although he had performed so many signs in their presence, they did not believe in him.... And so they could not believe, because Isaiah also said,

"He has blinded their eyes and hardened their heart, so that they might not look with their eyes, and understand with their heart and turn-and I would heal them." Isaiah said this because he saw his glory and spoke about him. (12:37, 39-41) The quotation in this passage is from Isaiah 6:10, part of the passage in which Isaiah recounts his call to the prophetic ministry. When John says that Isaiah "saw his glory," he means the glory of Jesus as the context makes clear (vv. 36-38; see also 1:14).

But in the context of Isaiah 6, the glory that Isaiah saw was the glory of the Lord. In the year that King Uzziah died, I saw the Lord sitting on a throne, high and lofty; and the hem of his robe filled the temple. Seraphs were in attendance above him; each had six wings: with two they covered their faces, and with two they covered their feet, and with two they flew. And one called to another and said: "Holy, holy, holy is the LORD of hosts; the whole earth is full of his glory."

Here again, John speaks of Jesus not only as having existed during Old Testament times but also as having been the glorious Lord who spoke to and through the prophets. Thus this passage is another affirmation in the New Testament of the divine preexistence of Jesus Christ.

The New Testament pushes the existence of the Son of God back long before the days of Israel. It teaches that Christ was around-and involved-in the creation of the world! We will explore this point later when we discuss the deeds or works of God that Christ performs, but we should take some notice of the main biblical statements now.

Paul wrote that "in him [God's Son] all things in heaven and on earth were created, things visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or powers-all things have been created through him and for him" (Col. 1:16). Paul's statement here clearly means that the Son existed before all things were created. What Paul says, of course, also distinguishes God's Son from the entire realm of all creation. The apostle John agreed: "All things came into being through him, and without him not one thing came into being.... He was in the world, and the world came into being through him; yet the world did not know him" (John 1:3, 10). The book of Hebrews says that God "has spoken to us by a Son, whom he appointed heir of all things, through whom he also created the worlds" (1:2). The logic is simple enough: "If indeed everything came into being through Christ, then there is no option other than that he existed before that creation." In all three of these passages, the authors make other statements that confirm their meaning-the person known as Jesus Christ preexisted creation. After saying that all things were created in, through, and for the Son, Paul adds, "He himself is before all things, and in him all things hold together" (Col. 1:17). Paul here states emphatically that the Son exists prior to all creation." Since the creation of the universe is also the beginning of time (Heb. 1:2), to say that "If indeed everything came into being through Christ, then there is no option other than that he existed before that creation."

Christ exists "before" creation is to say in effect that he has always existed-that his existence had no beginning.

Paul's statement in an earlier epistle that Christians believe in "one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things and through whom we exist" (1 Cor. 8:6) should likewise be understood to entail his existence before creation. Just before John states that all things came into existence through Christ-whom he calls the "Word" (logos)-John says, "In the beginning was the Word" (John 1:1). Here, John asserts that the Word already existed "in the beginning," hearkening back to the beginning of creation (cf. Gen. 1:1). That "the Word" was a person, and not some abstraction, is made clear by John's next statement, "and the Word was with God" (pros ton theon, 1:1). The word pros (here translated "with") in this context denotes personal association with someone else, as is confirmed later in the same Gospel when John says that Jesus was going "to depart from this world and go to the Father [pros ton patera]" and that he "had come from God and was going to God [pros ton theon]" (John 13:1, 3; see also John 7:33; 14:12, 28; 16:5, 10, 17, 28; 20:17).

The one who was close to God the Father in the very beginning had come from him and was about to depart and go back to be close to him again. The Gospel of John also reports that Jesus referred to his preexistence before creation in his majestic prayer to the Father: "So now, Father, glorify me in your own presence with the glory that I had in your presence before the world existed" (John 17:5). It is difficult to imagine a more explicit affirmation of Christ's existence before creation. To these statements we may add Jesus' statement, "Before Abraham came into being, I am" (John 8:58), which we discussed earlier.
 
Greetings Mister E,
The reaction of Jesus' critics to his statement-attempting to stone him (John 8:59)-confirms that they thought he was making a divine claim.
I would like to briefly respond to two aspects of your post. The first is that despite the fact that John 8:58 is a popular verse used by Trinitarians, I disagree with their conclusion. I consider that John 8:58 should be translated "I am he" the same as John 8:24,28 and this is part of the theme of whether or not Jesus is the Christ.
Here again, John speaks of Jesus not only as having existed during Old Testament times but also as having been the glorious Lord who spoke to and through the prophets. Thus this passage is another affirmation in the New Testament of the divine preexistence of Jesus Christ.
I consider that the vision of Isaiah 6 speaks of when Jesus returns and sits upon the Temple Throne of David in Jerusalem in the future and thus this is not speaking about his preexistence.

