Bill, i have read the title, having just now woken up here in NZ. The video i will watch later, excited. The title alone has just set off a huge lightbulb moment in my head. I never saw this! Such a nugget, in the tailings and missed by so many. Best christmas pressy i will get this year.
I was saying this for years but nobody got into deeper discussion. Even yesterday I was again looking and discussing with my wife about this verse and we were amazed that people can't see this.
This verse, when translated correctly, destroys the "pre-existing God the Son" belief. It's blasphemous to most of Christendom, which of course, is ironic.
@@bvenski3199yes, if we believe Jesus is non pre-existant human being, whom God exalted to His right hand only AFTER RESURRECTION, then a huge chunk of verses starts making sense.
I have just woken up, saw the new post from Bill. Read the title, only, and a lightbulb just went off in my head. I can see what he is going to say. This is the verse that pulled me out of 40 years slavery to trinity lie, and the one i tackle most in debate with trinitarians, yet i never saw this, im excited to run the video, but i already know what it says. this is the delight of kings, mining gold nuggets.
@@ken440I would like to see the end to where all these Truths lead. For us just to know or prove to others that Jesus is not GOD and that Trinity is false is not enough. It must lead us to a true revelation who we are in Jesus and really set us free from the grip of the last principality which is called DEATH.
Greetings, this message is sent in love. Christ is simply stating that before Abraham was born, he existed. He is the word of God. God spoke the creation into existence, via his word, he was the orator, John 1:1. That word was sent to the earth, put into Marys' womb, given a flesh body, begotten. Abraham was in heaven, witnessing the whole event, as Christ testifies: Your father Abraham rejoiced to see my day: and he saw it, and was glad. Moses saw it also, as he is in heaven, but did visit the earth to let Christ know what was about to happen to him. He probably told him that he was about to fulfill Pesa/Passover as the lamb of God, voiced by John the Baptist, who Malachi and Isaiah prophesied would lay the foundation for Christ. your friend
Yes, it is also possible to translate the Greek, “Before Abraham comes to be [in the resurrection] I am already alive.” Thus Jesus proved his superiority to Abraham by alone being resurrected on the third day. Abraham will rise from death at the future resurrection when Jesus returns (1 Cor. 15:23). Sir Anthony F. Buzzard Bt., MA (Oxon.) MA Th.
Sir Anthony, Amen. I definitely agree that the pre-eminence of Jesus to Abraham is part of the dynamic of the discussion in John 8. And, that pre-eminence includes in resurrection.
Greetings, this message is sent in love. 1 Corinthians 15 has nothing to do with resurrecting rotted corpses that have become dirt over thousands of years. Paul used the term "resurrection" for the second coming of Christ to fulfill the final Yom Kippur. Peter and John called the second coming the revelation. James simply called it the coming of the Lord. All of these men told their immediate audience it would happen in their lifetime, it did. They were simply repeating what Christ preached. Abraham witnessed Elohim sending his word to the earth, as he was in heaven, per the testimony of Christ. So did Moses. They are both very much alive. this message is sent in love, your friend
Buzzard and Carlos ... what you're still missing is that Jesus was predicting that the time of the resurrection was imminent in his own time (John 5:25-28) and that some of his own contemporaries would be alive when it happened (John 11:24-26). That is why Jesus said Abraham had rejoiced to see the day (John 8:56) when Jesus was among the people (John 8:58).
I will likely say more about this later, as its something much of unitarian groups miss. That we will rise before Abraham. Meaning we are up before the resurrection into the kingdom for the just. Before David and all those patriachs. the last shall be first etc... Hapazzo, 1thes4:16. i.e. this video is support for rapture of the new creation. new sons of God. To return with Jesus.
@@ken440 Greetings, Abraham is very much alive; John 8:56, so is Moses, Matthew 17:3. There is no such event as a rapture taught in scripture; for your consideration. The rapture theory usually derives from 1 Thessalonians 4 and 1 Corinthians 15. In both cases, Paul is simply telling the church members they are about to experience the resurrection (Pauls' term because Christ said, "I am the resurrection")/revealing/revelation of Jesus Christ. He is very clear, that they will be alive, breathing, at the event. Christ was sent to fulfill the laws of Moses. Part of this law had feast days/convocations/practice rehearsals, all pointing to Messiah, the better resurrection. The following is a verse-by-verse breakdown for the Thessalonians; please note, Paul told these church members six (6) times they will witness, be breathing, at the revelation, chapters 1:10, 2:19,3:13,4:15,4:17,5:23 13 But I would not have you to be ignorant, brethren, concerning them which are asleep, that ye sorrow not, even as others which have no hope.(Don't be ignorant about what happens when you physically/biologically die. Where do you go to reside? Heaven) 14 For if we believe that Jesus died and rose again, even so them also which sleep in Jesus will God bring with him.(The gathering, as prophesied, the final harvest, Sukkot, is about to happen. Your friends, although residing in heaven, are not going to miss, or not participate, in the gathering of the sons of God. This is the last feast, the last trumpet, the last day, that Christ told us about in John 6 four times, it is about to happen) 15 For this we say unto you by the word of the Lord, that we which are alive and remain unto the coming of the Lord shall not prevent them which are asleep.("WE" are people breathing today, Thessalonian church members in the first century, to whom the letter was addressed. We will not go before, we will not precede, the believers who are already in heaven in the order of the resurrection event) 16 For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first:(Christ said he would return in our lifetime. Our friends, the dead in Christ, residing in heaven, will participate first in the gathering. There is an order to the event. Christ is being sent from heaven, for the final Yom Kippur (Hebrews 9), thus, if you reside in heaven, then you are considered first in line. Next, "we" who live on the earth will participate in the resurrection. Remember what I told the Ephesian church members: 10 That in the dispensation of the fulness of times he might gather together in one all things in Christ, both which are in heaven, and which are on earth; even in him. This is what is about to happen.) 17 Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord.("WE" that are breathing on the earth, will join them in the gathering. Remember Peter saying: Whom the heaven must receive until the times of restitution of all things, which God hath spoken by the mouth of all his holy prophets since the world began.) The New Jerusalem that Abraham sought, the heavenly city that Hebrews 11 & 12 said would come, is about to happen. John told us in Revelation that God and his Son will tabernacle/dwell with us in this heavenly city, where the gates are never shut; this is about to happen, fulfilling Sukkot, the final ingathering, the final harvest, it did.) this message is sent in love, your friend
@@markmoore3530 So where Paul says elsewhere that we will be raised to glory as he (Jesus) is glorified. Means nothing? No Abe and co are all currently dead. Elijah and Enoch listed as dead in Stevens testimony. King David dead still 50 days after Jesus died. So it doesnt look like David got on the bus when "jesus led the captives free" etc. I see your supposition and church speak in your 13 (that when you die you go straight to heaven) and so dont be sad. No that sounds greek, the hebrews believed in being dead waiting resurrection, not imediate sweet clouds. 15; where "those who are asleep" you are claiming are already in heaven. Obviously not looking over the rails and cheering us on, because they are asleep!!! Asleep is an ancient term for death. Like "ashes to ashes, earth to earth and dust to dust" which is pretty common speak, implies back into the elements from which we came. i.e. dead. What we had is in Gods rememberance, waiting resurrection. Not sitting about in comfort without their bodies, that bit is greek Platoism. Your 16; you say the dead in christ (to me thats dead christians) are waiting in heaven, for the big gathering, but that Jesus rouses them by coming FROM heaven....?? nah. 17; caught up into the clouds to always be with him... What happened to the twinkling of the eye between those dead in christ and those remaining (1cor). To meet him in the clouds 9i.e. like he was lifted into heaven) yes that sounds like Hapazzo to me. No I do not see conviction in your view, in love and peace. To ignore "ashes dust and dirt" and in its place imediate habitation in heaven, is to enter the teaching of Plato, and leave the Hebrew scripture.
@@bvenski3199 So did David believe in the future christ (means "anointed one"), yet according to Peter in Acts2, that David is still in his grave some 50 days after Jesus died and rose. Something else to chew on.
Right, plus prin (πρὶν), like its 13 examples, in Mark 14:30 ....before the rooster crows, for example. Its future tense. This was a hard verse years ago for me, but once it was revealed to me as a resurrection verse, then it made sense. Its definitely the absolute minority explanation, but I believe its the correct one. Good video Bill!
Greetings, this message is sent in love. Christ said, "I am the resurrection". Christ started the resurrection. He told his apostles to raise the dead. They were not preaching to cemeteries. You are born again, raised from the dead, resurrected, quickened, while you are breathing. The gospel has nothing, zero, to do with flesh. Christ was crucified to atone for sin, not flesh. He said the flesh profiteth nothing. Its worthless. It took 40 years, a generation, for the gospel to be preached to the known world, per the scriptures, fulfilling Sukkot, the last feast, final harvest of souls, the Ingathering. Now Elohim and his Son tabernacle with mankind in the New Jerusalem, which was established almost 2,000 years ago when the "last days" were finalized at the destruction of heaven and earth, the temple. Ending the curse, which brought death, per the laws of Moses, death defeated. this message is sent in love, your friend
Very interesting, its amazing, and concerning, how much a proper translation can change the understanding of important verses like this. To English speaking ears, it sounds odd to have a verb like "become" or "am/be" without a direct object. Is that normal/expected in koine Greek? The other examples of the verb you gave seemed generally to have an object, are there other examples of the same or similar verbs where they are used like this, or is it used in a unique way in this verse for a particular effect?
The relatively unknown perspective on John 8:58 in this video has been around for some time and it's good to see unitarians beginning to give it some consideration. Making allowance for a different perspective on the exegetical evidence is better than relying on the same old assumptions made by Trinitarians and then trying to put a unitarian spin on it.
I believe that jews though that the FIRST who is going to be risen at the last Day by God is Abraham. So I strongly believe that Jesus was saying that he is to be risen first. "Before Abraham is risen, I will be." I AM in Hebrew can be translated as I WILL BE. I think greek translators chose I AM instead of I WILL BE. Jesus was asked "are you greater than Abraham" and it was Jesus's answer "I will be risen before Abraham" and that's why they wanted to stone him, because they understood Jesus's point. Sorry for my English, I'm from Lithuania.
