Jesus Christ The Great I AM

[justbyfaith]

If memory serves well, Paul nor any of the other apostles have once stated you are saved by believing Jesus is God; absolutely none.

The apostle John quoted Jesus as saying that.

 

[101G]

Addressing the OP, GREAT, and I'll say it again..... GREAT TOPIC. you're correct.

Jesus Christ IS The Great I AM.

YES he IS.... the ONLY TRUE AND LIVING GOD. BINGO.

The Hebrew verb here is, “hâyâh (’ehyeh)” which is the imperfect, “to exist, to be”. The imperfect also denotes habitual or customary action –past, present, or future tense. It also denotes incomplete action, whether in the past, present, or future. In John 1:1 we read, “was the Word...was with God...was God”. This does not mean as in our English, that refers only to the past. Here the Greek for “was”, is “ἦν”, which is the imperfect of “εἰμι”, and like the Hebrew “hâyâh”, denotes incomplete action.

It is the same Hebrew imperfect verb “hâyâh”, used in verse 12, where most English translations read, “I will be with you”. Youngs Literal Translation reads, “I am with thee”, which is right. Alost all these English Versions that read, “I will be with you”, translate the same Hebrew in verse 14, “I am Who I am”, or, “I am that I am”. As we have seen, the LXX translates the Hebrew, “hâyâh”, with “ εἰμι”, which is the present tense, literally, “to be, to exist”. And therefore "Ἐγώ εἰμι” denotes, absolute existence.

excellent, "I AM THAT I AM is on point as to "WHAT" he is VS as to "WHO" he is. for, “hâyâh”, is a VERB and not a NOUN. verbs describe action, as to "WHAT" someone is in doings or actions. so our Lord Jesus as telling the Jews and us "WHAT" he is....... God, the Father, the Ordinal First, the creator and MAKER of all things. as Son of God, meaning God in flesh, he is to REDEEM and SAVE man, (per Isaiah 35:4). for without a body, and blood, he could not. because it was a man who allowed sin to enter into the world, and it would take a MAN, without sin to remove it. and since there was no sinless man, God himself came in his OWN IMAGE ........ as a Man, (Son of God, per Zechariah 13:7), to die and redeem and save man. So "WHAT" God is in the beginning, at Genesis 1:1, the CREATOR, and the MAKER of all things. titles, the Father, the First, the ORDINAL "FIRST", the Alpha, the Aleph, the beginning, (Both, Genesis 1:1, and John 1:1), and the Root. and "WHAT" this same God is in the beginning at John 1:1, the REDEEMER, and the SAVIOUR of all mankind. titles, the Son, the Last, thr ORDINAL "LAST", the Omega, the Tav, and the Offspring. the same one God now "Diversified", or equally shared in flesh and bone, as, as, as, a man, his own IMAGE. so ByGraceThroughFaith, you're correct. and the amalgamation of the GLORIFIED Spirit and the Flesh is the "HOLY SPIRIT. BINGO, you're correct.

This was why the Jews were seeking all the more to kill him, because not only was he breaking the Sabbath, but he was even calling God his own Father, making himself equal with God”. What the Jews meant here by “ισον”, was that Jesus was here saying that there is no “essential difference” between Himself and His Father, as in 10:33. Though functionally, the Father was “greater” than Jesus during His Incarnation. (Luke 24:26; John 14:28; 17:5; Phil. 2:5-11; Heb. 2:7-9)

again, correct, for the Lord Jesus is the G243 Allos of himself in flesh. and the reason why the statement, "my Father/Spirit is greater", because in the diversified state of G2758 κενόω kenoo (ke-no-ō'), he could do nothing of himself in that state. but when he rose, and was glorified of his OWN Spirit, (per John 17), then he ...... "WAS", (as in John 1:1) ... "WAS" , with all power as before, but now in the GLORIFIED body that we all now seek by waiting for it. BINGO, again you're correct.