Kind regards
Trevor
 
Greetings Mister E,

I would like to briefly respond to two aspects of your post. The first is that despite the fact that John 8:58 is a popular verse used by Trinitarians, I disagree with their conclusion. I consider that John 8:58 should be translated "I am he" the same as John 8:24,28 and this is part of the theme of whether or not Jesus is the Christ.

I consider that the vision of Isaiah 6 speaks of when Jesus returns and sits upon the Temple Throne of David in Jerusalem in the future and thus this is not speaking about his preexistence.

Kind regards
Trevor
Jesus shows up often in the Old Testament—not by that name, and not in the same form as we see Him in the New Testament, but He is there nonetheless. The theme of the entire Bible is Christ.

Jesus Himself confirmed the fact that He is in the Old Testament. In John 5:46 He explained to some religious leaders who had challenged Him that the Old Testament was talking about Him: “If you believed Moses, you would believe me, for he wrote about me.” According to Jesus, God’s work with man since time began all pointed to Him. Another time when Jesus showed that He is in the Old Testament was on the day of His resurrection. Jesus was walking with two of His disciples, and “beginning with Moses and all the Prophets, he explained to them what was said in all the Scriptures concerning himself” (Luke 24:27). Earlier, before His crucifixion, Jesus had pointed to Isaiah 53:12 and said, “It is written: ‘And he was numbered with the transgressors’ and I tell you that this must be fulfilled in me. Yes, what is written about me is reaching its fulfillment” (Luke 22:37).

By some counts, more than 300 Old Testament prophecies point to Jesus Christ and were fulfilled by Him in His life on earth. These include prophecies about His unique birth (Isaiah 7:14), His earthly ministry (Isaiah 61:1), and even the way He would die (Psalm 22). Jesus shocked the religious establishment when He stood up in the synagogue of Nazareth and read from Isaiah 61, concluding with this commentary: “This scripture has been fulfilled in your hearing today” (Luke 4:18–21).

Another way that Jesus is in the Old Testament is in the form of Christophanies—pre-incarnate appearances of the Son of God. The Old Testament uses the term angel of the Lord interchangeably with the Lord in reference to these visitations. One Christophany is found in Genesis 18:1–33 when the Lord appeared to Abram in human form. Such tangible encounters with deity are scattered throughout the Old Testament (Genesis 16:7–14; 22:11–18; Judges 5:23; 2 Kings 19:35; Daniel 3:25). See Daniel where he appears in the Lion's den and also in the furnace.

But there are even deeper ways that Jesus is found in the Old Testament. These are seen in what we call “types.” A type is a person or thing in the Old Testament that foreshadows a person or thing in the New. For example, the tabernacle, the sacrificial system, and the Passover are all types of Christ’s redemption. In addition, some of the lives of Old Testament characters reflect elements of the life of Christ. Moses, like Jesus, spoke for God, confronted the evil powers of the day, and led his people to freedom through a miraculous deliverance. The life of Joseph is another that seems to model the life of Christ.

Many Old Testament historical events double as symbols of what God would do in the future, through Christ. For example, God called Abraham to offer his son Isaac as a sacrifice. Abraham uttered these prophetic words in response to Isaac’s question about a lamb: “God himself will provide the lamb for the burnt offering, my son” (Genesis 22:8). God did provide a ram in Isaac’s place, symbolizing what He would do thousands of years later on that very mountain when His own Son was offered as a sacrifice in our place (Matthew 27:33). Events surrounding the sacrifice of Isaac thus serve as a type of the sacrifice of Christ.

Jesus referred to another event in Israel’s history as a foreshadowing of His crucifixion. In the wilderness, the people following Moses had sinned, and God sent serpents among them to bite them. The people were dying, and they appealed to Moses for help. God told Moses to make a bronze serpent and place it on a pole. All those who looked to it would be healed (Numbers 21:4–19). Jesus alluded to this incident in John 3:14–15: “Just as Moses lifted up the snake in the wilderness, so the Son of Man must be lifted up, that everyone who believes in Him may have eternal life in him.”

God’s design for the tabernacle is another way that Jesus is in the Old Testament. The altar in the courtyard symbolizes the need for Jesus’ sacrifice to atone for our sin. The laver shows Jesus as providing the water of life (John 4:14). Inside the Holy Place, the lampstand is suggestive of Jesus as the light of the world (John 9:5). The table of showbread is Jesus as the bread of life (John 6:35). In the altar of incense is seen Jesus as our heavenly intercessor, continually offering prayers for us (Romans 8:34; Hebrews 7:25). According to Hebrews 10:20, the veil before the ark of the covenant is a picture of Jesus’ human flesh.