Excellent presentation. Plenty of food for thought. I would agree that your reasonings are extremely probable. The good thing is this, this statement can also be understood in its ‘past tense’, without having to believe that Jesus is God or that he Preexisted his birth. Peace
I think the point of the video is that the "past tense" (was born) is really not an option. As Bill pointed out, the evidence of usage shows that the verb used in John 8:58 is not the one for "born" and the infinitive form of that verb wasn't used to convey an action that was in the past when the speaker is referring to himself in the present ("I am").
"Abraham rejoiced that he should see my DAY." Paul says couple of times: " in the DAY of Lord Jesus". What's important about HIS DAY ? Everyone will be resurrected. Why Abraham rejoiced ? Because he knew he should be resurrected and see Jesus, his own descendant, who set humanity free. And he saw ('horao) and rejoiced. Horao means to see, to look upon, to perceive. John 8:58 definitely speaks about Abraham being resurrected, but Jesus is resurrected before Abraham.
Yes, and the use of "see" and "seen" in the previous verses make "appears" the best option for the sense of "becomes" in John 8:58. Jesus was talking about seeing Abraham in his own day. He was predicting that the hour of the resurrection had come (John 5:25-28) and that some of his contemporaries would remain alive (John 11:24-26).
Trinitarians are blinded by religious spirit which blinds the word DAY. And they just see that Abraham had seen Jesus with his natural eyes when Jesus came to him under the oak.
Yes, of course, its "The DAY of the Lord." Otherwise known as the Parousia or triumphant return, or rounded up along with the future kingdom as "The Eschaton." Thank you brothers. Its all about the triumph over the dragon and his co rebels, the gods of the nations, powers and principalities in heavenly places that are our true enemy that Paul warns us about in Eph6. Thats why Abraham rejoiced, because he knew the bad news. Most religious folk today have no idea why the good news is so good, because we have forgotten how bad the bad news was. Religious folk just think Adam ate an apple he was told not to eat.
@@ken440 ... John 8:56-58 has nothing to do with visions in Revelation or what Paul said in Ephesians. Wrong contexts. Jesus used "day" to refer to several different events in the context of the 4th Gospel.
No, because "I am" (EGW EIMI) didn't mean "to become" and there's no reason to predicate it that way. Jesus had been talking about himself all along in the present tense.
@@riversofeden3929 "genestai is used lots of times in the Bible, and like it says in this video, it's never used as was, it's used with things that are to happen in the future. Action is not finished. Jesus is saying that he would become greater than Abraham. First before Abraham means in front of not time but status. "In front of Abraham to become I am" but I am is used in the end of the sentence as also I think it's done in German for example, but it sounds odd to western speaker because he never talks this way.
@@Mckaule ... the Greek grammar in John 8:58 doesn't have anything corresponding to "status" or "in front of." The writer of the 4th gospel used other Greek words numerous times to convey the sense of "in front of." Also, GENESQAI doesn't always mean something that "wasn't" in the past. It depends upon the context in which the speaker is using it. Sometimes it does refer to things that already happened in the past.
I prefer the translation: "Before Abraham *to become* (γενεσθαι) I am;". That is, Jesus (as the resurrected Messiah) was to become "firstborn among many brethren", "firstborn from the dead; that in all things he might have the preeminence".
That would be a literal translation, but awkward in English. I agree that Jesus is stating his pre-eminence to Abraham, particularly as relates to the age(s) to come.
I agree with Bill. Your translation is unnecessarily awkward and too literal. The verb translated "to become" can be rendering many different ways in English that make it easier to read. A translation doesn't need to be wooden literal.
@billschlegel1 Of course the appropriate English translation is: "I am 'to become' before Abraham" , but presents a slightly weaker emphasis on 'the becoming' , than the Greek provides. I enjoy Rotherham's Emphasized translation of the Bible for comparison, as it attempts to maintain the emphasis of the original text. Just a matter of personal taste.
@@pmac_ ... I don't think that is a good translation because there's nothing that Jesus himself needed to "become" in the context. Moreover, Jesus used "I am" numerous times to refer to his present identity. We can also see in Acts 26:29 that when "I am" (EGW EIMI) is used again with "to become" (GENESQAI) it's referring to different subjects. Also, we can see in passages like John 4:14 and John 10:16 that the writer used different grammar when he has Jesus saying "I will become" something. He doesn't have Jesus saying "I am to become" in Greek to convey that idea.
@@pmac_ Ah, I didn't understand you correctly earlier. You are suggesting that Jesus is the subject of "becoming" , not Abraham. That's an intriguing suggestion. First time I've ever heard of the suggestion. The infinitive "becoming" does seem to make the subject ambiguous. It ends up being a Greek grammar question. I'd have to assume that there are reasons that the Greek experts have taken Abraham as the subject, for reasons like Rivers points out in John 4:14 and 10:16. Although it would be interesting to see other evidence. Thanks for the interaction.
Very interesting, Bill. This seems to be another viable explanation. I will continue to ponder this perspective Historically I have understood Christ's comments in the light of the immediate context. Jesus had JUST stated: "Your father Abraham rejoiced to see my day: and he saw it, and was glad" .. The Jews who were arguing with Jesus found that remark very troubling, and asked: .. "Thou art not yet fifty years old, and hast thou seen Abraham?" So, Jesus' answer would logically explain his statement, and answer their question. And, it's a valid question to ask: HOW did Abraham "see" Christ's day? We are told Abraham was promised a "seed" that would bless "all nations". So, we KNOW Abraham "saw Christ's day" in the promises. Christ was in the promise of a "seed" of the woman that would destroy Satan. Jude quotes Enoch regarding Christ's 2nd coming. MANY texts tell us that YHVH God foretold Christ "by the mouth of all HIs holy prophets since the world began". So, Jesus IS (present tense) in God's promises (God's logos) BEFORE Abraham WAS (past tense).
Hi, in the previous podcasts I mentioned the understanding you expressed as a possibility, but I think the one expressed in the current podcast is the thrust of Jesus' statement. There is a sense in which Jesus is before (and pre-eminent to) Abraham in the plan of God, but literally too, in resurrection.
The problem with your view is that there were no Messianic promises before Genesis 12:3 (which is after Abraham was already an old man. Thus, there was no Jesus in any promises before Abraham existed.
Hi "Rivers", good to hear from you again ..... but sorry to find you still wrong on this. Gen 3:15 is proven to be about Jesus by Heb 2:14. Jude 1:13,14 shows that Enoch (as one of the prophets of God) knew about the 2nd coming of Jesus. The Scriptures repeatedly state that God foretold Jesus' coming "by the mouth of all His holy prophets since the world began". YHVH God Himself states that Christ's "goings forth" were "from of old, from everlasting". So, other than still being wrong on this, how have you been?
@@loveofthetruth9398 ... it's a fact that Genesis 3:15 isn't cited by any biblical writer and applied to Messiah or Jesus Christ. Neither Hebrews 2:14 nor Jude 1:13-14 is referring to that passage either. Also, if you read the book of Jude, he was using "the Lord" to refer to God the Father and not Jesus Christ. The "one man" in Hebrews 2:11-16 is Abraham and not Adam. I don't think you're paying attention to context.
@@riversofeden3929 True, it isn't repeated by a New Testament author. I'm assuming you've got a verse that REQUIRES a prophecy being repeated in the NT for it to be valid?? Of course not. No, Jude isn't referring to God the Father. It's JESUS that's coming to execute vengeance FOR God the Father. You are incorrect regarding the obvious connection between Gen 3:15 and Heb 2:14. What are you TALKING about with "The "one man" in Hebrews 2:11-16 is Abraham and not Adam." ???
I strongly believe that the phrase "Prin Abraam Ginomai, Ego Eimi" should be translated word-for-word as "Before Abraham becomes, I become" and paraphrased as "Before Abraham becomes incorruptible, I become incorruptible" because Yahusha was affirming His preeminence to Abraham and the prophets in the resurrection when we read its immediate context from a first century Hebraic perspective. JOHN 8:50-59.
Why would you translate "I am" (EGW EIMI) as "I become." Nobody has ever done that in the entire history of translating ancient Greek grammar. Also, there's no language that corresponds to "corruptible/incorruptible" in John 8:50-59 either. I think it's better to work with what the text actually says.
@@riversofeden3929" I will become like him." For example in other languages if you translate word for word it can sound strange to foreigners but it can be this : "Like him to become I am." Sorry for my English I'm from Lithuania.
@@Mckaule ... there's nothing that corresponds to "like him" in John 8:58 either. I think you are just trying to make up an explanation and don't understand the Greek grammar behind the English translations. If you listen to Bill's presentation, he's being more careful to actually deal with the text.
@riversofeden3929 I was just giving you this as an example. There's no "like him" in John 8:58. For me as Lithuanian it's more easy to get an idea in Greek because sentence structure sometimes is more similar to our language than english. I'm just paraphrasing what it actually says on Greek. The idea. It's not about Abraham to become but to become comes with word Jesus. There must be a comma after Abraham, not before "I am". The same is "truly truly I say to you today, you'll be with me in paradise" not today will be in paradise but he's saying it today a.k.a now. When someone without Holy Spirit translates Bible then there's a mess and confusion.
@@Mckaule ... I don't think the holy spirit has anything to do with Bible translation. That's why there are numerous Bible translations made by devout Christians scholars that don't agree on how particular verses should be translated. A comma before Abraham in John 8:58 would make no sense of the statement in English translation so that's why nobody does it.
John 8:57 records the complete misunderstanding, intentional or not, of the speakers to what Jesus said in 8:56. Jesus said "Abraham rejoiced to see my day". His listeners either twisted (intentionally or not) Jesus' statement into, "You have seen Abraham...?" In other words, Jesus was not claiming to have literally existed before Abraham "came to be" ca. 2000 BC. But Abraham did know of and believe in the fulfillment of God's promises to him through the coming of one of his own descendants ("Abraham's seed").
