Did God die on the Cross?

[dizerner]

[user account removed]

[Paidion]

Thank you for posting the verse which he meant, Dizerner.

Here is the clause referenced: συ δε αὐτῳ ἐση τα προς θεον
I would translate this as, "You shall be to him as things toward God."

"Toward" is the most usual translation of " προς", and is the correct translation in most instances.
However, in John 1:1, it is usually translated as "with": The logos was with God. But it doesn't mean "with" in the sense of proximity, but in the sense of being mentally or emotionally or spiritually with someone. We use it that way even in English. I might say, "I'm with you, Dizerner," if I agreed with your position with regards to matters such as behaviour, morality, or rationality.

[darinhouston]

Paidion, I'm afraid you're overlooking what the text is actually saying. Abraham did not see Jesus; he saw His day. It's not clear what the writer meant by "His day", but he may have been referring to Jesus' exaltation to the Father's right hand, or perhaps to His coming Kingdom - we just can't be sure. Hebrews 11:10 may or may not be relevant, but it does speak of Abraham seeing God's city or kingdom by faith. "For he was looking forward to the city that has foundations, whose designer and builder is God." What does seems clear though is that he didn't see Jesus, he saw "His day."

Jose, it's funny you should post that -- I've been contemplating this quite a bit the past few days, and I've been searching out Scripture trying to see if there's some reference to Abraham and the Kingdom or some indication that the day of the Lord was in inaugurated in Abraham's day, or some other reference to make better sense of this exchange. I thought I was quite clever for having noticed this Hebrews passage just this morning. It seems it's not so clever and it does seem to have very clear relevance to what Jesus might have been talking about. I'm surprised not to find the two passages connected in the commentaries.

Everyone keeps looking for the "plain language" reading here. But, as I see most exchanges between Jesus and the Pharisees, it seems like Jesus rarely gives plain straight answers, and His responses seem often to secretly refer not to their direct question but to some "Kingdom" perspective. So, this seems to make good sense in light of the non-Trinitarian interpretation and another good example perhaps of where a Traditional interpretation and strong dogma can support a pet doctrine at the cost of a Kingdom reference. Steve's teachings are full of these observations with other dogmas and I'm still surprised Steve doesn't explore these non-Trinitarian perspectives more often and where they might lead.

Anyway, it does seem to me here not that Jesus is plainly telling them He is the Great "I Am," the God of their fathers, but that Jesus is sort of refusing to answer their questions and purposefully perplexing the Pharisees in the face of their dim/literal perspective. Unpacking it a bit perhaps He sort of tells them "Your question is wrong-headed and all you need to know is that I and my Kingdom are the only consideration that matters even superior to your beloved Abraham. Oh, and -- more than that I'll answer your question in a way you aren't expecting and won't really understand but those who have the Spirit in them will understand that I am talking about Abraham's spiritual perception of my Kingdom and how even then he was seeing it begin to unfold." Jesus was much more terse, of course, in His response. It seems to me that he rarely meant exactly what He told them in response to their questions.

[dizerner]

[user account removed]

[darinhouston]

CLV Jn 8:56 Abraham, your father, exults that he may be seeing My day, and he saw it and rejoiced."

Whatever it is, it's clearly past tense. I don't know how you could make "Christ's day" anything other than the incarnation. Christ even compared his existence to "before Abraham was born." Christ's day seems likely to be the day he was born.

What's your point exactly? That sounds like an argument against pre-existence.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[dizerner]

[user account removed]

[Jose]

CLV Jn 8:56 Abraham, your father, exults that he may be seeing My day, and he saw it and rejoiced."

Whatever it is, it's clearly past tense. I don't know how you could make "Christ's day" anything other than the incarnation. Christ even compared his existence to "before Abraham was born." Christ's day seems likely to be the day he was born.

Yes, the event of Abraham seeing Jesus' day is spoken in the past tense because it happened in the past, but what he was seeing was a future event having to do with Christ. I suppose it could be referring to his birth, but I don't think there's a verse that would lead us to that understanding. What is so specific about it that the only thing you can imagine it to be is the incarnation?

In Galatians, Paul talks about how the Gentiles would receive the blessings of the promise made to Abraham and he says that the fulfillment of that promise was Jesus. "Now the promises were spoken to Abraham and to his seed. He does not say, "And to seeds," as referring to many, but rather to one, "And to your seed," that is, Christ. Galatians 3:16 (NASB). Hebrews 11:9-10 says that Abraham lived as an alien in tents because he knew there was something better as "he was looking for the city which has foundations, whose architect and builder is God." Abraham lived his whole life trusting God for his promises, but he recognized that they were not realized in the literal land he lived in, but "looked ahead" for the fulfillment in Christ who was his real seed. I lean more towards thinking that "Christ's day" refers to Jesus being the fulfillment of everything that was promised to Abraham.

