the whole discussion in john 8 is Jesus claiming to be the Christ without directly stateing that he is the christ. The reason Jesus didn't straight out say he was the christ is because they would have stoned him to death if he did, which they did do at his trial when he finally straight out admited that he is the christ.
scripture makes it clear that this is what he meant when he said "before
Abraham was, I am (he , the Christ)."
John 10:24-25 The Jews therefore came round about him, and said unto him, How long dost thou hold us in suspense? If thou art the Christ, tell us plainly. Jesus answered them, I told you, and ye believe not: the works that I do in my Father's name, these bear witness of me.
Jesus told them that he was the christ previously in John 8.58, but not plainly,and they didn't believe him then. John 10.25 explains what john 8.58 means. I am he. he is understood.
Sorry, but that's just plain rationalisation. First, of only minor interest - you are assuming that John 10:24-25 is a direct reference to what Jesus was saying at the Temple in 8:58. Though to be fair, I've never heard this specific refutation of 8:58 before so I don't really know what scholars would make of comparing these comments in chapter 10 to those of chapter 8 - perhaps it is the scholarly view, though on a cursory examination of the rest of John 8, there is not much that would really change if John 10 was referencing the Temple incident.
However, (and this is more important), you would have to examine why the Jews tried to stone him in chapter 8 for claiming to be the Christ, and then later ask in chapter 10 to say plainly whether he was the Christ. This implies that he was not clear in John 8 as to whether he was or not, and by proxy it indicates that the Jews had no reason to stone him in verse 59. If we accept that Jesus was not clear in 8:58, then you must account for why the Jews reacted so angrily to this.
Second, and by far more importantly still, you're adding in an extra word in John 8:58 - "I am he", as opposed to simply "I am" - implying that "I am" is not a reference to the Yahweh "I AM" of Exodus, but simply "I am the Christ". This is absolutely a critical point because IF the simple translation of John 8:58 were actually "I am he" (as in "I am the Christ"), then the author got the Greek grammar horribly and heretically wrong.
I didn't bring this up in my last post because it was not really relevant at the time since the translation of the verse was not being disputed. However, most places in the Bible, this Greek phrase translated as "I am" in 8:58 is reversed. That is, the Greek normally reads: "
eimi egō ". This is the traditional way of using the translation, and in such a way, it would be acceptable to render the phrase, "I am he".
However, the Septuagint (that is, the Greek version of the Hebrew Scriptures) uses this phrase the
wrong way around to refer to the "I AM" of Exodus. It renders the term: "
egō eimi".
If the writer of John did truly only imply "I am the Christ", he made an awfully horrible grammatical error - and if this author had any access to the Septuagint whatsoever, they would also have been aware of the intentions of this particular rendering being a reference to the I AM who identifies himself to Moses.
For some reason, I think the author of John would be smarter than making such a simple (and theologically critical) error
Just a thought to consider,
~ PA