Biblical Hebrew Forum

[GregStffrd AT aol.com]

Dear John:

After reading your last message it is clear that you 1) do not understand what
I am saying in reference to several key issues, and 2) that you are assuming
that which you have yet to prove, in relation to several critical points. 

If you continue to compose your replies in this fashion, I will have no
alternative but to ignore your postings, as I believe the following reply will
show that they are entirely dependent on post-biblical teachings, and a desire
to defend those teachings at all costs. 

It is my understanding that this board is not for such discussions, and,
frankly, I  cannot imagine one that would want to entertain them, either.


In a message dated 1/1/99 12:58:21 AM Pacific Standard Time,
ronning AT ilink.nis.za writes:


JOHN RONNING
 > << Dear Greg,
 >
 >  The reason I did not respond to every jot and tittle of your argument that
 > "son of
 >  man/messiah" is the predicate of "I am he" in John 8:58 is because (as I
 > already
 >  said), such a predicate is logically problematic.  >>


GREG STAFFORD
 > Well, that is the question at hand, and to avoid it is to avoid the issue.
My
 > argument and the points I made show that it is not all problematic, but
quite
 > at home in this context.



Did you forget to comment on the circular nature of your argument here, John?
Please reconsider the above, so we at least know you are aware of the problem
inherent in your failing to address an allegedly problematic point that is the
subject of our discussion.



JOHN RONNING
 > <<Also, your insistence that because the predicate of "I am he" is "son of
 > man/messiah" therefore the predicate is not the
 >  same as the "I am he" statements in Isaiah (i.e. Yhwh) begs the question,
Who
 > is the messiah (not "who by name?" but "what is his nature?").  Is he just
a
 > special man, a  unique descendant of David? >>
 

GREG STAFFORD
 > Please demonstrate from the context of the Isaianic 'ani hu sayings how
"Messiah/Son
 > of man" could possibly be the understood predicate. I gave a couple
examples, using
 > your examples, of where the predicate is God, or YHWH.

JOHN RONNING 
 I did not say that "Messiah/Son of man" is the predicate of the Isaianic
 'ani hu  sayings.  My point is that Yhwh who later became the Son of Man
(like
 John 1:14 describes) is the predicate of the sayings in both Isaiah and John.
>>



Yes, I know that, John. But what has apparently escaped your notice is that
the very subject of our discussion has to do with whether or not Jesus is
Jehovah, so you once again beg the question. My point, quite simply, was that
the predicates in Isaiah and in John are different: In Isaiah the predicates
include "Jehovah," "God," "Lord" and various participial descriptions, but in
John the predicates, whether they be for Jesus or the man born blind (John 9:9
[you ignored my reference to this text, and a host of others, of course], are
different. 

So, John, the only way you can say that the two predicates ARE THE SAME is to
say that the same predicate is used in the contexts of both the Isaianic and
Johannine EGW EIMI/'ani hu sayings, and that is what you have just denied!
Forgive me for AGREEING with you that "Messiah/Son of man" is _not_ the
predicate in Isaiah, but how is it that you do not see that this effectively
makes my point and undermines yours? 

The only way to avoid this is to say that the Messiah _is_ Jehovah, and this
is precisely what you do in your appeal to John 1:14, a text which says
absolutely nothing about 'YHWH becoming the Son of Man.' With all due
deference to you, John, you ignore the import of John 1:1 where the one who
"became flesh" was with "God" (!) and is later described, in the Prologue, as
the "only-begotten god." The God the Word was "with" was not "only-begotten,"
was he? Of course, as I stated already, your appeal to John 1:14 in no way
supports your point, but you proceed on the premise that it does, and are thus
forced to a false conclusion.
 

GREG STAFFORD
 > For the identity of the Messiah, in relation to YHWH, one might carefully
 > consider Isaiah 11:1-11.
 
JOHN RONNING
 If we had only this passage to consider, yes I would agree that readers
 would not  conclude that the Messiah is rightly called YHWH. >>



Well, at least you acknowledge that you hold to an inherently contradictory
view, for here you plainly agree that readers of Isaiah 11:1-11 "would not
conclude that the Messiah is rightly called YHWH," but yet you still maintain
the truth of that which 11:1-11 does ont "rightly" uphold. Frankly, I believe
Jesus and John would not contradict what is said in Isaiah, concerning the
Messiah.  


