The relevance of the earlier discussion on parentage to Jesus’ claim in John 8:58 is something I had not noticed before and I thank you for pointing it out. It seems to me that it bolsters the point I was making, namely that Jesus is claiming to be the subject of the Abrahamic seed-promise. It creates a context in which it makes sense for him to be saying that he is not only a child of Abraham, but the promised seed through whom all families would be blessed.

Jesus implies by saying ‘I am’ that he is the ‘always’ of YHWH. He doesn’t need to add anything - the Pharisees have understood and pick up the stones.

That being the case, why wasn’t this accusation made at his trial before the Sanhedrin? It would be a far more serious charge than the indirect statements about the temple that they did bring against him. It would be most unlike them to miss an opportunity to accuse Jesus!

There is also a wider context - the six other ‘I am’ statements in John’s gospel, although this is the most explicit in terms of Jesus making a statement of relationship to God. (I would also add a context of the ‘I am’ statements in Isaiah 45, 46, 47 and 49, as well as the context of the statement in Exodus 3:14).

There’s a difference in approach between us here that speaks to the issue of hermeneutics. I thought this merited a new thread, so I’ve started one entitled ‘ambiguities’