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.

[MissKate13]

Peace to you,

[Replying to tam in post #60]

You never responded to my post #55. I’d like for you to address it, We need to settle whether or not the Word is eternal. Once we do that, I’ll go through all of your other posts and answer any questions I missed or didn’t have time to answer. However, I don’t want to discuss whether the Son of God is eternal on this thread. It needs its own thread, and it would be good to get other posters involved in the discussion. Are you Ok with that?

MissKate, do you know how many of my posts, points, and questions that you have not responded to? You said you would respond to my thread (that I repeated in post 61) if I answered your question. I answered your question. I think it is fair to expect you to at least do what you said you would do. The posts and questions pertain to the topic you want to settle.



Peace again to you.

I proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that the Word is eternal. Time to move on. I’m done. I have a life outside this forum.

[MissKate13]

Being in the beginning is not in my opinion the same as being eternal. But, maybe it is so, I just don't think it is what the Bible tells. To me the problem here is that you seem to make interpretations that are in contradiction with Jesus who tells there is only one true God that is greater than him. If you think Jesus is the God, why do you not believe what he says?

Whatever you believe the beginning is, no one can dispute the fact that the Word is Jesus who existed before creation. He is eternal, everlasting just as YHWH is eternal, everlasting.

Micah 5:2
2“But you, Bethlehem Ephrathah,
Though you are little among the thousands of Judah,
Yet out of you shall come forth to Me
The One to be Ruler in Israel,
Whose goings forth are from of old,
From everlasting.”

John 17:5
5 And now, O Father, glorify Me together with Yourself, with the glory which I had with You before the world was.

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

Isaiah 9:6
For unto us a Child is born,
Unto us a Son is given;
And the government will be upon His shoulder.
And His name will be called
Wonderful, Counselor, Mighty God,
Everlasting Father,Prince of Peace. (Emphasis mine)

[tam]

Peace to you all,

[Replying to MissKate13 in post #72]

Here is the meaning and usage of Everlasting from the verse Everlasting father:

1- perpetuity, for ever, continuing future

1a - ancient (of past time)

1b - for ever (of future time)

i - of continuous existence

1c - for ever (of God's existence)

ʻad, ad; from H5710; properly, a (peremptory) terminus, i.e. (by implication) duration, in the sense of advance or perpetuity (substantially as a noun, either with or without a preposition):—eternity, ever(-lasting, -more), old, perpetually, world without end.

https://www.blueletterbible.org/lexicon ... v/wlc/0-1/

You can read more on the link.


It is similar with the saying 'from days of old' or 'from ancient times', such as the verse from Proverbs where Wisdom is set up from days of old, from everlasting. The word used there is olam and it is the same word used to describe the Nephilm (giants) at Genesis.

There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown.

https://www.blueletterbible.org/lexicon ... v/wlc/0-1/

Surely you do not think these giants were eternal?


Everlasting (as in everlasting covenant) is another term used (using olam), but that does not mean that the covenant existed into eternity past.


Peace to you.

[MissKate13]

[Replying to tam in post #73]
As I said in my last post to you. I’m done. I won’t be responding.

[tam]

Peace to you,

[Replying to tam in post #73]
As I said in my last post to you. I’m done. I won’t be responding.

My post was not just for you, Miss Kate. Other people are reading as well. You may ignore whatever you wish to ignore.


Peace again.

[Eddie Ramos]

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.

Yes, it can be another topic, but if you believe that not everything written in scripture is inspired by God, then why are you looking into the original language to examine words that (according to you) may or may not be inspired? If there is a question of inspiration (and thus error) on one part of scripture, then why can't we question all of it? Have you not read 2 Timothy 3:16? All scripture, every scripture is God breathed. This means it all came from the mouth of God, did it not?

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?

Psalm 12:6–7 (KJV 1900)
6  The words of the LORD are pure words:
As silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times.
7  Thou shalt keep them, O LORD,
Thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever.

God took it upon himself to keep and preserve His Word perfect and pure from generation to generation. This is why we can go back to copies of the original writings and have complete trust that God has done as he has said. This is the reason we are dissecting 2 Greek words and seeing where God placed them in the scriptures and how they are used. Else, again, what would be the point of doing so?

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.

The fact that the Bible is a spiritual book is not made up. The fact that God uses historical accounts to point to spiritual truths is not made up. This is the very nature of the scriptures and how they were written in parables to hide truth. I agreed that historically Peter said this of himself, but I also explained the true spiritual reason God sent the men to seek out Peter. Remember, Peter (like every true child of God) is an ambassador for the Lord Jesus Christ. This means that we can biblically say that Peter was in Christ's stead (2 Cor 5:20). Peter did not save these people, it was God, through His Word (the gospel) preached by Peter (Christ) that brought salvation. Therefore, God sent Cornelius to seek out Peter historically, but spiritually Peter in this instance was pointing to Christ.