JOHN RONNING
 But I try to avoid the natural  hguman tendency to just pick verses I think
prove my point and ignore those that  don't.  So we also have to deal with the
fact that, for example, the Messiah is also called 'El Gibbor (Isa 9:5/6),
which is a title of Yhwh in the next chapter (10:21). >>>



Interesting....You probably do not realize it (or you likely would not have
done it), but you just did the very thing you claim you try not to do! You
pick a verse (Isaiah 9:5[6]) that you believe supports your view (though it
does not; see below) and at the same time you ignore Isaiah 11:1-11. I suppose
this is just one of those 'natural human tendencies' you try to avoid.
Actually, I find such tendencies rather unnatural, and quite forced, usually
motivated by a desire to protect at all costs one's doctrinal position from
scriptures that would prove fatal to it, if accepted.

Regarding Isaiah 9:6 and 10:21, I have no problem with Jesus being a "Mighty
God." But this hardly makes him "Almighty," a view that would be impossible to
reconcile with verses like Isaiah 11:1-11 or Micah 5:4. Also, in Isaiah 9:6 we
are told what the Messiah WOULD BE called, and in 10:21 we are told who
Jehovah IS. The LXX translators obviously recognized the use of 'el in 9:6 as
similar to the use of 'elohim in Psalm 8:5, where angelic beings are in view.
Of course, they knew that this was not the case in 10:21.



JOHN RONNING
 > << So John 8:58 adds something to what Jesus said previously - he existed
 > before
 >  Abraham.  He is now the son of man, but he could not exist AS the son of
man
 > before he  became the son of man/messiah/son of David (which requires human
 > nature). >>
 

GREG STAFFORD
 > There is no need for me to address your rejection of a point that I
documented
 > with several sources, until you choose to interact with those sources, and
 > explain why such a view "could not" be so. Your have ignored the sense in
 > which the Bible and other Jewish literature presents Jesus as the Messiah
 > prior to his sojourn in the flesh.
 

JOHN RONNING
I have no idea what you are talking about. >>



That is becoming increasingly obvious, John.



JOHN RONNING
Are you saying that the NT agrees with the Targum rendering of Micah 5:1/2
which you quoted which gets rid of the idea of the actual pre-existence of the
Messiah?  



No, I am saying that Enochic and other Jewish thoughts concerning the
preexistence of the Messiah's name and person may have informed the
Pharisaical misunderstanding of Jesus' claim, or at least triggered, together
with the other contextual factors that I mentioned (which you continue to
ignore) a realization in the minds of the Pharisees that he was claiming to
have preexisted Abraham, in name or person, as the Messiah.



JOHN RONNING
Have you read the prologue to John's Gospel? >>



Yes, John, I have. But we are talking about the reaction by the _Pharisees_,
and what may have informed their understanding of Jesus' claim, right? So why
refer me to the Prologue?

Both the immediate context, namely, Jesus' discussion with the Pharisees, and
the larger contextual considerations of Jewish literature in reference to the
Messiah, have a place in this discussion. That you would object to use of
these, to me, shows that you are not familiar with either one of them.



JOHN RONNING
 > << What was  he, then, before he became the son of man?  What was he before
 > Abraham existed?  A god, an angel, a mere name, or yet-to-be-realized
decree?
 > It is at this point that I  think the parallel construction of "before
Abraham
 > was, I am he" to Isa 43:13 "from the day [i.e. in the past], I am he" is
 > relevant. >>
 

GREG STAFFORD
 > Again, you assume a past for Isaiah 43:13 that is not necessary.
 

JOHN RONNING
 But you agreed that Isa 43:13 was past - are you backtracking now?
 


No, you are simply misunderstanding, again. Clearly you did not read my
replies very carefully, for if you had you would have seen my rather
noticeable reply, where I said:


FROM MY PREVIOUS REPLY (QUOTE WILL END WITH "END OF QUOTE")

JOHN RONNING
^^^ Secondly, he does not say, "before Abraham existed, I was" (which is
 what I assume he would say if he merely wanted to state his
 pre-existence in agreement with Micah 5:1/2).  Thus there is use of a
 "present" construction (I am he), with past time. ^^^^


GREG STAFFORD
That is precisely the point, and that is why he used the present EIMI and not
the simple past HN. Jesus is _not_ merely stating his preexistence, but
highlighting his continual existence from before Abraham's birth, to the
present moment of his speaking with the Jews in John 8:58. This is, as you
rightly state, in agreement with Micah 5:2, which is clearly a Messianic
passage. 

