Uh, No. I have no objections to “ego eimi” as that is what the Greeks says. It's about context. As you've shown “eimi” or “este” if plural, although we read it as present literally in Greek it may be translated as that durative present (an action started in the indefinite past and continuing into the present.
So John 8:58, John 14:9, John 15:27 are all examples of the Greek using what would literally read as the present tense in English as a durative present. “have been” captures the sense of that durative present reasonably well.
“ego eimi” is one such durative as Jesus says he existed “from before Abraham” into the present.
Anyone who wants to read more theologically into that answer may but not based upon the language used.
There is no essential difference between “Have I been so long time with you” and “I have been from before Abraham”.
(John 14:9, 8:58)
Jesus doesn’t quote the LXX Ex.3:14 since it says, “Ego eimi ho on”, “I am the being (or one)”, he was talking about the time of his existence.
John 20:28.
Who is Thomas addressing? His Lord or His God, the Father?
He would not mistake one for the other even as Paul said there was “one God”, “the Father” and “one Lord, Jesus Christ.” (1 Cor. 8:6)
Since Thomas was seeing the resurrected “one Lord, Jesus Christ not the “one God, the Father” whom no one can see, then Thomas exclamation would not imply he saw Jesus as deity.
Jesus “never denied the charge of claiming to be God.”
That's pretty thin. And as you're a lawyer I find it incredible that you would say such a thing.
4. On Michael the Archangel.
When I come back later today or tomorrow.
1. On John 8:58
“So John 8:58, John 14:9, John 15:27 are all examples of the Greek using what would literally read as the present tense in English as a durative present.”
Um, no they are not. I have already been over this. John 8:58 lacks the durational connectors present in John 14:9 and 15:27. It is patently invalid to lump them all together, as there are profound structural differences, apart from any theological considerations.
The biggest difference, as I have already stated, is that unlike the other passages, which only use one verb to make their point, in John 8:58 there are two different kinds of verb in play and each is being contrasted with the other. Some translations go so far as to translate the literal “Before Abraham came to be” as “Before Abraham was born,” and that would be a good sense of the contextual meaning of “genesthai,” “come into being.”
Our mutually recognized Greek authority AT Robertson agrees:
“{Before Abraham was} (prin abraam genesqai). 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.” {I am} (egw eimi). Undoubtedly here Jesus claims eternal existence with the absolute phrase used of God. The contrast between genesqai (entrance into existence of Abraham) and eimi (timeless being) is complete. See the same contrast between en in 1:1 and egeneto in 1:14. See the contrast also in Ps 90:2 between God (ei, art) and the mountains (genhqhnai).” (Robertson’s Word Pictures on John 8:58)
Carl W. Conrad, of the Department of Classics at Washington University had this to say:
“What I’m wondering is why we aren’t considering the existence referred to in Jesus’ EIMI as essentially _timeless_, wherefore there’s something a little bit odd—or at least paradoxical (perhaps intentionally so) in the suggestion that what is timeless has a temporal relation to an event in time.”
Exactly. Whereas the other passages are contextually clear in how they use a single verb to take us from a definite point in past time to a definite moment in the present, John 5:8 does the opposite, by using two fundamentally different verbs to send us back into the limitless past, well before Abraham acquired his limited being by birth, while simultaneously sending us into a limitless future, simply by pointing us to the timeless present. It is the paradoxical juxtaposition of eimi with genesthai that creates that tension, and it is genuinely unlike the other two passages for that reason.
Notice from the quote above that Robertson mentions another passage that uses an identical arrangement to illustrate this tension between the merely temporal and the supertemporal:
Psalms 90:2 “Before the mountains were brought forth, or ever thou hadst formed the earth and the world, even from everlasting to everlasting, thou art God.”
The NWT translation actually agrees with our translation at the salient point:
Psalms 90:2 “Before the mountains themselves were born, or you proceeded to bring forth as with labor pains the earth and the productive land, even from time indefinite to time indefinite you are God.”
This passage in the Septuagint uses the second person form of “eimi” and the third person plural of genesthai, but it is the same structure, and clearly references the eternal God. In fact, the LXX translators don’t even bother with EL, the Hebrew for God. They simply use “su ei,” “you are.” So:
“Before the mountains came into being ….. you are.”
And the NWT agrees. Hmmm.
It is the identical juxtaposition of genesthai and eimi, a born thing versus a timeless thing, as what is found in John 8:58. Furthermore, it demonstrates, when taken in conjunction with the multiple “I am” passages in Isaiah, that the general form “ego eimi” did have currency in First Century Israel as a recognizable way to speak of the Eternal One, which in turn explains the hostile reaction of the crowd when Jesus used it of humself.
In any event, I think we have been over this enough. Going on in infinite circles will not benefit either of us. If you have something new to say about it in the next round, I will be happy to consider it, but in reality it is probably time to move on.
2. On Ex.3:14
I have now repeatedly informed you that I believe the connection to Exodus 3:14 is indirect, and is best made by observing how the Septuagint handles the “I am” passages of Isaiah. I really do not know why you keep pressing me on an argument which is not the one I actually made.
3. On Thomas saying to Jesus “My Lord and My God,” in John 20:27
You can hardly use 1 Cor. 8:6 to rescue yourself from the painfully obvious meaning of Thomas’ exclamation. You never did, as far as I know, respond to my earlier query about that passage: If Paul’s “One God the Father” excludes Jesus as God, why doesn’t “One Lord Jesus Christ” exclude God as Lord? They are obviously NOT intended to exclude each other, but to compliment each other while excluding all the false deities causing problems for the Corinthian Christians. Indeed, the parallel structure has caused some to see the passage as an early but clear formulation of a Christological monotheism.
In any event, 1 Cor. 8:6 does nothing at all to eliminate the obvious, that Thomas addressed those words directly to Jesus, and they were received by Jesus as a declaration of belief in Him, with no differentiation made between Lord and God. Which, as we have discussed before, is wrong for Jesus to let pass, if indeed he is mere creature, and not in fact God. By passing up that opportunity to redirect Thomas to worship only God the Father, he has confused countless generations into thinking it is OK to address Jesus as my Lord and my God.
And this moral obligation of Jesus to clear things up applies even if Thomas was, as you suggest, making some clever distinctions in his head while he was instinctively blurting out those worshipful words, differentiating the worshipful thing he was saying from the resurrected Savior he was saying it to. But that mind-reading argument of yours so passes the realm of credibility on its own power that I have already wasted too much space to refuting it; it is self refuting.
4. On Jesus not denying the charge of claiming to be God.
I stand by my analysis. Show me the verse where he said, unequivocally, “Hey guys, you got it wrong, I’m not actually God or even claiming to be God.” Maybe you have that verse in the NWT, and it wouldn’t surprise me if it was in there. But my Bible has no such thing.
What about the “ye are gods” business from Psalm 82:6? Read it again. It’s not a denial, it’s a justification. There’s a world of difference legally. Defending on the law by justifying what was done is a defense I have actually used for a political client. It works especially well when the other side doesn’t know the law well enough to see the defensive maneuver coming. I am sorry of you are having trouble recognizing it here, but this is exactly what Jesus has done. There is no denial. As the true Son, he has claimed to be of the same genus as the Father, and that is a claim to deity, and not blasphemy, because it is true. Just like defamation. Truth is an absolute defense. Jesus outlawyers the outlaw lawyers. I love it.
Peace,
SR