I AM HE or I AM?

[MissKate13]

Ego Eimi = I AM
There is no HE. It simply means.I AM.

There are several instances in John where Jesus applies to Himself the same expression that God used at the burning bush: “I AM.” (Exodus 3:14)

(John 8:24). The word “He” is in italics indicating the translators’ insertion. However, in keeping with the theme of John, as well as the immediate context, its insertion is unwarranted and obscures the power of Jesus’ statement. He was, in fact, forthrightly declaring His deity to the hard-hearted Jews by identifying Himself with the same Deity that Moses encountered at the burning bush.

This fact is evident in the context. Three verses later, in John 8:28, Jesus again states I AM. Translators place the “He” in italics.

For a third time, in John 8:58 , Jesus pointedly presses the fact to bring closure to His confrontation: Jesus said to the unbelieving Jews, “Most assuredly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I AM.”

The Jews correctly understood that Jesus was making a direct claim to Deity, evidenced by the fact that they prepared to execute Him for the capital crime of blasphemy.

In John 4:19, Jesus stresses the same point to the Samaritan woman. The translators again add “He” following “I AM” Jesus was connecting Himself the the “I AM” of the burning bush.

The apostles were gripped by fear for their lives, seeing Jesus walking on the water toward their boat. “But He said to them, ‘It is I; do not be afraid’” (John 6:20). The English reader would likely never know that the words “It is I” are a translation of the Greek ego eimi, “I am.” Undoubtedly, Jesus was again calling attention to His divinity—as indicated by “I AM. Be not afraid.

”On the occasion when Jesus washed the feet of His disciples in John 13:19, He said to them, “Now I tell you before it comes, that when it does come to pass, you may believe that I am He” (John 13:19). The word He was added. Once again, Jesus was deliberately spotlighting His divinity to His disciples by identifying Himself with the burning bush episode. He intended to emphasize to them that they would realize that He is the great “I AM.”

My personal favorite is John 18:4-5. When the mob came to arrest Jesus, He asks, “Whom are you seeking?’ They answered Him, ‘Jesus of Nazareth.’ Jesus said to them, ‘I am He’” (John 18:4-5). Once again, “He” is in italics.

Notice the reaction. They drew back and fell to the ground. Remember, that these soldiers were not Romans. They were Jewish soldiers sent by the chief priests and Pharisees. They were well aware of the import of the expression “I AM.”

Jesus enlisted the use of “I am” in seven additional instances when He offered descriptions of His divine nature, each prefaced by EGO EIM.
1. “I am the Bread of Life” (6:35).
2. “I am the Light of the world” (8:12).
3. “I am the Door” (10:9).
4. “I am the Good Shepherd” (10:4).
5. “I am the Resurrection and the Life” (11:25).
6. “I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life” (14:6).
7. “I am the Vine” (15:5).
In each of these cases, a feature of Jesus’ Person is spotlighted that can only describe deity. No mere human being can rightfully be said to be the Bread of Life, the Light of the world, etc. These glorious affirmations pertain solely to Christ in His divine state.

Insering the word “He” was not only unnecessary, its insertion obscures and softens the force of Jesus’ claim explicitly linking Himself directly to the statement spoken by God to Moses at the burning bush. Indeed, the very heart and core of Christianity is Christ as the divine Son of God. One cannot even be a Christian unless that divinity is orally confessed prior to conversion (Romans 10:9-10).

Unless you believe Jesus when He says EGO EIMI, translated I AM, you will die in your sins.

[tam]

Peace to you,

I am going back to respond to posts that I left off at because I was at work. Though you might consider taking the time to address the points in previous posts that you claimed were too long. Those posts are here:

viewtopic.php?p=1130763#p1130763
viewtopic.php?p=1130916#p1130916

[Replying to tam in post #21]

All I’m saying is that the word made flesh is eternal.

This received a response here:

viewtopic.php?p=1130822#p1130822

The Word = Christ = the Son = the Light.

"Let there be Light."

Eternal means "everlasting, having no beginning and no end.

Okay....

“The word was made flesh (John 1:14).

Yes. (Christ is the Word, and roughly two thousand years ago, He was made flesh.)

The word was with God in the beginning (Genesis 1:1, John 1:1).