The Greek idiom that denotes duration from a past time to the present
requires, in most cases, a past expression with a present verb. This is what
we find in John 8:58, and it fits perfectly with the context, and with the
implications of his other EGW EIMI sayings. 


JOHN RONNING 
 ^^^^ In Isa 43:13 Yhwh says "From the day (miyyom), I am he," mixing past and
 present, and in 46:4 Yhwh says "even in your old age, I am he" mixing
 the "present" (I am he) with a future reference.  In John 8:58 Jesus mixes
 the present with the past.  Perhaps then the reason there is no
 predicate in John 8:58 is that the answer to the question "Who are you?" is
"I am the one who says `I am he'" in the Hebrew Scriptures; i.e. Yhwh. ^^^


GREG STAFFORD
Again, the question "Who are you?" is asked throughout the discourse, even
though Jesus revealed himself several times, even pointing to their lack of
understanding and acceptance of him. However, this question could and I
believe is answered by the implied/directly stated predicates in 8:24, 28, 58,
but the context has to tell us what those predicates are, and the same is true
with the 'ani hu sayings of Isaiah. 

However, when you analyze the context of these 'ani hu sayings you will find
that the predicates to which hu refers are entirely different from those
implied/directly stated predicates in John 8. Of course, John uses EGW EIMI in
a similar sense in John 9:9, namely, with a predicate ("the one born blind")
from the context. 

Regarding the reference to Isaiah 43:13, I am not sure that we have, in
Hebrew, a past with a present expression. Jehovah's words may simply mean,
"From (to)day
I am he." The hu refers back to the 'el of verse 12. 

But, in the LXX the use of ARCHN may be taken together with EGW KURIOS hO QEOS
to mean that Jehovah was their God, and not the idols mentioned in the
context, from "the beginning," which is context-dependent and likely refers to
the beginning of his relationship with Israel. 

So there is a parallel of sorts in that we have Jehovah stating his existence
as God "from the day/beginning." But the predicate to which hu refers is clear
and unmistakable, as it is in EGW EIMI sayings of John 8 and 9.

Regards,

Greg Stafford


END OF QUOTE



In addition to the point about Isaiah 43:13 you also missed several points I
made, that you have yet to do me the courtesy of addressing. Please do not
make this a habit, though you did precisely the same thing in your last reply,
even though I pointed it out to you, and asked you to respond to my entire
email.



GREG STAFFORD
 > Also, it
 > really does not matter, at this point, who Jesus was prior to the flesh,
but
 > who is was prophesied to be! Go back to my last post, block off each point
 > made, like I am doing with your post, and respond. Then we might get
 > somewhere.
 
 
JOHN RONNING
It obviously does matter, if for no other reason than that John begins
 his gospel with a discussion of who Jesus was before he became the Messiah.
John 1:14 -  "The Word (representing YHWH in the targums) became flesh and
dwelt among us" - invalidates all  of your reasoning (however much you are
persuaded by it). >>>




Hardly. Of course, you missed my "at this point," which was designed to get
you to focus on the main point under discussion, but it obviously did not
work.  What is interesting is here you appeal to the Targums and their
relationship to NT, to which you earlier objected! 

Also, again, we are not dealing with predicateless statements made in the
Prologue, but with their use in John 8 and elsewhere, primarily in discussions
with the Pharisees.

It is clear that John opens his Gospel with a reference to the Word as "a
divine being," who is with "God." The Prologue is absolutely irreconcilable
with a trinitarian view of God, which came about hundreds of years after the
Prologue was written. Is it the doctrine of the Trinity that is informing your
understanding of the Prologue, John, and which motivates you to assume what
you have yet to prove regarding the predicateless EGW EIMI/'anu hu sayings?



GREG STAFFORD
 > Ignoring points that I have already made and then making assertions
 > about things that are covered by those points is a waste of my time, and
 > yours.
 

