marks, did you actually read the local and general context of the exchange between the Pharisees and Jesus before you came up with your own conclusion that Jesus pre-existed before his birth, let alone Abraham? And the translation from the Greek into English 'before' in this subject scripture can also mean before as in importance or rank. You know that Jesus was just grilling the Pharisees about their Father, Abraham, and how important and in stature he was/meant to them...Did you consider this thought at all? John the Baptist had this same meaning in mind when he said that Jesus was before him...he was much more important and significant to God and him that ever Abraham was (by deduction).
Did Jesus claim to be God?
- Thread starter TonyChanYT
- Start date
-
Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.
You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
- Status
Yes I did. Is ridicule really the best you've got here?
ρίν
prin
prin
Adverb from G4253; prior, sooner: - before (that), ere.
Total KJV occurrences: 14
G4250
πρίν
prin
Total KJV Occurrences: 14
Which of these demonstrate that?
before, 13
Mat 1:18, Mat 26:34, Mat 26:75, Mar 14:30, Mar 14:72, Luk 2:26, Luk 22:34, Luk 22:61, Joh 8:58, Joh 14:29, Act 2:20, Act 7:2, Act 25:16
ere, 1
Joh 4:49
John 1:15 KJV
15) John bare witness of him, and cried, saying, This was he of whom I spake, He that cometh after me is preferred before me: for he was before me.
Here, the first "before" is from emprosthen, the second is from protos, both of these are different words.
"Prin" seems to have an exlusive use in the Bible for the earlier in a sequence. "before the cock crow", "before he die", like that.
We should all ask ourselves these questions.
Much love!
GracePeace
Well-Known Member
You were saying that your view was "nuanced", so I wasn't sure if that was what you meant.
So, you deny that God was husband to His people, and Jesus is husband to God's people?
So then can you say what your reply really must mean to me marks? It seems it's missing a real direct conclusion to my post. Well you either mean that 'before' can mean before in rank or precedence or not. Which is it? I do not see an answer here.
Both in John 1:15 and 30 and then in John 8: 58 we see the same Greek word as you posted, and in other scripture as you wrote.
(Joh 1:15) John testifies of him and cries out, saying: This was he of whom I said: He that comes after me is ranked above me! For he was senior to me. (NEV)
(Joh 1:30) This is he of whom I said: After me comes a man who is ranked above me. For he was senior to me. (NEV)
And did you consider the local and outer context as I recommended in/for John 8:58? I did not see your answer. You just left it as an open-ended mystery comment.
Do you have a comment on the context? It has to be crucial to understand it so we can gauge the intent and meaning of Jesus' words...was he more important and of a higher authority than Abraham or did he suddenly, out of context just blurt out he pre-existed? Which is it? And do you think the Pharisees really were ready to stone him for pre-existing or actually emphasizing he was truly the Son of God and meant more that their Father Abraham? It was he or I am he, the Son of God not that he was God of course. The Pharisees would not stone him for that as they would just replay what they called him before, possessed by evil or a devil.
Do you know what Jesus was actually responding to marks in verse 58?
Verse 53 is the key verse and reason for verse 58 and Jesus' reply. Not that he said he pre-existed, but that he was MORE important that Abraham, as I've been saying all along.
And yes, of course he, Jesus existed in the mind of God before both he and Abraham were born and even at that time planned to be of the highest authority over even Abraham....NOT IN time of existence!
(Joh 8:53) Are you greater than our father Abraham, who died, and the prophets who died? Whom do you make yourself?
(Joh 8:54) Jesus answered: If I glorify myself, my glory is nothing. It is my Father that glorifies me, whom you say is your God.
(Joh 8:55) You have not known Him, but I know Him; and if I should say I know Him not, I shall be like you, a liar; but I know Him and keep His word.
(Joh 8:56) Your father Abraham rejoiced to see my day, and he saw it, and rejoiced.
(Joh 8:57) The Jews replied to him: You are not yet fifty years old, and have you seen Abraham?
