John 8:58-59.
Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am.
Then took they up stones to cast at him: but Jesus hid himself, and went out of the temple, going through the midst of them, and so passed by.

The standard Trinitarian technique is to approach John 8:58 in stages. First we are presented with long list of references to Jesus’ other “I am” sayings. In every case, we are asked to accept that Jesus was claiming to be God in every one of these places (regardless of context!) Finally, we are brought face to face with the Trinitarian piece de resistance – John 8:58 – where we are basically asked to accept the rationale of the men who attempted to stone Jesus.

Let’s examine the “I am…” sayings of John's Gospel, and see how many of them can be made to fit the Trinitarian argument from John 8:58. (All quotes are from the NIV unless otherwise stated.)

#1

John 4:25-26.
The woman said, "I know that Messiah" (called Christ) "is coming. When he comes, he will explain everything to us."
Jesus said to her, "I who speak to you am He [ego eimi]."

Notice that the woman had said “When Messiah comes, he will teach us all things”, and Jesus went on to identify himself as the Messiah. (“I who speak to you am he.”) This is a perfectly innocent response. There is no claim to deity here.

John 6:20.
But He said to them, "It is I [ego eimi]; do not be afraid."

The disciples were afraid because they thought they were seeing a spirit. Jesus reassures them (“It is I, do not be afraid.”) This was no spirit – it was the living man, Jesus Christ, whom they knew intimately. There is no claim to deity here.

John 8:24.
"I said therefore to you, that you shall die in your sins; for unless you believe that I am [ego eimi], you shall die in your sins."

Most Bible translations add “he” to the end of “I am” in this verse, with the implied meaning “Unless you believe that I am the Messiah, you will die in your sins.” (The same is true of John 4:26.) You will also notice that the Jews made no attempt to stone him (a surprising show of self-restraint, if Jesus had spoken the Tetragrammaton!)

The Jews obviously did not interpret his words as a claim to deity – on the contrary, they merely ask “Who art thou?” This tells us that they knew he was claiming to be someone, but did not yet know whom he claimed to be. (And whom did he claim to be? Verse 28 will tell us shortly.)

There is no claim to deity here.

#4

John 8:28.
Jesus therefore said, "When you lift up the Son of Man, then you will know that I am [ego eimi]."

John 8:28 – When ye have lifted up –
When ye have crucified me, and thus filled up the measure of your iniquities, ye shall know that I am the Christ, by the signs that shall follow; and ye shall know that what I spoke is true, by the judgments that shall follow. To be lifted up, is a common mode of expression, among the Jewish writers, for to die, or to be killed.

#5 (Part I)

John 8:58.
Jesus said to them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was born, I am [ego eimi]."

This the third of three Messianic claims in John 8. Let's consider it in the light of the events which have gone before.

Already, the Jews were restless. He had baffled them by his confidence and his inscrutable sayings; he had offended them by implying that he was greater than Abraham, implying that they were “under bondage”, implying that they did not know God, implying that God was his Father, implying that they were not the children of Abraham, and implying that they were not the children of God.

Their reactions were mixed. Some believed that he had a devil, and was mad. Some thought he was merely arrogant. Others believed on him. It is interesting to note that these Jews who believed on him, were the very Jews who sought to stone him at the end of the chapter. But even they had been pushed too far. Jesus had said that they were liars; he had claimed to be greater than Abraham. This was utterly infuriating - and their anger reaches its climax in a rash attempt to stone him. Were they trying to stone him for blasphemy? Obviously not, for they already believed on him. But now they were angered and confused by his accusations, and frustrated by his enigmatic answers.

Just as the members of his own synagogue had tried to push him off a cliff for claiming that he was the Messiah and telling them that he would preach to the Gentiles, now these Jews tried to kill him for claiming to be the Messiah. Having believed on him at the first, they now no longer believed on him. If he was the Messiah, would he truly have said such things? The Jews did not believe so.

That was their greatest mistake.

#5 (Part II)

• How many times did the Jews try to stone Jesus?
  I can think of only two occasions – John 10:30 & 8:59. But what of it?
  
  See here:
  
  Luke 20:6.
  But if we shall say, From men; all the people will stone us: for they are persuaded that John was a prophet.
  