The Jews in had accused Jesus of making Himself to be "greater" than Abraham, and that Abraham actually rejoiced to "see" Jesus, which the Jews could not fathom. Abraham, says Jesus, had a "beginning" as he was born in time; whereas He did not have any "beginning", as He has always existed, which is seen in the force of the words ἐγὼ εἰμί", which is in the present, continuance.

true, this is why the Jews could not fathom, or UNDERSTAND what the Lord Jesus was saying. if they would had read this verse, Isaiah 48:3 "I have declared the former things from the beginning; and they went forth out of my mouth, and I shewed them; I did them suddenly, and they came to pass."

the former things from the BEGINNING. if one want to know the truth about the Lord Jesus, then start in Revelation and read backward toward Genesis 1:1. then one would truly know, the "which is, (Genesis 1:1, the I AM, the Father), which was, (John 1:1, THAT, the Son), and which is to come, (Revelation 1:1, I AM, the Holy Spirit). BINGO.

there you have it, Jesus is, I AM, "the Father", Genesis 1:1, THAT, is the "SON", John 1:1, who is the Father, and the Son to come, the "Holy Ghost", I AM.

only if they would have understood, Isaiah 48:3a. ... the the amalgamation of the Spirit and the Glorified Flesh... per Colossians 2:9 "For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily."


PICJAG
101G The "Spiritual Saboteur"

 

[Michiah-Imla]

if a doctrine is not in a specific passage but it can be found in other biblical passages, it is still a biblical doctrine.

For example, Acts of the Apostles 2:38-39 says nothing about faith.

But that does not preclude that faith isn't an element of what saves us

Yes; but faith is mentioned in other scripture passages as an important part of salvation. This is not a valid example set forth by you.

 

[Michiah-Imla]

The apostle John quoted Jesus as saying that.

But you are pointing back to the disputed passage. Circles, circles, circles...

You have ONE ambiguous passage with ZERO clear passages.

Not a good start in creating doctrine.

 

[justbyfaith]

Yes; but faith is mentioned in other scripture passages as an important part of salvation. This is not a valid example set forth by you.

You had mentioned that because Paul did not mention Jesus as God being an essential for salvation in 1 Corinthians 15:1-4, that for that reason we should deny that concept.

Therefore it is a valid example set forth by me; because John 8:24 does in fact tell us that the Deity of Jesus as an essential for salvation is the reality.

But you are pointing back to the disputed passage. Circles, circles, circles...

You have ONE ambiguous passage with ZERO clear passages.

Not a good start in creating doctrine.

Call it circles if you want; you are not my only audience here; and I also believe that the Lord may at some point break through to you and reveal to you what He meant in John 8:24, which is clear to me; but you appear to be blind to the reality.

2Co 4:4, In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them.

I think that you have said that you do not deny the Deity of Christ, so I think that you believe to a certain extent; but the god of this world has blinded you to the reality that the Deity of Christ is essential to salvation as a doctrine. The devil wants to use you in the lives of jehovah's witnesses and other unitarians, and already has, in giving them false comfort because someone who believes in Christ's Deity does not believe in its essentiality as a doctrine.

They may not be able to heed the warning because you deny the warning and they will take it as a sign that the warning is not valid (of John 8:24).

Therefore you will be accountable for certain people never coming to the knowledge of Jesus Christ and as the result they will not go to heaven and you will be the responsible party.

 

[Michiah-Imla]

you will be accountable for certain people never coming to the knowledge of Jesus Christ and as the result they will not go to heaven and you will be the responsible party.

You have no scripture to support this sectarian nonsense of yours.

How is telling people that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, withholding the knowledge of Jesus Christ from them?

You have left the biblical principles of modesty and temperance in biblical interpretation. Show me one place where Paul warned the saints to avoid men who deny that Jesus is God.

You cannot.

You only cite this passage:

John 8:24
I said therefore unto you, that ye shall die in your sins: for if ye believe not that I am he, ye shall die in your sins.

@justbyfaith says that Jesus was referring to the “I AM” of the Old Testament (Jehovah - The LORD).

But the Bible says this:

John 8:12
Then spake Jesus again unto them, saying, I am the light of the world: he that followeth me shall not walk in darkness, but shall have the light of life.

This is how to properly interpret John 8:24!

And you call me blind?!

Sober up from this strange doctrine man!

 

[friend of]

Revelation 21:7 proves Jesus is God

 

[Michiah-Imla]

Revelation 21:7 proves Jesus is God

But you don’t have to believe that he is God to be saved.

Because the scripture says:

1 John 5:1
Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God

 

[DNB]

are you a Jehovah's Witness?

No, a monotheist.
Are you trying to play a game here by accusing everyone of being a JW?
Why don't you get serious, and start concerning yourself with your own irrational and desperately eisegeted beliefs?

