John 18:5 what was Jesus saying?

[Aimiel]

And, Aimiel, I would add that he or she (if a translator) left off being a translator while adding it, because the pronoun, "he", in the phrase, "I am he", is, as you say, an addition, rather than a translation!

Amen. It's certainly more clear as to why they all went backward and fell to the ground if Jesus said: "I AM!" than if He said: "I am he."

 

[oatmeal]

​

Obviously, then, Jesus would have had no problem saying "I am he", or "I am Jesus", or "I am Jesus of Nazareth", in John 18:5, had he meant to do so. But, just like He did not say, "I am the resurrection", or "I am the light of the world", in John 18:5, He also did not say "I am he", or "I am Jesus", or "I am Jesus of Nazareth", in John 18:5. Rather, He said, "I am".​

Yes that is correct if he was introducing the concept.

However in the context of this passage, it is already stated who he is claiming to be.

Specifically, Jesus of Nazareth.

Are you 7djengo?

Are you?

 

[God's Truth]

Is that surprising?

He just identified himself boldly as the one they were hell bent on murdering

So you are saying he told them 'I am he' as in 'I am the one you are looking to murder'? Then why does he say ;you will know I am he when you crucify me'? According to you he already told them it is him, Jesus of Nazareth they wanted to murder.


John 8:28 So Jesus said, "When you have lifted up the Son of Man, then you will know that I am He

 

[God's Truth]

Is that surprising?

He just identified himself boldly as the one they were hell bent on murdering

But why did they draw back and fall to the ground after Jesus said I am he, if not to show the power in the words 'I am he', as when God in the Old Testament said I am he?

 

[God's Truth]

Better than what?

Better than what, you ask; you obviously have a hard time understanding any language.
You claim that all the Bible versions/translations are wrong for putting a ‘he’ at the end of ‘I am’.
Why is it you can't understand that makes you pompous?

In John 18:5, what Greek word has been translated into English by the pronoun, 'he'? Answer: none. Your cherished "he" is not a translation; it's something that has been added to John 18:5.

Walmart.

Some of those Bible translations were around hundreds of years before Walmart. Your statement proves you don’t know what you are talking about and you are prideful.

The English pronoun, 'he', is not a translation, though--not in a single one of the "27 different Bible translations" you "looked up".

The word ‘he’ is in those Bibles, which ARE TRANSLATIONS/VERSIONS.

What (if anything) do you mean?

I likely would not even be willing to grant you that all of the different things you are calling "Bible translations" are Bible translations.

Huh? Is that your broken English? You don’t even speak coherent English, but you want to rewrite the scriptures according to your knowledge of Greek.
Those Bibles are called translations and ALL OF THEM say 'he' at the end. ALL OF THEM ARE WRONG ACCORDING TO YOU. You just can't grasp how pompous you are.

You're one of the most pompous, arrogant idiots on TOL, seeing as you actually have the audacity to call yourself "God's Truth", and sit there and fart in your broken English at everybody who dissents from your stupidities.

Show me where I speak in broken English. You are exactly what you falsely judge me to be. You are the pompous arrogant idiot, and worse, you are a mean person.

What we don't have to do, in order to know God's Truth, is to take you and your anti-intellectualism seriously.

You think you have knowledge to give us God’s Truth and rewrite the Bible.

I know enough, though, to see that the word "he" has no basis in the Greek of John 18:5.

Write your own Bible version/translation then.

Since, by "God's Truth", you are referring to yourself and your anti-Christ heresies and stupidities, I'd say such "social distancing" as you're complaining about, here, is quite a boon for those keeping their distance from you.

You are so popular?
You don’t even recognize the English Bibles as being scriptures.

You said you "gave me the scripture".

What I gave you was scripture.

Was the Gospel of John not written in Greek?

No one has to learn Greek to know God’s Truth.
You sin by arguing about words that don’t make a difference.
2 Timothy 2:14 Keep reminding God's people of these things. Warn them before God against quarreling about words; it is of no value, and only ruins those who listen

 

[JudgeRightly]

I couldn't care any less what you think the translation SHOULD say.

So you don't care that the "translation" of scripture that you use is incorrect?

Not only that, it changes NOTHING.

To have that 'he' at the end changes nothing.

No?