I've touched on this before, and it is my opinion, but it's not a plain fact that Jesus said he "existed before Abraham." I know that is the traditional understanding, and I am familiar with all the trinitarian arguments, but he didn't say he existed, he merely said "it's me." In this verse, (John 8:58), bible translators purposely capitalize "I AM" (NKJV, NLT) and don't add "he" when translating "ego eimi" like they do elsewhere. In John 8:24 Jesus said the exact same thing, "ego eimi," but there, the translators did insert "he." What's the difference? Why did they omit it in verse 58, but add it virtually everywhere else? Could it be that since translation committees and editors are mostly trinitarian, that this is done on purpose so as to make a direct association to Exodus 3:14? I believe there are many trinitarian proof texts that are slanted toward trinitarianism by translation bias. Jesus told the woman at the well that he is the Messiah that she was talking about. "I am" he said. In John 8:24 Jesus said also "I am" and the Pharisees had no clue who he was; they asked him "who are you?" It's hard to imagine that in the same discourse, the Pharisees went from being clueless about who he was, to them thinking that he was God Almighty. Throughout the whole chapter, the Jews are arguing with Jesus saying how great Abraham is, and how they are his children and how Jesus is illegitimate and then Jesus says to them that they are trying to kill him because he is "a man who has told them the truth which he heard from God." Again, why would Jesus be telling them that he is a man sent from God and then in the next breath say that he IS their God? In fact, in the very same chapter, he tells the Jews that his Father is their God, not him. (John 8:54 ...it is My Father who glorifies Me, of whom you say, 'He is our God')

The context of the surrounding chapters, the use of "ego eimi" by people other than Jesus, and the overall reason that John gave for writing his entire gospel, (John 20:31) leads me to believe that Jesus is the Messiah, not that he pre-existed as God. Most Christians are taught to believe that you are an infidel and a liar if you deny that Jesus is God Almighty. In 1 John, the liar is the person who denies that Jesus is the Messiah. That is all that scripture requires us to affirm.

I will try to answer your question about John 14 from the other thread tomorrow.

Peace, Jose

[Jose]

Jose, it's funny you should post that -- I've been contemplating this quite a bit the past few days, and I've been searching out Scripture trying to see if there's some reference to Abraham and the Kingdom or some indication that the day of the Lord was in inaugurated in Abraham's day, or some other reference to make better sense of this exchange. I thought I was quite clever for having noticed this Hebrews passage just this morning. It seems it's not so clever and it does seem to have very clear relevance to what Jesus might have been talking about. I'm surprised not to find the two passages connected in the commentaries.

Everyone keeps looking for the "plain language" reading here. But, as I see most exchanges between Jesus and the Pharisees, it seems like Jesus rarely gives plain straight answers, and His responses seem often to secretly refer not to their direct question but to some "Kingdom" perspective. So, this seems to make good sense in light of the non-Trinitarian interpretation and another good example perhaps of where a Traditional interpretation and strong dogma can support a pet doctrine at the cost of a Kingdom reference. Steve's teachings are full of these observations with other dogmas and I'm still surprised Steve doesn't explore these non-Trinitarian perspectives more often and where they might lead.

Anyway, it does seem to me here not that Jesus is plainly telling them He is the Great "I Am," the God of their fathers, but that Jesus is sort of refusing to answer their questions and purposefully perplexing the Pharisees in the face of their dim/literal perspective. Unpacking it a bit perhaps He sort of tells them "Your question is wrong-headed and all you need to know is that I and my Kingdom are the only consideration that matters even superior to your beloved Abraham. Oh, and -- more than that I'll answer your question in a way you aren't expecting and won't really understand but those who have the Spirit in them will understand that I am talking about Abraham's spiritual perception of my Kingdom and how even then he was seeing it begin to unfold." Jesus was much more terse, of course, in His response. It seems to me that he rarely meant exactly what He told them in response to their questions.

Hi Darin, I appreciate your input. Don't discount your cleverness.
There's definitely a lot going on there and you're right, Jesus even told them that they won't hear Him because they are not Abraham's children as they supposed, and then He tells them that He is greater than their beloved patriarch whom they dishonor by their actions toward Christ. As He said, "Abraham didn't do this."
I do wish Steve would apply the same hermeneutic to this doctrine that he does to others. I think he is inconsistent at times.

[dizerner]

[user account removed]

[Paidion]

I appreciate your post, dizerner. You are right about context. Someone once said, "A text without context is a pretext." I don't think it is necessarily a pretext, but it certainly is quite common for people to lift a text out of context, and use it to support a position that, as is obvious from its context, it was not intended to support.