Before [Father of many nations] comes to be, the light of the world (John 8:12) needed to be seen by [Exalted father] (John 8:56) I trust you all know what Abraham/Abram means. We also know [Word of Yahweh] came to Abram saying "father of many nations" (Genesis 15:1, 17:5), and Abraham believed God (Genesis 15:6) Hence, an amplified reading could be "Jesus said to them, truly, truly, before Abraham (while he was Abram) comes to be, I am the one revealed"
Even so, we can see from Scripture that Jesus was revealed in Gen3:15, long before Abraham or Abram. i.e. the word of God has promised the messiah waiting to be revealed, from the beginning of the fall. Jesus is the one revealed, all through the word of God. The one promised in Gen3 and Deut18:18. and in all the prophets, and in the foreshadow of Joseph raised under Pharaoh and given all power and authority in all Egypt. And in the psalms.
@@ken440 I know a lot of people interpret Genesis 3:15 as pointing to Christ. I'm not convinced that is the case. Yes, Deuteronomy 18:15+ points to Jesus. I also think we have evidence Abraham saw Christ's coming in John 8:56, Genesis 12-17, Hebrews 11, and Romans 4:18. I think think the first person Christ was revealed to was Abraham. Not the Serpant. Not Enoch. Not Noah. As far as I can tell, Genesis 3:15 is simply pointing out that the serpant (and his seed) will continue to deceive. A woman will continue to be deceived. The man (and his seed) will continue to suffer collateral damage despite being triumphant of the deception. This will persist generation after generation. In turn, the enmity will persist. Christ is not in that conversation. In Christ, it's something completely new.
Where do you see Abraham "become a father of nations" to be part of the discussion in John 8:51-59? The issue was "seeing" Abraham himself (John 8:56-57).
1) In Genesis 12, God called Abram 2) In Genesis 15:6, Abram believed God 3) In Genesis 17:5, Abram is called Abraham. In all 3 cases, you could say the "Word of Yahweh" (Genesis 15:1) came to Abram. "Word of Yahweh" is just an idiom (or figure of speech), and has no special meaning. You could say "the 'word of SimplyAwesomeOriginal' came to me", to refer to me speaking to you via this app. Again, the "Word of Yahweh", is not unlike the words you are reading right now; it contains information that you can "see". Abram "saw" Abraham in the Word of Yahweh that came to him in Genesis 17:5. Another way to "look" at things is to say that Abram became Abraham, the "father of many nations", when Abram heard (and believed) it in Genesis 17:5. Abraham saw the "promise of his seed", which is Christ, which Jesus spoke about in John 8:56. Also see Romans 4:9-25, Hebrews 11:8-19, and Galatians 3. Abram means "Exalted Father". Abraham means "Father of many nations"; NOT just Israelites. At the 12:58 mark of the video, Bill slipped in a notable point.
So, would it be like Jesus saying, 'before Abraham can be resurrected, I have to come as the messiah?' That is, 'there can be no resurrection for Abraham, or anyone else, unless I first come and lay down my life.' If so, it would tie in with his earlier comment of Abraham seeing his day, and being glad. Suggesting Abraham understood the necessity of Jesus coming before resurrection became possible. The question is, why did Jesus need to say that? Why did he need to make a statement about the messiah coming before the resurrection? Was it because the Jews trusted in their own righteousness, and thought that was sufficient to ensure their resurrection? And they needed to understand that a saviour was first necessary? And was it also to address the Jews obsession with Abraham? That is, they talked of being Abraham's children, while not seeming to concentrate as much on the messiah. So much so, that they completely missed him, though he was standing in front of them. In other words, Jesus was encouraging them to forget about being literal descendents of Abraham for a moment, because that wasn't going to save them, and think about why they needed a messiah instead.
Thanks for having a listen. Take a look at the various ways in which English translations have rendered the verse. You might wonder why the variety. Why would Young's Literal Translation and the Literal Standard Version render the verse as: "Before Abraham's coming -- I am". Where do you think Abraham was when Jesus spoke these words? Thanks.
@ what a coincidence, every English translation renders this verse in the PAST TENSE. Again, red flag #1 is when someone MAKES UP their own translation of the Bible that has never existed before. This is yet another attempt to remove the deity of Christ from the Bible. I encourage you to repent and submit to Gods word in English (KJV).
@@TannerAdams1611 You didn't check the literal translations I mentioned. Keep in mind the purpose statement of the author of the Gospel of John. He wrote so that his readers would "believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God (John 20:30-31). You can check to see if Christ and Son of God are ever a titles for God in the Bible, and then submit to God's word.
@@TannerAdams1611 ... it's also a "red flag" when someone doesn't understand that translations are interpretations. Bill has shown examples of how some reputable translations of John 8:58 differ. He has also shown why there is an exegetical basis for considering a different option that is more consistent with how the writer of the 4th Gospel actually used his own language.
I'm confuzed I was just saying right Jesus is first born of the dead. Then I said to myself whoa what about the Transfiguration? Jesus hadn't been crucified yet but Abraham & Elisha showed up?? Now I have gotten myself into a conundrum! 🤔
@@mikeoc217, yes but the Bible also say God hid Moses's body, perhaps something else happened there... Before Jesus's sinless d eat h , everybody that d ied went to Sheol, the place of the d ead, so Jesus is the first one who came out of there.
for real Bill ??? is is not symply a question of rank of each ones, and progression of the phophecies and their accomplishment ???! was it not like john told about Yeshua? the same speaking about Abraham being after Yeshua before God ? is it about RANK or CHRONOLOGY ? John 1: 6-7 : "And John was clothed with camel's hair, and with a girdle of a skin about his loins; and he did eat locusts and wild honey; 7And preached, saying, There cometh one mightier than I after me, the latchet of whose shoes I am not worthy to stoop down and unloose." John 1: 30 : "This is he of whom I said, After me cometh a man which is preferred before me: for he was before me."
John 8: 58 : "Then said the Jews unto him, "Thou art not yet fifty years old, and hast thou seen Abraham?" (fleshly talk) Jesus said unto them, "Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am" (Spiritual language)." it is like Romans 1 Yeshua was The Son of David and is The Son of God, this makes 2 SONSHIPS, 1 according the flesh and 1 according to the Spirit of Holiness ! So Joseph descendant of David was The Biological Father of Yeshua, and God is The Spiritual Father of Yeshua ! And this cannot be destroyed ! lots of mumbo jumbo of cutting hairs in twenty pieces... for not so many thing, quite anything ! very disappointed !
Hi, yes, I make that point in the earlier podcast. Jesus' statement is as well about pre-eminence. John's Gospel makes clear that Jesus is pre-eminent to the Baptizer, to Moses, to Abraham. In the current podcast, I wanted to emphasize the correct meaning of the verb. Abraham is dead and buried, "waiting" yet to become. In John's Gospel we learn that unless a person is born again/from above, they will not see the kingdom of God.
@@cherebyahwatson5727And they were being sarcastic. They were trying to trick him. They were being liars. not taking their side in that debate thank you, i will go with Jesus.
Bro, your dismissal of the scholarly consensus as mere “speculation” demonstrates a misunderstanding of how evidence and rigorous analysis function in historical and archaeological studies. I'll address your argument directly and expose the flaws in your Unitarian Dynamic Monarchianism, particularly in light of the Megiddo Mosaic Inscription. You argue that the consensus of scholars is speculative. However, consensus in scholarship does not arise from personal opinion but from a methodical evaluation of evidence: The inscription ΘΩ ΙΥ ΧΩ (Theō Iēsou Christō) translates to “The God Jesus Christ” in the Greek. It directly identifies Jesus Christ as God, without prepositions, conjunctions, or qualifiers. The use of sacred abbreviations (ΘΩ = Theō, ΙΥ = Iēsou, ΧΩ = Christō) was reserved exclusively for divine names. This clearly reflects the early Christian understanding that Jesus is fully divine, not a subordinate or created being. This inscription dates to 230 AD, almost a century before the Council of Nicaea. It proves that early Christians worshiped Jesus as God Almighty long before doctrinal councils solidified this truth. Your rejection of the consensus ignores that it is built upon verifiable facts from archaeology, linguistics, and historical analysis none of which support your reinterpretation. Unitarian Dynamic Monarchianism asserts that Jesus is merely a man who possesses divine power or agency, not God by nature. The Megiddo Mosaic Inscription directly undermines this claim for several reasons: The phrase “God Jesus Christ” identifies Jesus as God ontologically, not as a mere agent or representative. There are no prepositions like “to” or “for” and no conjunction like καί (kai = “and”) to separate “God” from “Jesus Christ.” This eliminates any room to argue that Jesus is merely a God-filled man distinct from the divine essence. These sacred abbreviations emphasize that the early Christians regarded Jesus as fully God. In ancient Christian texts, divine titles like ΘΕΟΣ (God) were never applied to created beings or agents but reserved exclusively for those sharing God’s nature. The inscription references a table offered for remembrance clearly indicating a Eucharistic context. The Eucharist was an act of worship, where early Christians honored Jesus as Lord and God (John 20:28). A mere man or created being would never receive such worship. Your position cannot account for these facts. Dynamic Monarchianism reduces Jesus to a creature or a vessel, which is both unbiblical and contradicted by historical evidence like the Megiddo Mosaic. You claim scholars disagree on many things. While it’s true that debates exist in scholarship, this does not negate established consensus when it is grounded in evidence: Scholars, archaeologists, and linguists like Christopher Rollston agree that the inscription identifies Jesus as God in the clearest terms. Your “Space Constraint Argument” (suggesting the text was abbreviated or incomplete) lacks any textual basis. There are no prepositions or conjunctions to support your interpretation. The burden of proof is on you to demonstrate an alternative reading one that aligns with the Greek grammar, nomina sacra, and historical context. Thus far, your argument is pure speculation with no foundation. Scripture affirms Jesus’ full divinity and His distinction from the Father while sharing the same divine nature: John 1:1: “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.” The Word (Logos) is eternal, distinct from the Father (“with God”), yet fully God (“the Word was God”). Hebrews 1:8: The Father declares to the Son, “Your throne, O God, is forever and ever.” The Father Himself identifies the Son as God, confirming Jesus’ full divinity. John 20:28: Thomas confesses to Jesus, “My Lord and my God!” Jesus does not rebuke Thomas but affirms his worship. Unitarian Dynamic Monarchianism cannot reconcile these verses because it denies Jesus’ ontological equality with the Father. The Megiddo Mosaic Inscription aligns perfectly with Scripture, proving that Jesus is not a created agent but God Almighty with the Father and the Holy Spirit. The Megiddo Mosaic further highlights the Trinitarian understanding of God: The Father is Autotheos God of Himself, the unoriginated source of the Son and the Holy Spirit. The Son comes from the Father through eternal generation, not creation, and possesses the Father’s divine essence. The Holy Spirit proceeds eternally from the Father. These are eternal actions, not events in time. The Son and the Spirit share the Father’s ontology (divine nature) and are equally God while remaining distinct in personhood. Your attempt to separate the Son from divine ontology fails because: Every monogenēs (only-begotten) son shares the same nature as the one who begets him. Jesus, as the monogenēs Son of God, must share the Father’s divine nature. The Megiddo Mosaic Inscription leaves no room for Dynamic Monarchian reinterpretations. It clearly identifies Jesus as God Almighty, sharing the same divine essence as the Father and the Holy Spirit: 1. The Greek Text (ΘΩ ΙΥ ΧΩ) directly states “God Jesus Christ,” with no separation or qualifiers. 2. Nomina Sacra confirm Jesus’ divine status, reserved exclusively for God. 3. The Eucharistic Context demonstrates that Jesus was worshiped as Lord and God. 4. The overall scholarly consensus affirms this interpretation based on verifiable evidence, not speculation. Your denial of the consensus is not evidence-based but an attempt to force a conclusion that aligns with Dynamic Monarchianism a position that has no historical, textual, or biblical foundation. I challenge you to produce actual evidence for your claims, rather than dismissing scholarly consensus out of convenience. The early Christians worshiped Jesus Christ as God Almighty, distinct in personhood but equal in nature with the Father and the Holy Spirit. This is the consistent testimony of Scripture, Church Tradition, and historical archaeology.
