Does "I am" in Greek means " I am God"?

[jeg101]

Does “I am” (in Greek) means " I am God"?

 

[Gardening_Mommy]

The more proper question is, “Would Jesus’ audience have interpreted, ‘I am’ as a claim to be God?” Jesus’ audience would’ve spoken Aramaic and Hebrew. Those languages, however, were not common outside of the Middle East, so the Gospels were mostly written in Greek, to make them accessible to most of the new converts.

The Greeks were polytheists; St. Paul’s first task in preaching to them was to get them to consider that there is only one God, not many. “I am” meant nothing to them.

The Jews, on the other hand, had the name that God had given Moses: I AM. This is often rendered YHWH (since written Hebrew had no vowels for hundreds of years), or Yahweh. They considered it so holy, they didn’t even say it. I assume that this meant they never used the present conjugation of “to be”; it would become an assumed verb, like it is in Russian: “I [am] happy” is said as “I happy”, because the present tense conjugations of “to be” are assumed if no other verb is given.

So, when Jesus said, “I AM,” He was making a statement about His divinity that his Jewish listeners clearly understood.

 

[PaulDupre]

“I AM” means that God is self-existent, depending on no outside source for His existence. God is the only uncreated being in existence. That is the key to His identity as God.

God love you,
Paul

 

[lak611]

From Albert Barnes’ Commentary:

I am - The expression I am, though in the present tense, is clearly designed to refer to a past time. Thus, in Psa_90:2, “From everlasting to everlasting thou art God.” Applied to God, it denotes continued existence without respect to time, so far as he is concerned. We divide time into the past, the present, and the future. The expression, applied to God, denotes that he does not measure his existence in this manner, but that the word by which we express the present denotes his continued and unchanging existence. Hence, he assumes it as his name, “I AM,” and “I AM that I AM,” Exo_3:14. Compare Isa_44:6; Isa_47:8. There is a remarkable similarity between the expression employed by Jesus in this place and that used in Exodus to denote the name of God. The manner in which Jesus used it would strikingly suggest the application of the same language to God. The question here was about his pre-existence. The objection of the Jews was that he was not 50 years old, and could not, therefore, have seen Abraham. Jesus replied to that that he existed before Abraham. As in his human nature he was not yet 50 years old, and could not, as a man, have existed before Abraham, this declaration must be referred to another nature; and the passage proves that, while he was a man, he was also endowed with another nature existing before Abraham, and to which he applied the term (familiar to the Jews as expressive of the existence of God) I AM; and this declaration corresponds to the affirmation of John Joh_1:1, that he was in the beginning with God, and was God. This affirmation of Jesus is one of the proofs on which John relies to prove that he was the Messiah Joh_20:31, to establish which was the design of writing this book.

From the Haydock Commentary:

Ver. 58. Before Abraham was made, I am.[4] Christ here speaks of his eternal existence as God. St. Augustine shews this by these very words, I am. He does not say, before Abraham was made, I was made: because, as the Son of God, he never was made: but I am, which shews his eternal divine nature. (Witham)

 

[Semper_Fi_1]

Does “I am” (in Greek) means " I am God"?

Jesus saying that He is the Almighty I AM, is not the only instance in the New Testament of Our Lord being referred to as God (not the Father, but God the Son). In order to understand the Trinity, you must first understand that it is a Mystery. But our Christological theology has the formula that states that while God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit all exist eternally, they are three separate persons with one eternal Being. This means that while Jesus Christ was down here on Earth, Heaven was still occupied by the Father. The Son was eternally begotten of the Father, Mary the Mother of God (because she is the mother of Jesus who is both man and God) brought Jesus into His creation when she said “yes” to the Archangel Gabriel who delivered the message about God’s will for her. Had she not said yes, history would have been a lot different. Hope this explains a bit for you, and if not feel free to start more threads or give me a PM. I know I was asking these questions when I was asking the one that you did as well.

God Bless!

 

[exoflare]

In order to understand the Trinity, you must first understand that it is a Mystery.

Careful saying this to Muslims. They have a very narrow view of what the word “mystery” has to mean.

 

[nonsumd]

The more proper question is, “Would Jesus’ audience have interpreted, ‘I am’ as a claim to be God?” Jesus’ audience would’ve spoken Aramaic and Hebrew. Those languages, however, were not common outside of the Middle East, so the Gospels were mostly written in Greek, to make them accessible to most of the new converts.

In the Roman Empire outside of Syria-Palestine, Jews generally spoke Greek and read the scriptures in Greek (the Septuagint translating dating to two centuries before the time of Jesus), so I imagine those Greek-speaking Jews would have understood the Greek verb “I am” to be equivalent in this particular context as corresponding to the Hebrew expression “I am” that asserts divinity.

