Bill Taylor wrote: > He is most emphatically not just saying that he > was "God" prior to Abraham's existence.
Then we have a different perspective on this passage in John 8 that we should explore more intimately. Bill Taylor wrote: > With his statement, "Before Abraham was, > I AM" (and it having been made in the context > of a derogatory suggestion, which had cast > dispersions [sic] upon the legitimacy of his own > sonship), he clearly interprets his status as that > of the divine Son of God the Father; and this prior > even to Abraham's day. I'm having trouble seeing this. I'm not saying you are wrong. You might be wrong, but it also is possible that there is some paradigm difference between us that makes what you perceive obvious to you but not to me. It seems to me that if Yeshua refers to God being his father, you infer that this is the same thing as indicating that he is the eternal son of the father. Such a conclusion is a non sequitur. God is his father, sure, and this makes him God's son, right, but this does not necessarily make him God's ETERNAL son. Even if he indicates that he is eternal, this does not mean that he has eternally been known as the son. I do not see that this statement, "Before Abraham was, I AM," was said in the context of an aspersion cast upon the legitimacy of Yeshua's eternal sonship. I don't see this context anywhere in the dialogue. Rather, the context was whether or not Jesus could have known Abraham. There is no mention of the subject of eternal sonship at all as far as I can tell. The context is that the Jews claimed Abraham and God as their father, and Jesus derided them for thinking such. The basis for his perspective that Abraham and God were not their father was their rejection of him. Yeshua expressed the viewpoint that Abraham accepted him and rejoiced to see his day, so why shouldn't they, if they were truly Abraham's children. His comment, "Before Abraham was, I AM" was in response to whether or not he could have any knowledge of what Abraham did or did not see concerning "his day." You seem to acknowledge that the Jews started all this by claiming that God was their father, but when they did so, surely you do not think they were asserting that they were the eternal sons of God, do you? Why then do you assume that Jesus has eternal sonship in mind when he refers to God as his father? He certainly makes an eternal claim in his dialogue here, but it is not in reference to being a son, but in reference to whether or not he could have knowledge that Abraham saw his day. Bill Taylor wrote: > At this point they again attempt to interpret his sonship > in purely temporal, human terms: "You are not yet fifty > years old, and have you seen Abraham?" Why do you see them interpreting anything about "sonship"? They were just challenging how he could know anything about what Abraham thought about his day. The term "son" has never been on the table. Don't you see how you are reading your theology into the reading of this text? Peace be with you. David Miller. ---------- "Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man." (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.