The Son of God is not just in the New Testament; Jesus is in the Old Testament, too. Jesus is God’s promised Messiah. From the virgin birth in Bethlehem (Isaiah 7:14; Luke 1:35; Micah 5:2), through the sojourn to Egypt (Hosea 11:1; Matthew 2:14–15), to His ministry of healing and hope (Genesis 3:15; 1 John 3:8), all the way through His resurrection (Psalm 16:9–11; Acts 2:31), Jesus Christ is the theme of both Old and New Testaments. It could be said that Jesus is the reason for the Bible. He is the Living Word. The entire Bible is a beacon that points us to God’s offer of reconciliation, the hope of forgiveness and eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.
 
Greetings Mister E,

I would like to briefly respond to two aspects of your post. The first is that despite the fact that John 8:58 is a popular verse used by Trinitarians, I disagree with their conclusion. I consider that John 8:58 should be translated "I am he" the same as John 8:24,28 and this is part of the theme of whether or not Jesus is the Christ.
Except that it absolutely cannot mean "I am he," for reasons I've mentioned before. First, it makes Jesus say grammatical nonsense. Second, it doesn't answer the question he was asked. You cannot just go add "he" into the text when it isn't warranted, and in John 8:58 it is not at all warranted.

I consider that the vision of Isaiah 6 speaks of when Jesus returns and sits upon the Temple Throne of David in Jerusalem in the future and thus this is not speaking about his preexistence.
Except that there is no reason to believe it is future; that would ignore the context of John 12:41:

Joh 12:36 While you have the light, believe in the light, that you may become sons of light.” When Jesus had said these things, he departed and hid himself from them.
Joh 12:37 Though he had done so many signs before them, they still did not believe in him,
Joh 12:38 so that the word spoken by the prophet Isaiah might be fulfilled: “Lord, who has believed what he heard from us, and to whom has the arm of the Lord been revealed?”
Joh 12:39 Therefore they could not believe. For again Isaiah said,
Joh 12:40 “He has blinded their eyes and hardened their heart, lest they see with their eyes, and understand with their heart, and turn, and I would heal them.”
Joh 12:41 Isaiah said these things because he saw his glory and spoke of him. (ESV)

The context has to do with Jesus's contemporaries, those to whom he spoke and did signs for but did not believe. "Isaiah said these things" is with regard to Jesus and his ministry, but then we must take into account the context of Isaiah.

We know that Isaiah saw Yahweh:

Isa 6:1 In the year that King Uzziah died I saw the Lord sitting upon a throne, high and lifted up; and the train of his robe filled the temple.
Isa 6:2 Above him stood the seraphim. Each had six wings: with two he covered his face, and with two he covered his feet, and with two he flew.
Isa 6:3 And one called to another and said: “Holy, holy, holy is the LORD of hosts; the whole earth is full of his glory!”
Isa 6:4 And the foundations of the thresholds shook at the voice of him who called, and the house was filled with smoke.
Isa 6:5 And I said: “Woe is me! For I am lost; for I am a man of unclean lips, and I dwell in the midst of a people of unclean lips; for my eyes have seen the King, the LORD of hosts!”
Isa 6:6 Then one of the seraphim flew to me, having in his hand a burning coal that he had taken with tongs from the altar.
Isa 6:7 And he touched my mouth and said: “Behold, this has touched your lips; your guilt is taken away, and your sin atoned for.”
Isa 6:8 And I heard the voice of the Lord saying, “Whom shall I send, and who will go for us?” Then I said, “Here I am! Send me.”
Isa 6:9 And he said, “Go, and say to this people: “‘Keep on hearing, but do not understand; keep on seeing, but do not perceive.’
Isa 6:10 Make the heart of this people dull, and their ears heavy, and blind their eyes; lest they see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and understand with their hearts, and turn and be healed.” (ESV)

So, Isaiah sees "the Lord sitting upon a throne," whom the seraphim say is Yahweh ("the LORD"). It is of that being that Isaiah exclaims "Woe is me! . . . for my eyes have seen the King, the LORD [YHWH] of hosts!". Isaiah saw Yahweh, without question, and John says that Isaiah saw Jesus. For both of those things to be true, the only possibility is that the Son is Yahweh.

Your only option, according to your argument, is that somehow Jesus became Yahweh, which is impossible. He could only have been Yahweh to begin with and never ceased being so, since Yahweh cannot cease being who he is.
 
