Greetings again Free,
I disagree that that is what Jesus is saying. I consider that Jesus is repeating "I am he", that is the Christ, the same as in John 8:24 and John 8:28.
But, again, how does that even make sense of what was asked and what he answers? Notice that in John 8:25, the Jews ask Jesus, "Who are you?" and in verse 53, "Are you greater than our father Abraham? And the prophets who died! Who do you make yourself out to be?" Then, in verse 57, they express the impossibility of Jesus having seen Abraham because of the separation of 2000 years.
If Jesus's response is "Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I am he," then what is he answering? He could be answering the questions in verses 25 and 53, but he cannot be answering the one in verse 57. Grammatically, it doesn't make sense to say "before Abraham was, I am he," because the former is about time and the latter is not; it doesn't answer how he could have seen Abraham. If, however, Jesus says, as the Greek states, "before Abraham was, I am," he answers all the questions--who he is, that he is greater than Abraham and the prophets who died, and how he could have seen Abraham. And contextually it makes sense, since I Am contrasts the temporary existence of Abraham to his timeless existence. Also contextually, by referring to himself with the name of God, he is claiming to be God, to be equal with the Father. Because of this, they want to stone him, which is the punishment for blasphemy.
It is not "added", it is a, or the, correct translation of the Greek into English.
Depending on the context, that is begging the question.
To keep on saying it is added gives the wrong impression. John's continual quotation of Jesus and also the blind man, using these words in the sense "I am he" could well dismiss any possibility that the rendition "I Am" for John 8:58 is correct. I suggest that most Trinitarians base their claim on a misunderstanding of what the Jews stated, and what Jesus is claiming.
Not at all. As I have shown, grammatically and contextually, it not only is unnecessary in John 8:58 (and verse 24) to add "he," it actually makes no sense.
I am not sure if you meant verse 24, but in verse 28 Jesus is not claiming Divinity. I reject that "I Am" is God's Name. I consider that it is "I Will Be", "He will be".
You can reject it if you want, but as I stated, "I Will Be" doesn't communicate anything to Moses or us about God, whereas "I Am" communicates something significant.
Jesus came into existence at his conception/birth. He is a human. Jesus is the Son of God because God the Father was his father and Mary is his mother.
So, you are saying the Son only refers to Jesus, who came into existence when born through Mary? What about the times Jesus said he came from heaven and possessed the glory of the Father prior to the creation of the earth?
Joh 8:23 He said to them, “You are from below;
I am from above. You are of this world;
I am not of this world. (ESV)
Joh 12:44 And Jesus cried out and said, “
Whoever believes in me, believes not in me but in him who sent me.
Joh 12:45 And whoever sees me sees
him who sent me.
Joh 12:46
I have come into the world as light, so that whoever believes in me may not remain in darkness.
Joh 12:47 If anyone hears my words and does not keep them, I do not judge him; for
I did not come to judge the world but to save the world. (ESV)
Joh 16:28
I came from the Father and have come into the world, and now I am leaving the world and going to the Father.”
Joh 16:29 His disciples said, “Ah, now you are speaking plainly and not using figurative speech!
Joh 16:30 Now we know that you know all things and do not need anyone to question you; this is why we believe
that you came from God.” (ESV)
Joh 17:3
And this is eternal life, that they know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom you have sent.
Joh 17:4 I glorified you on earth, having accomplished the work that
you gave me to do.
Joh 17:5 And now,
Father, glorify me in your own presence with the glory that I had with you before the world existed.
...
Joh 17:8 For I have given them the words that you gave me, and they have received them and have come to know in truth that
I came from you; and they have believed
that you sent me.
...
Joh 17:24 Father, I desire that they also, whom you have given me, may be with me where I am, to see my glory that you have given me because
you loved me before the foundation of the world. (ESV)
Based on Jesus's own words, I cannot see how anyone could deny that Jesus believed he existed, in some real way, prior to being born. Add to that passages such as John 1:1-18, 1 Cor 8:8, Phil 2:5-8, and Col 1:16-17, and the only logical conclusion is that Jesus existed prior to the creation of all things; from which it necessarily follows that he is truly God (in addition to being man).
I do not accept that Jesus had seen Abraham.
You don't have to, but a plain reading of the text suggests otherwise. Not only does Jesus not deny or try to correct the Jews, he states he is "I Am," which, as I pointed out, answers all questions and contrasts Abraham's temporary existence with his timeless existence.
The context is about what He will do, not his existence. He was going to be with Moses to deliver Israel out of Egypt and bring them into the promised land. The word “ehyeh” that occurs in Exodus 3:14 is the same that occurs in the earlier statement in v12 rendered in the KJV “I will be”, and here most other translators also give the future tense:
Exodus 3:12 (KJV): And he said, Certainly I will be with thee; and this shall be a token unto thee, that I have sent thee: When thou hast brought forth the people out of Egypt, ye shall serve God upon this mountain.
Not only does this fix the tense in this context, but it also introduces the concept that the Name of God is associated with some future activity.
This future tense and future activity was to be God acting to deliver Israel out of Egypt, “I will be with thee”, so that Israel would become a people for His Name. They would be a living witness to the purpose of God, and a witness to the existence of God. The following passage emphasises this work of delivering Israel with the future aspect of the Name:
Exodus 6:1-8 (KJV):
...
When Israel was delivered out of Egypt the Name of God remains the same, but the particular activity has been accomplished:
Exodus 15:1-3 (KJV): ...
The future tense of God’s Name “He will be or become” has been accomplished, and Yahweh had become Israel’s salvation.
Remember, there is one tense used in both instances in Exo 3--the imperfect tense. It can be rendered
either as present or future; it is an ongoing, unfinished action. It makes sense as future in verse 12 because God is clearly speaking of future things. However, in verse 14, God is giving his name to Moses, not speaking of future things. To translate it as "I Am that I Am" tells us something concrete about God; several concrete things, actually. It tells them he is self-existent and therefore eternal and immutable. This means he is absolutely faithful and can be trusted. Because it includes all time, it also means not only what he was at present, but what he had been and what he will be.
"I will be" doesn't make sense as a name--I will be...what? What will he be? Why should he be trusted if they didn't know who he was but only nebulously what he will be? It only refers to something future and not past or present, and so communicates nothing concrete or significant.
I consider that "The Word" in John 1:1 is a personification, similar to the Wise Woman, Wisdom in Proverbs 8.
Based on what though? Paul seems to think that it was the Son (see 1 Cor 8:6, Phil 2:5-8, and Col 1:16-17).