PS I am definitely a Illama

Jury

What is logically inconsistent with a pre-existing Christ during the time of the patriarchs?  He is God so he exists outside of time and space as well?  It would only be illogical if your base presuposition is a human christ existing in a specific point in time.

-In response to "I AM"

You still have not answered the context of Christ answering using the terms "I Am" especially in the jewish context.  In every instance of his answer the jews either were ready to stone him or considered him blasphemous because Jesus was equating himself to God.  You claim that is not what Christ meant, but the people certainly thought so.

Your line of reasoning is Jesus used the terms "I Am" to signify foreknowledge. However you still have not answered the problem this posses.  In the context of any of those passages, the jews of the day interpreted to mean Christ was equating himself to God.  

If Jesus was only God's choosen vessel then how could he have lied?  He could have set them straight and explained it to them, that would be consistent with the stance of a holy man from God but he didn't.  So based on your arguments Christ lied by ommission.  If that is the case then how could Christ have been the chosen one if he sinned?

To be intellectually consistent with your argument you must be willing to take your arguments to its logical conclusion.  Based on your presuppositions you cannot make the claim that Christ was the chosen one and yet deny his deity and still maintain the logical cohesion of your arguments.  If he was the chosen one then he must tell the truth, yet based on your argument your christ lied to the jewish people, lied to his followers and is lying now. How can a liar be the chosen lamb of God?

The question of the ages still is who do YOU say is Christ?

-Jury

I am assuming that since you are using " Jhn 8:58 Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am." shows that you accept that passage as truth.

Jesus claim to deity could not have been more clear in that passage.  Jesus was not just merely claiming to be the son of God He was claiming equality to God.  The concept using the term I AM was significant to the Jews because in Moses first encounter with God, God identifies Himself as I AM who I AM Exodus 3 vs 14. Jesus was not claiming God's foreknowlege of
his existence.  He was claiming to be God.  

You may argue that the Jews took it out of context...that line or reasoning brings up an interesting quandry.  If Jesus was a  only God's chosen man as you claim, then morally He cannot lie.  So He either A.) knowingly mislead the Jews by making a statement knowing full well how they would interpret it without clarifying his position AKA he lied therefore he cannot be a moral man B.) He spoke the truth and you must accept His claim.

In similar fashion when confronted by the Pharisees and Sadducees before crucifixion His response was "I AM " Mark 14 vs 62 once again you are confronted by His claim either A.) knowingly mislead the Jews by making a statement knowing full well how they would interpret it without clarifying his position AKA He lied and died for His lies.  B.) He spoke the truth and you must accept His claim.

You are correct in not finding alot of direct claims made  by Christ to be God.   However the times He does claim His deity could not even be more clear. There are alot of allusions and that is intentional because the whole point of Christianity is to force the individual to make a personal decision on who Christ is.

If you will not accept a scriptual argument maybe you will accept a metaphysical argument, Christ needs to be God and existing outside of time in the begining, the here and now and the end.  The OT concept and understanding of the sacrificial lamb is that any sin committed up until the sacrifice of lamb is covered by the blood-propitiation. It does not cover sins that will be commited in the future.  If Christ only existed as a temporal man, then Christians after the crucifixion are pretty much out of luck.  Christ has to come again and again to die, which is unscriptual.  The only way for Christ to die once and be ressurected and have that death have any significant meaning,  a truth that spans the begining of human history to today and to the end is for Christ to be God.  For the death to take place in time and outside of time. The paradox pr mystery of Christianity is that when Christ died on the cross, He died out through out all time as well and when He was ressurected he was ressurected through out all time as well.  The existence of both states concurrently can be found in quantum physics in the metal experiment known as Schroders Cat.

Or maybe you will accept a scientific or natural model of the trinity.  You are saying that God cannot exist as three seperate persons.  You are claiming it is illogical.  How do you explain h2o then?  liquid, solid and gas.  When it is a liquid aka water its still made up of h2o, when it is solid aka ice its still made up of h2o, when gas its still made up of h2o.  Each one having distinctly separate  propperties.  Water is not Ice, and Ice is not Gas.

Lastly from a historical argument the claim of Christian Orthodoxy requires the acceptance of the trinity.  It is a concept that has withstood 2000 years of Christian history.  If God is indeed God, then don't you think He would protect the integrity of His word?  Are you making claims to have this sudden divine revelation that you are correct and the rest of orthodox Christianity is wrong?  If that is true what does that teach about the nature of God?  God lies?  God allows people to be decieved?

Its good to ask questions that is the only way we will learn but we also have to intellectually honest when presented with the facts. That is the true choice of being a follower of Christ, Who do you say He is?