Greetings Eternally-grateful and Greetings again Mister E,
I am amazed at all those who think Jesus was just a man. If he was just a man, at best he could take another mans sin.
That is why God needed to raise a specially chosen vessel, the Son of God by birth and character Matthew 1:20-21, Luke 1:34-35, John 1:14.
Jesus shows up often in the Old Testament—not by that name, and not in the same form as we see Him in the New Testament, but He is there nonetheless. The theme of the entire Bible is Christ.
I agree with most of what you have stated, but I consider that the various appearances in the OT were angels who spoke and acted on Yahweh's behalf.

Kind regards
Trevor
 
Greetings Free,
Except that it absolutely cannot mean "I am he," for reasons I've mentioned before. First, it makes Jesus say grammatical nonsense. Second, it doesn't answer the question he was asked. You cannot just go add "he" into the text when it isn't warranted, and in John 8:58 it is not at all warranted.
Yes, we have discussed tis before and I disagree with your conclusions and I am happy with what I previously discussed with you. I also consider that Exodus 3:14 should be translated as with Tyndale "I wilbe", and RV and RSV margins "I will be".
Your only option, according to your argument, is that somehow Jesus became Yahweh, which is impossible.
Yahweh, He who will become who He will become has become Jesus, the Son of God, revealed through His birth and character. The most significant vision of the Throne of God in the OT is Psalm 110:1 and this does not correspond with Isaiah 6 in any of its detail. In Psalm 110:1 Yahweh God the Father sits upon His Throne awaiting the exaltation of Jesus after his crucifixion, death and resurrection, while the vision of Isaiah 6 is of Jesus in the Temple, His Throne replacing the Ark of the Covenant, and also the Altar of Burnt Offering is part of the vision of Isaiah 6.

Kind regards
Trevor
 
Greetings Eternally-grateful and Greetings again Mister E,

That is why God needed to raise a specially chosen vessel, the Son of God by birth and character Matthew 1:20-21, Luke 1:34-35, John 1:14.

I agree with most of what you have stated, but I consider that the various appearances in the OT were angels who spoke and acted on Yahweh's behalf.

Kind regards
Trevor
Certainly many angels appeared to a few select individuals. My point is that there are several Christophanes in the OT. This requires Jesus to have preexisted before his human birth. I think you would agree with this, but maybe not
 
Greetings Free,

Yes, we have discussed tis before and I disagree with your conclusions and I am happy with what I previously discussed with you. I also consider that Exodus 3:14 should be translated as with Tyndale "I wilbe", and RV and RSV margins "I will be".
First, Ex. 3:14 can be translated as "I Am." That is a legitimate translation. Second, regardless of how Ex. 3:14 is translated, sticking only to what Jesus said, my points still stand that if Jesus says "I am he" in John 8:58, it is grammatical nonsense and doesn't actually answer the question he was asked. Why do you think the Jews wanted to stone him? Blasphemy, perhaps?

Yahweh, He who will become who He will become has become Jesus, the Son of God, revealed through His birth and character.
Are you saying the Father became the Son? If so, when did that occur?

The most significant vision of the Throne of God in the OT is Psalm 110:1 and this does not correspond with Isaiah 6 in any of its detail. In Psalm 110:1 Yahweh God the Father sits upon His Throne awaiting the exaltation of Jesus after his crucifixion, death and resurrection, while the vision of Isaiah 6 is of Jesus in the Temple, His Throne replacing the Ark of the Covenant, and also the Altar of Burnt Offering is part of the vision of Isaiah 6.
Remember, a plain reading of the text, which we need to stick to, is that Isaiah saw Yahweh, but John says that Isaiah saw Jesus, the Son. Again, there is only one logical conclusion--the Son is also Yahweh, but not the Father. What you're saying is that Isaiah was wrong; it cannot be otherwise according to your position.
 
The verb form used here is אֶהְיֶה (ʾehyeh), the Qal imperfect, first person common singular, of the verb הָיָה (hayah, “to be”). It forms an excellent paronomasia with the name. So when God used the verb to express his name, he used this form saying, “I am.” When his people refer to him as Yahweh, which is the third person masculine singular form of the same verb, they say “he is.”

Some commentators argue for a future tense translation, “I will be who I will be,” because the verb has an active quality about it, and the Israelites lived in the light of the promises for the future. They argue that “I am” would be of little help to the Israelites in bondage. But a translation of “I will be” does not effectively do much more except restrict it to the future. The idea of the verb would certainly indicate that God is not bound by time, and while he is present (“I am”) he will always be present, even in the future, and so “I am” would embrace that as well (see also Ruth 2:13; Ps 50:21; Hos 1:9). The Greek translation of the OT used a participle to capture the idea, and several times in the Gospels Jesus used the powerful “I am” with this significance (e.g., John 8:58). The point is that Yahweh is sovereignly independent of all creation and that his presence guarantees the fulfillment of the covenant (cf. Isa 41:4; 42:6, 8; 43:10-11; 44:6; 45:5-7). Others argue for a causative Hiphil translation of “I will cause to be,” but nowhere in the Bible does this verb appear in Hiphil or Piel.
 
