Did God die on the Cross?

[darinhouston]

As I said, any translation is strange. As are almost all of His exchanges with the Pharisees. When I find something that doesn't really sound right, it raises issues of cultural or linguistic or contextual ignorance in modern ears. And yes even 4th Century ears. Also, the words of Christ weren't widely available at that time for study outside the biases of the Medieval church. I wish we had contemporary writings of those pondering His meaning.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[dizerner]

[user account removed]

[darinhouston]

Though the wording in your list is loaded with your own bias, I think the gist is correct. I do think I might have used a different word than "mocking", but I don't have the better word at my fingertip.

Suggesting a more opaque response isn't "honest" is over the top. I do think what you could say is straightforward, plain and direct and literal, meant to answer the question as asked and understood by the Pharisees.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[jriccitelli]

‘Needless to say, if Jesus is divine, the literal meaning makes perfect sense and answers the question. Before Abraham was born, I am’ (Diz)

[darinhouston]

jriccitelli, just because a passage can be squared with some other doctrine doesn't mean it's true. I don't actually think it makes sense in the context of the question. But, maybe that's just me. Also, you equate "divinity" with the "Great I AM, Yahweh, God of old, of Abraham Isaac and Jacob". I do not. I've posted this elsewhere, but if I were King, my son would be royalty and even royal even if he's not King.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[darinhouston]

I just want to point out that Jesus can be honest even when he's being clever and speaking "past" a question to conceal the truth from their ears while presenting another truth for other, more spiritually minded, audiences.

While I have been surprised not to find more commentary linking John 8 to the Hebrews passage, I do think there is considerable historic support in the commentaries that Jesus wasn't so clearly directly answering the Pharisee's question. Even Steve's lecture on John suggests this and that He was speaking spiritually by reference to Abraham's seeing the day of the Lord spiritually "by Faith".

About 1hr11min into Steve's John 8 lecture, Steve says:

Jesus could have simply said yes, but He DOESN'T EVER speak quite so directly to these people -- he's evasive with them, just like when He spoke to the crowd in Galilee He used a parable always so they wouldn't understand Him, but He explained things private to His disciples. The people who were His enemies, He never really came out bluntly and said I am the Messiah. Now, He told the woman at the well but she was an honest seeker. He doesn't tell these people.

So, clearly Steve has no trouble seeing His evasiveness here without suggesting He's "dishonest."

He also suggests "seeing His day" didn't necessarily really mean seeing His personal presence. In fact, he specifically references Abraham's rejoicing in the prospect of the Messiah as seed "in the eye of Faith" trusting in God as being possibly in view here and specifically connects it to the Hebrews passage.

Selective portions of John Wesley's commentary on John 8 follows:

[56] Your father Abraham rejoiced to see my day: and he saw it, and was glad.

He saw it — By faith in types, figures, and promises; as particularly in Melchisedec; in the appearance of Jehovah to him in the plains of Mamre, Genesis 18:1; and in the promise that in his seed all the nations of the earth shall be blessed. Possibly he had likewise a peculiar revelation either of Christ's first or second coming.
.....

[58] Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am.

Before Abraham was I AM — Even from everlasting to everlasting. This is a direct answer to the objection of the Jews, and shows how much greater he was than Abraham.

Clearly, John Wesley did not believe v.56 was a reference to a literal pre-incarnate Christ or that the v.58 reference to "before" was a temporal reference (seems he see "before" as indicating how much "greater" he was, not that he preceded him temporally) even if it's unclear whether he views "I am" as Yahweh.

My only point here is that this isn't a crazy or heretical novelty.

I also find the following article on the subject interesting...

http://www.bibleanswerstand.org/before.htm

[dizerner]

[user account removed]

[darinhouston]

I also find the following article on the subject interesting...

http://www.bibleanswerstand.org/before.htm

I'm surprised this article hasn't elicited any thoughts/comments.

[dizerner]

[user account removed]

[Paidion]

He saw it [Jesus' day]— By faith in types, figures, and promises; as particularly in Melchisedec; in the appearance of Jehovah to him in the plains of Mamre, Genesis 18:1; and in the promise that in his seed all the nations of the earth shall be blessed. Possibly he had likewise a peculiar revelation either of Christ's first or second coming.

Justin Martyr said in his discussion with Trypho and other Jewish men, that the appearance to Abraham of Yahweh ("Jehovah" if you will) was the actual appearance of the Son of God. He indicated that the Son of God shared the name "Yahweh" with the Father, by pointing out the two different divine Individuals mentioned in Gen 19:24, each of which was called "Yahweh"—One in heaven, the source of the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah, and One one earth, the means by which the destruction was wrought.