u/TonyChanYT

u/SecurityTheaterNews

In John 5, Jesus had a run-in with some Jews when they accused Jesus of making himself equal to God.

It happened again, 3 chapters later in John 8:

>53 Are you greater than our father Abraham, who died? And the prophets died! Who do you make yourself out to be?”

What? Are you God?

>57 So the Jews said to him, “You are not yet fifty years old, and have you seen Abraham?” 58 Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I am.”

That's it. This is blasphemy. Let's kill him. The issue was not just what Jesus said, but how he said it. This was not normal Greek. One would expect “I was” (ἐγώ ἦν) for past time reference. The deliberate tense contrast signaled something qualitative, not merely temporal. His hearers noted the tone:

>59 So they picked up stones to throw at him, but Jesus hid himself and went out of the temple.

The Jews were seriously deadly. Why?

Because Jesus connected himself with the great I AM in Ex 3:14, Wiki:

>Septuagint Exodus 3:14 "And God spoke to Moses, saying, I am (ego eimi) THE BEING; and he said, Thus shall ye say to the children of Israel, THE BEING has sent me to you."[2]

Some early church fathers agreed:

>Ambrose (ca. 340-400) took "I am" not as merely related to Abraham, but a statement including from before Adam. In his Exposition of the Christian Faith, Book III wrote: "In its extent, the preposition “before” reaches back into the past without end or limit, and so “Before Abraham was, [ἐγώ εἰμι]” clearly need not mean “after Adam,” just as “before the Morning Star” need not mean “after the angels.” But when He said “before [πριν],” He intended, not that He was included in any one's existence, but that all things are included in His, for thus it is the custom of Holy Writ to show the eternity of God.[5]John Chrysostom (ca. 349-407) attached more theological significance to ego eimi, In his 55th Homily on John: "But wherefore said He not, Before Abraham was, "I was" (ἐγώ ἦν), instead of "I Am" (ἐγώ εἰμι)? As the Father uses this expression, I Am (ἐγώ εἰμι), so also does Christ; for it signifies continuous Being, irrespective of all time. On which account the expression seemed to them to be blasphemous."[6]Click to expand...

This was not an isolated incident. By saying "Before Abraham was, I AM", Jesus connected himself with the great I AM of YHWH. At least some of the Jews thought so, so much so that they wanted to kill him. Two chapters later, Jesus spelled it out for them, John 10:

>30 "I and the Father are one.”31 The Jews picked up stones again to stone him.

Jesus did not merely claim antiquity. He used language associated with God’s own self-identification. Within that Jewish framework, this constituted blasphemy. That was why the narrative escalates from debate → accusation → attempted execution.

See also

• Before Abraham WAS, I AM

In the first few chapters of Genesis, we see God create Adam and Eve and then tell them to reproduce.

Genesis 1: >28 Then God blessed them and said, “Be fruitful and multiply. Fill the earth and govern it. Reign over the fish in the sea, the birds in the sky, and all the animals that scurry along the ground.”

Three chapters later, Genesis 4:1 >4 Now Adam had sexual relations with his wife, Eve, and she became pregnant. When she gave birth to Cain, she said, “With the Lord’s help, I have produced a man!”

The text did not state that Adam and Eve had sexual relations in Eden, nor did it explicitly deny it. The narrative structure placed the first recorded act of sexual union and conception after the expulsion. Some readers infer that the procreation act began outside the garden.

I believe that, naturally, they did have sexual intercourse in the garden, but the first conception took place after they left the garden. Adam and Eve were described as "naked and unashamed" (Gn 2:25), which suggests a fully embodied, innocent relationship; nothing in the text withholds sexuality from that picture. Sexuality was part of the good creation in the garden. The narrator didn't bother recording previous sexual acts because there was no conception.

Did they have sexual intercourse in the Garden of Eden?

Yes, naturally. It was a paradise :)

American Standard Version, 2Tm 3: >Every scripture inspired of God is also profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for instruction which is in righteousness:

Were only some scriptures inspired by God?