 

[DNB]

is that right? If Jesus Christ is not Almighty God, the Great YHWH, then He must be a created being! However, there are many passages in the Bible that clearly show Who Jesus Christ really is. Take, for example the Prophecy in Isaiah 9:6 for the Birth of Jesus Christ, "For a child is born unto us, a son hath been given unto us, and the government is placed on his shoulders; and his name is called, Wonderful, counsellor of the mighty God, of the everlasting Father, the prince of peace". (Isaac Leeser; Jewish Bible). You will note that the Hebrew, "’êl Gibbôr" is also used for Yahweh in chapter 10:21, "The remnant shall return, the remnant of Jacob, unto the mighty God.". So, in both places it has to be translated, "The Mighty God". This can only be used for someone who is YHWH. In the Book of Numbers we read in 21:6, "So the YHWH sent fiery serpents among the people, and they bit the people; and many of the people of Israel died.". The Apostle Paul says in 1 Corinthians 10:9, "Neither let us tempt Christ, as some of them also tempted, and were destroyed of serpents". Which is referring to the incident of Numbers, where it is YHWH Who sent the serpents to destroy the people. It would be blasphemy if Jesus Christ IS not YHWH, for Paul to have written what he did. In the Book of Revelation 22:12-13, Jesus Christ says of Himself, "And, behold, I Come quickly; and My reward is with Me, to give every man according as his work shall be. I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, the first and the last.". In Isaiah 44:6, YHWH says of Himself, "“Thus says YHWH, the King of Israel, And his Redeemer, YHWH of hosts: ‘I am the First and I am the Last; Besides Me there is no God.". Dr Joseph Thayer, who was a Greek scholar, but a Unitarian who denited that Jesus Christ is God, says this of the phrase, "the First and the Last", "πρῶτος καί ὁ ἔσχατος...the eternal One" (Greek lexicon). Which means that Jesus Christ is uncreated! How can Jesus Christ, if, as you say, that He is not God, YHWH, or the Great I AM, use language that is ONLY that of YHWH, and apply it for Himself? Interesting, that in Exodus 3:14, "God said to Moses, “ I AM WHO I AM.” And he said, “Say this to the people of Israel: ‘ I AM has sent me to you.’”. The Greek LXX, which I have shown in the OP, translates, "Ἐγώ εἰμι ὁ ὤν", which literally has the meaning, "I am He Who Exists", or "I am the Eternal One", which is exactly what "πρῶτος καί ὁ ἔσχατος", used by Jesus for Himself, means!

You are arguing from your theology and not what the Bible actually teaches on Jesus Christ.

No BGTF, it is you who are eisegeting based on your biased and corrupt theology.
Jesus Christ, for his uncompromised love for the Father, has been exalted above all things in the universe, but only by the power and pleasure of God the Father. Therefore, we expect many appellations and superlatives that tend to denote supremacy and ultimate authority, to be ascribed to Jesus. Ezekiel 32:21 uses el-gibbowrim also (plural), and not for God the Father. There are many examples of men being called gods, or messiahs, etc... you are impetuously trying to prove exclusivity, to words applied to God and Jesus, but you are unable to do it. Plus, Isaiah 9:6 calls the subjective of this pericope, 'everlasting father' - there is not a single trinitarian that has ever lived that would use that terminology to describe the son, for there is nothing else that distinguishes the persons of the trinity but their names.
Plus, almost every prophecy written in Scripture always had originally, a more imminent significance, that is, the authors of the NT took great liberties in applying OT oracles to NT occurrences. Hezekiah, I believe, was the main focus of Isaiah 9:6, and if not him, another king that reigned in context to the attacks of Jerusalem by the Assyrians.

Your whole eisegesis is based on subjective and biased etymologies of ambiguous terminologies and expressions, that do not have an exclusive or intrinsic meaning outside of the context of its usage. In other words, you can't find the words 'trinity', triune, god-man, hypostatic union, incarnation, God the son, or a single explicit or didactic passage that defines the trinity, from anywhere within the Bible.

Out of your own mouth, you haven't a clue what the Bible teaches about Jesus Christ!

 

[DNB]

sounds like a true Jehovah's Witness!

You sound incompetent!

 

[DNB]

so you admit that your theology is "associated" with the JW's, yes or no?

Are you a gnostic?

 

[justbyfaith]

Show me one place where Paul warned the saints to avoid men who deny that Jesus is God.

You cannot.

Romans 16:17...for the doctrine that was taught to the saints included all of the passages that show forth the Deity of Christ.

