I am

[shad]

Regarding John 8:58

Trinitarians like to conect John 8:58 with EX 3:14.

KJV EX 3:14 And God said unto Moses, I AM THAT I AM: and he said, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, I AM hath sent me unto you.

'Ehyeh asher ehyeh' - 'I am that I am'
The King James version of the Bible translates the Hebrew as "I AM THAT I AM" and treats it as a proper name for God. Now, wether or not God Almighty was stating a form of his name or he was expressing a phrase is argued. A better renderings might be "I will be that I will be".

Here's some links to RRD's posts on this
John 08:58 and Ehyeh
http://reslight.net/forum/index.php/topic,178.0.html
John 08:58 - "I am" - Eternal?
http://reslight.net/forum/index.php/topic,304.0.html
also related:
Is the Holy Name "the Eternal"?
http://reslight.net/forum/index.php/topic,501.0.html
EGO EIMI at John 8:58 by Dr. Jason BeDuhn links
http://reslight.net/forum/index.php/topic,449.0.html

Here's clips from pages that should help also. I recommend reading the whole pages though.

John 8:58 - Did Jesus Use the Holy Name?
....... Actually, Jesus says nothing about claiming that his name is EHYEH of Exodus 3:14. The contextual discussion was concerning Jesus’ age, not his name .......
http://sonofyah.wordpress.com/2008/10/12/john8-58/

“I am†in John 8:58 and Other Verses
...............When Jesus told them: “Abraham rejoiced to see my day; and he saw it, and was glad,†they replied that He was not yet 50 years old, and how therefore could he have seen Abraham (who died over 2,000 years previously)? He then let them know that his existence was not limited to the years he was spending on earth. Jesus told them that his existence was unbroken from eons before Abraham’s day, and was unbroken thereafter. Hence he could truly say: “Before Abraham was, I am.†Now if he had said he “wasâ€Â, he would have implied that he existed, but no longer exists.

Regarding this, Paul Johnson [a Hebrew and Greek scholar] states in his book Creation: “Please notice the expression, `I am’  present tense. Why this? The expression is a Hebrew idiom and is used to express a non-terminated existence, i.e., the existence that Jesus as the Logos had before Abraham lived had never up to the time of His speaking in this text come to an end.† page 45. .............
http://godandson.reslight.net/?p=253

“I am†in John 8:58
.....The purpose is to make the claim that Jesus is a person of triune God. Actually, there is nothing here, or anywhere else in the Bible, about God existing as three separate and distinct persons. Such an idea has to be added to, and read into, what Jesus said.

Was Jesus in John 8:58 quoting from Exodus 3:14? The name in Exodus 3:14 by which Yahweh spoke of himself in its full form is usually transliterated as “EHYEH ASHER EHYEHâ€Â. Its short form, which also appears in Exodus 3:14 is simply EHYEH. Was Jesus saying in John 8:58 that his name is EHYEH? Actually, no. The expression in Greek that Jesus used is often transliterated as EGO EIMI. Did Jesus say that this was his name? No, there is no discussion concerning Jesus’ name in John 8:58 nor anywhere in the context. Rather, the discussion is concerning the age of Jesus.

Jesus expressly shows that he is not the only true God who sent him in John 17:1,3. Since there is only one true God, then Jesus, being sent by the only true God, is not the only true God. The only true God who sent Jesus is the One who identified Himself as EHYEH ASHER EHYEH in Exodus 3:14,15.

Exodus 3:14 - God said to Moses, “I AM WHO I AM [EHYEH ASHER EHYEH],†and he said, “You shall tell the children of Israel this: “I AM [EHYEH] has sent me to you.â€Â
Exodus 3:15 - God said moreover to Moses, “You shall tell the children of Israel this, ‘Yahweh, the God of your fathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, has sent me to you.’ This is my name forever, and this is my memorial to all generations.

EHYEH and YAHWEH are simply two different forms of the same name.
......
http://reslight.wordpress.com/2007/09/1 ... -john-858/

“I am†in John 8:58 and Other Verses
.........Nevertheless, many claim that Jesus was referring to himself as the “I am†of Exodus 3:14. In reality, there is nothing in John 8:58 to warrant the conclusion that Jesus was claiming to be Ehyeh (or as some perfer, Ehyah) of Exodus. Jesus simply responded to the question: “You are not yet fifty years old, and have you seen Abraham?†Thus, the real thought of the Greek used here is that God’s created “firstborn,†Jesus, had existed long before Abraham was born, and that he was still in existence. - Colossians 1:15; Proverbs 8:22, 23, 30; Revelation 3:14.
.....................
http://godandson.reslight.net/?m=200902&paged=2

Immutability as an Alleged Incommunicable Attribute
.........Exodus 3:14: God said to Moses, "I AM WHO I AM," and he said, "You shall tell the children of Israel this: "I AM has sent me to you. One could read into this scripture the unchangeableness of Yahweh, but this would depend on the meaning given to the Hebrew phrase "Ehyeh asher Ehyeh", translated "I am who I am" in the World English Bible translation. ...
http://reslight.net/trinityimmutability.html



If you'd like to read lots of other's ideas you can just google/or other search engines "Ehyeh asher ehyeh".

