Before Abraham was, I am

[posthuman]

He took upon Himself His Fathers name which is Jesus.

this makes no sense to me, @BroTan

Jesus in Hebrew is Yah-shua which means Yah saves or Yah is salvation.
this isn't "the name of the Father" but a name that describes the Father.

He told Moses, tell them "I AM" sent you. Christ identified Himself as that very same I AM -- but the name Jesus isn't "I AM" or "YHWH"
it is a name ((same name as Joshua of old)) that glorifies His perfect works.


with respect, not sure what you're trying to say here

 

[posthuman]

.
Jesus often spoke to his Jewish countrymen as if they were supposed
already be in the know, prior to his arrival, that Messiah would be a
supernatural composite of divinity and humanity. Apparently the rabbis
of that day were doing a very poor job of teaching their people the Old
Testament.

NOTE: One of the first things that Jesus did, after his crucified dead body
was restored to life, was bring his followers up to speed with the Old
Testament. (Luke 24:27 & Luke 24:45)
_

amen

we are fools and do not understand what we read if we don't see Christ on every page of the Torah

i mean, being fools who don't understand what they read places us in good company, lol ((??)), but still . . . !!!

certain truths ought well to be very clear by now, like the identity of Jesus Christ, the I AM

on the day He will reveal Himself to the whole world, many will weep

 

[jaybo]

[QUOTE="posthuman, post: 4893110,

Maybe I'm genuinely missing something relevant that others see, but, as I say, I'm not seeing it. I don't get this idea that the credibility of the LXX is irrelevant. Is this version the one that Paul used in preaching?
I intend looking at what the Jewish OT says. I think the authenticity (or lack thereof) of the LXX is crucial.

Paul and others of his era used the Septuagint. When the OT is quoted in the NT, it is most often -- perhaps always -- the Septuagint.

 

[Nehemiah6]

"There was no Father and Son in the beginning it was only God."

This is incorrect. The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit have existed from eternity past. When John 1:1 says "in the beginning" that is exactly what it means. Before time began, the ONE true God was also the triune Godhead, with God the Word as the second person.

Now notice what the scribes and chief priests omitted about the eternality of Christ in Micah 5:2 when asked by Herod about the King of the Jews: But thou, Bethlehem Ephratah, though thou be little among the thousands of Judah, yet out of thee shall he come forth unto me that is to be ruler in Israel; whose goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting.

The Bible says that God is from everlasting to everlasting. Which means from eternity past to eternity future: Before the mountains were brought forth, or ever thou hadst formed the earth and the world, even from everlasting to everlasting, thou art God. (Ps 90:2) Blessed be the LORD God of Israel from everlasting to everlasting: and let all the people say, Amen. Praise ye the LORD. (Ps 106:48) These are not the words of any psalmist. They are the words of the Holy Spirit, who is also from everlasting.

 

[Nehemiah6]

Sorry - I'm baffled by this! Where does this "I AM" business came from?

This "I AM" business comes from God Himself. That is His name -- "I AM THAT I AM" or "I AM". That is also the name of Christ. This is "the Mystery of God, and of the Father, and of Christ" (Col 2:2). So you can either believe it with your whole heart (as do all genuine Christians) or you can scoff at it.

 

[AndrewMorgan]

Do you believe the LXX is the true word of God, because that's not what is says there?

 

[AndrewMorgan]

Exactly! So why isn't it used as authoritative in this issue?!

 

[jaybo]

Do you believe the LXX is the true word of God, because that's not what is says there?

If this is in response to my post (or even if it isn't...)

The LXX, a.k.a, the Septuagint, is the Koine Greek version of the Old Testament. It was widely used around the time of Christ and was accepted as "the true word of God". It is a translation of the Hebrew OT. Personally I consider it to be a valid version of the OT, as it is quoted in the NT, as in "Scripture says...".

For example, John 19:24b says "This took place to fulfill the scripture that says, “They divided my garments among them, and for my clothing they threw dice.” It's a "quotation of Psalm 22:18, "They are dividing up my clothes among themselves; they are rolling dice for my garments."

and Romans 10:11 says -- "“Everyone who believes in him will not be put to shame." referring to Isaiah 28:16, "The one who maintains his faith will not panic. "

Those are just two random examples. The Hebrew and Septuagint are clearly different. Do you think that John and Paul didn't know Scripture?

 

[AndrewMorgan]

If this is in response to my post (or even if it isn't...)

The LXX, a.k.a, the Septuagint, is the Koine Greek version of the Old Testament. It was widely used around the time of Christ and was accepted as "the true word of God". It is a translation of the Hebrew OT. Personally I consider it to be a valid version of the OT, as it is quoted in the NT, as in "Scripture says...".

For whether or not it's authentic is central to this issue. If it is, the verse in question does not say "I AM what I AM". If it's not, all bets are off and we have to look elsewhere - "the Bible and/ or elsewhere - for guidance.

 

[AndrewMorgan]

Feels like to me you're avoiding the whole issue!