In verse 54, Jesus quickly points to the glory given to him by his Father, his and their God, (and not their Abraham)
In verse 55: Jesus says he knows his Father God and knows his word and keeps it, and they do not as they are liars.
In verse 56: Jesus was most probably told by his Father that Abraham foresaw his glory at that time to the Cross and his resurrection, NOT that Jesus was there when he, Abraham saw it in spirit.
In verse 57: The Jews were ignorant and thought Jesus was saying he was present in Abraham's time. Nothing could be further from the truth.
So Jesus clearing it all up in one sentence....
(Joh 8:58) Jesus said to them: Truly, truly, I say to you: I am of higher status than Abraham ever was. (NEV)
(Joh 8:59) Therefore they took up stones to cast at him; but Jesus hid himself and went out of the temple. (NEV)
And Jesus finally answered the question in verse 53 NOT verse 57 and said, YES, I AM (HE) who is/has always been more important than Abraham!!! He is #1. They strongly felt that Jesus offended their father Abraham, not Jesus' Father God, so then they picked up stones.......
See how the Jews were schooled by Jesus, and clearly humiliated them by/using their OWN words they spoke earlier.
There is no language or intent here to say Jesus said he pre-existed, unless you want to force and promote a particular religious doctrine.
He was saying he truly is the SON OF GOD...they finally got his message and they responded with pride and contempt for him.
By the way, the Greek translated word 'prin' is derived from the adverb 'pro' that means 'in front of', even 'first,' 'above,' 'before...'
One cannot just use or isolate one word in a sentence or prose as proof its intent and meaning. The intent and context where it's used is all important. And I'm sure you must know all this....
Johann
Well-Known Member
I simply can't believe that in order to disprove the preexistence of Jesus --you would read the NEV to make your point.
|V-PIA-1S|I say ὑμῖν, hymin|G4771|PPro-D2P|to you, πρὶν prin|G4250|Adv|before Ἀβραὰμ Abraam|G11|N-AMS|Abraham γενέσθαι genesthai|G1096|V-ANM|was, ἐγὼ egō|G1473|PPro-N1S|I εἰμί. eimi|G1510|V-PIA-1S|am.
Before Abraham was (prin Abraam genesthai). Usual idiom with prin in positive sentence with infinitive (second aorist middle of ginomai) and the accusative of general reference, “before coming as to Abraham,” “before Abraham came into existence or was born.” [ How MUCH clearer can THAT BE!]
I am (egō eimi). Undoubtedly here Jesus claims eternal existence with the absolute phrase used of God. The contrast between genesthai (entrance into existence of Abraham) and eimi (timeless being) is complete. See the same contrast between en in Joh_1:1 and egeneto in Joh_1:14. See the contrast also in Psa_90:2 between God (ei, art) and the mountains (genēthēnai). See the same use of eimi in Joh_6:20; Joh_9:9; Joh_8:24, Joh_8:28; Joh_18:6.
3) "Before Abraham was, I am." (prin Abraam genesthai ego eimi) "Before Abraham came to be(to exist) I am," I existed as the self-existing "I am," the preexisting one, Joh_1:1-2; Col_1:17; Rev_1:8; Joh_17:5; Joh_17:24.
"before Abraham was born, I am" This was blasphemy to the Jews and they tried to stone Jesus (cf. Exod. 3:12, 14). They understood completely what He was saying, which was that He was pre-existent Deity (cf. John 4:26; 6:20; 8:24,28,54-59; 13:19; 18:5,6,8).
before Abraham became, or was born (not: was, as Tholuck, De Wette, Ewald, and others translate),[41] I am; older than Abraham’s origin is my existence. As Abraham had not pre-existed, but came into existence[42] (by birth), therefore γενέσθαι is used; whereas ΕἸΜΊ denotes being per se, which belonged to Jesus, so far as He existed before time, as to His divine nature, without having previously come into being. Comp. I. 1. 6; and see even Chrysostom. The Praesens denotes that which continues from the past, i.e. here: that which continues from before time (Joh_1:1, Joh_17:5). Comp. LXX.
