John 18:5 what was Jesus saying?

oatmeal

Well-known member
5 They answered him, Jesus of Nazareth. Jesus saith unto them, I am he. And Judas also, which betrayed him, stood with them.

What was Jesus saying?

a. he acknowledging that he is Jesus of Nazareth

b. he was claiming to be the "I am"

c. other _________
 

Aimiel

Well-known member
The text should more correctly read: "I am (he)." Jesus said, "I am." The texts that read, "I am He," added the, "He." When the forces of darkness moved upon men to come arrest God, in The Flesh, they were expecting Him to attempt to get away from man's judgement. When He confessed, "I AM," they were dumbfounded and actually went backwards and all fell to the ground. God revealed Himself in that moment. They weren't ready for that. They expected Him to run away. Jesus IS The I AM!!! Stating such out loud was too much for demonically inspired men. You almost have to feel sorry for them. :nono:
 

oatmeal

Well-known member
The text should more correctly read: "I am (he)." Jesus said, "I am." The texts that read, "I am He," added the, "He." When the forces of darkness moved upon men to come arrest God, in The Flesh, they were expecting Him to attempt to get away from man's judgement. When He confessed, "I AM," they were dumbfounded and actually went backwards and all fell to the ground. God revealed Himself in that moment. They weren't ready for that. They expected Him to run away. Jesus IS The I AM!!! Stating such out loud was too much for demonically inspired men. You almost have to feel sorry for them. :nono:

Have you read the verse you refer to?

He asks them who they are seeking. They reply, Jesus of Nazareth.

Jesus replies, I am he.

Why is it your version is do different from what scripture says?

Read, really read John18:4-5
 

Aimiel

Well-known member
Jesus didn't say, "I am He." The original text had: "I AM." Also, have you ever read John 8:58?

Truly, Truly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I Am.

That isn't a misunderstanding or misquote. It's what He said. He IS The I AM!!!
 

Tigger 2

Active member
The actual manuscripts we have of John 8 (and all other NT scriptures) were written entirely in majuscules (capitals). So there is no reason (except for Trinitarian reasons) to capitalize "I am" at John 8:58.

In fact, Jesus is not identifying himself, but merely answering a question explaining that he existed before Abraham. This is different from the blind man who really was identifying himself at John 9:9 by saying ego eimi. Oddly enough, Trinitarian translators don't capitalize "I am" in this verse. Strange, huh?

Furthermore, the second half of this trinity 'proof' at Exodus 3:14,15 is that this one-time-only use of the 'name' of God (Hebrew: ehyeh) is translated as 'I am.' In reality it is the one-time-only explanation of the meaning of God's only name (YHWH - Ps. 83:18, KJV). The actual name of God is given many thousands of times in the OT and is not ehyeh but YHWH ('Jehovah' in KJV, Youngs, and ASV or Yahweh in JB).

In fact, in every other use of ehyeh found in all of Moses' writings it is understood to mean 'I will be' as in Exodus 3:12 for a nearby example. But this is seldom pointed out in trinitarian Bibles.

My full study: http://examiningthetrinity.blogspot.com/2009/09/i-am-part-1.html
 

oatmeal

Well-known member
Jesus didn't say, "I am He." The original text had: "I AM." Also, have you ever read John 8:58?

Truly, Truly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I Am.

That isn't a misunderstanding or misquote. It's what He said. He IS The I AM!!!


I should provide more context for you to alleviate your confusion.

Context clears it all up very precisely and absolutely

John 18:4-5

4 Jesus therefore, knowing all things that should come upon him, went forth, and said unto them, Whom seek ye?

5 They answered him, Jesus of Nazareth. Jesus saith unto them, I am he. And Judas also, which betrayed him, stood with them.


Jesus was simply letting them know that they had found who they were looking for.

Who were they looking for? Jesus of Nazareth.

Jesus told them that found who they were looking for by acknowledging that he is indeed, Jesus of Nazareth.