If Jesus was saying something specific where the meaning of what he said can only be conveyed using certain wording, and translators changed His wording slightly, you don't think that wouldn't have any effect on how people read it?

Words have meaning, GT, and ideas have consequences.

Adding to scripture, changing what it says, etc, just because you think it doesn't change anything?

It's a good thing you weren't one of the translators, and even better that we DO have the Greek manuscripts.

All that attempt to look to the Greek doesn't help anyone.

Question to test your assertion:

Jesus said to love Him, and in doing so, to hate your mother and father.

Was Jesus contradicting Himself, seeing as He gave the command to honor your father and mother? (as hating them is not honoring them)

 

[God's Truth]

Liar.

Are you denying you said this about me:

You're the one showing distrust in God's Holy Word. If the original text did NOT have the word, "He," in it, why are you defending the translator who added it? By doing so you're asking for all the plagues that are in The Holy Scriptures. :duh:

 

[God's Truth]

So you don't care that the "translation" of scripture that you use is incorrect?

ALL THE TRANSLATIONS HAVE 'HE' AT THE END in that scripture.

You want everyone to distrust their Bibles and learn Greek before believing everything that is written in it?

You don't know Greek well enough to say all the translations/versions are wrong.

There are people with more knowledge of Greek and access to more Greek versions than you, and they might not agree with you.

So where does the arguing with words end?

No?

If Jesus was saying something specific where the meaning of what he said can only be conveyed using certain wording, and translators changed His wording slightly, you don't think that wouldn't have any effect on how people read it?

Having the word 'he' at the end doesn't change anything when it comes to doctrines and understanding of what that specific scripture is saying.

Words have meaning, GT, and ideas have consequences.

Adding to scripture, changing what it says, etc, just because you think it doesn't change anything?

It's a good thing you weren't one of the translators, and even better that we DO have the Greek manuscripts.

Too bad you weren't around when all translations were being written.

Question to test your assertion:

Jesus said to love Him, and in doing so, to hate your mother and father.

Was Jesus contradicting Himself, seeing as He gave the command to honor your father and mother? (as hating them is not honoring them)

Jesus was saying we can't chose our parents over him.

 

[JudgeRightly]

Better than what, you ask; you obviously have a hard time understanding any language.
You claim that all the Bible versions/translations are wrong for putting a ‘he’ at the end of ‘I am’.

When adding words to scripture changes the meaning of what is being said, yes, it is wrong to put a "He" where there is none.

Koine Greek cannot be translated word for word into English, so adding some words and removing others is expected.

On the other hand, adding words to the text that do not exist in the original language, and that change the meaning, is not just a bad idea, but it leads people astray, which is a sin.

Why is it you can't understand that makes you pompous?

Some of those Bible translations were around hundreds of years before Walmart. Your statement proves you don’t know what you are talking about and you are prideful.

Do you even bother to read people's responses prior to replying to them?

The word ‘he’ is in those Bibles, which ARE ?TRANSLATIONS/VERSIONS.

What word was translated "He" from the Greek in John 18:5?

Huh? Is that your broken English? You don’t even speak coherent English, but you want to rewrite the scriptures according to your knowledge of Greek.

His English was perfectly fine, GT.

Those Bibles are called translations and ALL OF THEM say 'he' at the end. ALL OF THEM ARE WRONG ACCORDING TO YOU. You just can't grasp how pompous you are.

Recognizing errors is a good thing to do, GT. It keeps us humble.

Humility seems to be something you lack.

Show me where I speak in broken English. You are exactly what you falsely judge me to be. You are the pompous arrogant idiot, and worse, you are a mean person.

You think you have knowledge to give us God’s Truth and rewrite the Bible.



Write your own Bible version/translation then.

You are so popular?
You don’t even recognize the English Bibles as being scriptures.

What I gave you was scripture.

No one has to learn Greek to know God’s Truth.

No one has to learn Greek to know the user God's Truth, correct.

But to learn more about God's Word, learning some Greek and learning about Koine Greek is recommended.

You sin by arguing about words that don’t make a difference.

Your premise is that adding a pronoun "He" in verse 5 of chapter 18 of the book of John makes no difference.

I reject that premise, and so therefore reject your argument, because adding "He" to the verse DOES make a difference, whether you acknowledge it or not.

2 Timothy 2:14 Keep reminding God's people of these things. Warn them before God against quarreling about words; it is of no value, and only ruins those who listen

:yawn: There you go, being a hypocrite again.

