Jesus is Jehovah the YHWH of the Old Testament

[Free]

..........................................................
The second lesson in the "seven lessons... ' has the following:

So by now we should be able to see that in John 1:1c (‘theos was the Word’) the word theos does not have the article (ὁ or ‘ho’) and, according to John’s usage of such nouns, it would normally be translated as ‘a god.’

If you want to argue to the anarthrous use of theos, John uses it for 1:6, 12, 13, 18, and 8:54, for instance.

I find it interesting that Thomas referred to Jesus as "ho theos."

………………………………..........

Footnote:

Some of these trinitarian sources which admit that the Bible actually describes men who represent God (judges, Israelite kings, etc.) and God's angels as gods include:

1. Young's Analytical Concordance of the Bible, "Hints and Helps...," Eerdmans, 1978 reprint;
2. Strong's Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible, #430, Hebrew and Chaldee Dict., Abingdon, 1974;
3. New Bible Dictionary, p. 1133, Tyndale House Publ., 1984;
4. Today's Dictionary of the Bible, p. 208, Bethany House Publ., 1982;
5. Hastings' A Dictionary of the Bible, p. 217, Vol. 2;
6. The New Brown-Driver-Briggs-Gesenius Hebrew-English Lexicon, p. 43, Hendrickson publ.,1979;
7. Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, #2316 (4.), Thayer, Baker Book House, 1984 printing;
8. The International Standard Bible Encyclopaedia, p. 132, Vol. 1; & p. 1265, Vol. 2, Eerdmans, 1984;
9. The NIV Study Bible, footnotes for Ps. 45:6; Ps. 82:1, 6; & Jn 10:34; Zondervan, 1985;
10. New American Bible, St. Joseph ed., footnote for Ps. 45:7, 1970 ed.;
11. A. T. Robertson, Word Pictures, Vol. 5, pp. 188-189;
12. William G. T. Shedd, Dogmatic Theology, Vol. 1, pp. 317, 324, Nelson Publ., 1980 printing;
13. Murray J. Harris, Jesus As God, p. 202, Baker Book House, 1992;
14. William Barclay, The Gospel of John, V. 2, Daily Study Bible Series, pp. 77, 78, Westminster Press,1975;
15. The New John Gill Exposition of the Entire Bible (John 10:34 and Ps. 82:6);
16. The Fourfold Gospel (Note for John 10:35);
17. Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible - Jamieson, Fausset, Brown (John 10:34-36);
18. Matthew Henry Complete Commentary on the Whole Bible (Ps. 82:6-8 and John 10:35);
19. John Wesley's Explanatory Notes on the Whole Bible (Ps. 82:1).
20. Theological Dictionary of the New Testament ('Little Kittel'), - p. 328, Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1985.
21. The Expositor’s Greek Testament, pp. 794-795, Vol. 1, Eerdmans Publishing Co.
22. The Amplified Bible, Ps. 82:1, 6 and John 10:34, 35, Zondervan Publ., 1965.
23. Barnes' Notes on the New Testament, John 10:34, 35.
24. B. W. Johnson's People's New Testament, John 10:34-36.
25. The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology, Zondervan, 1986, Vol. 3, p. 187.
26. Fairbairn’s Imperial Standard Bible Encyclopedia, p. 24, vol. III, Zondervan, 1957 reprint.
27. Theological Dictionary, Rahner and Vorgrimler, p. 20, Herder and Herder, 1965.
(also John 10:34, 35 - CEV: TEV; GodsWord; The Message; NLT; NIRV; David Guzik (John 10:34).

And, of course the highly respected and highly popular Jewish writer, Philo, had the same understanding for "God"/"a god" about the same time the NT was written. - See the LOGOS study.

And the earliest Christians like the highly respected NT scholar Origen and others - - including Tertullian; Justin Martyr; Hippolytus; Clement of Alexandria; Theophilus; the writer of "The Epistle to Diognetus"; and even super-Trinitarians St. Athanasius and St. Augustine - - also had this understanding for "a god." And, as we saw above, many respected NT scholars of this century agree. (For example, Ernst Haenchen tells us in his commentary on the Gospel of John:

"It was quite possible in Jewish and Christian monotheism to speak of divine beings that existed alongside and under God but were not identical with him. Phil 2:6-10 proves that. In that passage Paul depicts just such a divine being, who later became man in Jesus Christ". - John 1, translated by R. W. Funk, 1984, pp. 109, 110, Fortress Press.)
.....................................................
So we see that this easily found part of Lesson 2 shows that "a god" IS a part of monotheism. There is only one person who is God, but a number of other persons called "a god."