Further proof that Jesus was acknowledging that he was Jesus of Naz.. is in the telling of why he acknowledged that

John 18:7-8

7 Then asked he them again, Whom seek ye? And they said, Jesus of Nazareth.

8 Jesus answered, I have told you that I am he: if therefore ye seek me, let these go their way:

9 That the saying might be fulfilled, which he spake, Of them which thou gavest me have I lost none.
 

JudgeRightly

裁判官が正しく判断する
Staff member
Administrator
Super Moderator
Gold Subscriber
Jesus said what?

a. I am the I am

b. I am

I will give you a big clue,

He said "before Abraham was, I am"

He said that He existed before Abraham.

So unless He is an angel or other immortal being, that makes Him God, the I AM.

Jesus is, and you should be well aware of this, referencing what he said to Moses at the burning bush:

And God said to Moses, “I AM WHO I AM.” And He said, “Thus you shall say to the children of Israel, ‘I AM has sent me to you.’ ” - Exodus 3:14 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Exodus3:14&version=NKJV

Exodus 3:14 (WH) καὶ εἶπεν ὁ θεὸς πρὸς Μωυσῆν ἐγώ εἰμι ὁ ὤν καὶ εἶπεν οὕτως ἐρεῖς τοῖς υἱοῖς Ισραηλ ὁ ὢν ἀπέσταλκέν με πρὸς ὑμᾶς

Exodus 3:14 kai eipen ho theos pros Moysen ego eimi ho on . . . ho on apestalken me pros ymas

Exodus 3:14 And said the God to Moses I Am the One Who Is . . . the One Who Is has sent me to you.

And so, we see Jesus not only claiming to be God, but also claiming to be the one whom the I AM sent.

God sent His son, the Great I AM, to tabernacle (yes, that is the greek word used in John 1:14) among us, because just as God dwelt with Israel in a tent called the Tabernacle, He also put on a 'flesh tent' to walk among mankind.

And while He was on earth, his message was overwhelmingly self-focused, and on top of that, whereas in the Old Testament we see God through His prophets saying "Thus saith the LORD" about 420 times, in the New Testament, that phrase does not appear, NOT ONCE. It is replaced with Jesus' proclamation, "I say to you" 135 times!

You can find the (rather long) list (which is why I'm not copying/pasting it here) of verses that show that Jesus' message was UTTERLY self-centered at https://kgov.com/deity.

NOT ONE of the prophets or angels could have EVER been said such things and remained righteous. NOT ONE, for it is blasphemy for a created being to ever demand that one follow, believe in, leave family for, live in, come after, abide in, do things for and even die for, confess, do not deny, love, do not reject, be worthy of, come to, receive, tell others about, hear and do the saying of, (and the list keeps going) the created being, rather than God,

The above witnesses establish that Jesus is God:: The verse in Exodus (among others throughout the Bible) where both God and Jesus refer to themselves as "I am"; the fact that just as God tabernacled in a tent with the Israelites, so too He tabernacled among us according to John; that "Thus saith the LORD" is replaced with "I say to you"; that Jesus message was self-focused.

That's FOUR witnesses that Jesus is God. God said minimum two to three witnesses are necessary to establish a matter.
 

oatmeal

Well-known member
He said that He existed before Abraham.

So unless He is an angel or other immortal being, that makes Him God, the I AM.

Jesus is, and you should be well aware of this, referencing what he said to Moses at the burning bush:

And God said to Moses, “I AM WHO I AM.” And He said, “Thus you shall say to the children of Israel, ‘I AM has sent me to you.’ ” - Exodus 3:14 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/...p;version=NKJV

Exodus 3:14 (WH) καὶ εἶπεν ὁ θεὸς πρὸς Μωυσῆν ἐγώ εἰμι ὁ ὤν καὶ εἶπεν οὕτως ἐρεῖς τοῖς υἱοῖς Ισραηλ ὁ ὢν ἀπέσταλκέν με πρὸς ὑμᾶς

Exodus 3:14 kai eipen ho theos pros Moysen ego eimi ho on . . . ho on apestalken me pros ymas

Exodus 3:14 And said the God to Moses I Am the One Who Is . . . the One Who Is has sent me to you.