Greetings again Mister E and Free,
Certainly many angels appeared to a few select individuals. My point is that there are several Christophanes in the OT. This requires Jesus to have preexisted before his human birth. I think you would agree with this, but maybe not
I believe that the various Theophanies in the OT were Angels, not Jesus.
First, Ex. 3:14 can be translated as "I Am." That is a legitimate translation.
I consider that "I Am" is an incorrect translation.
Second, regardless of how Ex. 3:14 is translated, sticking only to what Jesus said, my points still stand that if Jesus says "I am he" in John 8:58, it is grammatical nonsense and doesn't actually answer the question he was asked. Why do you think the Jews wanted to stone him? Blasphemy, perhaps?
Refer our previous discussion in an earlier thread.
Remember, a plain reading of the text, which we need to stick to, is that Isaiah saw Yahweh, but John says that Isaiah saw Jesus, the Son. Again, there is only one logical conclusion--the Son is also Yahweh, but not the Father. What you're saying is that Isaiah was wrong; it cannot be otherwise according to your position.
You will need to explain this vision, and compare it with Psalm 110:1. The vision is only understandable if it depicts Jesus in the future Temple Throne of David in Jerusalem during the future 1000 year Kingdom upon the earth.
Some commentators argue for a future tense translation, “I will be who I will be,” because the verb has an active quality about it, and the Israelites lived in the light of the promises for the future. They argue that “I am” would be of little help to the Israelites in bondage. But a translation of “I will be” does not effectively do much more except restrict it to the future.
Yes, I agree with "I will be" as correct as it is speaking about God's deliverance of Israel out of Egypt and bringing them into the promised land. This does not in any way restrict God, as he already used the present tense in Exodus 3:6 where he states "I am the God of Abraham", and this of necessity expresses his existence. Also "I will be" of necessity expresses also his present existence.

Kind regards
Trevor
 
Last edited:
The real question is the pre-existence of Christ's HUMANITY. The Word was with God in the beginning, but the Word did NOT incarnate at the beginning, in fact Adam the first man was created on the sixth day, and Jesus was called the second and the last Adam. God is not a man, yet He incarnated into a man and dwelt among us. I think a reasonable way to understand it is that Jesus is not an afterthought or a solution for the Fall, the incarnation and the atonement were already there at the beginning. Jesus is of dual nature (Rom. 1:3-4), both man and God, his godly nature existed since the beginning, but his humanly nature didn't until the incarnation.
 
I consider that "I Am" is an incorrect translation.
Of course you do. MisterE has very adequately dealt with that verse. Iirc, I have previously stated that it could mean either or both, but that "I Am" is the stronger statement and hence the better reading. But, as I pointed out, Jesus's statement in John 8:58 can actually stand on its own.

Refer our previous discussion in an earlier thread.
But you have never provided an adequate answer. Your insistence that John 8:58 actually should be "I am he" continues to make grammatical nonsense and has Jesus not answering the question he was asked. We should fully expect that Jesus both answers the question and does so in a grammatically correct way. We must not have Jesus speaking nonsense.

You will need to explain this vision, and compare it with Psalm 110:1. The vision is only understandable if it depicts Jesus in the future Temple Throne of David in Jerusalem during the future 1000 year Kingdom upon the earth.
Not at all. Isaiah clearly states he saw Yahweh, which is something you continually leave unaddressed. That is the central point. Isaiah's readers would only have understood it as such. Secondarily, is that John says Isaiah saw Jesus, which we can understand as the Son. The only way to understand this is that John is saying Jesus, or rather the Son, is Yahweh in the flesh, but not the Father. That is completely consistent with everything he states in John 1:1-18, the whole purpose of which is to explain just who Jesus is.
 
Greetings again Free,
Of course you do. @MisterE has very adequately dealt with that verse. Iirc, I have previously stated that it could mean either or both, but that "I Am" is the stronger statement and hence the better reading. But, as I pointed out, Jesus's statement in John 8:58 can actually stand on its own.
Yes, I am very confident that "I will be" is the correct rendition of Exodus 3:14. I support this from the context and from various scholars, and some of these are Trinitarain. I am not sure what level of Hebrew that MisterE has attained or what scholars he relies upon. I reject your statement that "I AM" is the stronger statement. I suggest that all that "I AM" really conveys is that God exists and this is obvious from the context and what was stated in Exodus 3:6 and Moses' observation of the burning bush. I suggest the only reason why this erroneous translation is preferred is because of the supposed link to John 8:58.

