Every use has to be taken one at a time. It simply is poor reasoning and exegesis to say that since a word means such-and-such in one or more places, that in every instance it must therefore mean the same. That is simply not how languages work and certainly not Koine Greek.
Perhaps not.
But you need excellent reason before you can randomly say 'I AM' means 'I WAS', or 'I USED TO BE' or 'I ALWAYS EXISTED'.
That is a far too drastic and unwarranted revision of language, and apart from theological pre-conception, you have no linguistic grounds for making such a wild statement.
Perhaps you can show us where else in the NT or even in secular Greek I AM can be construed to have any one of those three meanings.
You could not present such a case to any reasonable court in a case of contract ot other law. You would be laughed to scorn. Don't do that to yourself here.
Obviously, most of the verses you gave do not use the divine name:
John 16:32 Behold, the hour cometh, yea, is now come, that ye shall be scattered, every man to his own, and shall leave me alone: and yet I am not alone, because the Father is with me.
John 17:10 And all mine are thine, and thine are mine; and I am glorified in them.
These are no different than Jesus saying "I am going to go to Jerusalem" or "I am hungry." Jesus is simply referring to himself, as we all do everyday
Quite correct, and in full support of my POV.
Yes, let's look at the context:
Joh 8:56 Your father Abraham rejoiced that he would see my day. He saw it and was glad."
Now here's a strange thing. You are saying that Jesus existed before Abraham did, if I understand you correctly.
Therefore, the statement that Jesus makes is completely wrong.
It should have been, A. rejoiced
that he has been seeing my day, and would continue to do so.
But that is not the case at all. Abraham rejoiced that he
would see my day. In other words, Jesus' Day had not yet come.
So when is Jesus' Day? Since Abraham is dead, then he would have to come back to life in order to see Jesus' Day. Therefore, that Day is the Day of the Lord, the Day of Resurrection, in other words.
Joh 8:57 So the Jews said to him, "You are not yet fifty years old, and have you seen Abraham?"
They are as confused as you are, I think.
He didn't say that He had seen Abraham. He said A. rejoiced TO SEE His day. A totally different proposition.
They, however, are making strenuous efforts to misinterpret His words in such a way as would justify the charge of blasphemy, and I'm afraid your interpretation joins hands with theirs.
Joh 8:58 Jesus said to them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I am."
So what was he saying exactly?
If the I AM is really the Divine Name, then why use it here?
The reason is not far to seek.
Remember A. would have to be
resurrected in order to see Jesus' Day. Now remember these words:
Mat.22.31 But as touching
the resurrection of the dead, have ye not read that which was spoken unto you by God, saying,
32
I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob? God is not the God of the dead, but of the living.
There is the I AM He was referring to.
It has nothing to do with the Divine Name (which, BTW is NOT I am), but it has everything to do with the promise of the Resurrection to eternal life which A. will experience at the Great Day of resurrection. No wonder he rejoiced.
In the direct context of that chapter, we see Jesus threatening them with either no resurrection at all for them, or resurrection to damnation. Resurrection is everywhere in this chapter.
21 ¶ Then said Jesus again unto them, I go my way, and ye shall seek me, and shall die in your sins: whither I go, ye cannot come.
24 I said therefore unto you,
that ye shall die in your sins: for if ye believe not that I am he [= the Messiah], ye shall die in your sins.
28 Then said Jesus unto them, When ye have lifted up the Son of man
[i.e. crucified me], then shall ye know that I am he
[because God will raise me up from the dead], and that I do nothing of myself; but
as my Father hath taught me, I speak these things.
[Now note how many times He expressly disclaims any equality with God]
38 ¶ I speak that which
I have seen with my Father: and ye do that which ye have seen with your father.
40 But now ye seek to kill me, a man that hath told you the truth,
which I have heard of God: this did not Abraham.
42 Jesus said unto them, If God were your Father, ye would love me: for
I proceeded forth and came from God; neither came I of myself,
but he sent me.
49 Jesus answered, I have not a devil; but
I honour my Father, and ye do dishonour me.
50 And I seek not mine own glory:
there is one that seeketh and judgeth.
54 Jesus answered, If I honour myself, my honour is nothing: it is
my Father that honoureth me; of whom ye say, that he is your God:
55 Yet ye have not known him;
but I know him: and if I should say, I know him not, I shall be a liar like unto you: but I know him,
and keep his saying.
51 ¶ Verily, verily, I say unto you, If a man keep my saying, he shall never see death.
Joh 8:59 So they picked up stones to throw at him, but Jesus hid himself and went out of the temple. (ESV)
First, notice that Jesus contrasts "was" in referring to the existence of Abraham, with "I am" in referring to his own existence. He is clearly contrasting the finite existence of Abraham with his own absolute existence. Second, the Jews picked up stones to stone him with, which is the punishment for blasphemy. The blasphemy here, according to the Jews, is that Jesus claimed to be Yahweh.
No, the blasphemy is that He said that God was His Father. That's what got up their noses.
John 5:18 Therefore the Jews sought the more to kill him, because he not only had broken the sabbath, but said also that God was his Father, making himself equal with God.
You will have noticed how many times the Fatherhood of God has come up in this fight. That's the point at issue, and they are going at Him hammer and tongs. He in His turn is speaking very obscurely in order to get them going, and they do.
lol That's the whole point. It comes across as grammatically incorrect because he is using the divine name. His very point here is that he existed before Abraham because he is the I Am.
As you've now seen, that is hopelessly deficient expositorily, as shown above.
Clearly he was claiming to exist before Abraham, but more than mere preexistence. He was claiming timeless, absolute existence.
This is incredible, that you should make such a serious mistake, and align yourself with the Jews who were completely flummoxed by the deliberate obscurity of His remarks.