Except that this is misleading based on a misunderstanding of the use of "gods" in reference to people. It simply means they are God's representatives to carry out his commands. What it does not mean is that they are actually gods, that is, deities. For John to say that Jesus was "a god" would be polytheism, even Gnosticism, but both are unequivocally rejected by Scripture because there always has been and ever will be only one deity, Yahweh. He says so himself. It's all there in post #13, which you didn't address.

Theos can be used to denote those things which people worship as deity, even Satan himself, but nowhere does the Bible use theos to mean an actual living deity other than Yahweh.

Why won't you take a single part at a time and discuss it properly? How about starting in Lesson 1 where it begins with "First, ...."
Or go to the Logos study and start at the beginning with a single part where I have erred. Then, after I respond go on to the next "error."

Why? Monotheism rules out "a god" in John 1:1c, as do 1:1a, b, 2-3. The whole immediate context of 1:1c means it cannot be "a god."

 

[tigger II]

So you're simply not going to do it. Maybe someone else?

 

[Free]

So you're simply not going to do it. Maybe someone else?

There is too much information to sift through, never mind then going and doing one's own research. Since "a god" simply cannot be a legitimate translation, it isn't worth the time and effort at this point.

 

[tigger II]

There is too much information to sift through, never mind then going and doing one's own research. Since "a god" simply cannot be a legitimate translation, it isn't worth the time and effort at this point.

........................................................

John 1:1c
Even the very trinitarian Greek expert, W. E. Vine, (although, for obvious reasons, he chooses not to accept it as the proper interpretation) admits that the literal translation of John 1:1c is: "a god was the Word". - p. 490, An Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words, Thomas Nelson, Inc., 1983 printing.

Equally trinitarian Professor C. H. Dodd, director of the New English Bible project, also admits this is a proper literal translation:

"A possible translation [for John 1:1c] ... would be, `The Word was a god.' As a word-for-word translation it cannot be faulted." - Technical Papers for the Bible Translator, vol. 28, Jan. 1977.

The reason Prof. Dodd still rejects "a god" as the actual meaning intended by John is simply because it upsets his trinitarian interpretations of John's Gospel! - See WT, p. 28, Oct. 15, 1993.

Rev. J. W. Wenham wrote in his The Elements of New Testament Greek: “Therefore as far as grammar alone is concerned, such a sentence could be printed: θεὸς ἐστιν ὁ λόγος, which would mean either, ‘The Word is a god’, or, 'The Word is the god’.” - p. 35, Cambridge University Press, 1965.

(Of course, if you carefully examine this study, you will find that the grammar really shows that ‘The Word is [or “was” in John 1:1c] a god’ is what John intended.)

Trinitarian NT scholar Prof. Murray J. Harris also admits that grammatically John 1:1c may be properly translated, ‘the Word was a god,’ but his trinitarian bias makes him claim that “John’s monotheism” will not allow such an interpretation. - p. 60, Jesus as God, Baker Book House, 1992.

However, his acknowledgment of the use of “god” for men at John 10:34-36 and the use of “god/gods” for angels, judges, and other men in the Hebrew OT Scriptures contradicts his Trinitarian interpretation above. - p. 202.

Trinitarian Dr. Robert Young admits that a more literal translation of John 1:1c is "and a God [2] (i.e. a Divine Being) was the Word" - p. 54, (`New Covenant' section), Young's Concise Critical Bible Commentary, Baker Book House, 1977 printing.

Highly respected trinitarian scholar, author, and Bible translator, Dr. William Barclay wrote: "You could translate [John 1:1c], so far as the Greek goes: `the Word was a God'; but it seems obvious that this is so much against the whole of the rest of the New Testament that it is wrong." - p. 205, Ever yours, edited by C. L. Rawlins, Labarum Publ., 1985.

Professor Jason David BeDuhn tells us, “Grammatically, John 1:1 is not a difficult verse to translate. It follows familiar, ordinary structures of Greek expression. A lexical (‘interlinear’) translation of the controversial clause would read: ‘And a god was the Word.’ A minimal literal (‘formal equivalence’) translation would rearrange the word order to match proper English expression: ‘And the Word was a god.’ The preponderance of evidence, from Greek grammar, from literary context, and from cultural environment, supports this translation….” - p. 132, Truth in Translation, University Press of America, 2003.