Yes. (Christ is the Word)

“apart from Him not even one thing came into being that has come into being.” (John 1:3)

God did make everything through His Son.

yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom all things came and for whom we exist. And there is but one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things came and through whom we exist.

“And He is before all things, and in Him all things consist.” (Col. 1:17)

Yes, unless you are suggesting that He is before the Father.

Christ being before all things cannot mean that He is before His Father.

Absolutely NOTHING existed before creation, with the exception of God, the Word, and the Holy Spirit. They existed in eternity.

God and the Word (Christ) existed together in the beginning.

Eternity has no time, no beginning, no end. It has always been and always will be.

I do not know enough about 'eternity' to say it has 'no time', but the rest I could agree with.

Not only did Jesus exist before Abraham, He existed before creation. (John 1:3, Col. 1:17).

He (Jaheshua) did exist before Abraham and before the creation.

That does not mean that He was not born (spiritually) before creation.

That also does not mean that He is [YHWH].


Peace again to you,
your servant and a slave of Christ,
tammy

[MissKate13]

Yes, unless you are suggesting that He is before the Father.
Christ being before all things cannot mean that He is before His Father.

No. Christ did not exist before the Father.

God and the Word (Christ) existed together in the beginning.

Yes, they existed together in the beginning of creation, but they were together before that.

John 17:5
“And now, Father, glorify Me in Your presence with the glory I had with You before the world existed.”

Col. 1:17
He is before all things, and in Him all things hold together.

Micah 5:2
Nut you, Bethlehem Ephrathah,
who are small among the clansa of Judah,
out of you will come forth for Me
One to be ruler over Israelb—
One whose origins are of old,
from the days of eternity.

I do not know enough about 'eternity' to say it has 'no time', but the rest I could agree with.

None of us can fathom eternity because it is outside of our realm. But one thing we can both agree on is that there is no end to eternal life. If we can accept eternity in the future, we can accept it in the past.

He (Jaheshua) did exist before Abraham and before the creation.

And that my dear Tam is what I’ve been saying all along. The Word (who became flesh in the first century, existed before creation.

That does not mean that He was not born (spiritually) before creation.

What Scripture says that Christ was spiritually born before creation?

That also does not mean that He is [YHWH].

Actually, it does. Jesus said, “Before Abraham I am.” The following is from Strong’s Greek Lexicon.

" The "I am formula (Gk egō eimi)" harks back to God's only name, "Yahweh" (OT/3068, "the lord") – meaning "He who always was, is, and will be." Compare Jn 8:58 with Ex 3:14.

Jesus was not only showing His eternal nature in John 8:58, He was claiming the title of YHWH. When Jesus claimed the title of YHWH, He was saying He is YHWH. The Jews were so enraged by it, they wanted to stone Him on the spot.

[tam]

Peace to you,

Peace to you,

Ego Eimi = I AM
There is no HE. It simply means.I AM.

There are several instances in John where Jesus applies to Himself the same expression that God used at the burning bush: “I AM.” (Exodus 3:14)...

Also Paul uses word ego eimi about himself, does it mean he is claiming to be the God?

This is a faithful saying, and worthy of all acceptation, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners; of whom I am (= ego eimi) chief
1. Tim. 1:15

If one looks very closely, the Greek Phrase (transliterated as) "Ego Eimi" (in that particular order and without words inserted in between) is never used to speak of anyone other than Christ/God. The example proposed in 1 Timothy 1:15 is written in the Greek as "Eimi Ego" not as "Ego Eimi".

"....of whom first am I".

The fact that this order was rearranged during translation bears no weight, as this was done to merely make the sentence flow better in English.

Here is another example of where the translators rearranged the words from the original text. And although this time the words "Ego Eimi" are in the correct order, they are not side by side like they are every time it's used exclusively of Christ/God.

Matthew 8:9 (KJV 1900)
For I am (Ego Eimi) a man under authority, having soldiers under me: and I say to this man, Go, and he goeth; and to another, Come, and he cometh; and to my servant, Do this, and he doeth it.

But the correct order of the Greek words are, "For I (Ego) a man (anthropos) am (Eimi).
If one looks in study helps like the Blue Letter Bible, this site will actually confuse the student more because when it provides the Strong's numbers for each word, it does so while keeping the English translation the same, so passages like Matthew 8:9 will seem like "Ego Eimi" are right next to one another, the same way they are when referring to Christ/God. But when we look at an actual interlinear, we se that such is not the case with Matthew 8:9, 1 Timothy 1:15, or any other passage that is speaking of common man.