Your reliance on "consensus scholarship" shows that you don't understand the presuppositions behind the peer review and "group think" that controls the process. Scholars rely on all kinds of assumptions that often lead to both exegetical and logical mistakes. Moreover, not all scholars are part of the "consensus" for good reasons. Unfortunately, your proof-texting response simply shows that you are unaware of other exegetical options because you merely follow the herd.
@@riversofeden3929 LOL, you just follow a different herd. A minority. The archaelogical find at Megiddo is very compelling, which you obviously wouldn't comment on. Your argueing a loosing battle because the Bible is against you and the majority of Scholars and Theologians are too, and so is archaelogy. @kenfollowyeshuacrawford4284 is right in his comment, showing biblical and archaelogical evidence. All you come with is your opinion.
@@davidmcbrine4527 LOL indeed, to your reply here to Riversofeden, and to the other Ken, who fails to ken what logic shows, instead relies on academia as a failsafe, ignoring scriptural witness that the tight academic party in Jesus time, having had 2000 years to study, clarify and distil the word, are the SCRIBES, PHARISEES AND SADDUCIES that Jesus had all the trouble with. He called them liars and murderers (they were united in protecting their tenure) while John T Baptist called them a brood of vipers. Seems nothing has changed. You might look back to mt Carmel, Babel and the flood, or even Enoch, and see each time the majority consensus position was wrong. If you are protestant then you might have a think about Luther, and what the religious academia thought of their position.... No, that other Ken in this thread, and yourself, sound learned and sure, but are just parroting scribes and pharisees again. You cant frighten truth seekers with majority opinion, I see Jesus had something to say about that. Wide roads, narrow gates etc. Few find it.
I'm not sure if you intended to make your comment on my video about the Megiddo/Legio inscription. In any case, your comment seems more fitting for that video. In many of the "church fathers" of the 2nd and 3rd centuries, yes Jesus was a "god", not the God, but a lesser, created God subordinate to the God, Maker of All Things. This is most likely the kind of "god" in the God Jesus Christ mosaic at Legio. Take a look. th-cam.com/video/Hg6Dm4mx_SU/w-d-xo.html
Yes, why did the Jews react like they did? It doesn't fit with the interpretation in this video. Nevermind the context of the whole chapter previous to v,58.
Hi Euston, the "Jews reaction shows such and such" claim seems to be another one of these "I heard it somewhere from a pastor" kind of answer. It's not something the Bible says. Allow me to first point out that many of Jesus' Judean listeners didn't understand at all what Jesus was claiming (e.g., John 8:27, 10:6). Next, try to understand, it is quite possible that Gentiles from a different culture and language background, living hundreds of years after the time of Jesus and his Judean dialog partners, don't understand what the Judean dialog partners were thinking. In my personal experience Gentiles have little to no clue what religious Jews think even today. The issue in the Gospels is not "Is Jesus literally God?, but "Is Jesus the Messiah who represents God". Note as examples just before and after John 8: John 7:26, 10:24). You might also note the author's stated purpose for writing, John 20:30-31. And finally, besides jealousy (Mark 15:10) the New Testament records for us what reason the Judean "Jews" claimed Jesus deserved death. It was not because he claimed to be God "the Blessed". It was because he claimed to be the Messiah, the Son of the Blessed. Mark 14:61-64: "But he remained silent and made no answer. Again the high priest asked him, "Are you the Christ, the Son of the Blessed?" And Jesus said, "I am, and you will see the Son of Man seated at the right hand of Power, and coming with the clouds of heaven." And the high priest tore his garments and said, "What further witnesses do we need? You have heard his blasphemy. What is your decision?" And they all condemned him as deserving death."
Havent you noticed that the Jews were liars and trying to trick him and bait him, that brood of vipers who wanted to kill him..... and you take their side in thinking they were telling the truth?
@@billschlegel1 This is so typical of unitarians who twist the Bible to avoid the fact that Christianity has always believed in the Deity of Christ Jesus and the triune God. As I said previously, your interpretation of verse 58 doesn't fit with the context of the narrative. v.56; (Jesus speaking) "Your father Abraham rejoiced to see My day, and he saw it and was glad." Jesus is speaking in the PAST TENSE of seeing Him. v.57: "So the Jews said to Him, You are not yet fifty years old, and have you seen Abraham?" The Jews correctly understand that Jesus was speaking of the PAST when He HAD seen Abraham. v.58; "Jesus said to them, Truly, truly, I say to you, BEFORE Abraham was (born) I AM." Again, He is speaking in the PAST TENSE (BEFORE ABRAHAM) was. The Jews obviously couldn't believe that Jesus existed before Abraham, and indeed had spoken to him, which they would understand as being the God of Israel who would be the only one that could claim to spoken to him and still exist. This better explains the Jew's reaction to what they perceive as blasphemy, Jesus claiming to be that God of Israel, the "I AM" That would be reason to stone Him. John 19:7 10:33 An interesting archaelogical find recently is a prayer hall or temple near Meggiddo which the early Christians used as a center for worship has in the mosaics in the floor enscribed "our God Jesus Christ" from c.230 AD. Here is proof that Jesus was worshipped as God by the early Christians. Yes, the Bible most certainly presents Jesus as Deity, the Son of God.
You're assuming that what Jesus said in John 8:58 followed from what the Jews said in John 8:57. However, you have to take into account what Jesus and the Jews said in John 8:51-56 as well. The Jews rightly understood that Jesus was referring to "seeing" Abraham (John 8:57) who had already "died" (John 8:52-53). Jesus merely clarified that he was referring to Abraham's appearing in that day because he was the son of God (John 8:54) and had authority to raise the dead (John 8:51). This is similar to John 3:3-6 where Nicodemus correctly understood that Jesus was referring to a second birth (John 3:4) but Jesus had to clarify that the second birth was "of the spirit" (John 3:5-6) and not from a mother's womb.
The book “Jesus-The way, the Truth, the Life” has a great explanation about this text. Published by JW. It explains how he was referring to his prehuman existence as a mighty spirit in heaven.
I would rather read scripture, than some book where someone gives their thoughts. Nothing in scripture says that Jesus existed as a powerful spirit in heaven before his birth. I was told that for near 40 years and failed to find where it said it in scripture. The only part that comes close is Phil2:6, but that points out that Jesus did NOT do what the first Adam did, grasping at equality with God (like the devil is doing).
@ i will suggest you to read the scriptures. In the psalms David talked about him. He mention how he work next to God for a long time, Paul made reference to him in his letters. Using literature to help understanding the scriptures is good, basically the same as listening to this video.
When Jesus spoke the words recorded in John 8:58, Abraham was dead and buried in a tomb in Hebron.
Love your straight forward teaching!
Bill, i have read the title, having just now woken up here in NZ. The video i will watch later, excited.
The title alone has just set off a huge lightbulb moment in my head. I never saw this! Such a nugget, in the tailings and missed by so many.
Best christmas pressy i will get this year.
Thank you so much Bill , loved it all ! Blessings ❤😊
I was saying this for years but nobody got into deeper discussion. Even yesterday I was again looking and discussing with my wife about this verse and we were amazed that people can't see this.
This verse, when translated correctly, destroys the "pre-existing God the Son" belief. It's blasphemous to most of Christendom, which of course, is ironic.
@@bvenski3199yes, if we believe Jesus is non pre-existant human being, whom God exalted to His right hand only AFTER RESURRECTION, then a huge chunk of verses starts making sense.
I have just woken up, saw the new post from Bill. Read the title, only, and a lightbulb just went off in my head. I can see what he is going to say. This is the verse that pulled me out of 40 years slavery to trinity lie, and the one i tackle most in debate with trinitarians, yet i never saw this, im excited to run the video, but i already know what it says.
this is the delight of kings, mining gold nuggets.