While you look at the meaning of words look and study the Grammar of the text-beginning with John 1.1
John 1:1a: Ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ λόγος (lit., “In [the] beginning was the Word”).
In the first clause, we find the affirmation of eternality of the person of the Word (Christ). First, unlike the Stoic view that the impersonal Logos/Word was merely the rational principle of the universe, in the prologue (vv. 1-18), John presents the preexistent Word as possessing personal attributes. Thus, the content of the prologue radically and clearly militates also against the Oneness impersonal abstract thought or concept view of the Word. Thayer says of the Logos of 1:1, “oJ λόγος denotes the essential Word of God, i.e. the personal (hypostatic) wisdom and power in union with God. . . .”[6] “The Logos is not,” says Lenski, “an attribute inhering in God . . . but a person in the presence of God. . . .”[7]
Simply, the first verb ἦν (“was”) here is the imperfect indicative of εἰμι (“I am, exist”). The force of the imperfect tense indicates a continuous action (or repeated action) normally occurring in the past. Hence, the Word did not originate at a point in time, but rather in the beginning of time, the Word ἦν already existed. Thus, linguistically, the Word was existing (“ἦν the Word”) prior to the time of the ἀρχῇ—before “the beginning.” Also, note the verbal contrast between ἦν and the aorist ἐγένετο[8] (“came into being,” cf. v. 3). The aorist indicative normally indicates a punctiliar action normally occurring in the past.[9] In the Prologue of John, ἦν is exclusively applied to the eternal Word in verses 1, 2, 4, 9, and 10, while in verses 3, 6, and 10, the aorist ἐγένετο is applied to everything created. Not until verse 14 does ἐγένετο refer to the Son denoting His new added nature—“the Word became flesh.”[10]
John 1:1b: καὶ ὁ λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν θεόν (lit., “and the Word was with the God”). The second clause of John 1:1 teaches the absolute personal distinction between the eternal Word and τὸν θεόν (i.e., the Father).[11] John envisages a marked distinction between two persons.[12] Of all the prepositions that John could have utilized, which can mean “with” (e.g., ἐν, μετά, παρὰ, σύν), he chose πρὸς (lit., “facing”/“toward,” with the accusative, θεόν as the object of the preposition). Hence, πρὸς with the accusative clearly indicates that the Word was “at, with, in the presence of . . . God.”[13] Robertson explains the significance of the preposition in John 1:1b:
With God (πρὸς τὸν θεόν). Though existing eternally with God, the Logos was in perfect fellowship with God. Πρὸς with the accusative presents a plane of equality and intimacy, face to face with each other. In 1 John 2:1 we have a like use of πρὸς. . . .[14].Though existing eternally with God the Logos was in perfect fellowship with God. BDAG specifically points out that πρὸς at John 1:1b indicates the meaning of “by, at, near; πρὸς τίνα εἶναι: be (in company) with someone.”[15] Thus, the distinct person of the Word was always in intimate loving fellowship with the Father, before time.
John 1:1c: καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος (lit., “and God was the Word”). The third clause of John 1:1 teaches the deity of Jesus Christ. Here we read one of the clearest and unequivocal affirmations of the deity of the person of the Word in the NT. John accentuates his high Christology by first showing that the person of the Word (the Son) was eternal, that is, preexisting (1:1a) and that the eternal Word was distinct from Father (1:1b). Then, John presents the very marrow of the gospel: “The Word was God” and “the Word became flesh (v. 14).
That the Word was fully God and distinct from the Father (τὸν θεόν) is clearly accentuated by the context and grammar. In the inspired syntax of the clause, John places the anarthrous θεὸς[16] in the “emphatic position” (in the beginning of the clause- καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος).
