I did a reasonably complete browse of this thread and decided to make a few comments without getting too involved. I understand John 17:5 as an allusion to Psalm 8:5-6. Jesus is speaking about the future glory prophesied that he would have in fulfillment of the New Creation, and this was in prospect before the creation, or as Jesus states "before the world was".
Joh 17:5 And now, Father, glorify me in your own presence with the glory
that I had with you before the world existed. (ESV)
I don't see any allusion to Ps. 8:5-6. Jesus makes the clear claim that he had actually possessed glory with the Father "before the world existed." It is an undeniable claim to preexistence prior to creation.
I do not usually use the title "Biblical Unitarian", but firstly it is used to distinguish from the traditional "Unitarians" who did not necessarily endorse some aspects of the Bible. Yes, I believe the Bible teaches Unitarianism.
Except that the best explanation of all that God reveals is Trinitarianism. A unitarian view of God is deficient.
This has been discussed on a number of occasions. I consider that John 8:58 should be translated as "I am he", the same as John 8:24,28 and is part of the theme of whether or not Jesus is the Christ,
Except that that makes nonsense of grammar and the context, as I have previously shown. Jesus begins with:
Joh 8:23 And He was saying to them, "You are from below,
I am from above; you are of this world,
I am not of this world.
Joh 8:24 "
Therefore I said to you that you will die in your sins;
for unless you believe that I am He,
you will die in your sins." (NASB)
Note that "
He" is italicized in verse 24 because it isn't in the Greek. However, if we want to admit the “
He,” it does work grammatically in that instance (also 8:28). In John 8:24, Jesus could be saying "I am the one from above" (v 23), "I am the Messiah" (John 7:26-28, 41), "I am the one sent from the Father" (John 7:28-29; 8:18), "I am the light of the world" (John 8:12), etc.,
or he could also be saying "I Am," which has significant implications.
Any one of those fit grammatically and contextually; it could even be all of them. There does seem to be some (perhaps purposeful) ambiguity on the part of Jesus in his reply in verse 24, hence the question "Who are you?" in verse 25.
Jesus first says, "I am from above" and "I am not of this world." Then, he says that "unless you believe that I am you will die in your sins." Note that "therefore" links what he says in verse 23 to what he says in verse 24. That is, what he says in verse 24 is based on his claims in verse 23 and form a unified thought. He is I Am, which is why he said he was "from above" and "not of this world," and on that basis, it is necessary to believe that in order to not "die in your sins."
Then, looking at verse 58, Jesus says:
Joh 8:56 Your father Abraham rejoiced that he would see my day. He saw it and was glad.”
Joh 8:57 So the Jews said to him, “You are not yet fifty years old, and have you seen Abraham?”
Joh 8:58 Jesus said to them, "Truly, truly, I say to you,
before Abraham was born,
I am."
Joh 8:59
Therefore they picked up stones to throw at Him, but Jesus hid Himself and went out of the temple. (NASB)
Once again "he" isn't in the Greek, however, here it would grammatically make no sense; it would make Jesus say nonsense. Jesus is addressing the question: “You are not yet fifty years old, and have you seen Abraham?” His response is, “Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I am.” Jesus clearly (re)asserts that he is I Am.
If Jesus was to say, "before Abraham was, I am
he," it could be understood as claiming to be Abraham. But that wouldn't be true and it would be nonsense to claim that before Abraham was, he was Abraham. Could it mean he is claiming to be someone else, such as the Messiah? That doesn't make sense either, since the question posed wasn't about who he was. So, in both cases he would neither answer the question nor would his answer make sense grammatically.
If Jesus simply meant "before Abraham was, I existed," then why did the Jews pick up stones to stone him? What blasphemy did he seemingly commit that demanded his death? If he was claiming to merely have existed prior to Abraham, again, why the stones? Why wouldn’t they just laugh and say he was out of his mind?
What we can plainly see is that the question is one of chronology and age, which is to speak of existence. So, Jesus answers that with chronology and the nature of his existence. Jesus contrasts the temporal existence of Abraham in time, with his own eternal preexistence. That actually answers the question and makes sense grammatically. It also makes sense of why the Jews wanted to stone him--they (falsely) saw his claim to be I Am as blasphemy.
Also Exodus 3:14 should be translated as "I will be" as per Tyndale and the RV and RSV margins.
Even if we went with that rendering of Ex. 3:14, the meaning of John 8:24, 58 remains unchanged.
