The force of the words of Jesus "I am" is again highlighted by the Evangelist John in chapter 18. The armed mob of opposers fall back on the ground at the sheer power of Jesus saying "I AM"

"Jesus therefore, knowing all the things that were coming upon Him, went forth and said to them, Whom do you seek?

They answered Him, Jesus the Nazarene. He said to them, I am. And Judas also, who was betraying Him, was standing with them.

When therefore He said to them, I am, they drew back and fell to the ground.

Then again He asked them, Whom do you seek? And they said, Jesus the Nazarene." (John 18:4-7)

John is underscoring the sheer power of Christ's confession of "I AM". In chapter 8 it provoked a sudden response of execution for blasphemy. In chapter 18 the power of the confession for a moment completely disarms an armed mob.

Jesus is God Himself become a man.

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
Doesn't seem that you addressed the question: "What leads you to believe that Joseph is winning the argument?" or other salient points of my post. Any chance that you will?

[b]As always, such verses are translated in a way that is consistent with their belief system and here in John 8:58 Robbie has again translated in a way deliberately consistent wit ...[text shortened]... ited, a JW translation? In what way is the NIV translation inconsistent with other translations?

Sorry, but could you please highlight the salient points of your post. I'm afraid i am unable to locate them.

Joseph was 'winning the argument' as Robbie has so far failed to put forward anything original or insightful (or indeed anything i hadn't heard 20 years ago).

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
Joseph I am interested in Biblical facts, that which can be established empirically with logic and reason, not mysticism. Where by the way does Jesus claim to be equal with God for I have read the passage at John 8 three or four times and I cannot locate it, is it in another parallel account?

Here's a biblical FACT for you Robbie. Jesus NEVER claimed to be the archangel Michael.

Originally posted by divegeester
Here's a biblical FACT for you Robbie. Jesus NEVER claimed to be the archangel Michael.

Returned nod!

Originally posted by Ghost of a Duke
Sorry, but could you please highlight the salient points of your post. I'm afraid i am unable to locate them.

Joseph was 'winning the argument' as Robbie has so far failed to put forward anything original or insightful (or indeed anything i hadn't heard 20 years ago).

another opinion piece without substance or reason,

1. My arguments are not based on originality but on sound reasoning from what is demonstrable from an examination of the scriptures making your objection on the basis of originality ludicrous.

2. My arguments were indeed insightful, they reference the context of the passage, the Septuagint and its translation of Exodus 3:14 which demonstrates that the text of John 8:58 is not the same phrase, that the idea that Christ is claiming to be equal with God is a fabrication made not by Christ but by his enemies, you objections are petty, tedious, devoid of both substance and reason.

3. Stating that its based on Jehovas Witness dogma is nothing more than an ad hominem, a shallow, predictable, plastic, transparent logical fallacy for as has been pointed out, I have not used the New world translation nor made any references to Jehovahs Witnesses and I suspect that its simply a reflection of the weakness of counter arguments that people need to resort to references about the New world translation or Jehovahs Witnesses.

All in all I seriously wonder if you acquired your doctorate in theology by jumping in the Thames and coming up with it in your pocket.

Originally posted by Ghost of a Duke
Sorry, but could you please highlight the salient points of your post. I'm afraid i am unable to locate them.

Joseph was 'winning the argument' as Robbie has so far failed to put forward anything original or insightful (or indeed anything i hadn't heard 20 years ago).

Salient points are in BOLD.

From my first post to you:

On what do you base your observation?

Perhaps you don't understand the argument. Some Christians claim that in John 8:58, Jesus is claiming to be God with the following:
"“Very truly I tell you,” Jesus answered, “before Abraham was born, I am!”.
RC disputes that this was Jesus' intent in uttering those words.

What leads you to believe that Joseph is winning the argument? Much of what he has countered with not only does not address the words uttered in John 8:58, it references words not even attributed to Jesus, i.e., John 5:18, 2 Corinthians 4:6, 2 Corinthians 5:19.

From my most recent post:

Doesn't seem that you addressed the question: "What leads you to believe that Joseph is winning the argument?" or other salient points of my post. Any chance that you will?

GoaD: "As always, such verses are translated in a way that is consistent with their belief system and here in John 8:58 Robbie has again translated in a way deliberately consistent with JW theology"

This doesn't seem to make much sense. Is the NIV translation, that RC cited, a JW translation? In what way is the NIV translation inconsistent with other translations?

BTW if you think you can make a reasonable argument that in John 8:58, Jesus is necessarily claiming to be God incarnate, then by all means please do so.

Originally posted by sonship
The force of the words of Jesus [b]"I am" is again highlighted by the Evangelist John in chapter 18. The armed mob of opposers fall back on the ground at the sheer power of Jesus saying "I AM"

[quote] "Jesus therefore, knowing all the things that were coming upon Him, went forth and said to them, Whom do you seek?

They answered Him, Jesu ...[text shortened]... confession for a moment completely disarms an armed mob.