For a number of centuries the majority of converts to Christianity were the urban Greek-speaking Jews of the Diaspora, a substantial population.

 

[AbeOman]

In the Roman Empire outside of Syria-Palestine, Jews generally spoke Greek and read the scriptures in Greek (the Septuagint translating dating to two centuries before the time of Jesus), so I imagine those Greek-speaking Jews would have understood the Greek verb “I am” to be equivalent in this particular context as corresponding to the Hebrew expression “I am” that asserts divinity.

For a number of centuries the majority of converts to Christianity were the urban Greek-speaking Jews of the Diaspora, a substantial population.

Actually, there is another theory or view, the Jews were expecting certain fulfillment of a prophesy of the Messiah and they already heard rumor of our lord Jesus claims and teachings of their old laws and books, so they bring the roman soldiers, come to his place nock the door and start asking questions, they already knew who they were looking for so in a nutshell, I am to them basically meaning …yes I’m the Messiah.
Remember that at the end what say…this is blasphemy…! Right
I think this explains it little bit more sublimely…well at least coming from a Muslim it does.
What do you think…?

 

[BibleSteve]

No, someone saying “I am” doesn’t mean “I am God”…

AT JOHN 8:58 a number of translations, for instance The Jerusalem Bible, have Jesus saying: “Before Abraham ever was, I Am.” Was Jesus there teaching, as Trinitarians assert, that he was known by the title “I Am”? And, as they claim, does this mean that he was Jehovah of the Hebrew Scriptures, since the King James Version at Exodus 3:14 states: “God said unto Moses, I AM THAT I AM”?

At Exodus 3:14 (KJ) the phrase “I AM” is used as a title for God to indicate that he really existed and would do what he promised. The Pentateuch and Haftorahs, edited by Dr.*J.*H.*Hertz, says of the phrase: “To the Israelites in bondage, the meaning would be, ‘Although He has not yet displayed His power towards you, He will do so; He is eternal and will certainly redeem you.’ Most moderns follow Rashi [a French Bible and Talmud commentator] in rendering [Exodus 3:14] ‘I will be what I will be.’”

The expression at John 8:58 is quite different from the one used at Exodus 3:14. Jesus did not use it as a name or a title but as a means of explaining his prehuman existence. Hence, note how some other Bible versions render John 8:58:

1869: “From before Abraham was, I have been.” The New Testament, by G.*R.*Noyes.

1935: “I existed before Abraham was born!” The Bible—An American Translation, by J.*M.*P.*Smith and E.*J.*Goodspeed.

1965: “Before Abraham was born, I was already the one that I am.” Das Neue Testament, by Jörg Zink.

1981: “I was alive before Abraham was born!” The Simple English Bible.

Thus, the real thought of the Greek used here is that God’s created “firstborn,” Jesus, had existed long before Abraham was born.—Colossians 1:15; Proverbs 8:22, 23,*30; Revelation 3:14.

Again, the context shows this to be the correct understanding. This time the Jews wanted to stone Jesus for claiming to “have seen Abraham” although, as they said, he was not yet 50 years old. (Verse 57) Jesus’ natural response was to tell the truth about his age. So he naturally told them that he “was alive before Abraham was born!”—The Simple English Bible.

 

[AbeOman]

No, someone saying “I am” doesn’t mean “I am God”…

AT JOHN 8:58 a number of translations, for instance The Jerusalem Bible, have Jesus saying: “Before Abraham ever was, I Am.” Was Jesus there teaching, as Trinitarians assert, that he was known by the title “I Am”? And, as they claim, does this mean that he was Jehovah of the Hebrew Scriptures, since the King James Version at Exodus 3:14 states: “God said unto Moses, I AM THAT I AM”?

At Exodus 3:14 (KJ) the phrase “I AM” is used as a title for God to indicate that he really existed and would do what he promised. The Pentateuch and Haftorahs, edited by Dr.*J.*H.*Hertz, says of the phrase: “To the Israelites in bondage, the meaning would be, ‘Although He has not yet displayed His power towards you, He will do so; He is eternal and will certainly redeem you.’ Most moderns follow Rashi [a French Bible and Talmud commentator] in rendering [Exodus 3:14] ‘I will be what I will be.’”

The expression at John 8:58 is quite different from the one used at Exodus 3:14. Jesus did not use it as a name or a title but as a means of explaining his prehuman existence. Hence, note how some other Bible versions render John 8:58:

1869: “From before Abraham was, I have been.” The New Testament, by G.*R.*Noyes.

1935: “I existed before Abraham was born!” The Bible—An American Translation, by J.*M.*P.*Smith and E.*J.*Goodspeed.

1965: “Before Abraham was born, I was already the one that I am.” Das Neue Testament, by Jörg Zink.

