Jesus is often quoted as saying "before Abraham was even born, I Am!" This passage, is often used to defend the fact that he was in existence before creation, as God. But, was he actually referring to the person of God - the "I AM," as opposed to himself?
sort by best latest
I respect your opinion. And, if I understand you correctly, you are saying he was referring to God, the "I am," as inspired by Him. But, was indirectly saying even him was before Abraham, given that he too is God.
Ego eimi in Greek (I AM) is not a divine name that Jesus used in John 8:58 It is ego eimi ho on that is divine name applied to God Rev 1:4,8; 4:8,11:17,16:5 Ego eimi is used also in John 4:26 where Jesus does not claim to be Yahweh but God's Christ
Thought he was aversive about declaring himself divine. Yes, I know he called himself Son of God, but my understanding is that other Jews did as well. Guess it makes sense the clinging on the belief that he is a God.
Jesus figuratively “existed” in Abraham’s time, but did not physically exist. He was the Father's plan for the redemption of man in His foreknowledge. The “I am” statement in John 8:58 is not equivalent with the “I am” statement in Exodus 3:14.
It absolutely is the same statement. And the Jews understood it as such. That's why they were going to stone Him. Jesus was claiming his divinity. The passage can be read no other way
If what you are saying is "true," then when Paul said, "I am" (ego eimi) in Acts 26:29, he must be also claiming divinity too. In Matt. 26:63, no one at the trial asked Jesus if he were God, but said, "tell us if you are the Christ, the Son of God."
Sure, let's just throw context out the window and start relying on reduction ad absurdum. "In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word WAS GOD. The Word became flesh and dwelt among us". Jesus Christ is God
Looking at the context of the gospel of John, Jesus consistently draws a separation between Himself and the Father saying that He is subordinate to the Father (John 14:28) and was sent at his Father's direction (John 3:16; 17:3).
Which is contradicted by the context of the entire New Testament. When looking at the whole of the NT in context, you can draw no other conclusion than Jesus is God.
Looking at the context of all four gospels, Jesus again consistently shows that He does not believe himself to be God. Luke 22:42, Mark 15:34, Matthew 28:18. If Jesus knew He was God, none of these verses would make sense.
God is omnipresent. He's everywhere at once. He was on Earth in the form of Jesus and He was in Heaven. The 3 forms of God are separate but one. The nature of God is mysterious, but scripture shows Them to all be a single entity with 3 natures
And the scribe said to him, “You are right, Teacher. You have truly said that he is one, and there is NO OTHER besides HIM. - Mark 12:32. No three forms here, just ONE. Jesus obeyed the Shema by worshiping and recognizing the Father as the only God.
Your explanation doesn't hold true when you look at the entire passage. The Jews asked if Jesus had ever know Abraham. He was saying that He existed before Abraham was born. And they were going to stone Him for claiming to be God.
William Avitt, I do agree. He wasn't talking about God and the grammatical error argument doesn't make sense when the verse is read contextually. Wow! Now am not sure what to think. Because I thought he was really referring to God.
No, Donald, He was absolutely referring to Himself AS GOD. And the Jews knew this. That's why they were going to stone Him and He had to go into hiding. Jesus Christ is God in the flesh.
Jesus never spoke of himself but of God
For I have not spoken of myself; but the Father which sent me, he gave me a commandment, what I should say, and what I should speak.
That's not in dispute here. So, assuming that's true, was Jesus actually referring to Him other than himself in that statement?
Jesus was speaking of the I Am, God, and not of himself
Deborah, an earlier commentator suggested to read the verse contextually, and that if we do, we can find that he wasn't actually talking about God, but himself. Or do you think it makes sense to just consider the verse out of context?