@@ken440I would like to see the end to where all these Truths lead. For us just to know or prove to others that Jesus is not GOD and that Trinity is false is not enough. It must lead us to a true revelation who we are in Jesus and really set us free from the grip of the last principality which is called DEATH.
Greetings, this message is sent in love. Christ is simply stating that before Abraham was born, he existed. He is the word of God. God spoke the creation into existence, via his word, he was the orator, John 1:1. That word was sent to the earth, put into Marys' womb, given a flesh body, begotten. Abraham was in heaven, witnessing the whole event, as Christ testifies: Your father Abraham rejoiced to see my day: and he saw it, and was glad. Moses saw it also, as he is in heaven, but did visit the earth to let Christ know what was about to happen to him. He probably told him that he was about to fulfill Pesa/Passover as the lamb of God, voiced by John the Baptist, who Malachi and Isaiah prophesied would lay the foundation for Christ. your friend
Excellent work Mr Schlegel. You are exactly correct.
Heard this recently on Sam's channel and it blew my mind hearing it again so clear and concise from you is a true blessing
What is Sam's channel?
@@rogrog1616 transfigured
Thanks Mr. Schlegel. Great video. Undisputed evidence against the deity of Jesus with one of the main passages that promote it.
So clear if you WANT to hear!
Thank you, the humble heard.
Yes, it is also possible to translate the Greek, “Before Abraham comes to be [in the resurrection] I am already alive.” Thus Jesus proved his superiority to Abraham by alone being resurrected on the third day. Abraham will rise from death at the future resurrection when Jesus returns (1 Cor. 15:23).
Sir Anthony F. Buzzard
Bt., MA (Oxon.) MA Th.
Sir Anthony, Amen. I definitely agree that the pre-eminence of Jesus to Abraham is part of the dynamic of the discussion in John 8. And, that pre-eminence includes in resurrection.
Greetings, this message is sent in love. 1 Corinthians 15 has nothing to do with resurrecting rotted corpses that have become dirt over thousands of years. Paul used the term "resurrection" for the second coming of Christ to fulfill the final Yom Kippur. Peter and John called the second coming the revelation. James simply called it the coming of the Lord. All of these men told their immediate audience it would happen in their lifetime, it did. They were simply repeating what Christ preached. Abraham witnessed Elohim sending his word to the earth, as he was in heaven, per the testimony of Christ. So did Moses. They are both very much alive. this message is sent in love, your friend
Excellent!!
Do you have their address? I'd like to get together with them for some bread and wine.
Buzzard and Carlos ... what you're still missing is that Jesus was predicting that the time of the resurrection was imminent in his own time (John 5:25-28) and that some of his own contemporaries would be alive when it happened (John 11:24-26). That is why Jesus said Abraham had rejoiced to see the day (John 8:56) when Jesus was among the people (John 8:58).
am hearing and rejoicing in TRUTH...!! Many thanks, Bill.
Good stuff ...Yah Bless
"I am to be risen before Abraham is risen"
I will likely say more about this later, as its something much of unitarian groups miss. That we will rise before Abraham. Meaning we are up before the resurrection into the kingdom for the just. Before David and all those patriachs.
the last shall be first etc...
Hapazzo, 1thes4:16.
i.e. this video is support for rapture of the new creation. new sons of God. To return with Jesus.
@@ken440 eh...the dead in Christ shall rise first. Per John 8:56, Abraham believed in the future Christ and died as such. Something to chew on.
@@ken440 Greetings, Abraham is very much alive; John 8:56, so is Moses, Matthew 17:3. There is no such event as a rapture taught in scripture; for your consideration. The rapture theory usually derives from 1 Thessalonians 4 and 1 Corinthians 15. In both cases, Paul is simply telling the church members they are about to experience the resurrection (Pauls' term because Christ said, "I am the resurrection")/revealing/revelation of Jesus Christ. He is very clear, that they will be alive, breathing, at the event. Christ was sent to fulfill the laws of Moses. Part of this law had feast days/convocations/practice rehearsals, all pointing to Messiah, the better resurrection. The following is a verse-by-verse breakdown for the Thessalonians; please note, Paul told these church members six (6) times they will witness, be breathing, at the revelation, chapters 1:10, 2:19,3:13,4:15,4:17,5:23
13 But I would not have you to be ignorant, brethren, concerning them which are asleep, that ye sorrow not, even as others which have no hope.(Don't be ignorant about what happens when you physically/biologically die. Where do you go to reside? Heaven)
14 For if we believe that Jesus died and rose again, even so them also which sleep in Jesus will God bring with him.(The gathering, as prophesied, the final harvest, Sukkot, is about to happen. Your friends, although residing in heaven, are not going to miss, or not participate, in the gathering of the sons of God. This is the last feast, the last trumpet, the last day, that Christ told us about in John 6 four times, it is about to happen)
15 For this we say unto you by the word of the Lord, that we which are alive and remain unto the coming of the Lord shall not prevent them which are asleep.("WE" are people breathing today, Thessalonian church members in the first century, to whom the letter was addressed. We will not go before, we will not precede, the believers who are already in heaven in the order of the resurrection event)
16 For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first:(Christ said he would return in our lifetime. Our friends, the dead in Christ, residing in heaven, will participate first in the gathering. There is an order to the event. Christ is being sent from heaven, for the final Yom Kippur (Hebrews 9), thus, if you reside in heaven, then you are considered first in line. Next, "we" who live on the earth will participate in the resurrection. Remember what I told the Ephesian church members: 10 That in the dispensation of the fulness of times he might gather together in one all things in Christ, both which are in heaven, and which are on earth; even in him. This is what is about to happen.)
17 Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord.("WE" that are breathing on the earth, will join them in the gathering. Remember Peter saying: Whom the heaven must receive until the times of restitution of all things, which God hath spoken by the mouth of all his holy prophets since the world began.) The New Jerusalem that Abraham sought, the heavenly city that Hebrews 11 & 12 said would come, is about to happen. John told us in Revelation that God and his Son will tabernacle/dwell with us in this heavenly city, where the gates are never shut; this is about to happen, fulfilling Sukkot, the final ingathering, the final harvest, it did.)
this message is sent in love, your friend
@@markmoore3530 So where Paul says elsewhere that we will be raised to glory as he (Jesus) is glorified. Means nothing? No Abe and co are all currently dead. Elijah and Enoch listed as dead in Stevens testimony. King David dead still 50 days after Jesus died. So it doesnt look like David got on the bus when "jesus led the captives free" etc.
I see your supposition and church speak in your 13 (that when you die you go straight to heaven) and so dont be sad. No that sounds greek, the hebrews believed in being dead waiting resurrection, not imediate sweet clouds.
15; where "those who are asleep" you are claiming are already in heaven. Obviously not looking over the rails and cheering us on, because they are asleep!!! Asleep is an ancient term for death. Like "ashes to ashes, earth to earth and dust to dust" which is pretty common speak, implies back into the elements from which we came. i.e. dead. What we had is in Gods rememberance, waiting resurrection. Not sitting about in comfort without their bodies, that bit is greek Platoism.
Your 16; you say the dead in christ (to me thats dead christians) are waiting in heaven, for the big gathering, but that Jesus rouses them by coming FROM heaven....?? nah.
17; caught up into the clouds to always be with him... What happened to the twinkling of the eye between those dead in christ and those remaining (1cor).
To meet him in the clouds 9i.e. like he was lifted into heaven) yes that sounds like Hapazzo to me.
No I do not see conviction in your view, in love and peace. To ignore "ashes dust and dirt" and in its place imediate habitation in heaven, is to enter the teaching of Plato, and leave the Hebrew scripture.
@@bvenski3199 So did David believe in the future christ (means "anointed one"), yet according to Peter in Acts2, that David is still in his grave some 50 days after Jesus died and rose. Something else to chew on.
Right, plus prin (πρὶν), like its 13 examples, in Mark 14:30 ....before the rooster crows, for example. Its future tense. This was a hard verse years ago for me, but once it was revealed to me as a resurrection verse, then it made sense. Its definitely the absolute minority explanation, but I believe its the correct one. Good video Bill!
Greetings, this message is sent in love. Christ said, "I am the resurrection". Christ started the resurrection. He told his apostles to raise the dead. They were not preaching to cemeteries. You are born again, raised from the dead, resurrected, quickened, while you are breathing. The gospel has nothing, zero, to do with flesh. Christ was crucified to atone for sin, not flesh. He said the flesh profiteth nothing. Its worthless. It took 40 years, a generation, for the gospel to be preached to the known world, per the scriptures, fulfilling Sukkot, the last feast, final harvest of souls, the Ingathering. Now Elohim and his Son tabernacle with mankind in the New Jerusalem, which was established almost 2,000 years ago when the "last days" were finalized at the destruction of heaven and earth, the temple. Ending the curse, which brought death, per the laws of Moses, death defeated. this message is sent in love, your friend
@@markmoore3530 ugh.....preterism hurts my brain
Very interesting, its amazing, and concerning, how much a proper translation can change the understanding of important verses like this. To English speaking ears, it sounds odd to have a verb like "become" or "am/be" without a direct object. Is that normal/expected in koine Greek? The other examples of the verb you gave seemed generally to have an object, are there other examples of the same or similar verbs where they are used like this, or is it used in a unique way in this verse for a particular effect?
The relatively unknown perspective on John 8:58 in this video has been around for some time and it's good to see unitarians beginning to give it some consideration. Making allowance for a different perspective on the exegetical evidence is better than relying on the same old assumptions made by Trinitarians and then trying to put a unitarian spin on it.
I believe that jews though that the FIRST who is going to be risen at the last Day by God is Abraham. So I strongly believe that Jesus was saying that he is to be risen first. "Before Abraham is risen, I will be." I AM in Hebrew can be translated as I WILL BE. I think greek translators chose I AM instead of I WILL BE. Jesus was asked "are you greater than Abraham" and it was Jesus's answer "I will be risen before Abraham" and that's why they wanted to stone him, because they understood Jesus's point. Sorry for my English, I'm from Lithuania.