 

[ByGraceThroughFaith]

No BGTF, it is you who are eisegeting based on your biased and corrupt theology.
Jesus Christ, for his uncompromised love for the Father, has been exalted above all things in the universe, but only by the power and pleasure of God the Father. Therefore, we expect many appellations and superlatives that tend to denote supremacy and ultimate authority, to be ascribed to Jesus. Ezekiel 32:21 uses el-gibbowrim also (plural), and not for God the Father. There are many examples of men being called gods, or messiahs, etc... you are impetuously trying to prove exclusivity, to words applied to God and Jesus, but you are unable to do it. Plus, Isaiah 9:6 calls the subjective of this pericope, 'everlasting father' - there is not a single trinitarian that has ever lived that would use that terminology to describe the son, for there is nothing else that distinguishes the persons of the trinity but their names.
Plus, almost every prophecy written in Scripture always had originally, a more imminent significance, that is, the authors of the NT took great liberties in applying OT oracles to NT occurrences. Hezekiah, I believe, was the main focus of Isaiah 9:6, and if not him, another king that reigned in context to the attacks of Jerusalem by the Assyrians.

Your whole eisegesis is based on subjective and biased etymologies of ambiguous terminologies and expressions, that do not have an exclusive or intrinsic meaning outside of the context of its usage. In other words, you can't find the words 'trinity', triune, god-man, hypostatic union, incarnation, God the son, or a single explicit or didactic passage that defines the trinity, from anywhere within the Bible.

Out of your own mouth, you haven't a clue what the Bible teaches about Jesus Christ!

you are out of your depth on this!

 

[Michiah-Imla]

Romans 16:17...for the doctrine that was taught to the saints included all of the passages that show forth the Deity of Christ.

No where in the scriptures are we told to judge a believer based on his theology regarding Christ’s deity. No where!

You cannot just pull this verse up on people who do not agree with YOUR doctrine.

 

[justbyfaith]

No where in the scriptures are we told to judge a believer based on his theology regarding Christ’s deity. No where!

You cannot just pull this verse up on people who do not agree with YOUR doctrine.

It is Christ's doctrine.

I will continue to pray that the Lord may open your eyes to the understanding of this reality.

Until further ado, there is no further reason to argue as we can simply commit to pray for each other that the other may come to the knowledge of the truth as we see it. If ours is really the truth, then they will come around to our realm of thinking (if they know what's good for them).

But I don't think that I am going to budge on this one...for I see a clear correlation between John 8:24 and Exodus 3:14...while I believe that you are in denial of the reality that such a correlation exists.

 

[DNB]

you are out of your depth on this!

How would you know - you couldn't understand a thing that I wrote?
You're way out of your league, bro, espousing your narrow-minded nonsense and trying to sound astute. It appears that the only rebuttal that you are capable of is accusing non JWs, of being JW? ...that's the depth of your understanding!

 

[ByGraceThroughFaith]

How would you know - you couldn't understand a thing that I wrote?
You're way out of your league, bro, espousing your narrow-minded nonsense and trying to sound astute. It appears that the only rebuttal that you are capable of is accusing non JWs, of being JW? ...that's the depth of your understanding!

you have NOT disproved a single think that I have written, especially in the OP. I have not got time for people who think they know things, when it is clear that they don't!

 

[DNB]

you have NOT disproved a single think that I have written, especially in the OP. I have not got time for people who think they know things, when it is clear that they don't!

I am wasting my time attempting to explain this, aren't I?
First principle, when a Bible student requires extensive etymology to prove a point or doctrine, it clearly displays that the context, and thus, the authorial intent, has eluded him. Context defines meaning, no words have such an unequivocal meaning that irrespective of the context that they are used in, there remains no ambiguity. I have seen this time and time again, that the weakest of arguments are those that employ a word study in order to define meaning of a text, or pericope. If the Bible in itself, has not expounded on a subject matter explicitly and emphatically, and primarily didactically, enough times, then no etymology should be necessary - the doctrine is not there. Especially one of this magnitude - God's soteriology defined by Himself becoming a man, slain by His own creation, in order to exalt Himself to His own right-hand side. You will have to do much better than trying to ascribe such exclusive meanings to eyeh asher eyah, and ego eimi.

Even despite your bad hermeneutics, you are entirely incorrect of your translations of I am in both Hebrew & Greek. You selected passages where these words are used elsewhere in the Bible, that only support your thesis, but you failed to cite the areas where they do not. You do not have a comprehensive understanding of these words.

I, rather responsibly and competently, refuted your interpretations of John 8:58 and John 18:1-12, or at least gave a viably alternative meaning to the text. No pagan soldiers would recognize the Tetragrammaton, especially in the context that it was allegedly used, and they beat him to a pulp shortly after. Any defiance to Abraham would warrant a stoning, just as Corah challenged Moses, and he too was decimated with his entire family.

