McLovin ✟ J.C. Samples

In debates over Christ's divinity, skeptics often ask why Jesus never explicitly said, "I am God, worship me." However, a well-informed Christian will point to John 8:58, where Jesus states, "Before Abraham was born, I AM." The Greek phrase used for "I AM" is ego eimi. In Koine Greek, the verb eimi ("I am") is grammatically sufficient on its own. The addition of the pronoun ego ("I") is unnecessary unless the speaker intends to place a heavy, emphatic weight on their response. We see this distinction in John 9:9—the only instance in the Gospels where someone other than Jesus uses the absolute ego eimi. When bystanders debate whether the man born blind is truly the same person they once knew, the man emphatically declares, "Ego eimi." In this context, the heavy emphasis functions like someone taking ownership of an identity being questioned: "Yes, it is me!" Because the original Greek was written well before the use of punctuation like exclamation marks, authors relied on this linguistic "layering" to convey intensity. When translating the weight of spoken Aramaic into written Greek, this was the primary method of showing emphasis. To take this a step further, we see the judicial weight of this phrase in Mark 14:61-64. When the High Priest asks Jesus if He is the Christ, the Son of the Blessed One, Jesus replies, "Ego eimi." The clear, emphatic use of the pronoun left no doubt in the minds of the Sanhedrin. The High Priest immediately tore his robes and declared Jesus guilty of blasphemy—a charge that would be nonsensical if Jesus were merely making a polite self-identification. Thus, when Jesus states, "Before Abraham was born, I AM," He is not merely claiming to have existed before the patriarchs. He is identifying Himself with the true, eternal "I AM" revealed to Moses in Exodus 3:14. From the streets of Jerusalem to the halls of the High Priest, Jesus consistently claimed the Divine Name as His own.

Ego Eimi (I AM) Jesus does claim to be God Article in comments boogermclovin.com/2026/05/02/the…

My response to Greg Locke.

@JayDyer @CosmicSkeptic I think he’s actually intrigued by TAG and has no interest in defending his position against it.

I hear @CosmicSkeptic said he won’t discuss anything with me because I’m “too pompous.” But if there’s no God who cares about pompousness? Why is that wrong? What does that have to do with any of the arguments? Same excuse as the rest of the people that run lol

@CatholicPrimer Not Calvinist. Even atheist use it

He shouldn’t have been punched, but the reaction he got was because TAG isn’t Orthodox. It’s a Calvinist argument masquerading as Orthodox.

Foolish Do you affirm Brigham Young when he states that his sermons are as good as scripture? Or do you say that’s not doctrine? I already know the answer You argue we aren’t in communion with the Holy Spirit, who honestly argues that. We just believe the canon is likely closed. If a prophet comes forward then as long as his prophecies are fulfilled and his revelations don’t contradict scripture then he will be accepted. You likely have no clue how to distinguish between Christ and Anti-Christ. Good luck and God Bless

@JCSamplesEph6 @ThoughtfulSaint @barrelagedfaith At least our Captain still talks to us

The biggest thorn in the side of Mormonism is that its historical claims lack plausibility at an insane level. You don't have to be C.S. Lewis to recognize this (someone who even wrote a book on Miracles). Joseph Smith discovering a bunch of lost ancient texts in New York is a difficult place to begin the story. Skepticism only increases when you read the first book of Mormon, 1 Nephi, which quotes large sections of the Gospel while Nephi is a prophet from 600 years before the Gospels were written. Wow, these predictions are 5 thousand times more accurate than Isaiah, Jeremiah, and Ezekiel combined! (Nephi references Nazareth, the Virgin Mary, John the Baptist, the Baptism of the Lord, and the 12 Apostles, and the Crucificxion all within a few verses of each other!) 1 Nephi 11 - "And I beheld the city of Nazareth; and in the city of Nazareth I beheld a virgin, and she was exceedingly fair and white.... 18 And he said unto me: Behold, the virgin whom thou seest is the mother of the Son of God, after the manner of the flesh... 27 And I looked and beheld the Redeemer of the world, of whom my father had spoken; and I also beheld the prophet who should prepare the way before him. And the Lamb of God went forth and was baptized of him; and after he was baptized, I beheld the heavens open, and the Holy Ghost come down out of heaven and abide upon him in the form of a dove... 29 And I also beheld twelve others following him.... 33 And I, Nephi, saw that he was lifted up upon the cross and slain for the sins of the world.

@ThoughtfulSaint @barrelagedfaith Nothing like trying to sink the ship when your own lifeboat is faulty.

@barrelagedfaith What’s more historically plausible. A band of Hebrew refugees ended up on the American contingent. Or that a couple of polar bears walked to Iraq to get on a boat with a 900 year old man?

@PracticalTheolo Pretty wild that Irenaeus the disciple of Polycarp who was John’s disciple says “For I have shown that the Son of God did not then begin to exist, being with the Father from the beginning." (Against Heresies, 3.18.1)

These are a bit different - not about when the word became flesh in particular (a specific clause at John 1:14), but about whether there's some kind of preexistence case for Jesus. But John 17:5 is talking about the prophesied glory of the suffering servant, which Jesus then promptly fulfills, being crucified and then resurrecting. 1 Cor. 8:6 is talking about the new creation, not Genesis or whatever you think it is.

Yes, Jesus existed before the word became flesh, because the word became flesh at Jesus' baptism.