 

[oneisgod]

"HAYAH" IS A HEBREW VERB.

A Verb is:-

"In the phrase "Jacob cut a tree" the verb is "cut." A verb describes action. The word "Jacob" is the subject of the verb, or the one who is performing the action. The word "tree" is the object of the verb, or the one the action is being imparted upon."-http://ancient-hebrew.org/37_lesson01.html


"Strong's Number: 1961 hyh
Original Word Word Origin
hyh a primitive root [compare (01933)]
Transliterated Word Phonetic Spelling
Hayah haw-yaw
Parts of Speech TWOT
Verb 491 ."-http://www.studylight.org/lex/heb/view.cgi?number=01961



Various English words used at Ex 3:14 (K.J.V. "I AM") and the grammar thereof :-

"I - First-person pronoun."*

"I am - Singular, indicative, present tense. (a statement of fact)

"I pron. (obj. me; poss. my, mine; pl. we) used by a speaker or writer to refer to himself or Herself. [Old English]."-Oxford Dictionary

"am 1st person sing. present of *be."-Oxford Dictionary

NO VERB IS THE ABOVE?

So I ask , how can a "Verb" be translated into a 1st person personal pronoun?

oneisgod

 

[oneisgod]

The lack of replys speaks volumes!

 

[epistemaniac]

The aorist γενέÃθαι (ÀÃÂίν with the infinitive after a positive verb, R. 977, 1091) marks the historical point of time when Abraham came into existence as against the time prior to that point when Abraham did not exist. This aorist is in contrast to εἰμί; which Jesus predicates of his own person (á¼ÂγÃŽ), here a finite verb not the mere copula (R. 394). As the aorist sets a point of beginning for the existence of Abraham, so the present tense "I am" predicates absolute existence for the person of Jesus, with no point of beginning at all. That is why Jesus does not use the imperfect ἤμην, "I was"; for this would say only that the existence of the person of Jesus antedates the time of Abraham and would leave open the question whether the person of Jesus also has a beginning like that of Abraham (only earlier) or not. What Jesus declares is that, although his earthly life covers less than fifty years, his existence as a person (á¼ÂγÃŽ) is constant and independent of any beginning in time as was that of Abraham. For what Jesus here says about himself in comparison with Abraham is in the nature of the case true of him in comparison with any other man, no matter how far back the beginning of that man's existence lies. "I am" = I exist. Thus with the simplest words Jesus testifies to the divine, eternal pre-existence of his person.
To speak of an "ideal" existence before the days of Abraham is to turn the solemn assurance of Jesus into a statement that means nothing. Unacceptable are also all other efforts to empty out this divine "I am" and to substitute for the fact and reality of existence before Abraham something merely mental, whether this occurred in the mind of Jesus or in that of God. Yet this "I am" is nothing new; by means of two tiny words it states only what Jesus has testified and continues to testify of himself in many other words in other connections. Thus, too, it forms the parting of the ways for faith and unbelief.
â€â€Lenski New Testament Commentary

"The answer of Jesus to the Jews was an intriguing double amÄ“n (“I tell you the truthâ€Â) announcement that focused both on time and status: “Before Abraham was, I am†(egÃ…Â eimi, 8:58). This statement can of course lead to a great deal of speculation concerning the nature of time itself in relation to the nature of God. Certainly the juxtaposing of the past tense concerning Abraham with both the prior time and the present tense as they relate to Jesus explodes all natural reasoning concerning time.
Extending the present into the past does not compute in most of our minds. It is a confusion to the way we think. But God does not fit into the teacups of our minds. More pertinent for our purposes, however, is the fact that Jesus claimed to be “I am†over against Abraham. That claim was a reminder of the claims for God in the Old Testament over against creation (cf. Ps 90:2; Isa 42:3–9) and of the self-designation for the comforting God of Isaiah (41:4; 43:3, 13). The claim of Jesus, therefore, was clearly recognized from the Jews’ perspective to be a blasphemous statement they could not tolerate. Accordingly, they again made their judgment call, and their verdict implied death by stoning (John 8:59; cf. Lev 24:11–16; 1 Kgs 21:10–13).202
â€â€New American Commentary