The following is some of my explanation of the Yahweh Name and my endorsement of "I will be":
But you have never provided an adequate answer. Your insistence that John 8:58 actually should be "I am he" continues to make grammatical nonsense and has Jesus not answering the question he was asked. We should fully expect that Jesus both answers the question and does so in a grammatically correct way. We must not have Jesus speaking nonsense.
I find the expression in the KJV of John 8:58 "I AM" does not make much sense. I consider that "I am he" makes perfect sense and it tells me that you have not properly considered the theme of John's Gospel John 20:31 and the general and immediate context. Also the same expression is used in the immediate context John 8:24,28 and also in John 4:25-26 and even the blind man uses this expression in John 9:9. Each of these occurrences would not make much sense in English if only translated "I am" rather than "I am he". Apply your "grammar" to these verses.
Not at all. Isaiah clearly states he saw Yahweh, which is something you continually leave unaddressed.
Jesus is the central focus of the development of the Yahweh Name.
The only way to understand this is that John is saying Jesus, or rather the Son, is Yahweh in the flesh, but not the Father.
When did Jesus sit upon a Throne in the Temple? Was it real, or a vision. Where was God the Father?

Kind regards
Trevor
 
Did Jesus exist prior to creation?
Both John's gospel and Hebrews state that Jesus made everything that has been made.
If Jesus didn't exist prior to creation he has to be a created being, but as he creat3d everything he cannot have created himself, so he is pre existent.
 
Did Jesus exist prior to creation?
Both John's gospel and Hebrews state that Jesus made everything that has been made.
If Jesus didn't exist prior to creation he has to be a created being, but as he creat3d everything he cannot have created himself, so he is pre existent.
Yeah, I don't see what's the point of this thread.
 
Greetings again Free,

Yes, I am very confident that "I will be" is the correct rendition of Exodus 3:14. I support this from the context and from various scholars, and some of these are Trinitarain. I am not sure what level of Hebrew that MisterE has attained or what scholars he relies upon. I reject your statement that "I AM" is the stronger statement. I suggest that all that "I AM" really conveys is that God exists and this is obvious from the context and what was stated in Exodus 3:6 and Moses' observation of the burning bush. I suggest the only reason why this erroneous translation is preferred is because of the supposed link to John 8:58.

The following is some of my explanation of the Yahweh Name and my endorsement of "I will be":
Again, it can be rendered "I Am," as it is in most translations. If it can only mean the weaker, "I will be," then every translation would render it that way. That is the stronger of two possibilities, showing how much greater God is. I maintain that "I Am" is the best translation as it relates to who God is. It is also relevant that the Septuagint renders it "ego eimi," the very same as in the NT Greek.

I find the expression in the KJV of John 8:58 "I AM" does not make much sense.
It makes perfect sense, for the same reason that "I Am" is the better translation in Ex. 3:14. It is a claim to self-existence, that which is absolute and timeless.

I consider that "I am he" makes perfect sense
It makes no grammatical sense. It can't.

Joh 8:56 Your father Abraham rejoiced that he would see my day. He saw it and was glad.”
Joh 8:57 So the Jews said to him, “You are not yet fifty years old, and have you seen Abraham?
Joh 8:58 Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I am.”
Joh 8:59 So they picked up stones to throw at him, but Jesus hid himself and went out of the temple. (ESV)

How does "I am he" make grammatical sense? The question asked is "You are not yet fifty years old, and have you seen Abraham?" and clearly is meant to point out the absurdity of Jesus having seen Abraham, although he is not even 50 years old. Not that it would matter because that would be going back many hundreds of years.

The question is one of chronology and age, which is to speak of existence. So, Jesus answers that with chronology and the nature of his existence. Jesus contrasts the temporal existence of Abraham in time--"before Abraham was"--with his own eternal preexistence--"I am." That actually answers the question and makes sense grammatically. It also makes sense of why the Jews wanted to stone him--they (falsely) saw his claim to be I Am as blasphemy.

If Jesus meant "I am he," what does that even mean? That he was Abraham? That he was someone else entirely? How does that even answer the question? It doesn't and it has Jesus speaking nonsense.

Importantly, they also picked up stones to stone him, which is the penalty for blasphemy. It will not be the first time they want to kill him for blasphemy.

and it tells me that you have not properly considered the theme of John's Gospel John 20:31 and the general and immediate context.
On the contrary, it best fits the theme of John's gospel. His whole point is to show who Jesus is. The title "Son of God" is an implicit claim to deity and equality with the Father. Every son is of the exact same nature as his father; it cannot be otherwise. On at least two occasions, the Jews understood Jesus's claim to be the Son of the Father as claiming equality with the Father:

Joh 5:18 This was why the Jews were seeking all the more to kill him, because not only was he breaking the Sabbath, but he was even calling God his own Father, making himself equal with God. (ESV)

Note that this is John making the claim that Jesus "was even calling God his own Father, making himself equal with God."