1981: “I was alive before Abraham was born!” The Simple English Bible.

Thus, the real thought of the Greek used here is that God’s created “firstborn,” Jesus, had existed long before Abraham was born.—Colossians 1:15; Proverbs 8:22, 23,*30; Revelation 3:14.

Again, the context shows this to be the correct understanding. This time the Jews wanted to stone Jesus for claiming to “have seen Abraham” although, as they said, he was not yet 50 years old. (Verse 57) Jesus’ natural response was to tell the truth about his age. So he naturally told them that he “was alive before Abraham was born!”—The Simple English Bible.

True but the bottom line is that everyone here believes that Jesus is God almighty, with few acceptations including myself.

Is it not so…?

 

[BibleSteve]

True but the bottom line is that everyone here believes that Jesus is God almighty, with few acceptations including myself.

Is it not so…?

It is true that many believe that Jesus is Almighty God… However, using John 8:58 as a proof text of that is completely illogical and unfounded.

The topic under discussion was Jesus age, not his identity… He simply was saying that he existed before Abraham.

Trinitarians have jumped to a conclusion that isn’t supported by this scripture.

Almighty God’s name is YHWH… At Psa 110:1-5 you can see YHWH talking to Jesus. Thus, Jesus is not Almighty God… but simply “God’s Son” as he OFTEN claimed.

 

[BibleSteve]

There’s a great discussion of John 8:58 in Jason Debuhn’s “Truth in Translation” on page 103-112

"One passage usually missing from the discussion of the expression “I am” in the Gospel according to John is John 9:9. In this verse, the words ego eimi are heard from the mouth not of Jesus, but of a blind man cured by Jesus. He too, uses the words to say “I am he”… If anyone needs proof that ego eimi need not be a quote from the Old Testament, and is not reserved as a title of God, here it is. Once again, our attntion is drawn to inconsistency in how words are handled by biased translators. If ego eimi is not a divine self-proclamation in the mouth of the blind man of John 9, then it cannot be such a proclamation in the mouth of Jesus just a few verses earlier. None of the translation we are comparing, of course, have the blind man saying “I am,” let alone “I AM”

“It is Jesus’ claim to be superior to Abraham, and to have a superhuman longevity, not a claim to a divine self-designation, that enrages his audience”…

 

[AbeOman]

There’s a great discussion of John 8:58 in Jason Debuhn’s “Truth in Translation” on page 103-112

"One passage usually missing from the discussion of the expression “I am” in the Gospel according to John is John 9:9. In this verse, the words ego eimi are heard from the mouth not of Jesus, but of a blind man cured by Jesus. He too, uses the words to say “I am he”… If anyone needs proof that ego eimi need not be a quote from the Old Testament, and is not reserved as a title of God, here it is. Once again, our attntion is drawn to inconsistency in how words are handled by biased translators. If ego eimi is not a divine self-proclamation in the mouth of the blind man of John 9, then it cannot be such a proclamation in the mouth of Jesus just a few verses earlier. None of the translation we are comparing, of course, have the blind man saying “I am,” let alone “I AM”

“It is Jesus’ claim to be superior to Abraham, and to have a superhuman longevity, not a claim to a divine self-designation, that enrages his audience”…

Thanks, I do appreciate your valuable (name removed by moderator)uts but I may suggest that you keep in mind that we are among friends and we don’t want hurt their feelings. there are perhaps nicer ways to paint the picture.

I’m particularly new to this forum and as Muslim I should set a standard in any critique of the Catholicism. a guest should be very light and polite.

Thanks once again.

 

[nonsumd]

There’s a great discussion of John 8:58 in Jason Debuhn’s “Truth in Translation” on page 103-112

"One passage usually missing from the discussion of the expression “I am” in the Gospel according to John is John 9:9. In this verse, the words ego eimi are heard from the mouth not of Jesus, but of a blind man cured by Jesus. He too, uses the words to say “I am he”… If anyone needs proof that ego eimi need not be a quote from the Old Testament, and is not reserved as a title of God, here it is. Once again, our attntion is drawn to inconsistency in how words are handled by biased translators. If ego eimi is not a divine self-proclamation in the mouth of the blind man of John 9, then it cannot be such a proclamation in the mouth of Jesus just a few verses earlier. None of the translation we are comparing, of course, have the blind man saying “I am,” let alone “I AM”

“It is Jesus’ claim to be superior to Abraham, and to have a superhuman longevity, not a claim to a divine self-designation, that enrages his audience”…

Of course, if the blind man answers “I am he” to the question “Who is claiming that Jesus healed him?,” the blind man is not asserting his own divinity.

What the blind man says about himself in answer to a particular question has no necessary bearing on what Jesus says about himself in “Before Abraham was, I am.” How can we then say with such certainty Jesus’ ego eimi " cannot be such a proclamation" of divinity?