 

[CS1]

i don't know where you are getting 'the one or being' from but that is inaccurate; it's not in the text at all either of the original Hebrew or the translated Greek.
there is no 'the' or 'one' -- it is the verb "to be"
you could say "being" i guess but not the noun 'being' ((like an entity or person)) -- it's the verb "being" as in
"existing"

I think some are word bending and narrow one-word elitcing. God said, " I AM" this is not a human intellect saying I am a being. We must consider who is saying it in context to the God of the Bible. Therefore, God is saying.
I AM the self-existing One who is God, and there is no other to the false god of Eygpt and Moses tell them Let my People Go.

Word bending is grossly errored in context to the One true God because it lowers HIS Divine NATURE FOR HUMAN REASONING TO UNDERSTAND.

We do not approach the word of God or Lord God in that way. We must be humble and reverent whenever speaking of HIM.

 

[AndrewMorgan]

If this is in response to my post (or even if it isn't...)

The LXX, a.k.a, the Septuagint, is the Koine Greek version of the Old Testament. It was widely used around the time of Christ and was accepted as "the true word of God". It is a translation of the Hebrew OT. Personally I consider it to be a valid version of the OT, as it is quoted in the NT, as in "Scripture says...".

For example, John 19:24b says "This took place to fulfill the scripture that says, “They divided my garments among them, and for my clothing they threw dice.” It's a "quotation of Psalm 22:18, "They are dividing up my clothes among themselves; they are rolling dice for my garments."

and Romans 10:11 says -- "“Everyone who believes in

Re. your last question - Uh - yeah! I think they DID. I think you're missing the point outrageously! It seems headway can't be made with you.

 

[AndrewMorgan]

I think some are word bending and narrow one-word elitcing. God said, " I AM" this is not a human intellect saying I am a being. We must consider who is saying it in context to the God of the Bible. Therefore, God is saying.
I AM the self-existing One who is God, and there is no other to the false god of Eygpt and Moses tell them Let my People Go.

Word bending is grossly errored in context to the One true God because it lowers HIS Divine NATURE FOR HUMAN REASONING TO UNDERSTAND.

We do not approach the word of God or Lord God in that way. We must be humble and reverent whenever speaking of HIM.

Talk about mind-bending,!

 

[CS1]

If this is in response to my post (or even if it isn't...)

The LXX, a.k.a, the Septuagint, is the Koine Greek version of the Old Testament. It was widely used around the time of Christ and was accepted as "the true word of God". It is a translation of the Hebrew OT. Personally I consider it to be a valid version of the OT, as it is quoted in the NT, as in "Scripture says...".

For example, John 19:24b says "This took place to fulfill the scripture that says, “They divided my garments among them, and for my clothing they threw dice.” It's a "quotation of Psalm 22:18, "They are dividing up my clothes among themselves; they are rolling dice for my garments."

and Romans 10:11 says -- "“Everyone who believes in him will not be put to shame." referring to Isaiah 28:16, "The one who maintains his faith will not panic. "

Those are just two random examples. The Hebrew and Septuagint are clearly different. Do you think that John and Paul didn't know Scripture?

You're not staying in context to your own example. You jumped from one text to another.

For example, John 19:24b says "This took place to fulfill the scripture that says, “They divided my garments among them, and for my clothing they threw dice.” It's a "quotation of Psalm 22:18, "They are dividing up my clothes among themselves; they are rolling dice for my garments.


Yes, this is from Pslams 22, which is known as the Passion of Christ Pslams. However, it was fulfilled in the Gospel account of Christ's Crucifixion. That is the context of the Pslams. Jesus is The Promised suffering Massiah prophesied in the Old Testament.

 

[CS1]

Talk about mind-bending,!

you can insult but I will take your response and your inability to provide correction to what I have said from the word of God.

 

[jaybo]

You certainly can't make headway with me or anyone else if you can't use the software correctly. When you respond to a post, use the "REPLY" button at the lower right. That quotes the message, then you can add you response. Otherwise, you're making things very confusing,

 

[posthuman]

Those are just two random examples. The Hebrew and Septuagint are clearly different. Do you think that John and Paul didn't know Scripture?

so what?

you made this thread, and you made it about whether Christ is claiming to be God or not.

why do you suddenly want it to be a thread about LXX bashing?

are you uncomfortable with the answer you got to your original question?

i can show you Christ is God from the Masoretic text just as well!

 

[Nehemiah6]

Do you believe the LXX is the true word of God, because that's not what is says there?

No the LXX is the corrupted Greek translation of the Hebrew Old Testament. Many people claim that the apostles were quoting from the LXX, but only about 10% of the NT quotes are an exact match. Which is entirely possible without necessarily resorting to the LXX. But the LXX has some very serious corruptions. See The Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah by Alfred Edersheim for details. He was both a Hebrew and Greek scholar as well as a devout Hebrew Christian. There are also other sources to confirm this.

 

[AndrewMorgan]

I said where the "One" or "Being" comes from, as I have multiple times throughout this thread! It's from the Greek Septuagint, or the one that is presented to be when one seeks it in Google.

 

[TheLearner]

Given you are "unsure" of your spiritual status, you seem to be doing a lot of comparisons of various theological views.

Are you working on that "unsure" thingie? Mayhaps, should you resolve that, you will begin to understand far more than you seem to now regarding Scripture.

(just saying)

To the person who started this thread. Print out this outline and look up all the scriptures in it. https://www.calvarychapelboston.com/Biblical Basis Trinity Bowman.pdf