And as we saw above, John J. McKenzie, S. J., writes in his Dictionary of the Bible: "Jn 1:1 should rigorously be translated `the word was with the God (equals the Father), and the word was a divine being.'" - p. 317, Macmillan Publishing Co., Inc., 1965, published with Catholic Nihil Obstat and Imprimatur.

12 You see, in ancient times many of God's servants had no qualms about using the word "god" or "gods" for godly men, kings, judges, and even angels.

Yes, as trinitarian scholar Dr. Robert Young tells us in the preface to Young's Analytical Concordance in the section entitled "Hints and Helps to Bible Interpretation":

"65. God—is used of any one (professedly) MIGHTY, whether truly so or not, and is applied not only to the true God, but to false gods, Magistrates, judges, angels, prophets, etc., e.g. Ex. 7:1; ... John 1:1; 10:33, 34, 35; 20:28 ...." - Eerdmans Publ., 1978.

Notice how John 1:1 has been listed as an example of "God" (or "god") being applied to someone other than the true God (as in the case of "judges, angels, prophets, etc."). Dr. Young also specifically tells us that John 1:1 is literally "and a God (i.e. a Divine Being) was the Word." p. 54, Young's Concise Critical Bible Commentary. Certainly a trinitarian scholar such as Dr. Young would interpret John 1:1c to mean "the Word was the true God" if he could honestly do so! Obviously he felt there was something wrong with that interpretation.

New Testament Greek expert Joseph H. Thayer also defined theos:

"[Theos] is used of whatever can in any respect be likened to God or resembles him in any way: Hebraistically, i.q. God's representative or vicegerent, of magistrates and judges." - p. 288, Thayer's Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament.

Anyone who honestly examines the study of John's grammar and usage as pointed out in the following links will have to admit that "a god" is not only possible, but is certain.

John 1:1c Primer - For Grammatical Rules That Supposedly "Prove" the Trinity

Examining the Trinity

 

[Free]

Arguing to a word-for-word translation can be fallacious, since, as with translating any language into another, the meaning can be lost. And a word-for-word translation of John 1:3 is:

All things through Him came into being and without Him came into being not even one [thing] that has come into being.

https://biblehub.com/interlinear/john/1.htm

Even the NWT:

"All things came into existence through him, and apart from him not even one thing came into existence."

The NWT automatically rules out the Word as being something other than God in nature. If the above is true, then it necessarily follows that the Word cannot have been something created. If the Word was something that was created, then that contradicts what the verse states.

All that to say, it fully supports what is stated in verses 1 and 2--that the Word has absolute existence, having existed for eternity past in intimate union and relationship with God. Since absolute existence is an attribute of God alone, the Word is also God in nature. John's statement in 1:1c is based on what he says in 1:1a and 1:1b. That is the whole point of why he worded 1:1c the way he did--he was avoiding Modalism/Sabellianism and Arianism.

Additionally, since context determines meaning, including the collocation of the words as well as the overall biblical context, we must take into account what God himself stated several times and his followers have repeated many more times--that he is the only god, that he doesn't know of any other and there never will be another. So, if either there really was another or he created one, he lied, and therefore cannot be the God of the Bible.

From the beginning of John--with his prologue--throughout with Jesus's claims to preexistence and his divine acts, right to the end, with Thomas's clear confession, John is telling us that Jesus, as the Son of God, is truly God in nature, equal to the Father but not the Father, all the while affirming monotheism.

Take John 12, for instance:

Joh 12:36 While you have the light, believe in the light, that you may become sons of light.” When Jesus had said these things, he departed and hid himself from them.
Joh 12:37 Though he had done so many signs before them, they still did not believe in him,
Joh 12:38 so that the word spoken by the prophet Isaiah might be fulfilled: “Lord, who has believed what he heard from us, and to whom has the arm of the Lord been revealed?”
Joh 12:39 Therefore they could not believe. For again Isaiah said,
Joh 12:40 “He has blinded their eyes and hardened their heart, lest they see with their eyes, and understand with their heart, and turn, and I would heal them.”
Joh 12:41 Isaiah said these things because he saw his glory and spoke of him. (ESV)

Why do you think John said this?

 

[tigger II]

Arguing to a word-for-word translation can be fallacious, since, as with translating any language into another, the meaning can be lost. And a word-for-word translation of John 1:3 is:

All things through Him came into being and without Him came into being not even one [thing] that has come into being.

https://biblehub.com/interlinear/john/1.htm

Even the NWT:

"All things came into existence through him, and apart from him not even one thing came into existence."