Jesus is God Himself become a man.

Wow you think that Jesus not only is able to miraculously change the Greek idiom but that he had a verbal spell on the soldiers? Crazeeeeee!

1. First of all its not highlighted by John the evangelist, as has been pointed out to you on numerous occasions there was no capitalisation on the original languages therefore to state that it was highlighted by the evangelist is simply demonstrably FALSE.

2. What does Jesus actually say at John 18, let us look at the original. He says, 'ego eimi', 'I am he'. Why does he say this? In answer to a question.

Jesus, knowing all that was going to happen to him, went out and asked them, “Who is it you want?” “Jesus of Nazareth,” they replied. “I am he,” Jesus said. (And Judas the traitor was standing there with them.) When Jesus said, “I am he,” they drew back and fell to the ground.

So Jesus was actually confirming that he was Jesus of Nazaerth and saying 'I am Jesus the one you are looking for'. All Jesus is doing is confirming his identity, yes I am the one you are looking for. There is nothing in the original text to assume that he had some kind of verbal spell on the soldiers for there is nothing in the words ' ego eimi', themselves that have any potency, it was Jesus that had power not the words themselves. To attempt to construe the reaction of the soldiers as some kind of proof that Jesus is God incarnate simply cannot be substantiated from scripture and its simply clutching at straws to say the least.

Rather interestingly he says the same thing a second time in verse eight

Jesus answered, “I told you that I am he. If you are looking for me, then let these men go.' and no discernible spell was cast on the soldiers.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
another opinion piece without substance or reason,

1. My arguments are not based on originality but on sound reasoning from what is demonstrable from an examination of the scriptures making your objection on the basis of originality ludicrous.

2. My arguments were indeed insightful, they reference the context of the passage, the Septuagint an ...[text shortened]... quired your doctorate in theology by jumping in the Thames and coming up with it in your pocket.

'All in all I seriously wonder if you acquired your doctorate in theology by jumping in the Thames and coming up with it in your pocket.'

Okay, that's pretty funny. ;o) Where by the way did you acquire your doctorate in theology?

'1. My arguments are not based on originality but on sound reasoning from what is demonstrable from an examination of the scriptures...'

Exactly my point. The argument you present is not original (or your own) but rather a regurgitation of WatchTower dogma and brainwashing.

Think for yourself man!

Originally posted by Ghost of a Duke
'All in all I seriously wonder if you acquired your doctorate in theology by jumping in the Thames and coming up with it in your pocket.'

Okay, that's pretty funny. ;o) Where by the way did you acquire your doctorate in theology?

'1. My arguments are not based on originality but on sound reasoning from what is demonstrable from an examination ...[text shortened]... wn) but rather a regurgitation of WatchTower dogma and brainwashing.

Think for yourself man!

I have acquired my knowledge from many sources and I should not need to justify it to anyone for the strength or otherwise of my arguments lies in their content, not from where I gleaned and assimilated them.

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne

BTW if you think you can make a reasonable argument that in John 8:58, Jesus is necessarily claiming to be God incarnate, then by all means please do so.

As an atheist, why would i make such an argument?

It would be like joining a chess site and not making a chess move for 1947 days.

Originally posted by Ghost of a Duke
As an atheist, why would i make such an argument?

It would be like joining a chess site and not making a chess move for 1947 days.

Let's see. Even after I highlighted the salient points of my post AT YOUR REQUEST, you not only didn't address them, you didn't even mention them. One can only conclude that you know you are wrong and are too immature to admit it.

As an atheist, why would i make such an argument?

C'mon. "As an atheist", you haven't been reluctant to voice your opinion as to the validity of the arguments that RC has been making. As you said earlier, "The argument is not a new one, so yes i understand it. As soon as i saw the title of the thread i had a flash back to the first year of my theology degree where a number of JW arguments were put forward, including this one". As such, seems like you should be able to "make a reasonable argument that in John 8:58, Jesus is necessarily claiming to be God incarnate" as that seems to be your position. If you can't, then it would seem that your opinion isn't worth anything.

It would be like joining a chess site and not making a chess move for 1947 days.

What's your point? Is this some last ditch effort to try to save face?

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
I have acquired my knowledge from many sources and I should not need to justify it to anyone for the strength or otherwise of my arguments lies in their content, not from where I gleaned and assimilated them.

Their content, eh?

All their content does is show the laughability of the JW dogma.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie

This was not written for your benefit Robbie.

1. First of all its not highlighted by John the evangelist, as has been pointed out to you on numerous occasions there was no capitalisation on the original languages therefore to state that it was highlighted by the evangelist is simply demonstrably FALSE.

Not syntactically highlighted.
Theologically emphasized.

Jesus uttering I am had such power.

It matches John's entire prologue that God became a man.
It has NO relation to the angel Michael.

" A factious man, after the first and second admonition, refuse, knowing that such a one is perverted and is sinning, though he is condemned by his own self." (Titus 3:10,11)

2. What does Jesus actually say at John 18, let us look at the original. He says, 'ego eimi', 'I am he'. Why does he say this? In answer to a question.