 

[God's Truth]

Amen. It's certainly more clear as to why they all went backward and fell to the ground if Jesus said: "I AM!" than if He said: "I am he."

Why?

God the Father in the Old Testament says "I Am" and not always "I am He"..

 

[God's Truth]

When adding words to scripture changes the meaning of what is being said, yes, it is wrong to put a "He" where there is none.

Koine Greek cannot be translated word for word into English, so adding some words and removing others is expected.

On the other hand, adding words to the text that do not exist in the original language, and that change the meaning, is not just a bad idea, but it leads people astray, which is a sin.



Do you even bother to read people's responses prior to replying to them?



What word was translated "He" from the Greek in John 18:5?



His English was perfectly fine, GT.



Recognizing errors is a good thing to do, GT. It keeps us humble.

Humility seems to be something you lack.



No one has to learn Greek to know the user God's Truth, correct.

But to learn more about God's Word, learning some Greek and learning about Koine Greek is recommended.



Your premise is that adding a pronoun "He" in verse 5 of chapter 18 of the book of John makes no difference.

I reject that premise, and so therefore reject your argument, because adding "He" to the verse DOES make a difference, whether you acknowledge it or not.



:yawn: There you go, being a hypocrite again.

You can't prove it makes a difference to have 'he' at the end.

NOWHERE ANYWHERE does God say we have to learn Greek to get understanding from Him.

You want to spend your time going against me by lying about me instead of showing from the Bible how adding a 'he' at the end changes the truth to what the scripture is saying.

You can't show that what you are doing is from God when you argue about words.

 

[JudgeRightly]

ALL THE TRANSLATIONS HAVE 'HE' AT THE END in that scripture.

An appeal to popularity is a logical fallacy.

You want everyone to distrust their Bibles and learn Greek before believing everything that is written in it?

I want people to read the Bible and know what it actually says, so that if they stumble, it's not my theology or beliefs that caused them to stumble, but the Stumbling Stone Himself.

You don't know Greek well enough to say all the translations/versions are wrong.

I know enough to know that "eigo eimi" does not mean "I am He," but rather, "I am," and that the word "He" was added.

There are people with more knowledge of Greek and access to more Greek versions than you, and they might not agree with you.

Oh?

So they'll say that "eigo eimi" means "I am He" and not just "I am"?

So where does the arguing with words end?

"Be the change that you want to see in your life."

Having the word 'he' at the end doesn't change anything when it comes to doctrines and understanding of what that specific scripture is saying.

Saying it doesn't make it so.

Too bad you weren't around when all translations were being written.



Jesus was saying we can't chose our parents over him.

Well, no, He actually said this:

“If anyone comes to Me and does not hate his father and mother, wife and children, brothers and sisters, yes, and his own life also, he cannot be My disciple. - Luke 14:26 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke14:26&version=NKJV

Taken at face value, that contradicts this:

“Honor your father and your mother, that your days may be long upon the land which the Lord your God is giving you. - Exodus 20:12 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Exodus20:12&version=NKJV

I assert that without understanding Hebrew culture and their idioms (figures of speech), you CANNOT reconcile those two verses.

 

[God's Truth]

Yes that is correct if he was introducing the concept.

However in the context of this passage, it is already stated who he is claiming to be.

Specifically, Jesus of Nazareth.

Okay, I see exactly what you mean.

However, if Jesus is merely saying it is him, the son of God (and not God)---then tell me why all those places where God the Father in the Old Testament says "I am"---how is it every time He says it, it can also be said about Jesus, too?

For instance, God the Father says in the Old Testament " I am he, the first and the last" See Isaiah 48:12 [ Israel Freed ] “Listen to me, Jacob, Israel, whom I have called: I am he; I am the first and I am the last.


There is ALSO scripture where Jesus says I am the first and the last!


Revelation 22:13 I am the Alpha and the Omega, the First and the Last, the Beginning and the End.

 

[God's Truth]

An appeal to popularity is a logical fallacy.



I want people to read the Bible and know what it actually says, so that if they stumble, it's not my theology or beliefs that caused them to stumble, but the Stumbling Stone Himself.



I know enough to know that "eigo eimi" does not mean "I am He," but rather, "I am," and that the word "He" was added.



Oh?

