Was Rosen agreeing with me? I think not so either let Rosen speak for Rosen or show how what you say is true. However I doubt you will be capable of doing that because it does not appear that you even understood what I said to begin with. I already know what the excuse is for leaving out "hoti" which is that sometimes it is used to denote a quotation. However that too is mere speculation on the part of translators and arbitrary when it comes to deciding where and when. In addition you also ignored the fact that your interpretation of the passage essentially negates what it actually says. Just because you might have seen a few on TV like Jim Jones it is still nothing, a drop in the bucket, compared to the billion-plus mainstream Christians running around doing exactly what the passage says they would do: coming in the name of Yeshua and claiming that he is "I AM" just as you yourself do. Forty thousand dollars to be brainwashed and you are the one still playing amateur hour. :chuckle:
I think Daqq was agreeing with me with respect to as to whether the passage was saying that the false teachers would say "I am Christ" or acknowledge Jesus as Christ. In this respect you agreed with me, as I agreed with my King James translation over whichever one had inserted quotation marks around "I am Christ."
Daqq, may I call your attention to something for a moment? The passage is repeated three times in the gospels, including Matthew 24:5, Mark 13:6, and Luke 21:8. The passage in Matthew has the words "I am Christ"
Thus it is not unreasonable to assume that the meaning of the gospel authors Mark and Luke is that "I am" refers to the assumed subject of "Christ" using the multiple gospels to confirm intent. Now, far be it for me to dispute that Jesus is "I AM" as is translated in John 8:58.
Joh 8:57-59 KJV
(57) Then said the Jews unto him, Thou art not yet fifty years old, and hast thou seen Abraham?
(58) Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you,
Before Abraham was, I am.
(59) 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 statement really doesn't have much sense in that context otherwise. From their reaction apparently the Jews understood Jesus to have that meaning as well.
Regardless, you cannot make Mark and Luke say "I AM" without contradicting the gospel of Matthew, and even if you were to do that then I don't see how you could somehow make John NOT say "I AM" which contradicts your premise that it is a false gospel to recognize Jesus as our same LORD who spoke to Moses.