Your translation may have I AM HE. But HE is an addition.No, the man in John 9:9 did not say, “I AM”. What he said is “I am he.” The latter does not mean the same as used by Jesus.
Why then do so many Jews argue they don’t need an intermediary with God, when it comes to minimizing the need for Jesus.Here’s something to think about. The Jews were so frightened by God’s voice that they begged Moses to be an intermediary. And in fact, the time of prophets was a response to the fact that most Jews were too afriad to hear God’s voice directly.
All the translation you gave of John 9:9 has in them the word “he”. That essentially makes it not the same with Jesus’s “I AM”Your translation may have I AM HE. But HE is an addition.
John 9:9 Some said, This is he: others [said], He is like him: [but] he said, (ego eimi) I am [he].
John 8:58 I AM = Jehovah is a wacky Christian idea. Especially when Hebrews deciphers his discussion almost statement for statement revealing it to be about Melchizedek’s relationship to Abraham and all the children of Abraham.
Why do they have to minimize the need for Jesus?Why then do so many Jews argue they don’t need an intermediary with God, when it comes to minimizing the need for Jesus.
Yeah Blueletter Bible has it in brackets, that means it’s an addition. Compare Greek and Latin.All the translation you gave of John 9:9 has in them the word “he”. That essentially makes it not the same with Jesus’s “I AM”
I don’t know why they HAVE to. They often LIKE to say they don’t need to go through Jesus or any other mediator or intermediary to get to God, as an argument against the need for Jesus.Why do they have to minimize the need for Jesus?
That would bring us to the question: Who has the authority to decide whether the word “he” is an addition or not? But even then, if we should insist that the blind man said “I AM” and not “I am he”, that would obviously depart from the context of John 9:9.Yeah Blueletter Bible has it in brackets, that means it’s an addition. Compare Greek and Latin.
John 8:58
eipen autoiV o ihsouV amhn amhn legw umin prin abraam genesqai egw eimi (I AM)
dixit eis Iesus amen amen dico vobis antequam Abraham fieret ego sum (I AM)
John 9:9
alloi elegon oti outoV estin alloi de oti omoioV autw estin ekeinoV elegen oti egw eimi (I AM)
alii autem nequaquam sed similis est eius ille dicebat quia ego sum (I AM)
Do you also personally believe like them that the need for Jesus should be minimized?I don’t know why they HAVE to. They often LIKE to say they don’t need to go through Jesus or any other mediator or intermediary to get to God, as an argument against the need for Jesus.
Even though in the Tanach, Jews had many priests, prophets, etc. like Moses and Aaron as intermediaries and mediators between humans and God.
Don’t know. That wouldn’t make sense anyway, as Jesus is supposed to be God, not an intermediary. I haven’t heard that argument before.Why then do so many Jews argue they don’t need an intermediary with God, when it comes to minimizing the need for Jesus.
No as I just explained Jesus is the high priest like Melchizedek.Do you also personally believe like them that the need for Jesus should be minimized?
Anyone with eyes to see has authority, you can see right there the Greek and Latin have the same phrases in 8:58 and 9:9.That would bring us to the question: Who has the authority to decide whether the word “he” is an addition or not? But even then, if we should insist that the blind man said “I AM” and not “I am he”, that would obviously depart from the context of John 9:9.
However Jesus was talking about someone specific in relation to Abraham during this entire discussion, so he was referring to being that person. Just as the blind man also said the exact same phrase I AM in relation to what he was being asked in John 9:9 just a few verses later.
Jews were looking for the Messiah who was sworn to be like the Melchizedek who served Abram before he was named Abraham.
Psalms 110:4 The LORD hath sworn, and will not repent, Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchizedek.
So you will find commentary and explanation of John 8 in Hebrews.
John 8:53 Art thou greater than our father Abraham, which is dead? and the prophets are dead: whom makest thou thyself?
Hebrews 7:4 Now consider how great this man was, unto whom even the patriarch Abraham gave the tenth of the spoils.
John 8:54 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:
Hebrews 5:4-6 And no man taketh this honour unto himself, but he that is called of God, as was Aaron. So also Christ glorified not himself to be made an high priest; but he that said unto him, Thou art my Son, to day have I begotten thee. As he saith also in another place, Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec.
John 8:55-56 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. Your father Abraham rejoiced to see my day: and he saw it, and was glad.
Hebrews 7:1-2 For this Melchisedec, king of Salem, priest of the most high God, who met Abraham returning from the slaughter of the kings, and blessed him; To whom also Abraham gave a tenth part of all; first being by interpretation King of righteousness, and after that also King of Salem, which is, King of peace;
John 8:57-58 Then said the Jews unto him, Thou art not yet fifty years old, and hast thou seen Abraham? Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am.
I AM THE MESSIAH WHO IS LIKE MELCHIZEDEK
So all this has nothing to do with Jesus saying he is the God of Moses, but he is saying he is this human Messiah who is a priest like Melchizedek as promised in Psalms.
God also used “I am He” when talking about Himself in the Old Testament.No, the man in John 9:9 did not say, “I AM”. What he said is “I am he.” The latter does not mean the same as used by Jesus.
Yes, that is necessary to the context.God also used “I am He” when talking about Himself in the Old Testament.
For example:
Isaiah 41:4
Who has done this and carried it through, calling forth the generations from the beginning? I, the LORD -with the first of them and with the last—I am he."
www.biblegateway.com
I don’t think you are right with your logic.That’s why Christian associating of I AM with the Jehovah of Moses is really bizarre, seeing as the phrase is used elsewhere with no such attached meaning.
And especially when Jesus never once says anything like, “it was me Jesus who talked to you from that bush, I am Jehovah.” So this 8:58 thing is all pretty silly.
Mark 12:26 And as touching the dead, that they rise: have ye not read in the book of Moses, how in the bush God spake unto him, saying, I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob?
Mark 12:27 He is not the God of the dead, but the God of the living: ye therefore do greatly err.
The Catholic Church teaches that it is also possible to blaspheme against the Blessed Virgin and the saints.Yes, they knew, why else was he killed?
Look at where Jesus says that the mans sins were forgiven him, and they called him a blasphemer, and he then repeated himsefl more clearly and told them that he had the power to forgive sins, and they agreed with him.
They knew very well that only God has the power to forgvie sins, yet they accepted his being able to. If he were not God, he would have been just what they said, a blasphemer.
Okay, say you are right. How come then Jesus doesnt clarify this point when the Jews take up stones against Him?John 8:57-58 Then said the Jews unto him, Thou art not yet fifty years old, and hast thou seen Abraham? Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am.
I AM THE MESSIAH WHO IS LIKE MELCHIZEDEK
So all this has nothing to do with Jesus saying he is the God of Moses, but he is saying he is this human Messiah who is a priest like Melchizedek as promised in Psalms.
No, Christians believe that while Jesus is God, they also believe Him to be the only Mediator between God and man. I presume that in His humanity He is Mediator, but Im not sure if this is true of His divine nature as well.Don’t know. That wouldn’t make sense anyway, as Jesus is supposed to be God, not an intermediary. I haven’t heard that argument before.