Joh 10:30 I and the Father are one.”
Joh 10:31 The Jews picked up stones again to stone him.
Joh 10:32 Jesus answered them, “I have shown you many good works from the Father; for which of them are you going to stone me?”
Joh 10:33 The Jews answered him, “It is not for a good work that we are going to stone you but for blasphemy, because you, being a man, make yourself God.”
Joh 10:34 Jesus answered them, “Is it not written in your Law, ‘I said, you are gods’?
Joh 10:35 If he called them gods to whom the word of God came—and Scripture cannot be broken—
Joh 10:36 do you say of him whom the Father consecrated and sent into the world, ‘You are blaspheming,’ because I said, ‘I am the Son of God’? (ESV)

Also the same expression is used in the immediate context John 8:24,28
It does not follow that because the same expression was already used, where it does make grammatical sense to add "he," that in verse 58 "he" should be there. It does not make grammatical sense in verse 58. None whatsoever.

However, let's look at the context you mentioned and see what all is said:

Joh 8:23 He said to them, “You are from below; I am from above. You are of this world; I am not of this world.
Joh 8:24 I told you that you would die in your sins, for unless you believe that I am he you will die in your sins.”
...
Joh 8:27 They did not understand that he had been speaking to them about the Father.
Joh 8:28 So Jesus said to them, “When you have lifted up the Son of Man, then you will know that I am he, and that I do nothing on my own authority, but speak just as the Father taught me. (ESV)

In verse 24, it could also be simply "I am," to mean that unless a person believes he is God, they will die in their sins. Grammatically it works. It also works contextually because he clearly stated in verse 23 that he is "from above" and "not of this world." He contrasts that with them being "from below" and "of this world." There is a clear and significant difference between Jesus, the Son of God, and the rest of humanity. That is undeniable.

Hence why in verse 58, "I am" would be consistent with that claim.

and also in John 4:25-26 and even the blind man uses this expression in John 9:9. Each of these occurrences would not make much sense in English if only translated "I am" rather than "I am he". Apply your "grammar" to these verses.
This suggests that you don't understand the concept of context very well. The same word or phrase can be interpreted differently depending on the context. While it is worth noting that in John 4:26 "he" is added, these contexts don't work with "I am" because that would make no sense. That it won't work with anyone but Jesus shows that you're not understanding the nature of the phrase. To claim to be "I Am," regardless of what you think of Ex. 3:14, is to claim timeless existence. No regular person can claim.

However, the entire point of John's prologue, and indeed a central point to his whole gospel, is that Jesus is absolutely not any regular person. He is "from above" and "not of this world;" he is the Word, who was in eternal interpersonal relationship with God, through whom came into being everything that came into being. These things are throughout John's gospel.

Jesus is the central focus of the development of the Yahweh Name.
What do you mean by this?

When did Jesus sit upon a Throne in the Temple? Was it real, or a vision. Where was God the Father?
God is triune, that is rather the entire point. To see Yahweh is to see the triune God. John begins his gospel stating the absolute existence of the Word that was in intimate relationship with God, showing that he is God in nature. Hence Jesus's request to the Father to "glorify me in your own presence with the glory that I had with you before the world existed" (John 17:5, ESV).

Notice the clear statement that he was with the Father "before the world existed," which is to say before creation. John has already told us that as the Word he was the agent through whom God created everything that was ever created by him. Those are the very first three verses of his gospel.

But, we must also notice that not only was he with the Father prior to creation, he shared the glory of the Father. That is why both Isaiah and John are correct. Isaiah clearly, unequivocally states that he saw Yahweh. John, just as clearly states that Isaiah saw Jesus, most likely meaning the preincarnate Son. Those two things are both true, just as they also must make sense of John 17:5 and myriad other verses which claim "eternal preexistence" of the Son.
 