It amounts to the same striking statement of power if the he is supplied in English.

John records that the sheer power of Christ saying He is was as no other man who ever lived saying that he is.

Jesus, knowing all that was going to happen to him, went out and asked them, “Who is it you want?” “Jesus of Nazareth,” they replied. “I am he,” Jesus said. (And Judas the traitor was standing there with them.) When Jesus said, “I am he,” they drew back and fell to the ground.

There is no getting around that John seeks to portray Jesus as God become a man .. period.

"Thomas answered and said to Him, My Lord and my God.

Jesus said to him, Because you have seen you have believed. Blessed are those who have not seen and have believed." (John 20:28,29)

The accumulated evidence is that John purposely writes his Gospel based on his prologue - the Logos who was God became flesh. God incarnated as a man.

I believe that the resistance of Robbie demonstrates "such a one is perverted and is sinning, though he is condemned by his own self."

So Jesus was actually confirming that he was Jesus of Nazaerth and saying 'I am Jesus the one you are looking for'.

Confirming that Jesus of Nazareth was the I AM and the Word Who was God who became flesh.

Do not let your heart be troubled; Believe into God, believe also into Me." (John 14:1)

"In that day you shall know that I am in My Father, and you in Me, and I in you." (John 14:20)

God became a man to redeem His people and dispense Himself into His redeemed people.

Robbie knows NOTHING about God coming to impart divine life into us. He only knows the objective God far away like the Moslems.

Robbie's arguing to teach the far away objective God and the far away objective angel Michael are his "Islamization" of the Christian Gospel.

Thank God the New Testament teaches more than the "Moslemization" of God denying the crucial central revelation of the incarnation of God to be "Our God and Savior, Jesus Christ" (2 Peter 1:1)

There is no light in him. He only knows like the Jews with stones to throw, keeping God up there, out there, away from man forever only objective and apart from man.

The life of God has been as long as God has been.
And Jesus said "I am ... the life; no one comes to the Father except through Me." (John 14:6)

All Robbie is interested is teaching that an angel came and died on a "torture stake" and is entirely removed from man's experience.

The New Testament says though "In Him was life, and the life was the light of men." (John 1:4) He incarnated and died on the cross and resurrected that we would no longer have to be "alienated from the life of God." (Eph. 4:18) .

Robbie the Arian knows nothing about this by revelation OR personal experience to the truth. He only knows to be like a Moslem and fight for the objective existence of Allah. Yet in this case Jehovah.

All Jesus is doing is confirming his identity, yes I am the one you are looking for.

And the power of His confirming His identity stands upon John's introductory prologue. Jesus Christ is the Word Who was God Who became flesh.

"And the Word became flesh and tabernacled among us (and we beheld His glory, glory as of the only Begotten from the Father, full of grace and reality." (John 1:14)

There is nothing in the original text to assume that he had some kind of verbal spell on the soldiers for there is nothing in the words ' ego eimi', themselves that have any potency, it was Jesus that had power not the words themselves.

It was not a spell. It was the impact in the spiritual realm of the truth. God came to earth in Jesus of Nazareth.

Isaiah 9:6 - the Child born will be called Mighty God.
The Son given will be called Eternal Father.

What we have in Robbie Carrobie is an unbeliever who refuses to believe the Bible about Christ's incarnation. And he says he stand and falls before his own master and that Christians should therefore not judge him.

We do judge him that he co-works with Satan to announce "another Jesus". Whether consciously or unconsciously in this he sins.

To attempt to construe the reaction of the soldiers as some kind of proof that Jesus is God incarnate simply cannot be substantiated from scripture and its simply clutching at straws to say the least.

Even without John 18, the prologue still stands that the Word became flesh. The only begotten Son of God, Jesus of Nazareth is God become flesh to "tabernacle" among us.

The truth of this does not stand or fall on arguments about " I am " or "I am He" or "I am he" or "I AM he" or " i AM he" or any other particular syntacs in going from the Greek to the English.

One could just as easily try to wiggle out of Exodus 3:14 should be "I am he I am he ... Thus you shall tell the children of Israel, I am he sent me to you."

Plenty of people may have said "I am" or "I am [he]". But plenty of people are not Jesus Christ.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
Your interpretation cannot be sustained from the context,

1. Jesus never actually claimed that he was equal to God.

How can you repeatedly use this argument and keep a straight face?

Jesus never actually claimed he was the archangel Micheal but you seem to have no issue in accepting that he was.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
I have acquired my knowledge from many sources and I should not need to justify it to anyone for the strength or otherwise of my arguments lies in their content, not from where I gleaned and assimilated them.

Really.

Then with all these "sourses" at your disposal you must have formulated at least some perspectives that are different from JW dogma - I challenge you to name one. Just one perspective or opinion that these other sources has provided you with and which differs from JW teaching?