  There was no blasphemy on this occasion... but the Pharisees realise that the danger of stoning is painfully real. For this reason, an attempted stoning cannot be taken as proof that blasphemy has been committed. It can only be taken as proof that a restless mob has been enraged.
  
  
• Perhaps the Jews picked up stones because blasphemy had to be dealt with on the spot, and if it was not, then it was let go.
  But even if we grant this supposition, it merely begs the question “How do Trinitarians intend to prove that this was blasphemy?”
  
  In any case, according to Jewish law, the accused had to face a legitimate trial. There was no way of performing the execution unless every legal procedure had been followed to the letter. That's why the trial of Christ was a farce - because it's possible to show that the Sanhedrin broke a myriad of rules during the course of the whole affair. The attempted stoning of John 8 was a defiant breach of the Law. We can confirm this by cross-referencing it with the occasion when the Jews were about to stone the adulterous woman. Their defence is "We caught her in the very act", which shows that they had actually formed a legitimate case. The woman had been found guilty by due process of law; now she was to be stoned. It wasn't a spontaneous event.
  
  
• But the amount of times the Jews were going to kill Him quite clearly shows that he did something to upset them, and blasphemy would make the most sense.
  Not necessarily. For if we say that the Jews had construed his words as blasphemy, then what do we do with the apostles – Stephen and Paul, for example? They were actually stoned - but had they committed blasphemy? Had they actually said anything which might be construed as blasphemy? Had they broken any laws whatsoever? (Since both men where inspired by God at the time, I believe the answer must necessarily be a resounding “No!”) Mere stoning – nor even the threat of stoning – is not sufficient to prove that blasphemy had occurred, nor is it sufficient to prove that people believed it had occurred. Moreover, a spontaneous stoning (as in the case of John 8:59 is even more questionable.
  

• That Christ succeeded in explaining himself in Matthew 12:2, John 5:18 & 10:30 (as the text itself clearly shows.)
  
  
• That his comments in John 8 (including verse 58), though infuriating and (at face value) did not actually constitute a breach of any law that was currently on the books.
  

• A Samaritan.
  
  
• One who is possessed by a "devil."
  

So even before verse 58, they had made up their minds about him - and they had concluded that he was either deranged or apostate. At this point, just about anything is going to tip them over the edge.

Remember – this incident should have been raised at the trial, if Jesus was pronouncing the Tetragrammaton and/or claiming to be God. There would have been no need of false witnesses if he had spoken the Divine Name. But John’s Gospel does not even hint that the Jews had attempted to stone Jesus for blasphemy on this occasion – indeed, there were other occasions on which they had attempted to take Jesus’ life without any such allegation whatsoever. We also find that they tried to kill the apostles (on many occasions), sometimes accusing them of blasphemy. (Though we know that the apostles did not blaspheme at all.) It is therefore unwise to treat the reaction of the Jewish mob (both here and elsewhere) as proof that “Jesus must have meant such-and-such.”

The Jews were frequently hostile without good reason - and frequently mistaken, as Jesus himself noted on several occasions.

…he may be said to be "slain from the foundation of the world"; in the decree and purpose of God, by which he was set forth, or foreappointed to be the propitiation for sin, and was foreordained, before the foundation of the world, to redeem his people by his blood, and in the promise of God immediately after the fall of man, that the seed of the woman should have his heel bruised, and he himself should bruise the serpent's head, which made it as sure as if it was then done; and in the sacrifices, which were immediately upon this offered up, and were types of the death and sacrifice of Christ; and in the faith of the saints, which brings distant things near, and considers them as if present; and also in his members, in Abel, and others, in whom he suffered, as he still does in his people;

to which may be added, that such is the efficacy of the bloodshed and death of Christ, that it reached to all the saints from the beginning of the world, for the justification of their persons, the atonement of their sins, and cleansing from them; for the remission of sins, that are past, and for the redemption of transgressions under the first testament; for Old Testament saints from the beginning are saved by the grace of the Lord Jesus, as New Testament ones are.

• He is prefigured by the "sacrifice" of Isaac.
  
  
• He is prefigured by the Passover lamb.
  