And so, we see Jesus not only claiming to be God, but also claiming to be the one whom the I AM sent.

God sent His son, the Great I AM, to tabernacle (yes, that is the greek word used in John 1:14) among us, because just as God dwelt with Israel in a tent called the Tabernacle, He also put on a 'flesh tent' to walk among mankind.

And while He was on earth, his message was overwhelmingly self-focused, and on top of that, whereas in the Old Testament we see God through His prophets saying "Thus saith the LORD" about 420 times, in the New Testament, that phrase does not appear, NOT ONCE. It is replaced with Jesus' proclamation, "I say to you" 135 times!

You can find the (rather long) list (which is why I'm not copying/pasting it here) of verses that show that Jesus' message was UTTERLY self-centered at https://kgov.com/deity.

NOT ONE of the prophets or angels could have EVER been said such things and remained righteous. NOT ONE, for it is blasphemy for a created being to ever demand that one follow, believe in, leave family for, live in, come after, abide in, do things for and even die for, confess, do not deny, love, do not reject, be worthy of, come to, receive, tell others about, hear and do the saying of, (and the list keeps going) the created being, rather than God,

The above witnesses establish that Jesus is God:: The verse in Exodus (among others throughout the Bible) where both God and Jesus refer to themselves as "I am"; the fact that just as God tabernacled in a tent with the Israelites, so too He tabernacled among us according to John; that "Thus saith the LORD" is replaced with "I say to you"; that Jesus message was self-focused.

That's FOUR witnesses that Jesus is God. God said minimum two to three witnesses are necessary to establish a matter.

I would like to reply to all your points and conclusions but for lack of space and time, I will at the very least address your first statement from scripture, not tradition.

He said that He existed before Abraham.

Did he say he existed before Abraham?

How is it that he existed before Abraham?

If that was true, other scriptures would be contradicted

Jesus Christ, according to God, as recorded in Matthew 1:18 had a beginning.

Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost.

Birth is the Greek word, gennessis or beginning. "now the beginning of Jesus Christ was on this wise....."

In Genesis 3:15, we learn that there would be a seed of the woman that would bruise the head of the serpent

Genesis 3:15

And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.

Who is this woman? It is of course, Mary, the mother of Jesus Christ.

Since the seed is mentioned in verse 15 does that mean that Mary was in existence back then?

Not at all, but what God says is, is, and what God says will be, will be.

Or as Romans 4:17 states

(As it is written, I have made thee a father of many nations,) before him whom he believed, even God, who quickeneth the dead, and calleth those things which be not as though they were.

Was Abraham a father of many nations when God told him that? Not at all, Abe was not even a great grand father, maybe not even a grandfather at this time when God said in

Genesis 17:4-5
As for me, behold, my covenant is with thee, and thou shalt be a father of many nations.
Neither shall thy name any more be called Abram, but thy name shall be Abraham; for a father of many nations have I made thee.

God clearly spoke of things that were not as though they were.

Was anything or anyone going to stop God from fullilling His promise to Abraham?

Nothing and no one would stop God.

Was anything or anyone going to negate God's word?

No, nothing nor no one would negate God's word, even though based on the circumstances at the time, there was absolutely no evidence that Abe would be a father of many nations other than God's promise

Was Mary in existence at the time that Genesis 3:15 was spoken by God?

Absolutely not

The how could the son of Mary be in existence before Abraham if his mother was not in existence before Abraham?

After all, all parents are always older than their children. That is, the parents precede the children in existence. That is how parents are set up

Now, you might say that the body and soul part of Jesus was the part that Mary was the mother of.

Yes, that is true. Likewise God was the parent of the body and soul part of Jesus Christ as well.

We know from scripture that Jesus Christ did not have spirit until he was baptized by John. It is at that baptism that we learn that the spirit of God descended upon him like a dove.

