Why do Trinitarian take John 8:58 out of context in regards to the trinity?
The above question was asked in "Yahoo Answers":
answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20130201160011AAMlWSi
We have changed "Trinitarian" to "Trinitarians" in our title.
My response to the above follows:
First of all, any thought that Jesus was saying that he was, before Abraham existed, the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jaocb of Exodus 3;14,15, has to be imagined beyond what is written, assumptions have to formulated beyond what is written, and those assumptions have to accepted as fact and added to, and read into what Jesus actually stated.
Normally, most modern translators translated a present tense verb used in a past tense context in some past tense form. Most -- not all -- of these translators, however, make an exception to his in John 8:58 in order to make it appear that Jesus was claiming to be the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. In the first link given below, I have presented several translations that do show the contextual past tense setting.
One claims that "I AM" is being altered to "I am"; this is not actually true; indeed it would be more appropriate to say that translators have altered their translations to read "I AM" in John 8:58 instead of "I am", based on their assumption that Jesus was claiming to be EHYEH of Exodus 3:14.
This brings up another point: In Exodus 3:14, the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob was responding to the question of what was His name. In John 8:58, Jesus was responding to the question concerning his age, not his name. It would indeed be out of context to claim that Jesus repsonded by saying that his name is EHYEH.
Only in the imaginitve realm of trinitarian dogma would anyone think that he was raised up as the prophet like Moses by the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob would be the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. -- Exodus 3:14,15; Deuteronomy 18:15-19; Acts 3:13-26; Hebrews 1:1,2.
The only reason that I can see for ignoring the contextual past tense setting of EGO EIMI (I am) in John 8:58 would be because of the desire to find support for the trinitarian dogma, which dogma is no where to be found in the Bible.
As to whatever reason the Jews thought to kill Jesus, this is not important, since they were seeking some legal excuse to kill Jesus. Jesus, in effect, showed why they wished to kill him in John 8:37-40 and John 10:32. So, if the Jews sought to kill Jesus because they wished to present him as claiming to be the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, then one has to decide who they wish to believe, Jesus, or those lying Jews?
answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20130201160011AAMlWSi
We have changed "Trinitarian" to "Trinitarians" in our title.
My response to the above follows:
First of all, any thought that Jesus was saying that he was, before Abraham existed, the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jaocb of Exodus 3;14,15, has to be imagined beyond what is written, assumptions have to formulated beyond what is written, and those assumptions have to accepted as fact and added to, and read into what Jesus actually stated.
Normally, most modern translators translated a present tense verb used in a past tense context in some past tense form. Most -- not all -- of these translators, however, make an exception to his in John 8:58 in order to make it appear that Jesus was claiming to be the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. In the first link given below, I have presented several translations that do show the contextual past tense setting.
One claims that "I AM" is being altered to "I am"; this is not actually true; indeed it would be more appropriate to say that translators have altered their translations to read "I AM" in John 8:58 instead of "I am", based on their assumption that Jesus was claiming to be EHYEH of Exodus 3:14.
This brings up another point: In Exodus 3:14, the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob was responding to the question of what was His name. In John 8:58, Jesus was responding to the question concerning his age, not his name. It would indeed be out of context to claim that Jesus repsonded by saying that his name is EHYEH.
Only in the imaginitve realm of trinitarian dogma would anyone think that he was raised up as the prophet like Moses by the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob would be the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. -- Exodus 3:14,15; Deuteronomy 18:15-19; Acts 3:13-26; Hebrews 1:1,2.
The only reason that I can see for ignoring the contextual past tense setting of EGO EIMI (I am) in John 8:58 would be because of the desire to find support for the trinitarian dogma, which dogma is no where to be found in the Bible.
As to whatever reason the Jews thought to kill Jesus, this is not important, since they were seeking some legal excuse to kill Jesus. Jesus, in effect, showed why they wished to kill him in John 8:37-40 and John 10:32. So, if the Jews sought to kill Jesus because they wished to present him as claiming to be the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, then one has to decide who they wish to believe, Jesus, or those lying Jews?