JOHN RONNING
 I feel exactly the same way, Greg! >>



Good. Then I trust you will refrain from this practice in the future.
 


JOHN RONNING
 > <<Let me mention a couple more parallels to the "I am he" (Yhwh) passages
in
 > Isaiah:
 >
 > John 4:26 ego eimi ho lalwn soi is almost verbatim from Isa 52:6 My people
 > shall know my name; therefore in that day,  'ani hu' hammedabber hinneni.>>
 


GREG STAFFORD
 > Ron, you are missing the point. The point is the understood predicate. That
 > Jesus and Jehovah, in contexts where their identity is under discussion or
 > being made known, should use similar language is not at all surprising. The
 > real question is, Are they revealed as the same Being in the contexts in
which
 > they are made known to their respective audiences? There is nothing in the
 > context of Isaiah 52:6 that would suggest that the one speaking is the
 > Messiah, and conversely there is nothing in the context of John 4:26 to
 > suggest that the speaker is Jehovah.


JOHN RONNING 
 Again, you assume what you are trying to prove (that the Messiah is not
 Jehovah). >>



No, I merely point out that the predicates are not the same, and since we are
nowhere told that the Messiah is Jehovah, but, rather, that Jehovah is the
"God of" the Messiah (Micah 5:4), as well as other texts that even you admit
contradict your view (Isa. 11:1-11), there is no reason for me to think that
Jehovah and His Messiah are the same being. 

You are the one who assumes that Jehovah is the Messiah, in what I assume is a
trinitarian construct. Again, my point is valid, as argued above: Nothing in
the contexts of the Isaianic and Johannine EGW EIMI/'ani hu sayings speaks of
ontological identity between the two. You assume that they are, with no
statement in the aforementioned texts to support your conclusion. As I said:


GREG STAFFORD
 > In the context of Isaiah 52:6 Jehovah reminds the Israelites that it is He,
 > "the Sovereign Lord Jehovah" (verse 4), that is speaking. This He does so
they
 > are mindful of the seriousness of His words and the need to respond to
them.
 > In John 4:26 Jesus' words are simply an affirmation of his identity, as the
 > one in whom the woman expressed faith, the Messiah. The Samaritan woman
could
 > hardly have detected an identification between Jesus and Jehovah based on
 > Jesus' use of "I am he,"  for Samaritans did not accept Isaiah, or any
other
 > writings except the Pentateuch, as canonical. Their Messianism was centered
on
 > the prophet greater than Moses referred to in Deuteronomy 18; this figure
was
 > not identified as Jehovah, but Jehovah would command him what to speak.-De
 > 18:18; compare Joh 12:49-50.
 

JOHN RONNING
 The Samaritan woman would also not be aware that Jesus began his
 conversation with her the same way Abraham's servant began his conversation
with Rebekah, or that she was involved in a re-enactment of one of three OT
courtship scenes where a man meets a woman at a well - the woman being the
prospective bride (Rebekah for Isaac in Genesis 24, Rachel for Jacob in
Genesis 29, Zipporah for Moses in Exodus 2).  Jesus says "Give me a drink" as
Abraham's servant said to Rebekah (Gen 24:17/John 4:7), Jesus is invited to
stay (4:28-30), as Abraham's servant was (24:28-32), he refused to eat
(4:31-34), as Abraham's servant did (24:33), he stayed two days (4:40, 43),
again like Abraham's servant (24:54).  The Samaritan woman would not know that
she thus figuratively represents the bride of Christ, and as such is a
contrast to the "model" bride (from a human point of view), Rebekah - unlike
Rebekah who was from a "good" family (i.e. non-Canaanite), the woman at the
well was from a "bad" race, as far as the Jews were concerned (John 4:9) -
likewise we all come from a bad race, Adam's, in which there is nothing good
in the sight of God; unlike Rebekah who was chaste (Gen 24:16), the Samaritan
woman had had five husbands and was living with a man to whom she was not
married (which speaks to the natural human tendency to idolatry, which is
called spiritual immorality in the Law and Prophets), thus again representing
 Christians, who before redemption all have had one god after another.
 She did not know that the one to whom she was speaking would die to make
 her holy (Eph 5:25-27), or that such an action on behalf of such an unworthy
bride is
 to be contrasted to Isaac's behavior (which he learned from Abraham) toward
 the model bride; Jesus gave up his life for his bride, to make her holy,
whereas Isaac gave up his bride to defilement, in order to save his own life
(especially note Gen 26:9 I did it because I thought, "Lest I die on account
of her").  She would not know that she would thus serve in Scripture as a
picture of the undesireable sinner who is sought out to be the bride of
Christ, a picture that should aid us in humility (a
 virtue which all should seek, don't you agree?). >>>