Mark 1:10
And straightway coming up out of the water, he saw the heavens opened, and the Spirit like a dove descending upon him:

Luke 3:22
And the Holy Ghost descended in a bodily shape like a dove upon him, and a voice came from heaven, which said, Thou art my beloved Son; in thee I am well pleased.

John 1:32
And John bare record, saying, I saw the Spirit descending from heaven like a dove, and it abode upon him.

God is spirit, John 4:24

It is clear that until the spirit descended upon him, he had no spirit, he was body and soul only

So at the very least, Jesus could not be God because God is spirit and Jesus was not.

Likewise we learn that the spirit descended upon him. It does not say that Jesus as God descended upon the Jesus not God as spirit descended then Jesus not God became Jesus is God.

Indeed Jesus existed as much as Mary existed and the nations that Abe would be the father of did. They existed because God promised them, and His word is true.

God's integrity gives him the right to speak of those things which be not as though they were.

Jesus was well aware of that, thus he could claim knowing God's integrity that as far as the promise of God made it true, Jesus existed because God promised he would.

I can claim that Jesus is going to return and that from that point on, I will ever be with the lord and I am right God to say so because I am saying what God says.

Is there any evidence that anyone can point to, other than scripture, God's written word, that Jesus shall return? None, none whatsoever.

Yet, as far as God is concerned, it is a foregone event that Jesus is going to return.

When you take into consideration, God's integrity and the word of His power, it is clear that Jesus was speaking of the promise of God coming true even I speak of Jesus' return as a foregone conclusion

or as the apostle Paul put it, (For we walk by faith, not by sight:) II Cor 5:7

By the way, as my op and subsequent posts clearly point out, Jesus said I am, not because he was claiming to be the "I am" but because he was simply ackknowledging that he is indeed and in truth, Jesus of Nazareth who the were seeking. and I point out with some additional verses why he acknowledged to his captors that he is Jesus of Nazareth.

Until we learn to read what is written all we have is guesswork

Am I right?

I am.

Oh my God, oh wait. I said "I am"

According you, I said, "I am" therefore I must be God!

Have you ever said "I am" then you must be God as well!

Wow! the trinity just turned into a quintity!
 
Last edited:

7djengo7

This space intentionally left blank
5 They answered him, Jesus of Nazareth. Jesus saith unto them, I am he. And Judas also, which betrayed him, stood with them.

What was Jesus saying?

a. he acknowledging that he is Jesus of Nazareth

b. he was claiming to be the "I am"

c. other _________

Both a and b.
 

Aimiel

Well-known member
I should provide more context for you to alleviate your confusion. Context clears it all up very precisely and absolutely

John 18:4-5
4 Jesus therefore, knowing all things that should come upon him, went forth, and said unto them, Whom seek ye?
5 They answered him, Jesus of Nazareth. Jesus saith unto them, I am he. And Judas also, which betrayed him, stood with them.

Jesus was simply letting them know that they had found who they were looking for.
Let's assume for just a moment that's true... WHY exactly did they all go backwards and fall down?
 

oatmeal

Well-known member
Both a and b.

Well, thanks for your opinion, but that is not how the record reads

Having read all of Jesus' recorded statements of truth, it is clear that Jesus communicated in complete thoughts and complete sentences, I do not recall any exceptions what so ever.

As my other thread conveys, when Jesus described himself or his role in mans' salvation, he told us what he is.

For instance, I am the bread of life. or I am the door, etc.

Therefore if Jesus was claiming to be "I am" he would have said,

I am I am.

or if he wanted to be really clear, he would have said, "I am I am that I am"

He did neither
 

oatmeal

Well-known member
Let's assume for just a moment that's true... WHY exactly did they all go backwards and fall down?

They were astounded that Jesus would be so forth right in identifying himself

In some situations, the listeners responded by deciding to murder Jesus, or they picked up stone to cast at him or they thrust him out of the city with the intent of casting him over the edge of a cliff, or they departed starting with the eldest accuser to the youngest.

Or devil spirits left because Jesus believing over came them.