  
• He is prefigured by the brasen serpent on the pole in the wilderness.
  
  
• He is prefigured by Joseph.
  
  
• He is prefigured by David.
  
  
• He is prefigured by Boaz.
  
  
• He is prefigured by Solomon.
  

Hebrews 7:1-10.
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;
Without father, without mother, without descent, having neither beginning of days, nor end of life; but made like unto the Son of God; abideth a priest continually.
Now consider how great this man was, unto whom even the patriarch Abraham gave the tenth of the spoils.
And verily they that are of the sons of Levi, who receive the office of the priesthood, have a commandment to take tithes of the people according to the law, that is, of their brethren, though they come out of the loins of Abraham:
But he whose descent is not counted from them received tithes of Abraham, and blessed him that had the promises.
And without all contradiction the less is blessed of the better.
And here men that die receive tithes; but there he receiveth them, of whom it is witnessed that he liveth.
And as I may so say, Levi also, who receiveth tithes, payed tithes in Abraham.
For he was yet in the loins of his father, when Melchisedec met him.

For this is what the Lord of the world has decreed: He created the world on behalf of his people, but he did not make this purpose of creation known from the beginning of the world so that the nations might be found guilty . . . But He did design and devise me [Moses], who was prepared from the beginning of the world to be the mediator of the covenant.
Testament of Moses, 1:13, 14.

• That any expression or vehicle of God’s will for the world, His saving counsel and purpose, was present in His mind, or His ‘Word,’ from the beginning is a natural way of saying that it is not fortuitous, but the due unfolding and expression of God’s own being. This attribution of pre-existence indicates religious importance of the highest order. Rabbinic theology speaks of the Law, of God’s throne of glory, of Israel and of other important objects of faith, as things which had been created by God, and were already present with Him, before the creation of the world. The same is also true of the Messiah. It is said that his name was present with God in heaven beforehand, that it was created before the world, and that it is eternal.
  
  But the reference here is not to genuine pre-existence in the strict and literal sense. This is clear from the fact that Israel is included among these pre-existent entities. This does not mean that either the nation Israel or its ancestor existed long ago in heaven, but that the community Israel, the people of God, had been from all eternity in the mind of God, as a factor in His purpose.
  
  [...]
  
  This is true of references to the pre-existence of the Messiah. It is his ‘name,’ not the Messiah himself, that is said to have been present with God before creation. In Pesikta Rabbati 152b is said that ‘from the beginning of the creation of the world the King Messiah was born, for he came up in the thought of God before the world was created.’ This means that from all eternity it was the will of God that the Messiah should come into existence, and should do his work in the world to fulfill God’s eternal saving purpose.
  Mowinckel, S. (1954), He Who Cometh.
  
  
• When the Jew said something was ‘predestined,’ he thought of it as already ‘existing’ in a higher sphere of life. The world’s history is thus predestined because it is already, in a sense, preexisting and consequently fixed. This typically Jewish conception of predestination may be distinguished from the Greek idea of preexistence by the predominance of the thought of ‘preexistence’ in the Divine purpose.
  Dewick, E.C. (1912), Primitive Christian Eschatology, The Hulsean Prize Essay for 1908.

Even when we were dead in sins, hath quickened us together with Christ, (by grace ye are saved;)
And hath raised us up together, and made us sit together in heavenly places in Christ Jesus:
That in the ages to come he might shew the exceeding riches of his grace in his kindness toward us through Christ Jesus.

And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one

Jesus possessed this glory before the foundation of the world in the sense that it was divinely purposed for him. He knew that his Messianic work had been fixed, and was kept in store for him.

[...]

We conclude, then, that these three passages in John [6:62; 8:58; 17:5] in which Jesus alludes to his pre-existence, do not involve the claim that his pre-existence was personal and real. They are to be classed with the other phenomena of the Messianic consciousness of Jesus, none of which have to do with metaphysical relationships with the Father.
Gilbert, G.H. (1899), The Revelation of Jesus, A Study of the Primary Sources of Christianity.

• In verse 4, Jesus speaks of his death as if it had already been accomplished - even though it was yet to occur.
  
  
• Verse 11 - "I am no longer in the world..." - though of course he clearly was still in the world.
  