Excellent presentation. Plenty of food for thought. I would agree that your reasonings are extremely probable. The good thing is this, this statement can also be understood in its ‘past tense’, without having to believe that Jesus is God or that he Preexisted his birth.
Peace
I think the point of the video is that the "past tense" (was born) is really not an option. As Bill pointed out, the evidence of usage shows that the verb used in John 8:58 is not the one for "born" and the infinitive form of that verb wasn't used to convey an action that was in the past when the speaker is referring to himself in the present ("I am").
"Abraham rejoiced that he should see my DAY." Paul says couple of times: " in the DAY of Lord Jesus". What's important about HIS DAY ? Everyone will be resurrected. Why Abraham rejoiced ? Because he knew he should be resurrected and see Jesus, his own descendant, who set humanity free. And he saw ('horao) and rejoiced. Horao means to see, to look upon, to perceive. John 8:58 definitely speaks about Abraham being resurrected, but Jesus is resurrected before Abraham.
Yes, and the use of "see" and "seen" in the previous verses make "appears" the best option for the sense of "becomes" in John 8:58. Jesus was talking about seeing Abraham in his own day. He was predicting that the hour of the resurrection had come (John 5:25-28) and that some of his contemporaries would remain alive (John 11:24-26).
Abraham saw Jesus's day.
Jesus did not see Abraham's day.
Trinitarians are blinded by religious spirit which blinds the word DAY. And they just see that Abraham had seen Jesus with his natural eyes when Jesus came to him under the oak.
Yes, of course, its "The DAY of the Lord." Otherwise known as the Parousia or triumphant return, or rounded up along with the future kingdom as "The Eschaton."
Thank you brothers.
Its all about the triumph over the dragon and his co rebels, the gods of the nations, powers and principalities in heavenly places that are our true enemy that Paul warns us about in Eph6. Thats why Abraham rejoiced, because he knew the bad news. Most religious folk today have no idea why the good news is so good, because we have forgotten how bad the bad news was. Religious folk just think Adam ate an apple he was told not to eat.
@@ken440 ... John 8:56-58 has nothing to do with visions in Revelation or what Paul said in Ephesians. Wrong contexts. Jesus used "day" to refer to several different events in the context of the 4th Gospel.
Before Abraham, I am to become ? Possible ?
No, because "I am" (EGW EIMI) didn't mean "to become" and there's no reason to predicate it that way. Jesus had been talking about himself all along in the present tense.
@riversofeden3929 it's not about words ego eimi it's about 'genestai..
@@Mckaule ... GENESQAI is only used once (with reference to Abraham) in John 8:58. The other verb is EIMI which is different.
@@riversofeden3929 "genestai is used lots of times in the Bible, and like it says in this video, it's never used as was, it's used with things that are to happen in the future. Action is not finished. Jesus is saying that he would become greater than Abraham. First before Abraham means in front of not time but status. "In front of Abraham to become I am" but I am is used in the end of the sentence as also I think it's done in German for example, but it sounds odd to western speaker because he never talks this way.
@@Mckaule ... the Greek grammar in John 8:58 doesn't have anything corresponding to "status" or "in front of." The writer of the 4th gospel used other Greek words numerous times to convey the sense of "in front of."
Also, GENESQAI doesn't always mean something that "wasn't" in the past. It depends upon the context in which the speaker is using it. Sometimes it does refer to things that already happened in the past.
I prefer the translation:
"Before Abraham *to become* (γενεσθαι) I am;". That is, Jesus (as the resurrected Messiah) was to become "firstborn among many brethren", "firstborn from the dead; that in all things he might have the preeminence".
That would be a literal translation, but awkward in English. I agree that Jesus is stating his pre-eminence to Abraham, particularly as relates to the age(s) to come.
I agree with Bill. Your translation is unnecessarily awkward and too literal. The verb translated "to become" can be rendering many different ways in English that make it easier to read. A translation doesn't need to be wooden literal.
@billschlegel1
Of course the appropriate English translation is: "I am 'to become' before Abraham" , but presents a slightly weaker emphasis on 'the becoming' , than the Greek provides. I enjoy Rotherham's Emphasized translation of the Bible for comparison, as it attempts to maintain the emphasis of the original text. Just a matter of personal taste.
@@pmac_ ... I don't think that is a good translation because there's nothing that Jesus himself needed to "become" in the context. Moreover, Jesus used "I am" numerous times to refer to his present identity. We can also see in Acts 26:29 that when "I am" (EGW EIMI) is used again with "to become" (GENESQAI) it's referring to different subjects.
Also, we can see in passages like John 4:14 and John 10:16 that the writer used different grammar when he has Jesus saying "I will become" something. He doesn't have Jesus saying "I am to become" in Greek to convey that idea.
@@pmac_ Ah, I didn't understand you correctly earlier. You are suggesting that Jesus is the subject of "becoming" , not Abraham. That's an intriguing suggestion. First time I've ever heard of the suggestion. The infinitive "becoming" does seem to make the subject ambiguous. It ends up being a Greek grammar question. I'd have to assume that there are reasons that the Greek experts have taken Abraham as the subject, for reasons like Rivers points out in John 4:14 and 10:16. Although it would be interesting to see other evidence. Thanks for the interaction.
Very interesting, Bill. This seems to be another viable explanation. I will continue to ponder this perspective
Historically I have understood Christ's comments in the light of the immediate context. Jesus had JUST stated: "Your father Abraham rejoiced to see my day: and he saw it, and was glad" .. The Jews who were arguing with Jesus found that remark very troubling, and asked: .. "Thou art not yet fifty years old, and hast thou seen Abraham?"
So, Jesus' answer would logically explain his statement, and answer their question.
And, it's a valid question to ask: HOW did Abraham "see" Christ's day?
We are told Abraham was promised a "seed" that would bless "all nations". So, we KNOW Abraham "saw Christ's day" in the promises. Christ was in the promise of a "seed" of the woman that would destroy Satan. Jude quotes Enoch regarding Christ's 2nd coming. MANY texts tell us that YHVH God foretold Christ "by the mouth of all HIs holy prophets since the world began".
So, Jesus IS (present tense) in God's promises (God's logos) BEFORE Abraham WAS (past tense).
Hi, in the previous podcasts I mentioned the understanding you expressed as a possibility, but I think the one expressed in the current podcast is the thrust of Jesus' statement. There is a sense in which Jesus is before (and pre-eminent to) Abraham in the plan of God, but literally too, in resurrection.
The problem with your view is that there were no Messianic promises before Genesis 12:3 (which is after Abraham was already an old man. Thus, there was no Jesus in any promises before Abraham existed.
Hi "Rivers", good to hear from you again ..... but sorry to find you still wrong on this. Gen 3:15 is proven to be about Jesus by Heb 2:14. Jude 1:13,14 shows that Enoch (as one of the prophets of God) knew about the 2nd coming of Jesus. The Scriptures repeatedly state that God foretold Jesus' coming "by the mouth of all His holy prophets since the world began". YHVH God Himself states that Christ's "goings forth" were "from of old, from everlasting".
So, other than still being wrong on this, how have you been?
@@loveofthetruth9398 ... it's a fact that Genesis 3:15 isn't cited by any biblical writer and applied to Messiah or Jesus Christ. Neither Hebrews 2:14 nor Jude 1:13-14 is referring to that passage either. Also, if you read the book of Jude, he was using "the Lord" to refer to God the Father and not Jesus Christ. The "one man" in Hebrews 2:11-16 is Abraham and not Adam. I don't think you're paying attention to context.
@@riversofeden3929 True, it isn't repeated by a New Testament author. I'm assuming you've got a verse that REQUIRES a prophecy being repeated in the NT for it to be valid??
Of course not.
No, Jude isn't referring to God the Father. It's JESUS that's coming to execute vengeance FOR God the Father.
You are incorrect regarding the obvious connection between Gen 3:15 and Heb 2:14.
What are you TALKING about with "The "one man" in Hebrews 2:11-16 is Abraham and not Adam." ???
I strongly believe that the phrase "Prin Abraam Ginomai, Ego Eimi" should be translated word-for-word as "Before Abraham becomes, I become" and paraphrased as "Before Abraham becomes incorruptible, I become incorruptible" because Yahusha was affirming His preeminence to Abraham and the prophets in the resurrection when we read its immediate context from a first century Hebraic perspective. JOHN 8:50-59.
Why would you translate "I am" (EGW EIMI) as "I become." Nobody has ever done that in the entire history of translating ancient Greek grammar. Also, there's no language that corresponds to "corruptible/incorruptible" in John 8:50-59 either. I think it's better to work with what the text actually says.
@@riversofeden3929" I will become like him." For example in other languages if you translate word for word it can sound strange to foreigners but it can be this : "Like him to become I am." Sorry for my English I'm from Lithuania.
@@Mckaule ... there's nothing that corresponds to "like him" in John 8:58 either. I think you are just trying to make up an explanation and don't understand the Greek grammar behind the English translations. If you listen to Bill's presentation, he's being more careful to actually deal with the text.
@riversofeden3929 I was just giving you this as an example. There's no "like him" in John 8:58. For me as Lithuanian it's more easy to get an idea in Greek because sentence structure sometimes is more similar to our language than english. I'm just paraphrasing what it actually says on Greek. The idea. It's not about Abraham to become but to become comes with word Jesus. There must be a comma after Abraham, not before "I am". The same is "truly truly I say to you today, you'll be with me in paradise" not today will be in paradise but he's saying it today a.k.a now. When someone without Holy Spirit translates Bible then there's a mess and confusion.
@@Mckaule ... I don't think the holy spirit has anything to do with Bible translation. That's why there are numerous Bible translations made by devout Christians scholars that don't agree on how particular verses should be translated. A comma before Abraham in John 8:58 would make no sense of the statement in English translation so that's why nobody does it.
Super
Gr8 podcast! Before Abraham comes to be, that's Me! Q: How does that square up with verse 57? Thanx in advance ...
John 8:57 records the complete misunderstanding, intentional or not, of the speakers to what Jesus said in 8:56.
