>>17845564
>it's only the other people saying
Yes that's my point I am >>17845406 Jesus does not confirm their accusation he explains to them that in the previous scripture even they are Gods so they shouldn't take it as a literal claim to be the one God even if it were true. Then he points out that he did not in fact blaspheme because he said he's God's son (and there are many other sons of God in the bible) not God himself. He's explicitly denying their claim there. But even if we ignore all that, these people also claimed he does the work of Beelzebub (Matthew 12:24) so their false claims should never be taken at face value. Don't forget they couldn't find anything to actually fault him for so they invented it (Mark 14:55-59)
>I wonder if maybe that and similar statements could instead be understood as God the Father speaking through Jesus rather than Jesus actually speaking about himself.
You don't even have to go there really. There are two common claims linked to that verse. One is that Jesus preexisted and the other is that he is claiming the title of God there. The first is most likely true because the author of John believed the Son was a lesser deity but still the first created being (sort of like what you find in Colossians 1:15-18) but this also isn't problematic because Paul for example believes everyone preexisted in some form before Abraham was sent (Ephesians 1:4-5, 2 Timothy 1:9) like as in part of God's plan which is consistent with other parts of the bible (Jeremiah 1:5). And the second is just false because it is not equivalent to the Hebrew in Exodus 3:14 which means something along the lines of "I will be what I will be" but also Jesus there was just confirming to be the Messiah and the exact same words are translated differently. For example in John 8:24 "I am he". It's just a means to identify yourself like how Paul uses it Acts 26:29