  
• Verse 18 - "I have sent them..." (referring to his disciples) even though he had not yet sent them.
  

Luke 11:48-50.
Truly ye bear witness that ye allow the deeds of your fathers: for they indeed killed them, and ye build their sepulchres.
Therefore also said the wisdom of God, I will send them prophets and apostles, and some of them they shall slay and persecute:
That the blood of all the prophets, which was shed from the foundation of the world, may be required of this generation;

Jeremiah 1:5.
Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee; and before thou camest forth out of the womb I sanctified thee, and I ordained thee a prophet unto the nations.

1. The Messiah.
   
   
2. The King of the Jews.
   
   
3. The High Priest and redeemer of his people.
   
   
4. The "Lamb slain from the foundation of the world."

John 8:56.
Your father Abraham rejoiced to see my day: and he saw it, and was glad.

John 8:57.
Then said the Jews unto him, Thou art not yet fifty years old, and hast thou seen Abraham?

• B. W. Johnson – The People’s New Testament:
  
  John 8:56 - Your father Abraham rejoiced to see my day . . . and was glad...
  Saw it in promise by prophetic vision; whether or not "Abraham was greater," he rejoiced in the hope of the revelation of Christ.
  
  
• Matthew Henry’s Commentary, on Genesis 17:
  
  Verse 15-22 –
  Here is the promise made to Abraham of a son by Sarai, in whom the promise made to him should be fulfilled. The assurance of this promise was the change of Sarai's name into Sarah. Sarai signifies my princess, as if her honour were confined to one family only; Sarah signifies a princess. The more favours God confers upon us, the more low we should be in our own eyes. Abraham showed great joy; he laughed, it was a laughter of delight, not of distrust. Now it was that Abraham rejoiced to see Christ's day; now he saw it and was glad, John 8:56.
  
  
• Adam Clarke’s Commentary, on Genesis 17:
  
  By laughing Abraham undoubtedly expressed his joy at the prospect of the fulfillment of so glorious a promise; and from this very circumstance Isaac had his name (yitschak), which we change into Isaac, signifies laughter; and it is the same word which is used in the verse before us: Abraham fell on his face, (vaiyitschak), and he laughed; and to the joy which he felt on this occasion our Lord evidently alludes, Joh_8:56 : Your father Abraham Rejoiced to see my day; and he saw it, and was Glad. And to commemorate this joy he called his son’s name Isaac. See note on Gen_21:6.
  
  
• John Gill’s Exposition:
  
  Genesis 17:17 - Then Abraham fell upon his face,....
  In reverence of the divine Being, and as amazed at what was told him:
  
  and laughed;
  Not through distrust and diffidence of the promise, as Sarah did, for he staggered not at that through unbelief, but for joy at such good news; and so Onkelos renders it, "and he rejoiced", with the joy of faith; it may be our Lord refers to this in Joh_8:56; he saw Christ in the promise of Isaac, and rejoiced that he should spring from his seed…
  
  
• John Wesley’s Commentary:
  
  Genesis 17:17 - Then Abraham fell on his face, and laughed –
  It was a laughter of delight, not of distrust. Now it was that Abraham rejoiced to see Christ's day, now he saw it and was glad, Joh_8:56, for as he saw heaven in the promise of Canaan, so he saw Christ in the promise of Isaac, and said, Shall a child be born to him that is an hundred years old? - He doth not here speak of it, as at all doubtful, for we are sure he staggered not at the promise, Rom_4:20, but as wonderful, and that which could not be effected but by the almighty power of God.
  

So we have an undeniable connexion between John 8:56 and Genesis 17. This is perfectly consistent with the context of Jesus’ words, which refer specifically to things which have already occurred in the past, that are now being fulfilled in him.

#5 (Part VI)

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

EHYEH ASHER EHYEH, EHYEH

But I will be with you ...

• Judges 11:9.
  If you bring me home again to fight with the Ammonites, and the LORD gives them over to me, I will be your head.
  
  
• I Samuel 23:17.
  ... you shall be king over Israel, and I shall be next to you.
  
  
• II Samuel 15:34.
  I will be your servant, O king ...
  

• The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia (1915 Edition): I will be that I will be.
  