Grammatically, the anarthrous[17] θεὸς is a preverbal predicate nominative. The PN describes the class or category to which the subject (λόγος) belongs.[18] Hence, the anarthrous preverbal PN θεὸς points to the “quality” (essence) of the Word, not the identity (person). In view of John’s theology, along with the grammar and context, the highest semantical possibility for θεὸς in 1:1c is qualitative.[19]
Here-the link
The preexistence of God the Son, Jesus Christ
The preexistence and the deity of the distinct person of the Son, Jesus Christ, God the Son, Jesus second person of the Trinity. Eternal Son. The preincarnate Son of God. John 1:1; 17:5
christiandefense.org
Last edited:
I don't know what you mean by "husband" in this context, so I can't answer. There is probably some sense in which the marriage analogy could fit, but it will still only be a metaphor.
By "nuanced" I was referencing the concept of time --a measure of change -- as having a beginning at the point when change first arose in the universe, and whether it is proper to refer to two entities A and B existing prior to the onset of time as being ordinal, i.e., in that realm we cannot properly say A was "before" B.
There are other passages in scripture that show existence prior to the reality.
Ro 4:16–17 ESV That is why it depends on faith, in order that the promise may rest on grace and be guaranteed to all his offspring—not only to the adherent of the law but also to the one who shares the faith of Abraham, who is the father of us all, as it is written, “I have made you the father of many nations”—in the presence of the God in whom he believed, who gives life to the dead and calls into existence the things that do not exist
Ro 9:10–12 ESV And not only so, but also when Rebekah had conceived children by one man, our forefather Isaac, though they were not yet born and had done nothing either good or bad—in order that God’s purpose of election might continue, not because of works but because of him who calls— she was told, “The older will serve the younger.
Je 1:5 ESV “Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, and before you were born I consecrated you; I appointed you a prophet to the nations.”
I would also think that (nearly) all of us believe the "end of days" is real even though it hasn't happened yet. After all, that is "faith," right?
Ro 4:16–17 ESV That is why it depends on faith, in order that the promise may rest on grace and be guaranteed to all his offspring—not only to the adherent of the law but also to the one who shares the faith of Abraham, who is the father of us all, as it is written, “I have made you the father of many nations”—in the presence of the God in whom he believed, who gives life to the dead and calls into existence the things that do not exist
Ro 9:10–12 ESV And not only so, but also when Rebekah had conceived children by one man, our forefather Isaac, though they were not yet born and had done nothing either good or bad—in order that God’s purpose of election might continue, not because of works but because of him who calls— she was told, “The older will serve the younger.
Je 1:5 ESV “Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, and before you were born I consecrated you; I appointed you a prophet to the nations.”
I would also think that (nearly) all of us believe the "end of days" is real even though it hasn't happened yet. After all, that is "faith," right?
Johann
Well-Known Member
Joh 1:15 And Yochanan gives solemn edut (testimony) about him and has cried out, This was he about whom I said, Hu HaBah (He who comes [Gn 49:10; Ezek 21:27]) after me is really before me in priority, because, before I came to be, he was (Yn 8:58).
Joh 1:15 John witnessed concerning him, and cried out, saying, This was whom I said, The one [after me coming] [before me was], for [foremost over me he was].
You DID notice the Imperfect Tense?
Was He (ἦν)
The imperfect tense, pointing back to a testimony historically past.
After me (ὀπίσω μου)
Literally, behind me: in His human manifestation.
Is preferred before me (ἔμπροσθέν μου γέγονεν)
Literally, “is become,” so Rev., “or is here (compare Joh_6:25) before me.” Before is used of time, not of dignity or rank. The expression is enigmatical in form: “my successor is my predecessor.” The idea of the superior dignity of Christ is not a necessary inference from His coming after John, as, on that interpretation, the words would imply. On the contrary, the herald who precedes is inferior in dignity to the Prince whom he announces.
For (ὅτι)
Or because. The reason for the preceding statement: the key to the enigma.
He was before me (πρῶτός μου ἦν)
Literally, first in regard of me (Rev., in margin). The reference to dignity would require ἐστίν, is (see Mat_3:11, “is mightier”). A similar expression occurs in Joh_15:18 : the world hated me before (it hated) you (πρῶτον ὑμῶν). The reference is to the pre-existence of Christ. When speaking of Christ's historic manifestation, is become before me, the Baptist says γέγονεν. When speaking of Christ's eternal being, He was before me, he uses ἦν. [ Look up the Hebrew word Haya] The meaning is, then, that Christ, in His human manifestation, appeared after John, but, as the Eternal Word, preceded him, because He existed before him. Compare Joh_8:58.