Jesus said "Abraham rejoiced to see my day". His listeners either twisted (intentionally or not) Jesus' statement into, "You have seen Abraham...?"
In other words, Jesus was not claiming to have literally existed before Abraham "came to be" ca. 2000 BC. But Abraham did know of and believe in the fulfillment of God's promises to him through the coming of one of his own descendants ("Abraham's seed").
Before [Father of many nations] comes to be, the light of the world (John 8:12) needed to be seen by [Exalted father] (John 8:56)
I trust you all know what Abraham/Abram means.
We also know [Word of Yahweh] came to Abram saying "father of many nations" (Genesis 15:1, 17:5), and Abraham believed God (Genesis 15:6)
Hence, an amplified reading could be "Jesus said to them, truly, truly, before Abraham (while he was Abram) comes to be, I am the one revealed"
Even so, we can see from Scripture that Jesus was revealed in Gen3:15, long before Abraham or Abram. i.e. the word of God has promised the messiah waiting to be revealed, from the beginning of the fall. Jesus is the one revealed, all through the word of God. The one promised in Gen3 and Deut18:18. and in all the prophets, and in the foreshadow of Joseph raised under Pharaoh and given all power and authority in all Egypt. And in the psalms.
Fun fact, Abraham was 99 years old when he got his name. That's roughly 9 months before Isaac was born. See Genesis 17
@@ken440 I know a lot of people interpret Genesis 3:15 as pointing to Christ.
I'm not convinced that is the case.
Yes, Deuteronomy 18:15+ points to Jesus.
I also think we have evidence Abraham saw Christ's coming in John 8:56, Genesis 12-17, Hebrews 11, and Romans 4:18.
I think think the first person Christ was revealed to was Abraham. Not the Serpant. Not Enoch. Not Noah.
As far as I can tell, Genesis 3:15 is simply pointing out that the serpant (and his seed) will continue to deceive. A woman will continue to be deceived. The man (and his seed) will continue to suffer collateral damage despite being triumphant of the deception.
This will persist generation after generation.
In turn, the enmity will persist.
Christ is not in that conversation.
In Christ, it's something completely new.
Where do you see Abraham "become a father of nations" to be part of the discussion in John 8:51-59? The issue was "seeing" Abraham himself (John 8:56-57).
1) In Genesis 12, God called Abram
2) In Genesis 15:6, Abram believed God
3) In Genesis 17:5, Abram is called Abraham.
In all 3 cases, you could say the "Word of Yahweh" (Genesis 15:1) came to Abram.
"Word of Yahweh" is just an idiom (or figure of speech), and has no special meaning. You could say "the 'word of SimplyAwesomeOriginal' came to me", to refer to me speaking to you via this app.
Again, the "Word of Yahweh", is not unlike the words you are reading right now; it contains information that you can "see".
Abram "saw" Abraham in the Word of Yahweh that came to him in Genesis 17:5.
Another way to "look" at things is to say that Abram became Abraham, the "father of many nations", when Abram heard (and believed) it in Genesis 17:5.
Abraham saw the "promise of his seed", which is Christ, which Jesus spoke about in John 8:56.
Also see Romans 4:9-25, Hebrews 11:8-19, and Galatians 3.
Abram means "Exalted Father". Abraham means "Father of many nations"; NOT just Israelites.
At the 12:58 mark of the video, Bill slipped in a notable point.
So, would it be like Jesus saying, 'before Abraham can be resurrected, I have to come as the messiah?' That is, 'there can be no resurrection for Abraham, or anyone else, unless I first come and lay down my life.' If so, it would tie in with his earlier comment of Abraham seeing his day, and being glad. Suggesting Abraham understood the necessity of Jesus coming before resurrection became possible.
The question is, why did Jesus need to say that? Why did he need to make a statement about the messiah coming before the resurrection? Was it because the Jews trusted in their own righteousness, and thought that was sufficient to ensure their resurrection? And they needed to understand that a saviour was first necessary? And was it also to address the Jews obsession with Abraham? That is, they talked of being Abraham's children, while not seeming to concentrate as much on the messiah. So much so, that they completely missed him, though he was standing in front of them. In other words, Jesus was encouraging them to forget about being literal descendents of Abraham for a moment, because that wasn't going to save them, and think about why they needed a messiah instead.
I would say you are right on the button.
@@ken440 Thanks. I hope so.
Red flag #1 - when someone makes up their own translation of the Bible.
Thanks for having a listen.
Take a look at the various ways in which English translations have rendered the verse. You might wonder why the variety.
Why would Young's Literal Translation and the Literal Standard Version render the verse as:
"Before Abraham's coming -- I am".
Where do you think Abraham was when Jesus spoke these words?
Thanks.
@ what a coincidence, every English translation renders this verse in the PAST TENSE. Again, red flag #1 is when someone MAKES UP their own translation of the Bible that has never existed before. This is yet another attempt to remove the deity of Christ from the Bible. I encourage you to repent and submit to Gods word in English (KJV).
@@TannerAdams1611 You didn't check the literal translations I mentioned.
Keep in mind the purpose statement of the author of the Gospel of John. He wrote so that his readers would "believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God (John 20:30-31). You can check to see if Christ and Son of God are ever a titles for God in the Bible, and then submit to God's word.
@@TannerAdams1611 ... it's also a "red flag" when someone doesn't understand that translations are interpretations. Bill has shown examples of how some reputable translations of John 8:58 differ. He has also shown why there is an exegetical basis for considering a different option that is more consistent with how the writer of the 4th Gospel actually used his own language.
watch out when people wave red flags, thy might be watching a different race.
I'm confuzed I was just saying right Jesus is first born of the dead. Then I said to myself whoa what about the Transfiguration? Jesus hadn't been crucified yet but Abraham & Elisha showed up?? Now I have gotten myself into a conundrum! 🤔
U mean Moses and Elijah, Elijah was taken up to heaven, didn't die, Moses probably too.
I thought Moses died on the mountain overlooking the promised land?
@@mikeoc217, yes but the Bible also say God hid Moses's body, perhaps something else happened there...
Before Jesus's sinless d eat h , everybody that d ied went to Sheol, the place of the d ead, so Jesus is the first one who came out of there.
for real Bill ??? is is not symply a question of rank of each ones, and progression of the phophecies and their accomplishment ???!
was it not like john told about Yeshua? the same speaking about Abraham being after Yeshua before God ? is it about RANK or CHRONOLOGY ?
John 1: 6-7 : "And John was clothed with camel's hair, and with a girdle of a skin about his loins; and he did eat locusts and wild honey; 7And preached, saying, There cometh one mightier than I after me, the latchet of whose shoes I am not worthy to stoop down and unloose."
John 1: 30 : "This is he of whom I said, After me cometh a man which is preferred before me: for he was before me."
John 8: 58 : "Then said the Jews unto him, "Thou art not yet fifty years old, and hast thou seen Abraham?" (fleshly talk)
Jesus said unto them, "Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am" (Spiritual language)."
it is like Romans 1 Yeshua was The Son of David and is The Son of God, this makes 2 SONSHIPS, 1 according the flesh and 1 according to the Spirit of Holiness !
So Joseph descendant of David was The Biological Father of Yeshua, and God is The Spiritual Father of Yeshua ! And this cannot be destroyed !
lots of mumbo jumbo of cutting hairs in twenty pieces... for not so many thing, quite anything !
very disappointed !
Hi, yes, I make that point in the earlier podcast. Jesus' statement is as well about pre-eminence. John's Gospel makes clear that Jesus is pre-eminent to the Baptizer, to Moses, to Abraham.
In the current podcast, I wanted to emphasize the correct meaning of the verb. Abraham is dead and buried, "waiting" yet to become. In John's Gospel we learn that unless a person is born again/from above, they will not see the kingdom of God.
@@cherebyahwatson5727And they were being sarcastic. They were trying to trick him.
They were being liars.
not taking their side in that debate thank you, i will go with Jesus.
or "to become a new creation."
(immortal being)
Bro, your dismissal of the scholarly consensus as mere “speculation” demonstrates a misunderstanding of how evidence and rigorous analysis function in historical and archaeological studies. I'll address your argument directly and expose the flaws in your Unitarian Dynamic Monarchianism, particularly in light of the Megiddo Mosaic Inscription.
You argue that the consensus of scholars is speculative. However, consensus in scholarship does not arise from personal opinion but from a methodical evaluation of evidence:
The inscription ΘΩ ΙΥ ΧΩ (Theō Iēsou Christō) translates to “The God Jesus Christ” in the Greek. It directly identifies Jesus Christ as God, without prepositions, conjunctions, or qualifiers.
The use of sacred abbreviations (ΘΩ = Theō, ΙΥ = Iēsou, ΧΩ = Christō) was reserved exclusively for divine names. This clearly reflects the early Christian understanding that Jesus is fully divine, not a subordinate or created being.
This inscription dates to 230 AD, almost a century before the Council of Nicaea. It proves that early Christians worshiped Jesus as God Almighty long before doctrinal councils solidified this truth.
Your rejection of the consensus ignores that it is built upon verifiable facts from archaeology, linguistics, and historical analysis none of which support your reinterpretation.
Unitarian Dynamic Monarchianism asserts that Jesus is merely a man who possesses divine power or agency, not God by nature. The Megiddo Mosaic Inscription directly undermines this claim for several reasons:
The phrase “God Jesus Christ” identifies Jesus as God ontologically, not as a mere agent or representative. There are no prepositions like “to” or “for” and no conjunction like καί (kai = “and”) to separate “God” from “Jesus Christ.”
This eliminates any room to argue that Jesus is merely a God-filled man distinct from the divine essence.
These sacred abbreviations emphasize that the early Christians regarded Jesus as fully God. In ancient Christian texts, divine titles like ΘΕΟΣ (God) were never applied to created beings or agents but reserved exclusively for those sharing God’s nature.
The inscription references a table offered for remembrance clearly indicating a Eucharistic context. The Eucharist was an act of worship, where early Christians honored Jesus as Lord and God (John 20:28).
A mere man or created being would never receive such worship.