Greetings again Free,
Again, it can be rendered "I Am," as it is in most translations. If it can only mean the weaker, "I will be," then every translation would render it that way. That is the stronger of two possibilities, showing how much greater God is. I maintain that "I Am" is the best translation as it relates to who God is.
I hold to the view that "I will be" is the only correct translation based upon the context. It is either the one or the other. It cannot be both. Did you read my "The Yahweh Name" thread?
It is also relevant that the Septuagint renders it "ego eimi," the very same as in the NT Greek.
No. The LXX is a poor translation of the original Hebrew. The LXX has "I am the BEING" giving a different rendition to the two identical Hebrew words "ehyeh".
The question is one of chronology and age, which is to speak of existence.
It is a reinforcement of what Jesus already stated in John 8:24,28 that he is the Christ. They attempted to distort what he stated and hijack the conversation.
Joh 10:36 do you say of him whom the Father consecrated and sent into the world, ‘You are blaspheming,’ because I said, ‘I am the Son of God’? (ESV)
Jesus is not claiming to be God as they falsely accused him. He is claiming that he is the Son of God.
That it won't work with anyone but Jesus shows that you're not understanding the nature of the phrase.
Was the blind man blaspheming in John 9:9?
What do you mean by this?
The Yahweh Name "I will be/become who/what I will be/become" indicated that the result of this process is an extension of Yahweh, not an independent entity.
Isaiah clearly, unequivocally states that he saw Yahweh. John, just as clearly states that Isaiah saw Jesus, most likely meaning the preincarnate Son.
I consider that the basic aspect of the vision of Isaiah 6 is parallel with the vision of the future Kingdom in Isaiah 2:1-4. Jesus is seated on the Temple Throne of David in Jerusalem as Yahweh's representative. The One God, Yahweh, God the Father in heaven. There is no altar of burnt offering in heaven.

Kind regards
Trevor
 
Greetings again Free,

I hold to the view that "I will be" is the only correct translation based upon the context. It is either the one or the other. It cannot be both. Did you read my "The Yahweh Name" thread?
No, I didn't read it. It is much too long. The context of Ex. 3:14 fully supports the translation "I Am." Again, "I will be" is ambiguous as it doesn't tell us who God is or was. It only gives some vague notion of potentiality. If God will be what he will be, then what was he before? Was he something different? Is he always changing? It is a very weak translation.

"I Am," on the other hand, tells us that God is self-existent and timeless. As such, he is sovereign, omnipotent, omniscient, and unchanging. This is a much stronger translation.

No. The LXX is a poor translation of the original Hebrew. The LXX has "I am the BEING" giving a different rendition to the two identical Hebrew words "ehyeh".
Yet, it seems clear that John has Jesus referring back to "I Am," ego eimi, even in Ex. 3:14 as the ani hu.

It is a reinforcement of what Jesus already stated in John 8:24,28 that he is the Christ.
No, it cannot be, since the Jews were not asking if he was the Christ. It is a reinforcement of what Jesus already stated in verse 23, that he is "from above" and "not of this world," because he is timeless. That is why in verse 24 he actually says "unless you believe that I am you will die in your sins." Both of those support what Jesus claims in verse 58.

Again, all of this begins in John 1:1-18, where John establishes the eternal preexistence of the Word, who isn't the Father but is in intimate relationship with him, being in nature God, and then becomes incarnate in the person of Jesus. It cannot be overstated that a central theme to John's gospel is the deity of the Son, that he is both truly God, but not the Father, and truly man.

They attempted to distort what he stated and hijack the conversation.
Yes, they did, by asking a specific question.

Jesus is not claiming to be God as they falsely accused him. He is claiming that he is the Son of God.
As I have shown from Scripture, those are essentially the same claim. To be the Son of God, the Son of the Father, is to claim equality with the Father. But to be coequal with the Father, he has to be God as well.

Was the blind man blaspheming in John 9:9?
Of course not. I already explained that you really need to understand the difference between contexts, and that John thoroughly explains that Jesus is no ordinary human, which was the whole point of the prologue of his gospel. Some things that are said of Jesus can be said of no other human. Not to mention that, in regards to Jesus, simple grammar can show whether or not "he" can be added.

The Yahweh Name "I will be/become who/what I will be/become" indicated that the result of this process is an extension of Yahweh, not an independent entity.
So, Jesus is the Father in the flesh?

I consider that the basic aspect of the vision of Isaiah 6 is parallel with the vision of the future Kingdom in Isaiah 2:1-4.
What is there in either of those passages that makes you think they are parallel?

Jesus is seated on the Temple Throne of David in Jerusalem as Yahweh's representative. The One God, Yahweh, God the Father in heaven.
Still, Isaiah explicitly states that he saw Yahweh, not a representative of Yahweh, not the Messiah. It is John who states that Isaiah saw Jesus. There is only one conclusion--John believed Jesus to be Yahweh in the flesh. Not that he is the Father, but that he is equal to him, which is a central theme in John's gospel. You can't just go and change what is explicitly stated because it doesn't fit your beliefs.

There is no altar of burnt offering in heaven.
No, but there is a symbolic one, mentioned eight times in seven verses.
 
Back
Top