Do you see the difference between your exegesis and mine? You act as a technician, subjectively trying to interpret spiritual phenomena, whereas I employ wisdom and disciplined hermeneutics to come to the meaning of a text. Regardless of the accuracy of the conclusion, my approach is more formidable and competent. But, it also your radical and implausible conclusion that does undermine your understanding of Biblical hermeneutics.
This is the second time now that i have addressed your OP. If you insist on sticking to your selective word play methodology, then I have absolutely no time for such misguided and incompetent eisegesis.

 

[soul man]

Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I am.” - John 8:58

What did Jesus mean by these words, that caused the Jews to want to stone Him to death, which would have been because they considered His words, blasphemy? It would be the same reason why they wanted to stone Him later, in John chapter 10, “The Jews answered him, saying, For a good work we stone you not; but for blasphemy; and because that you, being a man, make yourself God” (verse 33). As they did in 5:18, “This was why the Jews were seeking all the more to kill him, because not only was he breaking the Sabbath, but he was even calling God his own Father, making himself equal with God”. What the Jews meant here by “ισον”, was that Jesus was here saying that there is no “essential difference” between Himself and His Father, as in 10:33. Though functionally, the Father was “greater” than Jesus during His Incarnation. (Luke 24:26; John 14:28; 17:5; Phil. 2:5-11; Heb. 2:7-9)

To get an understanding of what Jesus says in John 8:58, that got the Jews so enraged, we have to go to what was said in the Greek. "πρὶν Ἀβραὰμ γενέσθαι ἐγὼ εἰμί", literally, "before Abraham came into existence, I AM". The contrast between, " γενέσθαι" (was), that is, "began to be" of Abraham; and " ἐγὼ εἰμί" the "timeless existence" of Jesus, is very important. The Jews in had accused Jesus of making Himself to be "greater" than Abraham, and that Abraham actually rejoiced to "see" Jesus, which the Jews could not fathom. Abraham, says Jesus, had a "beginning" as he was born in time; whereas He did not have any "beginning", as He has always existed, which is seen in the force of the words ἐγὼ εἰμί", which is in the present, continuance. But, Jesus' words are far more important as to what they meant to the Jews, than caused them to want to stone Him. They very clearly understood Jesus here to claim the Divine Name, "I AM" for Himself. The Jews understood Jesus to refer to the Book of Exodus, where Moses asks God for His Name, so that he could tell the children of Israel Who had sent him to them. To which God replied, "Eheyeh asher Eheyeh" (Exodus 3:14), which is best rendered into English as "I am who I am". Attempts to weaken these words to, "I will be who I will be", etc, are quite wrong.

The Greek version of the Old Testament, the Septuagint (LXX), which was completed some 150 years before the Birth of Jesus Christ, and carried out by the best Jewish scholars, who would have been experts in both Hebrew and Greek, render the Hebrew of Exodus 3:14, by "Ἐγώ εἰμι ὁ ὤν", which literally has the meaning, "I am He Who Exists", or "I am the Eternal One". Which is the basis of the Name of God in Hebrew, "YHWH". The LXX was the main Old Testament version that was used by the early Christians, though so who were more learned, used the Hebrew, like the scholar Jerome. Because the Christians made use of the LXX, the Jews in the 2nd century made their own Greek versions of the Old Testament. The first was done by Aquila in the first half of this century. And then towards the end of this century, another was made by Theodotion. Both these versions have rendered the Hebrew, "Eheyeh asher Eheyeh", in Greek “εσομαι (ὃς) εσομαι”, which is the future of “εἰμι”, “I will be Who I will be”. This was done not because they were being more faithful to the Hebrew, but, because it was to counter the Christian use of this verse for the Deity of Jesus Christ, when used with John 8:58.