In this case they were so astounded by Jesus' willful and courageous statement that they fell backwards. Evidently, they recovered themselves and went on with their intentions.

As many people that are taken aback by someone like me who openly declares that I do not believe in a trinity nor that Jesus is God, I am not surprised that a mob would fall backwards when Jesus openly identified himself as Jesus of Nazareth, the one the religious elite were clearly planning to kill, or more accurately murder by any means necessary
 
Last edited:

Aimiel

Well-known member
The description of what happened when He said, "I AM," paints a different picture for me.
 

oatmeal

Well-known member
The description of what happened when He said, "I AM," paints a different picture for me.

If someone has been preconditioned to believe in a trinity, or that Jesus Christ is actually God himself, then yes, that conclusions is understandable, but unjustified

Through God's grace and mercy, I was blessed enough to be challenged about my belief in the trinity at an early age.

I prayed about it and God made it clear that Jesus Christ is a man, not God by someone sharing, (in a different context) I Timothy 2:5, For there is one God and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus.

Who does God say, in God's word, is the one mediator between God and men?

a. The God Christ Jesus

b. God the Son Christ Jesus

c. the man Christ Jesus

d. the second person of the blessed trinity Christ Jesus?

e. the fully God/fully man Christ Jesus

f. The God-man Christ Jesus?

What does the word say?

By the way, Jesus Christ is the same man that calmed the seas, cast our devil spirits, healed the blind, the lame, the infirm, raised the dead with his word,

Why should I be surprised that his word would cause those with ill intent towards him would fall backwards at his bold statement that he is indeed, Jesus of Nazareth that they were seeking?
 

Tigger 2

Active member
As for the idea that the Greek Septuagint at Exodus 3:14 uses ego eimi ('I am' in English) as God's name, here is what the Brenton Septuagint (Zondervan Publ.) actually says:

"And God spoke to Moses saying, I am (ego eimi) THE BEING (ho ohn - capitalization by translator Brenton)...." (Compare Gabriel's statement at Luke 1:19.)


If I said "I am Tigger2," surely no one would think my name is "I am"!

The Septuagint does not say Moses was told that God's name is "I Am."

And since all other uses of the word ehyeh found in Moses' Hebrew writings are understood to be "I will be," it is unlikely that he meant "I am" at Ex. 3:14.
 
Last edited:

Tigger 2

Active member
A number of trinitarians couple John 8:58 with John 18: 1-6 where the officers and soldiers fell down when Jesus identified himself by saying ego eimi.

Noted trinitarian scholar A.T. Robertson asks what caused these hundreds of officers and soldiers to fall.  One suggestion was "supernatural power exerted by Jesus" (which seems most likely).  He continues by admitting that one of the very oldest complete manuscripts (300's A.D.), Uncial Manuscript B, "adds Iesous which must mean simply: 'I am Jesus.'" - Word Pictures in the New Testament, p. 284, vol. v.

Dr. William Barclay, famed trinitarian NT scholar and translator, also tells us about this incident:
 

"The officers, therefore, were the Jewish police force.  But there was a band of Roman soldiers there too."  He continues by telling us that even if we take the smallest number of Roman soldiers indicated by the NT Greek words used, it would still amount to two hundred men. - p. 222, The Gospel of John, vol. 2, The Daily Study Bible Series, Westminster Press, 1975.


Barclay explains the event: "(ii) It shows us his [Jesus'] authority.  There he was, one single, lonely, unarmed figure; there they were, hundreds of them, armed and equipped.  Yet face to face with him, they retreated and fell to the ground.  There flowed from Jesus an authority which in all his loneliness made him stronger than the might of his enemies.   (iii) It shows us that Jesus chose to die.  Here again it is clear that he could have escaped death if he so wished." - p. 223.

 
There is this to be recognized from Barclay's information:

Two hundred (at least) Roman soldiers were there who probably didn't understand Jesus' language.  And even if they did understand, they surely wouldn't understand that a mistranslation of a Jewish OT word (ehyeh, Heb. or ho own, Sept.) meant that Jesus was claiming to be God (nor would they even care if he really did claim to be that Jewish God).