  
• The Analytical Hebrew and Chaldee Lexicon (1981 Edition): I will be that I will be.
  
  
• The Brown, Driver, Briggs, Gesenius Hebrew and English Lexicon (1996 Edition): I shall be the one who will be.
  

'hyh 'shr 'hyh.

the Hebrew 'hyh, in its common imperfect, first person, and singular form.
Analytical Hebrew and Chaldee Lexicon, note Table N; Gesenius' Grammar; The Essentials of Biblical Hebrew, by Yates, p.41.

• I Samuel 23:13.
  And they went whithersoever they could go.
  
  
• II Samuel 15:20.
  Seeing I go whither I may go.
  
  
• II Kings 8:1.
  And sojourn wheresoever thou canst sojourn.
  

I will make all my goodness pass before you and will proclaim before you my name 'The LORD'; And I will be gracious to whom I will be gracious and will show mercy on whom I will show mercy.

So then he has mercy upon whomever he wills.

• Exodus 3:12: "I will be."
  
  
• Exodus 4:12: "I will be."
  
  
• Exodus 4:15: "I will be."
  
  
• Deuteronomy 31:23: "I will be."
  
  
• Joshua 1:5: "I will be."
  
  
• Joshua 3:7: "I will be."
  
  
• Judges 6:16: "I will be."
  
  
• Judges 11:9: "I will be."
  
  
• II Samuel 7:14: "I will be."
  
  
• II Samuel 15:34: "I will be."
  
  
• I Chronicles 17:13: "I will be."
  
  
• I Chronicles 28:6: "I will be."
  
  
• Jeremiah 11:4: "I will be."
  
  
• Jeremiah 24:7: "I will be."
  
  
• Jeremiah 30:22: "I will be."
  
  
• Jeremiah 31:1: "I will be."
  
  
• Jeremiah 32:38: "I will be."
  
  
• Ezekiel 11:20: "I will be."
  
  
• Ezekiel 36:28: "I will be."
  
  
• Ezekiel 37:23: "I will be."
  
  
• Zechariah 8:8: "I will be."
  

If Trinitarians were consistent, they would take these verses - including the "I will be" of Exodus 3:12, which arrives just two verses before the Tetragrammaton (translated "I AM" in the KJV) - to read "I am", not "I will be." But of course, consistency was never a strong point of Trinitarian exegesis...

#5 (Part VII)

Exodus 3:10-21.
Come now therefore, and I will send thee unto Pharaoh, that thou mayest bring forth my people the children of Israel out of Egypt.
And Moses said unto God, Who am I, that I should go unto Pharaoh, and that I should bring forth the children of Israel out of Egypt?
And he said, Certainly I will be with thee;
and this shall be a token unto thee, that I have sent thee: When thou hast brought forth the people out of Egypt, ye shall serve God upon this mountain.
And Moses said unto God, Behold, when I come unto the children of Israel, and shall say unto them, The God of your fathers hath sent me unto you; and they shall say to me, What is his name? what shall I say unto them?
And God said unto Moses, I WILL BE THAT I WILL BE: and he said, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, I WILL BE hath sent me unto you.
And God said moreover unto Moses, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, the LORD God of your fathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, hath sent me unto you: this is my name for ever, and this is my memorial unto all generations.
Go, and gather the elders of Israel together, and say unto them, The LORD God of your fathers, the God of Abraham, of Isaac, and of Jacob, appeared unto me, saying, I have surely visited you, and seen that which is done to you in Egypt:
And I have said, I will bring you up out of the affliction of Egypt unto the land of the Canaanites, and the Hittites, and the Amorites, and the Perizzites, and the Hivites, and the Jebusites, unto a land flowing with milk and honey.
And they shall hearken to thy voice: and thou shalt come, thou and the elders of Israel, unto the king of Egypt, and ye shall say unto him, The LORD God of the Hebrews hath met with us: and now let us go, we beseech thee, three days' journey into the wilderness, that we may sacrifice to the LORD our God.
And I am sure that the king of Egypt will not let you go, no, not by a mighty hand.
And I will stretch out my hand, and smite Egypt with all my wonders which I will do in the midst thereof: and after that he will let you go.
And I will give this people favour in the sight of the Egyptians: and it shall come to pass, that, when ye go, ye shall not go empty.