Have you not noticed the curious grammar “Before Abraham was, I am”? Why not the more natural, “I was”?

Would it not be reasonable to infer that a Jewish listener familiar with the Old Testament connontations of “I am” would not have heard this as Jesus proclaiming his own divinity just as God identified himself to Moses with a name, YHWH, which translates as “I am [who am, who will be, etc.]”?

In any case, the Trinitarian interpretation does not rely on a single statement of Jesus’ alone nor on a single action of his recorded in scripture alone nor on the totality of what Scripture records him saying and doing but on the ***tradition of the Church ***which underlies the authority of Scripture itself. Do not think Catholics hang everything, as others do, on “proof texts.”

Anti-Trinitarians, as I see it, are not protecting the glory of God by denying that He could ever have become flesh but rather evading the implications of God humbling himself – and us in our sinfulness – in that manner.

 

[BibleSteve]

…In any case, the Trinitarian interpretation does not rely on a single statement of Jesus’ alone nor on a single action of his recorded in scripture alone nor on the totality of what Scripture records him saying and doing but on the ***tradition of the Church ***…

I would agree with you 100%

 

[Daniel_Marsh]

Funny as one with Jewish background I think of Isaiah’s use of “I am he” when Jesus spoke in John 8:58

Isaiah 41:4
Who hath wrought and done it, calling the generations from the beginning? I the LORD, the first, and with the last; I am he.

Isaiah 43:10
Ye are my witnesses, saith the LORD, and my servant whom I have chosen: that ye may know and believe me, and understand that I am he: before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me.

Isaiah 43:13
Yea, before the day was I am he; and there is none that can deliver out of my hand: I will work, and who shall let it?

The Jews whom Jesus was likely speaking to in Hebrew or Aramaic clearly understood that Jesus was claiming to be God.

In Rev, “first and last, alpha omega” are attributed to Jesus.

And Rev 1:8 clearly refers to the aramaic behind Exodus 3:14, “I will be what I will be” in the phrase that indicates the past and present with “will come” referrring to Jesus as the almighty.

Matthew 26:62-66 (King James Version)
King James Version (KJV)
Public Domain

62And the high priest arose, and said unto him, Answerest thou nothing? what is it which these witness against thee?

63But Jesus held his peace, And the high priest answered and said unto him, I adjure thee by the living God, that thou tell us whether thou be the Christ, the Son of God.

64Jesus saith unto him, Thou hast said: nevertheless I say unto you, Hereafter shall ye see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven.

65Then the high priest rent his clothes, saying, He hath spoken blasphemy; what further need have we of witnesses? behold, now ye have heard his blasphemy.

66What think ye? They answered and said, He is guilty of death.

Anyone filmiliar with the history of those whom claimed to be the Messiah knows that making the claim to be the Messiah, God’s Son is not blasphemy, so they must have understood Jesus as claiming to be more than simply the Messiah, God’s Son.

Jewish messiah claimants

Main article: Jewish messianic claimants. Note that for messiahs lacking articles, there may be more detail here.
The Jewish Messiah originally meant a divinely-appointed king; David and Cyrus the Great and Alexander the Great[1] are examples of such. Later, especially after the failure of Bar Kokhba’s revolt, it came to represent a figure who would deliver the Jews from oppression and usher in a new world.

Judas of Galilee (?), son of Hezekiah/Ezekias, member of the Zealots faction who led a bloody revolt against a Roman census in AD 6. (JA18)
Simon (ca. 4 BC), a former slave of Herod the Great who rebelled.
Athronges (ca. 3 BC)
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_messiah_claimants

 

[Daniel_Marsh]

forananswer.org/John/Jn8_58.htm

 

[MH84]

65Then the high priest rent his clothes, saying, He hath spoken blasphemy; what further need have we of witnesses? behold, now ye have heard his blasphemy.

2148 Blasphemy is directly opposed to the second commandment. It consists in uttering against God - inwardly or outwardly - words of hatred, reproach, or defiance; in speaking ill of God; in failing in respect toward him in one’s speech; in misusing God’s name. St. James condemns those "who blaspheme that honorable name [of Jesus] by which you are called."78 The prohibition of blasphemy extends to language against Christ’s Church, the saints, and sacred things. It is also blasphemous to make use of God’s name to cover up criminal practices, to reduce peoples to servitude, to torture persons or put them to death. The misuse of God’s name to commit a crime can provoke others to repudiate religion.

 

[inJESUS]

Strange enough but i never had to refer to the I AM topic to prove Jesus’ divinity in the Bible.

 

[inJESUS]

On a side note, regardless of the meaning of the I Am, isn’t the context of the I AM sentences that is important? like I Am the Life and Resurrection?