For he was before me (hoti prōtos mou ēn). Paradox, but clear. He had always been (ēn imperfect) before John in his Pre-incarnate state, but “after” John in time of the Incarnation, but always ahead of John in rank immediately on his Incarnation. Prōtos mou (superlative with ablative) occurs here when only two are compared as is common in the vernacular Koiné. So the Beloved Disciple came first (prōtos) to the tomb, ahead of Peter (Joh_20:4). So also prōton humōn in Joh_15:18 means “before you” as if it were proteron humōn. Joh_1:30 repeats these words almost exactly.
6) "For he was before me." (hoti protos mou en) "Because he was first (existed first) before me," as the eternal Word, and Son, with the Father, Php_2:5-10; He Himself declared, "Before Abraham was I am," or I existed- John came to exalt Jesus, not himself, Jas_4:10; Luk_14:11.
for he was before me; which cannot be meant of honour and dignity; for this is expressed before; and it would be proving one thing by the same: nor of his birth, as man; for John in that sense was before him, being born before him; besides, being born before another, is no proof of superior worth; others were born before John, whom he yet excelled: but of his eternal existence, as the word, and Son of God, who was before John, or any of the prophets; before Abraham, and Noah, and Adam, or any creature whatever: the Arabic and Persic versions read, "for he was more ancient than me"; being from everlasting, from the beginning, or ever the earth was.
Shalom
J.
GracePeace
Well-Known Member
Yeah I'm saying God was (whether metaphorical or spiritual or however you want to put it) "husband" to His people, yet Jesus is "husband" to God's people today.
I think it's speculative--and not entirely relevant. Let's grant that you're right, and it's inappropriate to deny that Jesus had a beginning--irrespectively, Jesus could still have claimed to be "God".
It may be that the invisible God's visible representation can be called "God" without being the "God" He represents (unless you argue that God has always had this "part" of Himself, His Word Who is a representation of Him) bc "no one has seen God at any time, the only begotten Son has explained Him", and, so, John later explains that Isaiah's vision of God was Jesus.
So it's like Jesus is the only "God" we've known, yet He has been representing God to us, without being the God He represents--yet called "God"--the visible image of the invisible God. In that sense, "God", but, also, knowing that He's a representation. Therefore, as Jesus said, the Son is to be honored just as the Father is honored.
My view I would consider "nuanced", trying to take all the evidence into account, yours is merely a rejection of a particular assertion, so I don't think I would consider that "nuanced" (unless you're saying you think your reasons for rejecting "eternal generation" should be considered "substantive"?).
Last edited:
Johann
Well-Known Member
This is not forcing or superimposing a particular foreign religious doctrine-but firmly believe and study as to what the text says.
J.
Last edited:
Didn't you just reject my particular assertion by calling it speculative?
Johann
Well-Known Member
You are dealing with an opponent who is a master at circular reasoning.
J.
RLT63
Well-Known Member
RLT63
Well-Known Member
GracePeace
Well-Known Member
How is it speculative to say that we were told God was husband to His people, and we know that Jesus is husband to God's people today? Have you read the NT?
The reason I'm contrasting yours as speculative against mine is mine uses Scripture, yours relies on assumptions about things you only speculate about.
RLT63
Well-Known Member
He started out as just plain disrespectful, but now I suspect that you are right. I'll bow out of this.
GracePeace
Well-Known Member
No, just trying my best to look at the evidence--same as the "Two Powers In Heaven" pre-Christian Jewish Binitarians.
GracePeace
Well-Known Member
Bc you know that you will not answer the fact that "God" was husband to His people, but Christ is today husband to God's people, etc, and you can't account for these things on your view?
- Status
Similar threads