Such a translation as "I am what I am" appears to be ruled out completely by the fact that the verbs here are imperfects. "I am" is the normal translation of the Hebrew perfect, not an imperfect.

[...]

The translation offered here relates this explanation of the name to covenants with the patriarchs. As such it was a basis of assurance concerning Yahweh's presence and support. This thought is made explicit in the verse that follows, and the proper name Yahweh, the memorial name, is made synonymous with the description "I shall continue to be what I have always been." This makes the description a restatement of Yahweh's faithfulness an assurance that he will fulfil the covenants with Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.
Watts, J. Washington (1977), A Distinctive Translation of Exodus with An Interpretative Outline.

Most moderns follow Rashi in rendering 'I will be what I will be' i.e., no words can sum up all that He will be to His people, but His everlasting faithfulness and unchanging mercy will more and more manifest themselves in the guidance of Israel. The answer which Moses receives in these words is thus equivalent to, 'I shall save in the way that I shall save.' It is to assure the Israelites of the fact of deliverance, but does not disclose the manner.
Hertz, J.H. (1950), The Pentateuch and Haftorahs.

It has become fashionable among some preachers and writers to relate Jesus use of the words 'I am' in the Gospel according to John, in all, or most, of their contexts, to God's declaration to Moses in Exodus 3:14, and to expound the passages concerned as if the words themselves have some kind of magic in them. Some who have no more than a smattering of Greek attribute the 'magic' to the Greek words ego eimi. I wish briefly to draw attention to the normality of the Greek in all such passages, and the unlikelihood of the words ego eimi being intended to suggest any special significance of this kind.

[…]

The verb `to be' is used differently, in what is presumably its basic meaning of `be in existence,' in John 8:58: _prin Abraam genesthai ego eimi, which would be most naturally translated `I have been in existence since before Abraham was born,' if it were not for the obsession with the simple words `I am.' If we take the Greek words in their natural meaning, as we surely should, the claim to have been in existence for so long is in itself a staggering one, quite enough to provoke the crowd's violent reaction.

[…]

Now the Septuagint was the translation done for the benefit of the increasing number of Greek-speaking Jews a couple of centuries earlier, so naturally it is the version of the Old Testament that is normally referred to in the New Testament, and certainly the one most likely to be known to the early readers of John's Gospel. Its translation of Exodus 3:14 follows the sense (as understood by the Jewish translators) rather than the exact form of the Hebrew: ego eimi ho on...Ho on apestalke me, which translates into English literally as 'I am the being one', and 'the being one has sent me'.

Now the words ego eimi here are the emphatic pronoun and the copula, as in most of the passages cited above [the alleged “I AM” sayings]; and ho on represents a relative clause which in its first occurrence would be hos eimi and in its second occurrence would be hos esti, but the most natural translation into English of both would be 'the one who is (who really exists)', the verb having it's basic meaning (and being so accented), and not being a mere copula. In neither is there any possibility of inserting an emphatic ego.

So the emphatic words used by Jesus in the passages referred to above [including John 8:58] are perfectly natural in their contexts, and they do not echo the words of Exodus 3:14 in the normally quoted Greek version. Thus they are quite unlikely to have been used in the New Testament to convey that significance, however much the modern English versions of the relevant passages, following the form of the Hebrew words, may suggest it.
McKay, Kenneth L. (1996), The Expository Times, 107.10, p303.

(Kenneth L. McKay graduated with honours in Classics from the Universities of Sydney and Cambridge. He has taught Greek in universities and theological colleges in Nigeria, New Zealand, and England.)

But leaving aside the debate over whether or not "I AM" is the best interpretation of the Hebrew text, it cannot be denied that what God says in the Septuagint (LXX) translation of Exodus 3:14, is "I AM THAT I AM." He does not simply say "I AM" - he say "I am", and then supplies the name: "I AM."

This is confirmed by the following words "...say unto them, I AM hath sent me." So we know that the ]name itself (according to the Greek of the LXX) is "I AM." What God does not do, is present us with the same construction as Jesus' answer in John 8:58. He does not simply say "I AM" (ego eimi), as Jesus does in John 8:58.