Of course. But there is absolutely nothing in the text or articulated
elsewhere in the NT to support your highly speculative characterization of
these events. But, in any event, you failed to notice the points: 1) The
Samaritan woman recognized Jesus' as the Messiah; and 2) Jesus accepted this
identity and revealed himself to her as the Messiah, using EGW EIMI/'ani hu.
As I said before your long, unrelated characterization, you are missing the
point, namely, the understood predicate.

When you decide on returning to the discussion of the understood predicate,
let me know. At this point you are so far away from the topic I am not sure
you really intended to discuss the predicateless sayings at all.
 


JOHN RONNING
 She also did not know that the role of the bridegroom of his people is
 Yhwh's, according to the prophets, and that thus the one to whom she was
 speaking, is rightly called Yhwh, and thus speaks as Yhwh, "I am he, the one
who is speaking to you" as predicted in Isa 52:6.  She was not aware of any of
these things, but that does not mean you have to remain in her ignorance.>>




I will keep that in mind, John. Again, quite simply, the woman recognized
Jesus as a prophet, and the understood predicate to Jesus' EGW EIMI/'ani hu
saying in this context is the Messiah. 

Jehovah is the God of the Messiah (Micah 5:4), and Jesus came in the name of
his Father (John 5:43). The Father, Jesus' God, is the one doing HIS WORKS
through Jesus (John 14:10), for Jesus "does nothing of his own, but only what
he see the Father doing," and what the Father "taught him." (John 5:19;
7:16-17; 8:28; 12:49-50) Failing to recognize the fact that Jesus is the
outworking and fulfillment of his God's will and purpose is probably the
greatest single contributor to one's failing victim to trinitarianism, and
other unbiblical notions about God and Christ. I invite you, John, to worship
the Father "in spirit and in truth" (John 4:24), following the pattern set
forth by His Son.




GREG STAFFORD 
 >    In John 4:26 there is no reason to read into the
 > rather common participle hO LALWN  ("the one speaking") any identification
 > with Yahweh, as some suggests.


JOHN RONNING 
 If you think that "I am he, the one who is speaking to you" is a
 perfectly natural way of speaking, perhaps you can give us five or ten other
examples of such a sentence from non-semitic Koine Greek, so that we can
conclude that the agreement with Isa 52:6 is just coincidence.
 


Since you responded to only part of my reply, where the second provides
greater illumination of my point, I will allow myself to finish what I said:


GREG STAFFORD
 > John uses ego eimi in the same way the LXX of Isaiah uses it: self-
 > identification. The use of hO LALWON is quite at home in both contexts,
where
 > two different identities are being highlighted or revealed. Again, the fact
 > that Jesus and his Father should use the same language in similar contexts
 > (particularly where their identity is in question) should not surprise us.
 > (Joh 14:10; 12:49-50) But the identity revealed by their words, in these
two
 > texts, is not the same.
 

JOHN RONNING
 Again, assuming your point, that the Messiah is not rightly called
 Yhwh.  It doesn't help your argument to assume the point you are trying to
prove.
 


I know. That is why I keep telling you to avoid such arguments. Of course,
your above response completely ignores what I said. You are correct, though: I
do assume that in contexts where the identity of two individuals is at issue,
that for the two of them to use similar language, given the fact that one
confesses that he speaks only what the other tells him, and has learned
everything he knows from the other, that the two JUST MIGHT sound a bit
similar, in making their respective identities known. 

But you ignore all of these rather salient points, as they are lethal to your
preferred view. It is also worth pointing out that John likely obtained his
Greek vocabulary from Isaiah, and therefore translated Jesus' words with
similar language from the LXX. But unless you can show me that in Jewish
literature between, say, the second century BCE (or earlier) and the first
century CE that the Jews understood "the one who is speaking" as something
that only God would/should say, then I am afraid that you, again, are assuming
what you have yet to prove, and ignoring the problems inherent in your
reasoning. 

