The “I am” statements in the Gospel according to John

A good defense of the “I am” statements in the Gospel of John as historically true and reliable.

About Ken Temple

I am a follower of Jesus Christ. I am a sinner who has been saved by the grace of God alone (Ephesians 2:8-9), through faith alone (Galatians 2:16; Romans 3:28; 4:1-16), in Christ alone (John 14:6). But a true faith does not stay alone, it should result in change, fruit, good works, and deeper levels of repentance and hatred of my own sins of selfishness and pride. I am not better than you! I still make mistakes and sin, but the Lord is working on me, conforming me to His character. (Romans 8:28-29; 2 Corinthians 3:16-18) When I do sin, I hate the sin as it is an affront to God, and seek His forgiveness in repentance. (Mark 1:15; 2 Corinthians 7:7-10; Colossians 3:5-16 ) Praise God for His love for sinners (Romans 5:8), shown by the voluntary coming of Christ and His freely laying down His life for us (John 10:18), becoming flesh/human (John 1:1-5; 1:14; Philippians 2:5-8), dying for sins of people from all nations, tribes, and cultures (Revelation 5:9), on the cross, in history, rising from the dead (Romans 10:9-10; Matthew 28, Mark 16:1-8; Luke 24; John 20-21; 1 Corinthians chapter 15). His resurrection from the dead proved that Jesus is the Messiah, the eternal Son of God, the word of God from eternity past; and that He was all the gospels say He was and that He is truth and the life and the way to salvation. (John 14:6)
This entry was posted in Apologetics, Bible is not corrupted, Gospel according to John, Historical reliability of the Bible, Truth. Bookmark the permalink.

1 Response to The “I am” statements in the Gospel according to John

  1. I thought you would like this since it indirectly refutes the Dale Martin video on Psalm 110:1 posted by Williams here:

    This is what I posted in the comments section.

    The problem is that Dale Martin is simply paying lip service and doesn’t really believe in engaging the text within its historical context, especially when as a liberal he doesn’t even know what that historical context happens to be. Unlike Martin, I actually engaged Psalm 110 within its own historical context and within the wider context of the Hebrew Bible to see who could have been David’s Lord, and what does this Psalm’s depiction tell us about his nature:

    And here’s pt. 2:

Comments are closed.