Now, since we can see from the text that "I AM" is the name itself, how can anybody claim that Jesus is applying this name to himself by simply saying "I am"? In order to make such a claim, he would need to say exactly what God had said: "I am THAT I AM." (Or, in other words, "I AM is my name.") But he doesn't! What he says is "Before Abraham was, I am." Adding the word "he" (as our Trinitarian commentators have done in the case of Jesus' other "I am" sayings), we hve "Before Abraham was, I am he" - which provides us not only with a proper grammatical construction, but also an affirmation that is perfectly consistent with Christ's other uses of ego eimi.

By contrast, the Trinitarian interpretation turns this single verse into a totally unique statement - and of course, it is not hard to see why. Trinitarians do this because they want to establish a link between John 8:58 and the LXX translation of Exodus 3:14. So again, I say that the argument is entirely subjective.

But let's take it a step further. We can test the Trinitarian claim by replacing Jesus words in John 8:58 ("I am"), with a regular, down-to-earth Bible name. Let's use "Daniel", just for the sake of the argument.

If Christ is (a) quoting the LXX translation of Exodus 3:14, and (b) thereby presenting us with an actual name in John 8:58, we should be able to substitute the words "I am" with any name we like, and the Trinitarian argument will make perfect sense.

So let's do that:
[ul]
John 8:58
Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, Daniel.
[/ul]
Dear reader, does this make any sense to you? If so, what do you think Christ would be attempting to convey by the recitation of a mere name? Is it likely that Christ would answer the Jews with a totally meaningless statement which was not only (a) grammatically inaccurate, but also (b) totally meaningless?

The consistency of Scripture says "No" on all counts.

I invite intelligent Christians to arrive at the only possible conclusion that this might suggest to a rational mind...

#5 (VIII)

Your father Abraham rejoiced to see my day: and he saw it, and was glad.

• He first establishes the context by referring to his figurative "pre-existence" (as confirmed by the Trinitarian scholars I have cited), deliberately linking it with a Messianic claim.
  
  
• The Jews misunderstand this as a reference to literal pre-existence.
  
  
• Finally (verse 58) he repeats his Messianic claim, deliberately linking it (once again) with his previous references to figurative pre-existence ("Before Abraham was, I am [he]", meaning "the Messiah." This matches perfectly with Jesus' previous Messianic claims where the words "I am" appear - to which, as we have already seen, Trinitarian commentators add the word "he", since it is clearly implied. Indeed, we are about to see a few more examples of this.
  

As with some of his other Messianic claims (Luke 4, etc.) this provoked the crowd, and they attempted to kill him unlawfully. But notice the absence of an accusation of blasphemy, the absence of any representative of the Law, and the previous accusation of "thou art a Samaritan." (This accusation is significant because the Samaritans were known for their love of magic and mysticism. Many false prophets arose from Samaria, and some of these had claimed to be miracle-workers. Jesus is elsewhere accused of casting out devils by the power of Beelzebub - which, if it had been true, would make him a false prophet. The accusation "thou art a Samaritan" is virtually equivalent.)

Having dismissed the primary Trinitarian argument in this category, let us now return to our list of “I am…” sayings in the Gospel of John.

#6

John 13:19.
"From now on I am telling you before it comes to pass, so that when it does occur, you may believe that I am [ego eimi.]”

That I am he (hoti ego eimi).
As Jesus has repeatedly claimed to be the Messiah (Joh_8:24, Joh_8:58, etc.). Cf. also Joh_14:29 (pisteusete here); Joh_16:4.

I am intrigued by the fact that in his notes on John 13:19, Robertson refers to John 8:58 as one of the occasions when Jesus claimed to be the Messiah, while in his notes on John 8:58, he declares his belief that this was one of the occasions when Jesus claimed to be God. (The two claims are mutually exclusive!) But the point is well made - John 8:58 is a Messianic claim, and Robertson confirms it here, where he also adds "he" to the end of another "I am" statement.

#7

John 18:5.
They answered Him, "Jesus the Nazarene." He said to them, "I am [ego eimi.]" And Judas also who was betraying Him, was standing with them.