Jesus' reference to Abraham sounds to the opponents like an incredible claim to spiritual experience. His reply to their incredulity pushes his claim far beyond the idea of vision whether mystical or otherwise, whether of the past or through ascents into heaven: I tell you the truth...before Abraham was born, I am! (v. John 8:58). He is not just making a statement of his age, for then he would have said something like, "Before Abraham was born, I was" (Carson 1991:358). Rather, he is now using in an unambiguous way the divine I AM (Harner 1970:26-30). The I AM was the name of God revealed to Moses, though the Greek expression (ego eimi) is not that used in the Septuagint in Exodus 3:14 (ho on). The phrase ego eimi is used of the divine name in Isaiah (Isaiah 41:4; Isaiah 43:10, Isaiah 43:25; Isaiah 45:18; Isaiah 46:4; Isaiah 47:8, Isaiah 47:10; Isaiah 51:12; Isaiah 52:6). Isaiah 43:10 is a particularly significant passage since it includes a reference to the Lord's chosen servant (pais) who is his witness, "so that you may know and believe and understand that I am he [hoti ego eimi]. There was no other god before me nor will there be after me." This strong statement of monotheism is the very thing the opponents think Jesus' claim is denying.
By using the I AM Jesus is claiming to have existed not just at the time of Abraham, but from eternity. This is not only a statement about his salvific work, though that is implied here as it was in God's self-identification at the bush (Schnackenburg 1980b:224). Rather, he is saying that his words and deeds are not about God; they are in fact God's own words and deeds. He speaks in language of oneness, though he has just clearly expressed distinctness also (vv. John 8:54-55). Jesus is God, though not simply by way of identification with Yahweh, for there is also distinction. He is not simply a human being who has been taken up into the divine counsels and made an agent of God unlike any other, but neither is he simply God in a suit of flesh. Rather, as the later church counsels said, he is fully God and fully man. Such formulations are based on revelation such as found in this passage.
â€â€The IVP New Testament Commentary Series

Basically the writers of the NT used the Septuagint, not the Masoretic text, thus your argument, which is dependent upon Hebrew, fails.

blessings,
ken

 

[oneisgod]

The aorist γενέÃθαι (ÀÃÂίν with the infinitive after a positive verb, R. 977, 1091) marks the historical point of time when Abraham came into existence as against the time prior to that point when Abraham did not exist. This aorist is in contrast to εἰμί; which Jesus predicates of his own person (á¼ÂγÃŽ), here a finite verb not the mere copula (R. 394). As the aorist sets a point of beginning for the existence of Abraham, so the present tense "I am" predicates absolute existence for the person of Jesus, with no point of beginning at all. That is why Jesus does not use the imperfect ἤμην, "I was"; for this would say only that the existence of the person of Jesus antedates the time of Abraham and would leave open the question whether the person of Jesus also has a beginning like that of Abraham (only earlier) or not. What Jesus declares is that, although his earthly life covers less than fifty years, his existence as a person (á¼ÂγÃŽ) is constant and independent of any beginning in time as was that of Abraham. For what Jesus here says about himself in comparison with Abraham is in the nature of the case true of him in comparison with any other man, no matter how far back the beginning of that man's existence lies. "I am" = I exist. Thus with the simplest words Jesus testifies to the divine, eternal pre-existence of his person.
To speak of an "ideal" existence before the days of Abraham is to turn the solemn assurance of Jesus into a statement that means nothing. Unacceptable are also all other efforts to empty out this divine "I am" and to substitute for the fact and reality of existence before Abraham something merely mental, whether this occurred in the mind of Jesus or in that of God. Yet this "I am" is nothing new; by means of two tiny words it states only what Jesus has testified and continues to testify of himself in many other words in other connections. Thus, too, it forms the parting of the ways for faith and unbelief.
â€â€Lenski New Testament Commentary

"The answer of Jesus to the Jews was an intriguing double amÄ“n (“I tell you the truthâ€Â) announcement that focused both on time and status: “Before Abraham was, I am†(egÃ…Â eimi, 8:58). This statement can of course lead to a great deal of speculation concerning the nature of time itself in relation to the nature of God. Certainly the juxtaposing of the past tense concerning Abraham with both the prior time and the present tense as they relate to Jesus explodes all natural reasoning concerning time.
Extending the present into the past does not compute in most of our minds. It is a confusion to the way we think. But God does not fit into the teacups of our minds. More pertinent for our purposes, however, is the fact that Jesus claimed to be “I am†over against Abraham. That claim was a reminder of the claims for God in the Old Testament over against creation (cf. Ps 90:2; Isa 42:3–9) and of the self-designation for the comforting God of Isaiah (41:4; 43:3, 13). The claim of Jesus, therefore, was clearly recognized from the Jews’ perspective to be a blasphemous statement they could not tolerate. Accordingly, they again made their judgment call, and their verdict implied death by stoning (John 8:59; cf. Lev 24:11–16; 1 Kgs 21:10–13).202
â€â€New American Commentary