The NWT automatically rules out the Word as being something other than God in nature. If the above is true, then it necessarily follows that the Word cannot have been something created. If the Word was something that was created, then that contradicts what the verse states.

All that to say, it fully supports what is stated in verses 1 and 2--that the Word has absolute existence, having existed for eternity past in intimate union and relationship with God. Since absolute existence is an attribute of God alone, the Word is also God in nature. John's statement in 1:1c is based on what he says in 1:1a and 1:1b. That is the whole point of why he worded 1:1c the way he did--he was avoiding Modalism/Sabellianism and Arianism.

Additionally, since context determines meaning, including the collocation of the words as well as the overall biblical context, we must take into account what God himself stated several times and his followers have repeated many more times--that he is the only god, that he doesn't know of any other and there never will be another. So, if either there really was another or he created one, he lied, and therefore cannot be the God of the Bible.

From the beginning of John--with his prologue--throughout with Jesus's claims to preexistence and his divine acts, right to the end, with Thomas's clear confession, John is telling us that Jesus, as the Son of God, is truly God in nature, equal to the Father but not the Father, all the while affirming monotheism.

Take John 12, for instance:

Joh 12:36 While you have the light, believe in the light, that you may become sons of light.” When Jesus had said these things, he departed and hid himself from them.
Joh 12:37 Though he had done so many signs before them, they still did not believe in him,
Joh 12:38 so that the word spoken by the prophet Isaiah might be fulfilled: “Lord, who has believed what he heard from us, and to whom has the arm of the Lord been revealed?”
Joh 12:39 Therefore they could not believe. For again Isaiah said,
Joh 12:40 “He has blinded their eyes and hardened their heart, lest they see with their eyes, and understand with their heart, and turn, and I would heal them.”
Joh 12:41 Isaiah said these things because he saw his glory and spoke of him. (ESV)

Why do you think John said this?

......................................


Why do you think John wrote this?:

"Why This Gospel Was Written​

30 Therefore many other signs Jesus also performed in the presence of the disciples, which are not written in this book; 31 but these have been written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing you may have life in His name. " - John 20:30, New American Standard Bible 1995 (NASB1995)


New American Standard Bible®, Copyright © 1960, 1971, 1977, 1995 by The Lockman Foundation. All rights reserved.

How could he ignore the greatest discover of all time (Jesus is God!) There's only one reason.

 

[Free]

......................................


Why do you think John wrote this?:

"Why This Gospel Was Written​

30 Therefore many other signs Jesus also performed in the presence of the disciples, which are not written in this book; 31 but these have been written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing you may have life in His name. " - John 20:30, New American Standard Bible 1995 (NASB1995)


New American Standard Bible®, Copyright © 1960, 1971, 1977, 1995 by The Lockman Foundation. All rights reserved.

How could he ignore the greatest discover of all time (Jesus is God!) There's only one reason.

Please answer my question.

As for why John wrote that Jesus is the Son of God, isn't it obvious that a son is always the nature as his father? Can you provide one example in the history of the world where a son was not the same nature as his father?

The Jews understood this full well:

Joh 5:18 This was why the Jews were seeking all the more to kill him, because not only was he breaking the Sabbath, but he was even calling God his own Father, making himself equal with God. (ESV)

Joh 10:32 Jesus answered them, “I have shown you many good works from the Father; for which of them are you going to stone me?”
Joh 10:33 The Jews answered him, “It is not for a good work that we are going to stone you but for blasphemy, because you, being a man, make yourself God.”
...
Joh 10:36 do you say of him whom the Father consecrated and sent into the world, ‘You are blaspheming,’ because I said, ‘I am the Son of God’?
Joh 10:37 If I am not doing the works of my Father, then do not believe me;
Joh 10:38 but if I do them, even though you do not believe me, believe the works, that you may know and understand that the Father is in me and I am in the Father.” (ESV)

Besides, your question ignores the numerous times throughout his gospel that John explicitly or implicitly states or records that Jesus is also truly God, and that is because Jesus himself explicitly and implicitly claims to be God in nature, yet eternally distinct from the Father.

 

[Runningman]

Jesus is Jehovah the YHWH of the Old Testament​

How would that be possible when they aren't even the same person? The God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob is the Father of in your Trinity, therefore YHWH is the Father in your Trinity. The Son in your Trinity is Jesus and the Son is not the Father according to Orthodox Trinitarianism. Overall, you are coming at this from the wrongly angle, presuming there is any such idea as a Trinity in the Scripture.