Not that I think the above matters (languages do not translate word for word or in the same order in many instances), but what you have said above does not appear to be correct.

Acts 10:21 has ego eimi in that specific order in the greek, when speaking of Peter.

Then Peter went down to the men which were sent unto him from Cornelius; and said, Behold, I am he whom ye seek: what is the cause wherefore ye are come?



You can see the order in the following two interlinear links:

https://biblehub.com/interlinear/acts/10-21.htm
https://www.blueletterbible.org/tools/i ... act/10/21/




Peace again to you,
your servant and a slave of Christ,
tammy

Every word, in every order, in every tense, contained within the inspired word of God matters.

Christ is the Word of God.

Scripture is indeed inspired (but not everything written is scripture).

But that is another topic.

But how the word is translated can vary by language.

How words are translated varies by language, yes.

But no translation is inspired by God, only the original text which God has faithfully preserved as he said he would.

1 - We do not have the original text.
2 - God said this, where?

Again, this is another topic. Moving forward...

Now, concerning Acts 10:21, yes, this historically is speaking of Peter, but who is this speaking of spiritually is a far more important truth. I say this because the Bible is first and foremost a spiritual book cloaked as a historical book. Therefore, it's the spiritual meaning of any passage that we should be looking for, rather than what appears to be written in the plain text.

Okay now Eddie, this sounds like to me like you're just making stuff up. Perhaps not you, personally, but someone.

The claim being made is that ego eimi - in that order - is always Christ or God.

But in this example it is about Peter. In another example, it is about the man born blind, whom Christ healed.

Therefore, ego eimi is not used exclusively of Christ or God.

Ego eimi is not even used by Christ to mean ONLY "I exist'.

"I am the bread of Life" simply means that He is the Bread of Life. There is no "I AM" declaration that you and MissKate are pushing.

You appear to be taking any use of the words "I am" and claiming that means Christ declared Himself to be God (YHWH), as if someone cannot say "I exist" or "I am (something)" without declaring oneself to be God. That is not correct.

Colossians 1:9 (KJV 1900)
For this cause we also, since the day we heard it, do not cease to pray for you, and to desire that ye might be filled with the knowledge of his will in all wisdom and spiritual understanding;

Romans 7:14 (KJV 1900)
For we know that the law (the Word of God) is spiritual: but I am carnal, sold under sin.

1 Corinthians 2:13 (KJV 1900)
Which things also we speak, not in the words which man’s wisdom teacheth, but (words) which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual.

So, in Acts 10:21, while historically Cornelius was looking for Peter, he was actually looking for salvation, which is Christ (I AM). Now we can better understand Peter's words when he said, "Behold, I AM whom you seek". In other words, you've come to me because it is the I AM whom you are seeking. And this of course was relating to salvation. We can confirm this by the following passage:

Or Peter simply said in answer to their question, "I am the one whom you seek"... since they were in fact seeking Peter out.

Here is the context, from just two verses earlier:

While Peter was still thinking about the vision, the Spirit said to him, “Simon, three[a] men are looking for you. 20 So get up and go downstairs. Do not hesitate to go with them, for I have sent them.”

21 Peter went down and said to the men, “I’m the one you’re looking for. Why have you come?”


What did the Spirit, Himself, say to Peter?

Three men are looking for YOU.

For who?

For Peter.

The Spirit did not tell Peter, three men are looking for "I AM". The Spirit did not tell him, "three men are looking for me." The Spirit did not tell him, "three men are looking for salvation from me through you."

Three men are looking for YOU.

That is from the Spirit. You cannot get much more spiritual than that.


"Ego eimi" is not a declaration that a person is God.




Peace again to you,
your servant and a slave of Christ,
tammy

(edited to address this post to Eddie, not Ross)

[tam]

Peace to you,

Here is the meaning of Eimi according to BlueLetterBible: to be, to exist, to happen, to be present

I AM (or ego eimi) is not defined as "I exist - past, present, future - eternal". That appears to be something some men are reading INTO it.

(Even if someone said "I exist", that does not mean that person is claiming to be "the I AM" or God.)