 
And yet, these, 200 Roman soldiers were tumbled over along with the others.  It could not be because they recognized ego eimi as meaning Jesus was really the true God of the universe!  These were Roman soldiers!

It must be, as suggested, that Jesus (or the Father in heaven) applied an actual force to knock them down to show that Jesus could escape them if he so wished.
 

keypurr

Well-known member
Jesus didn't say, "I am He." The original text had: "I AM." Also, have you ever read John 8:58?

Truly, Truly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I Am.

That isn't a misunderstanding or misquote. It's what He said. He IS The I AM!!!

Most of my translations read I am he.

John 8:58 he says "I am" but he is not saying he is the almighty.
 

oatmeal

Well-known member
As for the idea that the Greek Septuagint at Exodus 3:14 uses ego eimi ('I am' in English) as God's name, here is what the Brenton Septuagint (Zondervan Publ.) actually says:

"And God spoke to Moses saying, I am (ego eimi) THE BEING (ho ohn - capitalization by translator Brenton)...." (Compare Gabriel's statement at Luke 1:19.)


If I said "I am Tigger2," surely no one would think my name is "I am"!

The Septuagint does not say Moses was told that God's name is "I Am."

And since all other uses of the word ehyeh found in Moses' writings are understood to be "I will be," it is unlikely that he meant "I am" at Ex. 3:14.

Yes indeed.

Evidently there is no verb "to be" in the Hebrew language but rather a verb "to become".

It would seem that the Hebrew culture was not static "to be" but dynamic "to become" in nature.

To have the idea of "be" in Hebrew would be stated "became".

I am told that my father's native language had no swear words in it, any swear words used were from other languages. Notably from Russia
 

oatmeal

Well-known member
A number of trinitarians couple John 8:58 with John 18: 1-6 where the officers and soldiers fell down when Jesus identified himself by saying ego eimi.

Noted trinitarian scholar A.T. Robertson asks what caused these hundreds of officers and soldiers to fall.  One suggestion was "supernatural power exerted by Jesus" (which seems most likely).  He continues by admitting that one of the very oldest complete manuscripts (300's A.D.), Uncial Manuscript B, "adds Iesous which must mean simply: 'I am Jesus.'" - Word Pictures in the New Testament, p. 284, vol. v.

Dr. William Barclay, famed trinitarian NT scholar and translator, also tells us about this incident:
 

"The officers, therefore, were the Jewish police force.  But there was a band of Roman soldiers there too."  He continues by telling us that even if we take the smallest number of Roman soldiers indicated by the NT Greek words used, it would still amount to two hundred men. - p. 222, The Gospel of John, vol. 2, The Daily Study Bible Series, Westminster Press, 1975.


Barclay explains the event: "(ii) It shows us his [Jesus'] authority.  There he was, one single, lonely, unarmed figure; there they were, hundreds of them, armed and equipped.  Yet face to face with him, they retreated and fell to the ground.  There flowed from Jesus an authority which in all his loneliness made him stronger than the might of his enemies.   (iii) It shows us that Jesus chose to die.  Here again it is clear that he could have escaped death if he so wished." - p. 223.

 
There is this to be recognized from Barclay's information:

Two hundred (at least) Roman soldiers were there who probably didn't understand Jesus' language.  And even if they did understand, they surely wouldn't understand that a mistranslation of a Jewish OT word (ehyeh, Heb. or ho own, Sept.) meant that Jesus was claiming to be God (nor would they even care if he really did claim to be that Jewish God).

 
And yet, these, 200 Roman soldiers were tumbled over along with the others.  It could not be because they recognized ego eimi as meaning Jesus was really the true God of the universe!  These were Roman soldiers!

It must be, as suggested, that Jesus (or the Father in heaven) applied an actual force to knock them down to show that Jesus could escape them if he so wished.

Thanks your sources verbalized what I could not.
 
Top