Romans 10:15 (KJV 1900)
And how shall they preach, except they be sent? as it is written, How beautiful are the feet of them that preach the gospel of peace, and bring glad tidings of good things!

This was Peter's role as well as everyone who believed to be saved. Yet, where was this passage taken from? Let's see.

Isaiah 52:7 (KJV 1900)

How beautiful upon the mountains are the feet of him that bringeth good tidings, that publisheth peace;
That bringeth good tidings of good, that publisheth salvation;
That saith unto Zion, Thy God reigneth!

Notice it doesn't say the feet of them but the feet of him, meaning Christ. This is because, he is the one who sent us in his stead, but he gets the glory for anything we do concerning the gospel.

Acts 3:12 (KJV 1900)
And when Peter saw it, he answered unto the people, Ye men of Israel, why marvel ye at this? or why look ye so earnestly on us, as though by our own power or holiness we had made this man to walk?

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.

So, the first problem here is that the meaning of "I AM" is much more than, "I exist". But let's first see how the Bible (not a scholarly commentary) defines it in the Old Testament, as this is the source which Jesus used.

Exodus 3:14 (KJV 1900)
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.

The words "I AM" are the Hebrew word transliterated as "haya". This word in this verse is the Qal imperfect conjugation. This means that it's used to represent an incomplete action, whether past, present or future. Now, that was a dictionary definition I just gave, but I want to show you that, in this case, the Bible agrees with it, therefore, it is a correct definition. When we look up how God uses this same word "haya" throughout the Old Testament, we notice that it is used in the past, present and future tense.
Past: Judges 19:30 (KJV 1900)
And it was so, that all that saw it said, There was (haya) no such deed done nor seen from the day that the children of Israel came up out of the land of Egypt unto this day: consider of it, take advice, and speak your minds.

Present: Genesis 27:1 (KJV 1900)
And it came to pass(haya), that when Isaac was old, and his eyes were dim, so that he could not see, he called Esau his eldest son, and said unto him, My son: and he said unto him, Behold, here am I.

Future: Exodus 11:6 (KJV 1900)
And there shall be (haya) a great cry throughout all the land of Egypt, such as there was none like it, nor shall be like it any more.

So, we can see that when God calls himself the "I AM" that is is an all inclusive name he is to be known by, not just in present tense. Likewise Christ, when he calls himself "I AM" is teaching us the same truth. We know this because if we look up the Greek word "eimi", we can see that it is also translated in the past, present, and future tense. Matching perfectly with the way God uses it in the Old Testament and thus teaching us that Jesus used it intentionally to teach us (in a parable) who he truly was.

John 8:58 (KJV 1900)
Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am.


Now, let's really think about what Christ is saying here. The word "am" is in the present tense in this verse, but the context is thousands of years ago before Abraham's days. Jesus is telling us that before Abraham was in the earth, "I AM". Not "I was" as we would grammatically put it, but "I AM". How could Jesus be talking past tense yet be referring to himself in the present tense? Because only one other did the same thing, JEHOVAH, and he did so by using the same name, "I AM". This is what makes the phrase "ego eimi" such an interesting phrase to study, but not in the Greek only, but how God uses it throughout the Bible as I have shown.

[1213]

Whatever you believe the beginning is, no one can dispute the fact that the Word is Jesus...

The problem with that is, I don't think Bible says Jesus is the word.

Isaiah 9:6
For unto us a Child is born,
Unto us a Son is given;
And the government will be upon His shoulder.
And His name will be called
Wonderful, Counselor, Mighty God,
Everlasting Father,Prince of Peace. (Emphasis mine)

Bible tells God has given his name to Jesus, and the name is called... ...not Jesus, if we read that accurately.

when I was with them in the world, I was keeping them in Thy name; those whom Thou hast given to me I did guard, and none of them was destroyed, except the son of the destruction, that the Writing may be fulfilled.
John 17:12

[MissKate13]

[Replying to Eddie Ramos in post #76]

You make an excellent point, Eddie. The best way to understand the meaning of what is being said is to compare the saying with other Scriptures that use it. That’s what comparing Scripture to Scripture is.

Three times in John 8, Jesus emphatically says I AM. Unfortunately, two of those times translators have added the word he to 8:24 and 8:28 where it doesn’t exist in the Greek.