What was all that talk about "human tendencies" and not using just one verse
to make your point? When you decide to intelligently interact with my above
comments, then we might get somewhere. Until then, it is clear that you are
ignoring everything that is not readily agreeable to your view, and forcing
post-biblical notions into rather clear statements. 



GREG STAFFORD
 > << John 13:19 "I am telling you before it comes to pass, so that when it
does
 > occur, you may believe that I am he" is a nice prose summary of Yhwh's
 > statements that his ability to predict the future (especially the
deliverance
 > brought by Cyrus) should
 > cause Israel to acknowledge that "I am he" (Isa 41:2-4; 43:10-13;
44:26-45:6;
 > 48:12-14) >>
 >
 > Ron, In verse 18 Jesus quotes a messianic prophecy from Psalm 41:9, which
 > reads, "Even my close friend, whom I trusted, he who shared my bread, has
 > lifted up his heel against me." (NIV) Then in verse 19 he tells the
disciples
 > that once this scripture has been fulfilled, they will know that it is he
 > about whom the scripture speaks, the Messiah! The disciples would naturally
 > have associated Jesus' statement in verse 20 ("he that receives me,
receives
 > him that sent me") with an identification of who he claimed to be: the one
 > `sent by' the Father.-Joh 5:37; 8:18.
 


JOHN RONNING
 This argument, too, depends on assuming that the one who sends and the
 one who is sent  are not both called Yhwh.



Actually, again, it makes no difference in term of the predicate we are
supposed to be discussing, but since the Bible makes it clear that the sent-
forth Messiah is not Jehovah, but that Jehovah is the Messiah's God, it is not
an assumption at all, but what it _clearly_ stated in the text. The fact that
you have nothing substantive to offer in reply to my above points in relation
to the context of John 13:19 shows that you really have nothing to offer in
discussing this matter, as we have given you ample opportunity to make your
point, and respond to what I have said.



GREG STAFFORD 
 > Brown (The Gospel According to John [xxiii-xxi], 555) acknowledges that
"some
 > would supply an implicit predicate, `the Messiah,' based on the rabbinical
 > understanding of Ps xli."
 >
 > In the context of Isaiah 43:10 Jehovah is bringing to the Israelites
attention
 > facts that should remind them that He is the true God, as opposed to the
gods
 > of the "national groups." (verse 9) But the context of John 13:19 in no way
 > supports a similar conclusion in relation to Jesus. In fact, it clearly
 > mitigates against it. (Joh 12:49-50; 13:3; 20) Also, in John 14:29 we see
 > roughly the same language as that used by Jesus in John 13:19. In John
14:29
 > Jesus tells those around him the things that would soon occur, and that
they
 > should believe on account of the fact that he told them beforehand:
 >
 > Jn 13:19:
 > ajp * a[rti | levgw uJmi'n proV tou' genevsqai, | i@na pisteuvshte o@tan
 > gevnhtai
 >                                                 o@ti ejgwv eijmi.
 >
 > Jn 14:29:
 > kaiV nu'n  |  ei[rhka uJmi'n priVn genevsqai,  | i@na o@tan gevnhtai
 > pisteuvshte.
 >
 > Jn 13:19 (RSV)
 > I tell you this now, before it takes place, that when it does take place
you
 > may believe that I am he.
 >
 > Jn 14:29 (RSV)
 > And now I have told you before it takes place, so that when it does take
 > place, you may believe.
 >
 >         Yet, John 14:29 is uttered in a context where Jesus clearly denies
being
 > Jehovah, for he asserts that he is going to One who is greater than he.
(Joh
 > 14:28) Can we imagine the God of Isaiah ever uttering such words? Also,
Jesus'
 > words in 14:28 are not limited to his human nature.  There is nothing in
the
 > context of John 13:19 to support a connection between it and Isaiah 43:10.



JOHN RONNING 
 Your argument that by saying the Father is greater than he, Jesus must
 be denying that  he is Jehovah is not valid if the Father is also called
Jehovah.  >>




Your argument makes no sense at all. Please restate or clarify your point. No
one is greater than Jehovah. The Father, Jehovah, Jesus' God (Micah 5:4; Rev.
3:12) is greater than Jesus, _according to Jesus_. 