So they'll say that "eigo eimi" means "I am He" and not just "I am"?



"Be the change that you want to see in your life."



Saying it doesn't make it so.



Well, no, He actually said this:

“If anyone comes to Me and does not hate his father and mother, wife and children, brothers and sisters, yes, and his own life also, he cannot be My disciple. - Luke 14:26 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke14:26&version=NKJV

Taken at face value, that contradicts this:

“Honor your father and your mother, that your days may be long upon the land which the Lord your God is giving you. - Exodus 20:12 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Exodus20:12&version=NKJV

I assert that without understanding Hebrew culture and their idioms (figures of speech), you CANNOT reconcile those two verses.

You are wrong about me, but more importantly, you are wrong about what Jesus is saying.

Jesus is saying you can't chose your parents or anyone over him.

Matthew 10:37 He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me: and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me.

 

[God's Truth]

Yes that is correct if he was introducing the concept.

However in the context of this passage, it is already stated who he is claiming to be.

Specifically, Jesus of Nazareth.

Here is another attempt at trying to help you understand why I believe Jesus saying 'I am he' is about being God:

This is what GOD THE FATHER SAYS in the OLD TESTAMENT:

Zechariah 12:10 "And I will pour out on the house of David and the inhabitants of Jerusalem a spirit of grace and supplication. They will look on me, the one they have pierced, and they will mourn for him as one mourns for an only child, and grieve bitterly for him as one grieves for a firstborn son.

Did you read that? God the Father says when you look on me. God is saying He Himself will be pierced.

God the Father says they will look at ME THE ONE THEY HAVE PIERCED.

Now read in John were JESUS says when YOU PIERCE ME YOU WILL KNOW THAT I AM HE. “Lifted up” means crucified, which is when Jesus is pierced.

John 8:28 So Jesus said, "When you have lifted up the Son of Man, then you will know that I am He, and that I do nothing on My own, but speak exactly what the Father has taught Me.

So when they came to arrest Jesus to have him pierced, he said I am he, and they draw back and fall to the floor---is showing that Jesus is saying I am he, God. REMEMBER, since God, in the Old Testament said HE (Himself) WOULD be pierced.

 

[oatmeal]

Okay, I see exactly what you mean.

However, if Jesus is merely saying it is him, the son of God (and not God)---then tell me why all those places where God the Father in the Old Testament says "I am"---how is it every time He says it, it can also be said about Jesus, too?

For instance, God the Father says in the Old Testament " I am he, the first and the last" See Isaiah 48:12 [ Israel Freed ] “Listen to me, Jacob, Israel, whom I have called: I am he; I am the first and I am the last.


There is ALSO scripture where Jesus says I am the first and the last!


Revelation 22:13 I am the Alpha and the Omega, the First and the Last, the Beginning and the End.

Well, if Jesus is to be about his Father's business, it should be of no surprise that Jesus is about his Father's business, doing the same things that God does.even as the Father showed to do as Jesus claimed in John 5

¹⁷ But Jesus answered them, My Father worketh hitherto, and I work.

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.

¹⁹ Then answered Jesus and said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, The Son can do nothing of himself, but what he seeth the Father do: for what things soever he doeth, these also doeth the Son likewise.

²⁰ For the Father loveth the Son, and sheweth him all things that himself doeth: and he will shew him greater works than these, that ye may marvel.

²¹ For as the Father raiseth up the dead, and quickeneth them; even so the Son quickeneth whom he will.

The son did what the Father does and the son obeyed.

God is portrayed as a shepherd in Psalm 23

Jesus is referred to as a shepherd as well.Thought there is no scripture that I know of that shows that Jesus literally worked as one out in the fields.

Are you saying that Jesus is God because both God and Jesus are portrayed as shepherds?

Well if that is the case, then David, is God as well.

Then Moses and his wife and her family are all God as well.

Is it any surprise that a son working in his father's business would do the same works as his father?
;

 

[Tigger 2]

Zechariah 12:10

Jehovah God speaks:

"...they shall look upon me whom they have pierced, and they shall mourn for him, as one mourneth for his only son" - Zech. 12:10, KJV; cf. NKJV, NIV, NASB, NEB, REB, ASV, AB, KJIIV, ETRV, Douay, Beck, Rotherham, Lamsa.