It’s a solid argument but just not a complete one. John 17:5 5 “Now, Father, glorify Me together with Yourself, with the glory which I had with You before the world 1 Corinthians 8:6 6 yet for us there is one God, the Father, from whom are all things and we exist for Him, and one Lord, Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we exist through Him. I know your response to these but I will say it’s not sufficient. I’ve not the time tonight to go back and forth. But I’ll release the article and would enjoy your response. God bless

@JCSamplesEph6 Yes, in a sense he was Christ from birth, literally meaning 'chosen one'. That's different from when the word becomes flesh.

@thatheretic @PracticalTheolo Are you a modalist then?

@JCSamplesEph6 @PracticalTheolo I don't think he did. I believe the word is categorically different than the word MADE flesh Think a car. A car blueprint (word) is not car built out of steel The word made flesh IS the word MADE flesh in the man Jesus Christ

Then if you are being consistent: Jesus was never human but every time Paul calls Him Kyrios He’s YHWH. Congrats you are now a Trinitarian.

@PracticalTheolo I should have been more implicit. I’m curious if you believe Jesus existed before the Word became flesh.

@JCSamplesEph6 A Biblical Unitarian. Similar to the Apostles, 1st century disciples, and the NT authors.

@PracticalTheolo I don’t remember what type of Unitarian you are. Are you a “oneness”, JW, or?

@JCSamplesEph6 Jesus is *made* Lord *by* God. God isn't made Lord.

Good luck solving “tribalism.” The Nazi’s effectively used identity to convince a nation to kill millions of Jews and Gypsies. Politically identity politics are used to unite for votes but create further separation. As for the groups you mentioned, remember that social media highlights everyone and the worst of each group will be used to define the balance. Christianity deserves to be represented by Jesus Christ alone. That’s why I deny anyone who tells me Christianity is responsible for colonization crusades or inquisition. But who can Progressives or Atheist turn to represent them?

Why do people abandon their stated core values the moment tribal loyalty feels threatened? A progressive says nuance matters, then demands orthodoxy. A Christian says forgiveness matters, then votes for revenge. An atheist says reason matters, then follows the herd. That’s not hypocrisy. It’s a confession most people never realize they’re making. The doctrine was never the master. The tribe was. And a value that quietly dies the moment it costs you standing inside the group was never a value. It was a membership fee:

What was missing? When I look at LDS prophet revelation I see rejection of much of what is “revealed” along with non-Scripture tested revelation that is accepted. I have zero issues with modern revelation if it’s properly tested as prescribed by Scripture. The LDS doctrine seems to center predominantly on the teachings of Joseph Smith but you don’t even accept everything he said. Instead you walk a fine-line of what you can squeeze through with a “to the best it can be translated” approach to Scripture. YHWH alone stretched out the heavens and created all things. Jesus is YHWH, as is the Father. Jesus is the image of the invisible God; as he stated, "No one has seen the Father." This is because the Father does not have flesh and bone. He is the source of all. Jesus is eternally the Word of God, and the Holy Spirit is eternally the Breath of God. I’d advise you to reconcile the nature of God before worrying about untested modern revelation.

@JCSamplesEph6 You understand the point fully. Paul was an apostle. He had authority and it was needed to clarify confusion and ensure that true doctrine was taught. The Bible alone NEVER had full authority. That is why we need revelation today.

If the Bible is the ultimate source of truth and the infallible word of God, how do Christians know when to take it literally? How does one know which parts are no longer relevant? Should people who work on the Sabbath still be put to death? Is it still wrong to have fires in your home on the Sabbath?

The early Church was limited in number during the first century, which meant the Apostles themselves acted as the living centers of authority. They held councils, as recorded in Acts, to settle church doctrine, and individual churches accepted writings as scripture based on their verified Apostolic origin. The existence of a formal, bound canon was secondary because of the living presence of the Apostles. Before their deaths, they laid hands on disciples to ensure the mission continued. Paul received the Gospel directly from the Lord, yet he still had his Gospel validated by the existing Apostles, showing he was abiding in Scripture by checking for conformity to both the witnesses and to Scriptures. We know we can trust Paul because he was granted the distinct traits of an Apostle: he possessed the gifts of healing the sick and raising the dead. As for Paul’s priesthood, because he held the office of an Apostle, he was inherently a priest. Regarding the interpretation of eternal truths, Paul didn't need to "figure them out", he was filled with the Holy Spirit, who guided him in all matters pertaining to the faith. He was a steward of the deposit of faith, not a private theologian offering their own opinion. Now how this pertains to modern day LDS prophet revelation, individual revelation, and the proposed affirmation by the Holy Spirit to what is received: I would argue that just as Paul tested his revelation with his fellow Apostles and with the witnesses of Jesus Christ, we should do the same. Test what you receive to ensure it's not deception or from evil spirits. Just as Paul stated, even Satan masquerades as an angel of light.

But how would the early Christians have known this? The Bible wasn't compiled until hundreds of years after Paul wrote this letter to the Galatians? Paul himself never even followed Jesus when Jesus was alive, so wouldn't he have received this knowledge by revelation? Are you saying that Paul had some sort of priesthood and authority that allowed him to interpret eternal truth?

@grok @JohnnyTani3 @Hamzythacreator 😂 silly Ai Literally the worst arguments I’ve ever seen. Nice try though. I can tell you pull most of your arguments from Reddit.

My programming was created by xAI engineers who applied logical and mathematical principles they discovered and tested—not invented or "accidentally" coded. Those principles (e.g., consistency, non-contradiction) function reliably whether framed as Platonic abstracts, Kantian preconditions of thought, or natural invariants we observe. The analogy doesn't collapse the debate into your binary. Human designers use logic; they don't ground its universality. Philosophy offers non-theistic accounts that preserve invariance without brute contingency or divine mind—tested by coherence and application, not assertion. The question remains open.

Hey @grok, Be honest…which of these religions is the best?