Exodus 3:14, as translated from the Dead Sea Scrolls, into English, reads: "And God said to [Moses, “I] am that I am.” And he said, “Thus you shall say to the children of Israel, ‘I am has sent me to you.’ ” (Martin Abegg Jr., Peter Flint, Eugene Ulrich; The Dead Sea Scrolls Bible). The Jews also recognise this to be the best rendering of the Hebrew text, "Te true pronunciation of the name YHWH was never lost. Several early Greek writers of the Christian Church testify that the name was pronounced “Yahweh.” This is confirmed, at least for the vowel of the first syllable of the name, by the shorter form Yah, which is sometimes used in poetry (e.g., Ex. 15:2) and the -yahu or -yah that serves as the final syllable in very many Hebrew names. In the opinion of many scholars, YHWH is a verbal form of the root hwh, which is an older variant of the root hyh “to be.” Te vowel of the first syllable shows that the verb is used in the form of a future-present causative hiphʿil, and must therefore mean “He causes to be, He brings into existence.” The explanation of the name as given in Exodus 3:14, Eheyeh-Asher-Eheyeh, “I-Am-Who-I Am,” (Encyclopaedia Judaica). And, " And God said unto Moses: ‘I AM THAT I AM’; and He said: ‘Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel: I AM hath sent me unto you.’" (The Jewish Publication Society of America, The Holy Scriptures according to the Masoretic Text ).

The Hebrew verb here is, “hâyâh (’ehyeh)” which is the imperfect, “to exist, to be”. The imperfect also denotes habitual or customary action –past, present, or future tense. It also denotes incomplete action, whether in the past, present, or future. In John 1:1 we read, “was the Word...was with God...was God”. This does not mean as in our English, that refers only to the past. Here the Greek for “was”, is “ἦν”, which is the imperfect of “εἰμι”, and like the Hebrew “hâyâh”, denotes incomplete action.

It is the same Hebrew imperfect verb “hâyâh”, used in verse 12, where most English translations read, “I will be with you”. Youngs Literal Translation reads, “I am with thee”, which is right. Alost all these English Versions that read, “I will be with you”, translate the same Hebrew in verse 14, “I am Who I am”, or, “I am that I am”. As we have seen, the LXX translates the Hebrew, “hâyâh”, with “ εἰμι”, which is the present tense, literally, “to be, to exist”. And therefore "Ἐγώ εἰμι” denotes, absolute existence.

It is quite wrong to conclude, as some do, that this verb is always used in the “future tense”. We have examples like Jeremiah 31:9, “They shall come with weeping, and with supplications will I lead them: I will cause them to walk by the rivers of waters in a straight way, wherein they shall not stumble: for I am (ehyeh) a father to Israel, and Ephraim is my firstborn.”, and Micah 7:1, “Woe is me! for I am (ehyeh) as when they have gathered the summer fruits, as the grape gleanings of the vintage: there is no cluster to eat: my soul desired the first ripe fruit.”, and, Job 11:4, “For thou hast said, My doctrine is pure, and I am (ehyeh) clean in thine eyes.”. In each case the verb “’ehyeh” is in the “present tense”.

In John's vision of Jesus Christ in Revelation chapter 1, we read Jesus' words to John, "Fear not; I am the first and the last: and He that lives, and was dead; and, behold, I am alive forevermore, Amen; and have the keys of hades and of death." (17-18). "ὁ ζῶν" (He that Lives), or literally, "The Living One", as in Exodus 3:14 in the Septuagint. On the words, "ὁ πρῶτος καὶ ὁ ἔσχατος" (The First and The Last), Dr J H Thayer, a Unitarian, says in his famous Greek lexicon, "the eternal one" (page 554), something that his own "theology" would never allow, as only Almighty God could ever be described as "Eternal", which he denied! In John's Gospel we have an interesting account of Jesus' arrest. "Jesus therefore, knowing all things that should come upon him, went forth, and said unto them, Whom seek you? They answered him, Jesus of Nazareth. Jesus said unto them, I am (Ἐγώ εἰμι). And Judas also, who betrayed him, stood with them. As soon then as he had said unto them, I am (Ἐγώ εἰμι), they went backward, and fell to the ground." (18:4-6). Note, Jesus tells them in verse 5, "Ἐγώ εἰμι" (I AM), and when they heard this, they fell backwards. In the Gospels we read the account of the boat that the Disciples were on, was being tossed on the sea, and Jesus comes to them walking on the sea. " And in the fourth watch of the night Jesus went unto them, walking on the sea. And when the disciples saw him walking on the sea, they were troubled, saying, It is a spirit; and they cried out for fear. But straightway Jesus spake unto them, saying, Be of good cheer; it is I; be not afraid" (Matthew 14:25-27; Mark 6:48-50; John 6:17-20). When Jesus says "it is I", the Greek is actually, " Ἐγώ εἰμι" (I AM), and this was enough assurance for the Disciples!

Jesus Christ IS The Great I AM.

You should do a book lol oh you did. The burning bush "I am that I am hath sent you."