It is inevitable that one who clings to a post-biblical view of God and Christ
will appeal to the theology of later centuries in explaining this issue. We
will see how long it takes for you to appeal to it, also.



JOHN RONNING
Since  John has begun his gospel by saying that Jesus is Jehovah, I interpret
"the Father is greater than I" in light of that fact (this is also why
theologians speak of economic subordination,  as opposed to ontological
subordination). >>>



(!) Well, it did not take you very long, did it! Of course, you here assume
what you have yet to prove, namely, that "John has begun his gospel by saying
that Jesus is Jehovah." In fact, not only does the Prologue contain no such
statement, but what it does say is in direct contradiction to such a view! See
my earlier comments on the Prologue, for examples. 

But, since you have just shown, by your appeal to "economic subordination," a
view that is nowhere articulated in the Bible (in reference to Jesus and his
God, Jehovah [Micah 5:4]), your loyalty lies with the creeds of later
centuries, not the teachings of the Bible. 

Jesus' statement in John 14:28 is not qualified by "economic subordination."
That is what nonbelievers add to the text to diffuse the power of Jesus'
words. 



JOHN RONNING
 Yes, in fact, "the God of
 Isaiah" also speaks this way in Isa 48:16c-d "From the time it took place, I
was
 there, and now  'Adonay Yhwh has sent me, and his Spirit" (the one who sends
is greater than the one who is sent).




Here you assume that God is speaking all the way through verses 16-17, despite
the fact that the text plainly says that Jehovah sent the one who is now going
to relate the words of Jehovah! 

Also, I do not know what you are quoting from when you say, "the one who sends
is greater than the one who is sent." You appear to be misquoting a statement
by Jesus to the effect that 'one who is sent forth is NOT GREATER THAN the who
sends him.' The fact that the one who is sent forth is not greater than the
sender says nothing about whether or not one is actually greater than the
other. Of course, Jesus made is clear that the Father is greater than he (John
14:28).



JOHN RONNING 
 > << For what it's worth, I quote the following concerning studies of the EGW
 > EIMI
 >  statements in John that do not have a predicate: >>



GREG STAFFORD
 > It really is not worth much, though both men do make some fine points,
which I
 > think you have ignored.


JOHN RONNING 
 As you know, I can't respond to that without specifics.  Are you able to
 supply what Brown and Harner were unable to find, i.e. any significant non-
Jewish
 parallel to  Jesus' "I am he" statements, or are you able to refute their
view that
 the major influence upon their formulation is the "I am he" passages from
Isaiah,
 or do you simply dismiss this conclusion as irrelevant (in which case I think
you
 alone are uninterested in the question)?



Actually, I gave a specific instance of where you ignored a point from Brown.
I guess you ignored it once again. 

I am quite familiar with this issue, and I have responded both to Harner and
Brown, and others who discuss this issue, including very recent works from
scholars like D. M. Ball. I have written a book with a nearly 60 page
discussion of the "I Am Sayings of Jesus: Their Meaning and Significance."

Now, I realize you cannot respond without specifics (even though I gave
them!), but when you reply can you be sure you give specifics? I mean, you
have ignored so much of what I have said, and passed off most of the rest as
"assumptions," without explaining WHY they are assumptions. I at least give
you this courtesy, though I suspect that your hesitation to do similarly is
rooted in the fact that you really have no valid objection, and merely use
"you are assuming what you have yet to prove" as a default reply.



GREG STAFFORD 
 > Again, you need to revisit my last post, and this one, also, and consider
each
 > argument I present. Otherwise it gives the impression that you are really
not
 > listening to what I am saying, but instead simply trying to support a
 > doctrinal presupposition.


JOHN RONNING 
 I, too, have "the impression that you are really not listening to what I
 am saying, but instead simply trying to support a doctrinal presupposition."
At
 least I got your name right.
 
 Regards,
 
 John Ronning >>



Yes, John, _at least_ you got my name right.  

Also, by the way, I sent a follow-up reply to the board stating that I had
referred to you incorrectly as "Ron." Apparently you missed that, or sought to
make some point about it, for whatever reason. 

Sincerely,

Greg Stafford