If you see see below, the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob is the Father because it says Jesus is His Son. Exodus 3:14,15 says the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob is YHWH and the I Am. That means Jesus isn't YHWH, isn't God, etc. No way according to Scripture.

​

Acts 3​

13The God of Abraham, and of Isaac, and of Jacob, the God of our fathers, hath glorified his Son Jesus...​

​

Exodus 3​

14And God said unto Moses, I AM THAT I AM: and he said, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, I AM hath sent me unto you. 15And God said moreover unto Moses, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, The LORD God of your fathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, hath sent me unto you: this is my name for ever, and this is my memorial unto all generations. ​

 

[tigger II]

How would that be possible when they aren't even the same person? The God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob is the Father of in your Trinity, therefore YHWH is the Father in your Trinity. The Son in your Trinity is Jesus and the Son is not the Father according to Orthodox Trinitarianism. Overall, you are coming at this from the wrongly angle, presuming there is any such idea as a Trinity in the Scripture.

If you see see below, the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob is the Father because it says Jesus is His Son. Exodus 3:14,15 says the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob is YHWH and the I Am. That means Jesus isn't YHWH, isn't God, etc. No way according to Scripture.

​

Acts 3​

13The God of Abraham, and of Isaac, and of Jacob, the God of our fathers, hath glorified his Son Jesus...​

​

Exodus 3​

14And God said unto Moses, I AM THAT I AM: and he said, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, I AM hath sent me unto you. 15And God said moreover unto Moses, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, The LORD God of your fathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, hath sent me unto you: this is my name for ever, and this is my memorial unto all generations. ​

..........................................................

The so-called "I AM" of Exodus 3:14 is the Hebrew ehyeh.

All the other places where ehyeh is used in the the books of Moses are listed below. You will find they always mean "I will be" not "I am," particularly when it is Jehovah speaking about his relationship to his people (as also in Ex. 3:14)
See ehyeh in an OT Interlinear at Exodus 3:14:
Now look up the other scriptures which use ehyeh and see how they are translated:
Genesis 26:3 (Jehovah: "I will be with you" NRSV)
Genesis 31:3 (Jehovah: "I will be with you" NRSV)
Exodus 3:12 (Jehovah: I will be with you" NRSV)
Exodus 4:12 (Jehovah: "I will be with your mouth" NRSV)
Exodus 4:15 (Jehovah: "I will be with your mouth" NRSV)
Deuteronomy 32:23 (Moses: "I will be with you" NRSV)
See also Joshua.

In fact, if a person persists (in spite of all the evidence to the contrary) in saying that someone who declares: "I AM WHO I AM" (Ex. 3:14 - RSV, NASB, NIV, JB) or "I AM WHAT I AM" (Ex. 3:14, Bible in Basic English [BBE], also RSV; NRSV; and LB footnotes) is God, then he should really be impressed by Paul's statement at 1 Cor. 15:10 (Acts 26:29 is interesting, also).

Paul says at 1 Cor. 15:10 in the literal NT Greek: "I AM WHAT I AM." This is much closer to what trinitarians want to believe God said at Ex. 3:14 than Jesus' saying ego eimi at John 8:58.

http://examiningthetrinity.blogspot.com/2009/09/i-am-part-3.html

 

[Runningman]

..........................................................

The so-called "I AM" of Exodus 3:14 is the Hebrew ehyeh.

All the other places where ehyeh is used in the the books of Moses are listed below. You will find they always mean "I will be" not "I am," particularly when it is Jehovah speaking about his relationship to his people (as also in Ex. 3:14)
See ehyeh in an OT Interlinear at Exodus 3:14:
Now look up the other scriptures which use ehyeh and see how they are translated:
Genesis 26:3 (Jehovah: "I will be with you" NRSV)
Genesis 31:3 (Jehovah: "I will be with you" NRSV)
Exodus 3:12 (Jehovah: I will be with you" NRSV)
Exodus 4:12 (Jehovah: "I will be with your mouth" NRSV)
Exodus 4:15 (Jehovah: "I will be with your mouth" NRSV)
Deuteronomy 32:23 (Moses: "I will be with you" NRSV)
See also Joshua.

In fact, if a person persists (in spite of all the evidence to the contrary) in saying that someone who declares: "I AM WHO I AM" (Ex. 3:14 - RSV, NASB, NIV, JB) or "I AM WHAT I AM" (Ex. 3:14, Bible in Basic English [BBE], also RSV; NRSV; and LB footnotes) is God, then he should really be impressed by Paul's statement at 1 Cor. 15:10 (Acts 26:29 is interesting, also).