This is interpreted by many trinitarians as meaning that Jehovah is Jesus since Jesus was "pierced" by the Jews.

Unfortunately for this trinitarian interpretation even many trinitarian translations disagree:

"...when they look upon him whom they have pierced" - RSV. Also in agreement with this rendering are NRSV; GNB; MLB; NAB (1970); NAB (1991); LB; Mo; AT; JB; NJB; NLV; BBE; and Byington. (ASV says in a footnote for "me" in Zech. 12:10: "According to some MSS. [manuscripts], `him'." Also see Rotherham footnote.)


Even the context tells us that the latter rendering is the correct one. Notice that after saying that they will look upon me (or him) God continues with "they shall mourn for HIM"! Notice how the KJV (and those following its tradition) contradicts itself here. The "me" in the first half simply does not agree with the "him" of the second half. Since there has never been any question about the accuracy of the word "him" in the second half, the disputed word of the first half (which has manuscript evidence for both renderings) must also properly be rendered as "him" (or "the one").

The testimony of the first Christian writers to come after the NT writers (the 'Ante-Nicene Fathers') confirms the non-trinitarian translation of Zechariah 12:10. Ignatius, Irenaeus, and Tertullian (repeatedly) rendered Zech. 12:10 as "him whom they pierced"! This is specially significant because trinitarian scholars and historians claim these particular early Christians (including Origen who doesn't quote Zech. 12:10 at all in his existing writings) are the very ones who actually began the development of the trinity doctrine for Christendom! If any of the earliest Christian writers, then, would use a trinitarian interpretation here, it would certainly be these three. Since they do not do so, it must mean that the source for the `look upon me' translation originated even later than the time of Ignatius, Irenaeus, and Tertullian (early 3rd century A.D.)!

But most important of all is John 19:37 (even in the KJV) where this scripture has been quoted by John! All translations show John here translating Zech. 12:10 as "They shall look upon him [or `the one'] whom they pierced." So we have this Apostle and inspired Bible writer telling us plainly (and undisputed even by trinitarian scholars) that Zechariah 12:10 should read: "They shall look upon him (not `me')." Therefore, Jehovah is speaking in Zech. 12:10 of someone else who will be pierced - not Himself!

　

 

[oatmeal]

Zechariah 12:10

Jehovah God speaks:

"...they shall look upon me whom they have pierced, and they shall mourn for him, as one mourneth for his only son" - Zech. 12:10, KJV; cf. NKJV, NIV, NASB, NEB, REB, ASV, AB, KJIIV, ETRV, Douay, Beck, Rotherham, Lamsa.

This is interpreted by many trinitarians as meaning that Jehovah is Jesus since Jesus was "pierced" by the Jews.

Unfortunately for this trinitarian interpretation even many trinitarian translations disagree:

"...when they look upon him whom they have pierced" - RSV. Also in agreement with this rendering are NRSV; GNB; MLB; NAB (1970); NAB (1991); LB; Mo; AT; JB; NJB; NLV; BBE; and Byington. (ASV says in a footnote for "me" in Zech. 12:10: "According to some MSS. [manuscripts], `him'." Also see Rotherham footnote.)


Even the context tells us that the latter rendering is the correct one. Notice that after saying that they will look upon me (or him) God continues with "they shall mourn for HIM"! Notice how the KJV (and those following its tradition) contradicts itself here. The "me" in the first half simply does not agree with the "him" of the second half. Since there has never been any question about the accuracy of the word "him" in the second half, the disputed word of the first half (which has manuscript evidence for both renderings) must also properly be rendered as "him" (or "the one").

The testimony of the first Christian writers to come after the NT writers (the 'Ante-Nicene Fathers') confirms the non-trinitarian translation of Zechariah 12:10. Ignatius, Irenaeus, and Tertullian (repeatedly) rendered Zech. 12:10 as "him whom they pierced"! This is specially significant because trinitarian scholars and historians claim these particular early Christians (including Origen who doesn't quote Zech. 12:10 at all in his existing writings) are the very ones who actually began the development of the trinity doctrine for Christendom! If any of the earliest Christian writers, then, would use a trinitarian interpretation here, it would certainly be these three. Since they do not do so, it must mean that the source for the `look upon me' translation originated even later than the time of Ignatius, Irenaeus, and Tertullian (early 3rd century A.D.)!