Your position cannot account for these facts. Dynamic Monarchianism reduces Jesus to a creature or a vessel, which is both unbiblical and contradicted by historical evidence like the Megiddo Mosaic.
You claim scholars disagree on many things. While it’s true that debates exist in scholarship, this does not negate established consensus when it is grounded in evidence:
Scholars, archaeologists, and linguists like Christopher Rollston agree that the inscription identifies Jesus as God in the clearest terms.
Your “Space Constraint Argument” (suggesting the text was abbreviated or incomplete) lacks any textual basis. There are no prepositions or conjunctions to support your interpretation.
The burden of proof is on you to demonstrate an alternative reading one that aligns with the Greek grammar, nomina sacra, and historical context. Thus far, your argument is pure speculation with no foundation.
Scripture affirms Jesus’ full divinity and His distinction from the Father while sharing the same divine nature:
John 1:1: “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.”
The Word (Logos) is eternal, distinct from the Father (“with God”), yet fully God (“the Word was God”).
Hebrews 1:8: The Father declares to the Son, “Your throne, O God, is forever and ever.”
The Father Himself identifies the Son as God, confirming Jesus’ full divinity.
John 20:28: Thomas confesses to Jesus, “My Lord and my God!”
Jesus does not rebuke Thomas but affirms his worship.
Unitarian Dynamic Monarchianism cannot reconcile these verses because it denies Jesus’ ontological equality with the Father. The Megiddo Mosaic Inscription aligns perfectly with Scripture, proving that Jesus is not a created agent but God Almighty with the Father and the Holy Spirit.
The Megiddo Mosaic further highlights the Trinitarian understanding of God:
The Father is Autotheos God of Himself, the unoriginated source of the Son and the Holy Spirit.
The Son comes from the Father through eternal generation, not creation, and possesses the Father’s divine essence.
The Holy Spirit proceeds eternally from the Father.
These are eternal actions, not events in time. The Son and the Spirit share the Father’s ontology (divine nature) and are equally God while remaining distinct in personhood.
Your attempt to separate the Son from divine ontology fails because:
Every monogenēs (only-begotten) son shares the same nature as the one who begets him.
Jesus, as the monogenēs Son of God, must share the Father’s divine nature.
The Megiddo Mosaic Inscription leaves no room for Dynamic Monarchian reinterpretations. It clearly identifies Jesus as God Almighty, sharing the same divine essence as the Father and the Holy Spirit:
1. The Greek Text (ΘΩ ΙΥ ΧΩ) directly states “God Jesus Christ,” with no separation or qualifiers.
2. Nomina Sacra confirm Jesus’ divine status, reserved exclusively for God.
3. The Eucharistic Context demonstrates that Jesus was worshiped as Lord and God.
4. The overall scholarly consensus affirms this interpretation based on verifiable evidence, not speculation.
Your denial of the consensus is not evidence-based but an attempt to force a conclusion that aligns with Dynamic Monarchianism a position that has no historical, textual, or biblical foundation.
I challenge you to produce actual evidence for your claims, rather than dismissing scholarly consensus out of convenience. The early Christians worshiped Jesus Christ as God Almighty, distinct in personhood but equal in nature with the Father and the Holy Spirit. This is the consistent testimony of Scripture, Church Tradition, and historical archaeology.
Your reliance on "consensus scholarship" shows that you don't understand the presuppositions behind the peer review and "group think" that controls the process. Scholars rely on all kinds of assumptions that often lead to both exegetical and logical mistakes. Moreover, not all scholars are part of the "consensus" for good reasons. Unfortunately, your proof-texting response simply shows that you are unaware of other exegetical options because you merely follow the herd.
@@riversofeden3929 LOL, you just follow a different herd. A minority.
The archaelogical find at Megiddo is very compelling, which you obviously wouldn't comment on.
Your argueing a loosing battle because the Bible is against you and the majority of Scholars and Theologians are too,
and so is archaelogy.
@kenfollowyeshuacrawford4284 is right in his comment, showing biblical and archaelogical evidence.
All you come with is your opinion.
@@davidmcbrine4527 LOL indeed, to your reply here to Riversofeden, and to the other Ken, who fails to ken what logic shows, instead relies on academia as a failsafe, ignoring scriptural witness that the tight academic party in Jesus time, having had 2000 years to study, clarify and distil the word, are the SCRIBES, PHARISEES AND SADDUCIES that Jesus had all the trouble with. He called them liars and murderers (they were united in protecting their tenure) while John T Baptist called them a brood of vipers.
Seems nothing has changed. You might look back to mt Carmel, Babel and the flood, or even Enoch, and see each time the majority consensus position was wrong.
If you are protestant then you might have a think about Luther, and what the religious academia thought of their position....
No, that other Ken in this thread, and yourself, sound learned and sure, but are just parroting scribes and pharisees again.
You cant frighten truth seekers with majority opinion, I see Jesus had something to say about that. Wide roads, narrow gates etc. Few find it.
I'm not sure if you intended to make your comment on my video about the Megiddo/Legio inscription.
In any case, your comment seems more fitting for that video.
In many of the "church fathers" of the 2nd and 3rd centuries, yes Jesus was a "god", not the God, but a lesser, created God subordinate to the God, Maker of All Things. This is most likely the kind of "god" in the God Jesus Christ mosaic at Legio.
Take a look. th-cam.com/video/Hg6Dm4mx_SU/w-d-xo.html
@@riversofeden3929 Nonsense
"THEN TOOK THEY UP STONES TO CAST AT HIM..." (John 8:59)
The Jews' reaction to Jesus' declaration renders Mr. Schlegel's interpretation null and void.
Yes, why did the Jews react like they did?
It doesn't fit with the interpretation in this video.
Nevermind the context of the whole chapter previous to v,58.
Hi Euston, the "Jews reaction shows such and such" claim seems to be another one of these "I heard it somewhere from a pastor" kind of answer. It's not something the Bible says.
Allow me to first point out that many of Jesus' Judean listeners didn't understand at all what Jesus was claiming (e.g., John 8:27, 10:6).
Next, try to understand, it is quite possible that Gentiles from a different culture and language background, living hundreds of years after the time of Jesus and his Judean dialog partners, don't understand what the Judean dialog partners were thinking. In my personal experience Gentiles have little to no clue what religious Jews think even today.
The issue in the Gospels is not "Is Jesus literally God?, but "Is Jesus the Messiah who represents God". Note as examples just before and after John 8: John 7:26, 10:24). You might also note the author's stated purpose for writing, John 20:30-31.
And finally, besides jealousy (Mark 15:10) the New Testament records for us what reason the Judean "Jews" claimed Jesus deserved death. It was not because he claimed to be God "the Blessed". It was because he claimed to be the Messiah, the Son of the Blessed.
Mark 14:61-64:
"But he remained silent and made no answer. Again the high priest asked him, "Are you the Christ, the Son of the Blessed?" And Jesus said, "I am, and you will see the Son of Man seated at the right hand of Power, and coming with the clouds of heaven."
And the high priest tore his garments and said, "What further witnesses do we need? You have heard his blasphemy. What is your decision?" And they all condemned him as deserving death."
Havent you noticed that the Jews were liars and trying to trick him and bait him, that brood of vipers who wanted to kill him..... and you take their side in thinking they were telling the truth?
@@billschlegel1 This is so typical of unitarians who twist the Bible to avoid the fact that Christianity has always believed
in the Deity of Christ Jesus and the triune God.
As I said previously, your interpretation of verse 58 doesn't fit with the context of the narrative.
v.56; (Jesus speaking) "Your father Abraham rejoiced to see My day, and he saw it and was glad."
Jesus is speaking in the PAST TENSE of seeing Him.
v.57: "So the Jews said to Him, You are not yet fifty years old, and have you seen Abraham?"
The Jews correctly understand that Jesus was speaking of the PAST when He HAD seen Abraham.
v.58; "Jesus said to them, Truly, truly, I say to you, BEFORE Abraham was (born) I AM."
Again, He is speaking in the PAST TENSE (BEFORE ABRAHAM) was.
The Jews obviously couldn't believe that Jesus existed before Abraham, and indeed had spoken to him, which they would understand as being the God of Israel who would be the only one that could claim to spoken to him and still exist.
This better explains the Jew's reaction to what they perceive as blasphemy, Jesus claiming to be that God of Israel, the
"I AM"
That would be reason to stone Him. John 19:7 10:33
An interesting archaelogical find recently is a prayer hall or temple near Meggiddo which the early Christians used as
a center for worship has in the mosaics in the floor enscribed "our God Jesus Christ" from c.230 AD.
Here is proof that Jesus was worshipped as God by the early Christians.
Yes, the Bible most certainly presents Jesus as Deity, the Son of God.
You're assuming that what Jesus said in John 8:58 followed from what the Jews said in John 8:57. However, you have to take into account what Jesus and the Jews said in John 8:51-56 as well. The Jews rightly understood that Jesus was referring to "seeing" Abraham (John 8:57) who had already "died" (John 8:52-53). Jesus merely clarified that he was referring to Abraham's appearing in that day because he was the son of God (John 8:54) and had authority to raise the dead (John 8:51).
This is similar to John 3:3-6 where Nicodemus correctly understood that Jesus was referring to a second birth (John 3:4) but Jesus had to clarify that the second birth was "of the spirit" (John 3:5-6) and not from a mother's womb.
The book “Jesus-The way, the Truth, the Life” has a great explanation about this text. Published by JW. It explains how he was referring to his prehuman existence as a mighty spirit in heaven.
I would rather read scripture, than some book where someone gives their thoughts. Nothing in scripture says that Jesus existed as a powerful spirit in heaven before his birth. I was told that for near 40 years and failed to find where it said it in scripture. The only part that comes close is Phil2:6, but that points out that Jesus did NOT do what the first Adam did, grasping at equality with God (like the devil is doing).
@ i will suggest you to read the scriptures. In the psalms David talked about him. He mention how he work next to God for a long time, Paul made reference to him in his letters. Using literature to help understanding the scriptures is good, basically the same as listening to this video.