And here is “eimi” from Strong’s. I hope you take the time to read it through.

MissKate, the link I provided included Stong's. I read it through before I posted it.

Would you be so kind as to provide the link for yours? I feel certain that you are reading more into it than it says, since we know for a fact that not every use of the word "eimi" means eternal existence.

◄ 1510. eimi ►
Strong's Concordance
eimi: I exist, I am
Original Word: εἰμί
Part of Speech: Verb
Transliteration: eimi
Phonetic Spelling: (i-mee')
Definition: I exist, I am
Usage: I am, exist.
HELPS Word-studies
1510 eimí (the basic Greek verb which expresses being, i.e. "to be") – am, is. 1510 (eimí), and its counterparts, (properly) convey "straight-forward" being (existence, i.e. without explicit limits).

1510 /eimí ("is, am") – in the present tense, indicative mood – can be time-inclusive ("omnitemporal," like the Hebrew imperfect tense). Only the context indicates whether the present tense also has "timeless" implications. For example, 1510 (eimí) is aptly used in Christ's great "I am" (ego eimi . . . ) that also include His eternality (self-existent life) as our life, bread, light," etc. See Jn 7:34, 8:58, etc.

Please pay particular attention to what is said above even from your own reference:

ONLY CONTEXT indicates...

In other words, it is not the grammar or the language itself that supports your claim.

It is an INTERPRETATION.

Men are reading INTO the text, based on a chosen doctrine or theology.

Just as men do with all sorts of erroneous doctrines (including the doctrine that Christ is Michael the arkangel).


The link I gave you from Strong's says the same thing about inserting 'he' with "I am"... to form "I am he." Context determines this. You reject that though, right? So you must be able to understand that context is subjective, based on what someone thinks, and is not necessarily correct.


Just because people think 'ego eimi' is a claim by Christ to be [YHWH], does not make it true.

Can we agree on that?




Peace again to you.

[MissKate13]

Would you be so kind as to provide the link for yours? I feel certain that you are reading more into it than it says, since we know for a fact that not every use of the word "eimi" means eternal existence.
[

Here it is.
https://biblehub.com/greek/1510.htm[/quote]

Please pay particular attention to what is said above even from your own reference:
ONLY CONTEXT indicates...
In other words, it is not the grammar or the language itself that supports your claim. It is an INTERPRETATION.
Men are reading INTO the text, based on a chosen doctrine or theology.

Read it again. It says only the context indicates whether the present tense has “timeless” implications. Then it goes on to say that 1510 “eimi” is APTLY USED IN CHRIST’S GREAT I AM STATEMENT (ego eimi) THAT ALSO INCLUDE HIS ETERNALITY (SELF-EXISTENT LIFE).

Strong’s is saying exactly what I’ve been saying. When Jesus said I am in John 8:58, He was pointing to His eternal nature.

Just as men do with all sorts of erroneous doctrines (including the doctrine that Christ is Michael the arkangel).

Strong’s has been around since 1890 and is highly reputable. It links other lexicons to its concordance. These people are experts in the Greek and Hebrew languages. You & I are not. If you know of any other lexicons, please post the links to John 8:58.

The link I gave you from Strong's says the same thing about inserting 'he' with "I am"... to form "I am he." Context determines this. You reject that though, right? So you must be able to understand that context is subjective, based on what someone thinks, and is not necessarily correct.

Strong’s clearly shows “He” was added to John 8:24 and 8:28 by the translators. It does not appear in the original language, which is the point of my OP.

Just because people think 'ego eimi' is a claim by Christ to be [YHWH], does not make it true. Can we agree on that?.

No we cannot. What makes it true is the fact that the word made flesh is ETERNAL, and no one but YHWH is ETERNAL. The fact that Jesus claimed YHWH’s very own name and title, “I AM” proves He is YHWH. This is precisely why the Jews reacted as they did. They wanted to stone him then and there.

[tam]

Peace to you,

Would you be so kind as to provide the link for yours? I feel certain that you are reading more into it than it says, since we know for a fact that not every use of the word "eimi" means eternal existence.
[

Here it is.
https://biblehub.com/greek/1510.htm

Thank you.

Please pay particular attention to what is said above even from your own reference:
ONLY CONTEXT indicates...
In other words, it is not the grammar or the language itself that supports your claim. It is an INTERPRETATION.
Men are reading INTO the text, based on a chosen doctrine or theology.