Jesus' reference to Abraham sounds to the opponents like an incredible claim to spiritual experience. His reply to their incredulity pushes his claim far beyond the idea of vision whether mystical or otherwise, whether of the past or through ascents into heaven: I tell you the truth...before Abraham was born, I am! (v. John 8:58). He is not just making a statement of his age, for then he would have said something like, "Before Abraham was born, I was" (Carson 1991:358). Rather, he is now using in an unambiguous way the divine I AM (Harner 1970:26-30). The I AM was the name of God revealed to Moses, though the Greek expression (ego eimi) is not that used in the Septuagint in Exodus 3:14 (ho on). The phrase ego eimi is used of the divine name in Isaiah (Isaiah 41:4; Isaiah 43:10, Isaiah 43:25; Isaiah 45:18; Isaiah 46:4; Isaiah 47:8, Isaiah 47:10; Isaiah 51:12; Isaiah 52:6). Isaiah 43:10 is a particularly significant passage since it includes a reference to the Lord's chosen servant (pais) who is his witness, "so that you may know and believe and understand that I am he [hoti ego eimi]. There was no other god before me nor will there be after me." This strong statement of monotheism is the very thing the opponents think Jesus' claim is denying.
By using the I AM Jesus is claiming to have existed not just at the time of Abraham, but from eternity. This is not only a statement about his salvific work, though that is implied here as it was in God's self-identification at the bush (Schnackenburg 1980b:224). Rather, he is saying that his words and deeds are not about God; they are in fact God's own words and deeds. He speaks in language of oneness, though he has just clearly expressed distinctness also (vv. John 8:54-55). Jesus is God, though not simply by way of identification with Yahweh, for there is also distinction. He is not simply a human being who has been taken up into the divine counsels and made an agent of God unlike any other, but neither is he simply God in a suit of flesh. Rather, as the later church counsels said, he is fully God and fully man. Such formulations are based on revelation such as found in this passage.
â€â€The IVP New Testament Commentary Series

Basically the writers of the NT used the Septuagint, not the Masoretic text, thus your argument, which is dependent upon Hebrew, fails.

blessings,
ken

If the NT was using the LXX then God called himself "THE BEING" (Gk. "HO ON"):-

LXX Ex. 3:14
“And God spoke to Moses, saying, I am THE BEING; and he said, Thus shall ye say to the children of Israel, THE BEING has sent me to you.â€Â-http://www.ecmarsh.com/lxx/Exodus/index.htm

So if John 8:58 is quoting from the LXX then Jesus should have called himself "THE BEING," this he did not do so your argument fails in the face of scripture!

 

[mutzrein]

Good grief - is all this supposed to support or change my way of thinking? :gah Have mercy on me. I'm not a learned man and what I know of Christ being the son of God is not through learning, but revelation.

Blessings

 

[epistemaniac]

The LXX is in Greek, not English, so it does not say "the being". That is Sir Lancelot Charles Lee Brenton's translation of the Greek. The question is, was it Jesus' understanding'? Was it the understanding of those standing around Jesus when He claimed to be the "I AM"? Apparently not, for it is very hard to understand why they took up stones to kill Him for blasphemy because He dared to claim to be "the being"!!! LOL.....

Besides, perhaps Jesus was actually referring to Isaiah 41:4 which says "Who has wrought and done these things? he has called it who called it from the generations of old; I God, the first and to all futurity, I AM."

In any case Sir Lancelot Charles Lee Brenton' was clearly a Trinitarian, so given that he held this belief after translating the LXX into Greek, grammatically, it seems that you still do not have a case.

blessings,
ken

 

[Joe67]

Have mercy on me. I'm not a learned man and what I know of Christ being the son of God is not through learning, but revelation.

Blessings

Amen and Amen.

Let the dead bury the dead.

Return to the first works, the elemental works of repentance from dead works...

Learn again the elemental before trying to teach others. As you have received Christ so continue in him. Let us build upon the foundation. Faith comes by hearing. The lusts of the flesh are only destroyed through hearing the word of promise.

Joe