ASV says that could be true. Some scriptures (lower case) were not inspired by God.

But then, Berean Literal Bible: >Every Scripture is God-breathed and profitable for teaching, for conviction, for correction, and for training in righteousness,

All
πᾶσα (pasa)
Adjective - Nominative Feminine Singular

Scripture [is]
γραφὴ (graphē)
Noun - Nominative Feminine Singular

God-breathed
θεόπνευστος (theopneustos)
Adjective - Nominative Feminine Singular

The copulative verb "is" was not in the Greek manuscript. Was BLB a proper translation?

Yes. This was a common feature of Greek: in a nominative construct of equative phrases, the present tense of “to be” (ἐστίν) was often omitted, especially in proverbial, aphoristic, or weighty statements. The reader supplied “is” in translation because the context demanded a present, general statement.

Further, the following adjectives (ὠφέλιμος, “profitable,” etc.) continued the list of attributes, implying a present-tense “is” throughout.

Berean Standard Bible: >All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for instruction, for conviction, for correction, and for training in righteousness,

The missing verb-to-be was a common Koine practice.

If turning water to wine was the first miracle then how did Mary know His potential and also ask Jesus so confidently??

u/Distinct_Coast8645

Mt 27: >50 When Jesus had cried out again in a loud voice, He yielded up His spirit. 51 At that moment the veil of the temple was torn in two from top to bottom. The earth quaked and the rocks were split. 52 The tombs broke open, and the bodies of many saints who had fallen asleep were raised. 53 After Jesus’ resurrection, when they had come out of the tombs, they entered the holy city and appeared to many people.

A bunch of people were resurrected! This was an amazing event. If it were to happen today, tons of journalists would report it globally, and teams of world-class scientists would descend on Palestine to investigate.

Why are there no extrabiblical records of this event?

It didn't happen today when almost everyone carries a camera in his pocket. At the time of Jesus in Palestine, all kinds of people claimed to have performed or seen miracles. Hearers were skeptical. In fact, Mark, Luke, and John did not record this event either. Matthew was unique in this reporting.

In his enthusiasm, Matthew might have overstated the "many". Lazarus had been in the tomb for four days when Jesus raised him (J 11:17). Perhaps Matthew meant many saints who had fallen asleep in the last few days were raised. The resurrection of these saints was a localized and temporary event, occurring in Jerusalem and affecting only a specific group of people. The scale wasn't what it seemed.

It wasn't unusual for NT miracles to have no corroborating evidence outside the NT. Here was another one: After Jesus' resurrection, 1C 15: >6a he appeared to more than five hundred brothers at one time.

Many dead saints were raised and appeared to many. Why was it not reported outside the Bible?

None of the miracles in the Bible were reported outside the Bible—that's just another one. However, the absence of external reports about the resurrection of the saints does not necessarily mean the event did not occur. It is also possible that records of this event existed but were not preserved.

u/Dmk6958, u/toxiccandles, u/rbibleuser

Leviticus 12: >1 The Lord spoke to Moses, saying, 2“Speak to the people of Israel, saying, If a woman conceives and bears a male child, then she shall be unclean seven days. As at the time of her menstruation, she shall be unclean. 3 And on the eighth day the flesh of his foreskin shall be circumcised. 4 Then she shall continue for thirty-three days in the blood of her purifying.

The mother giving birth to a boy was to be unclean for a total of 40 days.

>She shall not touch anything holy, nor come into the sanctuary, until the days of her purifying are completed. 5 But if she bears a female child, then she shall be unclean two weeks, as in her menstruation. And she shall continue in the blood of her purifying for sixty-six days.

For giving birth to a girl, she would be unclean for 80 days.

Why this doubling of days?

I don't know any good answers to this except the obvious: this law favored boy births over girls'. Back then, it was a patriarchal society, and this societal preference was codified in this ritual law. This law wasn't about gender equality; the text itself provided no rationale for the difference; it simply stated the law. You need to think of this law in its cultural socio-economic context.

Modern people often reject this simple answer and try to push it aside in favor of more complex explanations.