Read it again. It says only the context indicates whether the present tense has “timeless” implications. Then it goes on to say that 1510 “eimi” is APTLY USED IN CHRIST’S GREAT I AM STATEMENT (ego eimi) THAT ALSO INCLUDE HIS ETERNALITY (SELF-EXISTENT LIFE).

Strong’s is saying exactly what I’ve been saying.

The information you provided is not from Strong's. It is from HELPS word studies, by Discovery Bible (a ministry). It is assuming a theological premise, then defining the word according to that interpretation.

The actual word(s) do not carry that meaning. That meaning is being read INTO the text.

Just as men do with all sorts of erroneous doctrines (including the doctrine that Christ is Michael the arkangel).

Strong’s has been around since 1890 and is highly reputable.

What you quoted is not from Strong's.

Strong's Concordance is the first heading on that page (with very little information added).

Then comes HELPS word studies (by Discovery bible). <- It is a ministry/religion.
Then comes NAS exhaustive concordance.

Then comes Thayer's Greek Lexicon (which goes into detail about Strong's NT 1510).

It links other lexicons to its concordance. These people are experts in the Greek and Hebrew languages. You & I are not. If you know of any other lexicons, please post the links to John 8:58.

I posted the link to Strong's and Thayer's Greek Lexicon in my previous post. Here it is again:

https://www.blueletterbible.org/lexicon ... jv/tr/0-1/


It does not contain anything from HELPS word studies by "Discovery Bible".

The link I gave you from Strong's says the same thing about inserting 'he' with "I am"... to form "I am he." Context determines this. You reject that though, right? So you must be able to understand that context is subjective, based on what someone thinks, and is not necessarily correct.

Strong’s clearly shows “He” was added to John 8:24 and 8:28 by the translators. It does not appear in the original language, which is the point of my OP.

Languages do not translate word for word. Sometimes there is no equivalent at all. That is a fact. Hence the phrase, lost in translation. But I responded to all of this in my first response to your OP on this thread. Did you read that post?


Peace again to you.

[1213]

...
Jesus is claiming to be eternal, and by extension, He is claiming to be God, because God alone is eternal.
...

But "I am" doesn't necessary mean one is eternal. Or if it means, then there are many who claim to be eternal.

...
I understand you’d like to discuss Col. 1:15, and I’m happy to do that once we exhaust the I AM discussion and whether or not you believe Jesus is eternal.

I understand Col. 1:15 means Jesus is not eternal, he was created.

[MissKate13]

[Replying to 1213 in post #37]

Do you believe the Word is eternal?

[MissKate13]

[Replying to tam in post #36]

Ok, I understand you not wanting to accept what is written under Strong’s Help Word Studies, but the fact remains that Strong’s Greek Lexicon defines ego eimi as I EXIST.

In an earlier post, you agreed that the Word is eternal.

In an earlier post, you wrote, “That does not mean that He was not born (spiritually) before creation.”

I asked you, “What Scripture says that Christ was spiritually born before creation?” You did not answer, so I am asking again.

[tam]

Peace to you,

[Replying to tam in post #36]

Ok, I understand you not wanting to accept what is written under Strong’s Help Word Studies, but the fact remains that Strong’s Greek Lexicon defines ego eimi as I EXIST.

Miss Kate, did you read my post? There is no "Strong's Help Word Studies" on that site. You were quoting from a bible study ministry. It is like quoting from a Catholic catechism or a JW magazine. Would you trust those sources to be unbiased?

And as has been said throughout this thread, others also use the words ego eimi - in that very order (not that this matters) - to refer to themselves. Does that mean they were declaring themselves to be "THE I AM"?

Christ does exist before Abraham, even before the creation of the world, but that does not mean He is [YHWH].

In an earlier post, you agreed that the Word is eternal.

I do not think I agreed to that. Can you link to the post?

In an earlier post, you wrote, “That does not mean that He was not born (spiritually) before creation.”

I asked you, “What Scripture says that Christ was spiritually born before creation?” You did not answer, so I am asking again.

I did answer it Miss Kate, on the other thread. You did not respond. I don't even know if you read it.

viewtopic.php?p=1130822#p1130822


Peace again to you,
your servant and a slave of Christ,
tammy