Paul says at 1 Cor. 15:10 in the literal NT Greek: "I AM WHAT I AM." This is much closer to what trinitarians want to believe God said at Ex. 3:14 than Jesus' saying ego eimi at John 8:58.

http://examiningthetrinity.blogspot.com/2009/09/i-am-part-3.html

Yes, that's true. The words "I am" spoken of by Jesus in John 8:58 aren't even typically translated like that. It's also not how Jesus typically talks. The way it's worded places the main clause at the end of the sentence which is unconventional and not how people normally talk. If you have ever seen Star Wars, think of Yoda talks. That's what they did to John 8:58. It's obvious the translation has been fiddled with to support a theology evidenced by how awkward it sounds.

You also also made some good points about how the very same words are used by others in the New Testament who were not attempting to make a claim to deity yet the translators seemed to have developed a sudden case of amnesia and translated it completely different from John 8:58. Go figure.

 

[Free]

How would that be possible when they aren't even the same person? The God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob is the Father of in your Trinity, therefore YHWH is the Father in your Trinity.

Again, more begging the question.

Overall, you are coming at this from the wrongly angle, presuming there is any such idea as a Trinity in the Scripture.

You're presuming there isn't. And the evidence is overwhelmingly against your position.

If you see see below, the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob is the Father because it says Jesus is His Son. Exodus 3:14,15 says the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob is YHWH and the I Am. That means Jesus isn't YHWH, isn't God, etc. No way according to Scripture.

Yet, again, fallaciously begging the question. You really need to learn to think critically and logically.

Acts 3​

13The God of Abraham, and of Isaac, and of Jacob, the God of our fathers, hath glorified his Son Jesus...​

​

Exodus 3​

14And God said unto Moses, I AM THAT I AM: and he said, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, I AM hath sent me unto you. 15And God said moreover unto Moses, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, The LORD God of your fathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, hath sent me unto you: this is my name for ever, and this is my memorial unto all generations. ​

Joh 8:23 And He was saying to them, "You are from below, I am from above; you are of this world, I am not of this world.
Joh 8:24 "Therefore I said to you that you will die in your sins; for unless you believe that I am He, you will die in your sins."
...
Joh 8:57 So the Jews said to Him, "You are not yet fifty years old, and have You seen Abraham?"
Joh 8:58 Jesus said to them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was born, I am."
Joh 8:59 Therefore they picked up stones to throw at Him, but Jesus hid Himself and went out of the temple.
(ESV)

Everything about the context shows that Jesus was claiming to be the I Am. He first says that he is "from above" and "not of this world." The Jews question Jesus about his age, objecting that he possibly couldn't have known Abraham as he wasn't even 50 years old. Jesus responds with the language Yahweh uses of himself in Ex 3:14. In other words, Jesus compares the temporary existence in time of Abraham with his own timeless existence. At an absolute bare minimum, Jesus is claiming to have existed prior to Abraham, but it is much more than that. Hence, the Jews picked up stones to stone him, which is the punishment for blasphemy.

I've explained this to you numerous times already.

Yes, that's true.

Only partially. It's misleading.

The words "I am" spoken of by Jesus in John 8:58 aren't even typically translated like that.

Prove it.

It's also not how Jesus typically talks. The way it's worded places the main clause at the end of the sentence which is unconventional and not how people normally talk.

That is rather the whole point.

hat's what they did to John 8:58. It's obvious the translation has been fiddled with to support a theology evidenced by how awkward it sounds.

Prove it. You shouldn't make this kind of statement again unless you can actually prove it. And, again, begging the question.

You also also made some good points about how the very same words are used by others in the New Testament who were not attempting to make a claim to deity yet the translators seemed to have developed a sudden case of amnesia and translated it completely different from John 8:58. Go figure.

It doesn't surprise me that one of the main issues with anti-Trinitarians is the inability to understand and correctly apply context. It is pretty easy to see that when terms and phrases are applied to Jesus, they often have a slightly different, more significant meaning than when applied to anyone else. No one else is even implied to be God in human flesh; no one else is even implied to be the one and only, unique Son of God. Yet, Jesus explicitly and implicitly makes numerous claims to deity.

So, it is no surprise when John writes from beginning to end numerous things about the deity of Christ, culminating in Thomas's clear exclamation that Jesus was his Lord and his God. And, that should come as no surprise either, given that his books were the last to be written and he has likely had the most time to ponder and think through everything, being one of the three closest to Jesus.