The most powerful of the three is John 8:58. “ “Truly, truly, I tell you,” Jesus declared, “before Abraham was born, I am!”

The Jews understood Jesus to be using YHWH’s personal name. No wonder they were so angry that they wanted to kill Him right then and there.

When Judas, the soldiers, and officers of the chief priests and Pharisee came to the Garden to arrest Jesus, He asked, who is it you want? They answered, Jesus of Nazareth. Jesus answered, “I am.” (Again, He has been added to the English translation. It is no wonder they drew back and fell to the ground.

In Exodus 3:14 God tells Moses, Tell them I am has sent you. The Hebrew word for I am is “hayah.” It is defined as “to fall out, come to pass, become and be.” When something has come to pass, it is past tense. When something is to come, it is future, and when something is to be, it is present.

“I am” points to the nature of YHWH. YHWH is eternal in nature. Jesus is eternal in nature. We see Jesus’ eternal nature in John 17:5, Micah 5:2 and Colossians 1:17.

[Eddie Ramos]

Whatever you believe the beginning is, no one can dispute the fact that the Word is Jesus...

The problem with that is, I don't think Bible says Jesus is the word.

What you are doing is refusing to believe something unless it is spelled out and written the way you want it to be. But God didn't write the Bible to suit our individual requirements of understanding, he wrote it so that we would have to be the ones who dig deep and compare the scriptures with the scriptures in order to arrive at one harmonious truth. So, does the Bible say that Jesus is the Word? Well, the better question would be is, does the Bible teach that Jesus is the Word? Because the Bible teaches many things it doesn't plainly state.

John 1:1 (KJV 1900)
IN the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

Who can "the Word" be referring to? Well, we only need to read on a few more verses so we can arrive at a conclusion that agrees with the Bible as a whole.

John 1:14 (KJV 1900)
And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.

Can you think of anyone else in the entire Bible who fits this description besides the Lord Jesus Christ? But let's continue to see if the Bible agrees that the Word is in fact Christ.

Revelation 19:11–13 (KJV 1900)
And I saw heaven opened, and behold a white horse; and he that sat upon him was called Faithful and True, and in righteousness he doth judge and make war. 12 His eyes were as a flame of fire, and on his head were many crowns; and he had a name written, that no man knew, but he himself. 13 And he was clothed with a vesture dipped in blood: and his name is called The Word of God.

Who is this speaking of? Well, we're helped because this individual, whose name is called "The Word of God' is also called "Faithful and True". And this name belongs to the Lord Jesus Christ.

Revelation 3:14 (KJV 1900)
And unto the angel of the church of the Laodiceans write; These things saith the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the beginning of the creation of God;

So, for anyone to claim that Jesus is not the Word, is to ignore all that the Bible teaches on that matter.

Isaiah 9:6
For unto us a Child is born,
Unto us a Son is given;
And the government will be upon His shoulder.
And His name will be called
Wonderful, Counselor, Mighty God,
Everlasting Father,Prince of Peace. (Emphasis mine)

Bible tells God has given his name to Jesus, and the name is called... ...not Jesus, if we read that accurately.

If by saying, "read that accurately" you're inferring to the literal rendering of the text, then no where does Isaiah 9:6 say that God has given HIS name(s) to Jesus. Rather it says that that's what his (the child that is to be born) name will be called. And that child we know is Jesus Christ. So, we can certainly make the substitution which the Bible allows and read it this way:

For unto us a Child is born,
Unto us a Son is given;
And the government will be upon His shoulder.
And His (Jesus') name will be called
Wonderful, Counselor, Mighty God,
Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.

The many names of Jesus, like the many names of JEHOVAH, teach us more about who they are. Jesus is wonderful, Jesus is our counselor, Jesus is the mighty God, Jesus is the everlasting Father, and Jesus is the prince of peace.

[MissKate13]

The problem with that is, I don't think Bible says Jesus is the word.

John 1:14
14 The Word became flesh and made His dwelling among us. We have seen His glory, the glory of the one and only Sonc from the Father, full of grace and truth.

Bible tells God has given his name to Jesus, and the name is called... ...not Jesus, if we read that accurately.

when I was with them in the world, I was keeping them in u]Thy name; those whom Thou hast given to me [/u]I did guard, and none of them was destroyed, except the son of the destruction, that the Writing may be fulfilled.
John 17:12

You are misunderstanding John 17:12. When Jesus says I WAS KEEPING THEM IN THY NAME, He was saying He was keeping them (the Apostles) by the Father’s authority.

In the name or in the name of means by the authority of. (See Matthew 28:19)

Nothing is said about giving Jesus a new name in John 17:12.