But most important of all is John 19:37 (even in the KJV) where this scripture has been quoted by John! All translations show John here translating Zech. 12:10 as "They shall look upon him [or `the one'] whom they pierced." So we have this Apostle and inspired Bible writer telling us plainly (and undisputed even by trinitarian scholars) that Zechariah 12:10 should read: "They shall look upon him (not `me')." Therefore, Jehovah is speaking in Zech. 12:10 of someone else who will be pierced - not Himself!

　

Thanks for that additional information

 

[Tigger 2]

God's Truth wrote:

There is ALSO scripture where Jesus says I am the first and the last!

Revelation 22:13 I am the Alpha and the Omega, the First and the Last, the Beginning and the End.

　

Is Jesus the 'Alpha and Omega' in Rev. 22?

John is identified as the speaker in Rev. 22:8. The angel speaks in 9). The angel apparently continues speaking in 10). The angel may be still speaking in 11) --- or it could be John or even someone else (as implied in verse 10 in the NAB, 1970 ed.).

Now is the angel still speaking in 12) or is it God, or is it Jesus, or even John? There is simply no way of telling who the speaker is from any of the early Bible manuscripts. It's entirely a matter of translator's choice. Some translators have decided it is the angel who continues to speak, and they punctuate it accordingly. So the JB, and NJB use quotation marks to show that these are all words spoken by the angel.

However, the RSV, NRSV, NASB, NEB, REB, NKJV, NAB (1991 ed.), ISV, 21st Century King James Version, and TEV show by their use of quotation marks that someone else is now speaking in verse 12. Most Bibles indicate that the person who spoke verse 12 (whether God, angel, Jesus, or John) also spoke verse 13 (“I am Alpha and Omega”).

Now the big question is: Is it clear that the speaker(s) of verses 12 and 13 continues to speak? Some Bibles indicate this. But other highly respected trinitarian translations do not!

The ESV; ISV; LEB; MEV; MOUNCE; NAB (2010 ed.); NASB; NEB; NKJV; NLT; NRSV; REB; RSV; 21st Century King James Version, TEV; and WE show (by quotation marks and indenting/paragraphs) that Rev. 22:14 and 15 are not the words of the speaker of verses 12 and 13 but are John’s words. (The Jerusalem Bible; the NJB; andMoffatt show us that the angel spoke all the words from verse 10 through verse 15.)


Then they show Jesus as a new speaker beginning to speak in verse 16.


So, if you must insist that the person speaking just before verse 16 is the same person who is speaking in verse 16, then, according to the trinitarian ESV; ISV; LEB; MEV; MOUNCE; NAB (2010 ed.); NASB; NEB; NKJV; NLT; NRSV; REB; RSV; 21st Century King James Version, TEV; and WE , you are saying John is Jesus!!! (According to the JB and NJB you would be insisting that the angel is Jesus!)

And, just as the use of "I, John" indicated a new speaker in Revelation 1:9, so does the only other such usage in that same book. Yes, Rev. 22:16 - "I, Jesus" also introduces a new speaker. This means, of course, that the previous statement ("I am the Alpha and Omega") was made by someone else!

 

[oatmeal]

Here is another attempt at trying to help you understand why I believe Jesus saying 'I am he' is about being God:

This is what GOD THE FATHER SAYS in the OLD TESTAMENT:

Zechariah 12:10 "And I will pour out on the house of David and the inhabitants of Jerusalem a spirit of grace and supplication. They will look on me, the one they have pierced, and they will mourn for him as one mourns for an only child, and grieve bitterly for him as one grieves for a firstborn son.

Did you read that? God the Father says when you look on me. God is saying He Himself will be pierced.

God the Father says they will look at ME THE ONE THEY HAVE PIERCED.

Now read in John were JESUS says when YOU PIERCE ME YOU WILL KNOW THAT I AM HE. “Lifted up” means crucified, which is when Jesus is pierced.

John 8:28 So Jesus said, "When you have lifted up the Son of Man, then you will know that I am He, and that I do nothing on My own, but speak exactly what the Father has taught Me.

So when they came to arrest Jesus to have him pierced, he said I am he, and they draw back and fall to the floor---is showing that Jesus is saying I am he, God. REMEMBER, since God, in the Old Testament said HE (Himself) WOULD be pierced.

Why try to cram all that into that verse, why not just read the context?