Did Jesus say he was God???

[Shermana]

No, I am not referring to capitalization in Greek or Hebrew, but in the English translation which I do believe is warranted by the context in the Greek/ Hebrew words and manuscripts. Creatures, such as angels or men were at times symbolically called sons of God, but Christ was distinguished as the unique Son of God indicating His likeness, sameness in being, and equality in essence and nature to God His Father.

Jesus was also called Son of Man.

Perhaps you're unaware that Ezekiel was also called "Son of Man".

With a Capital S apparently too!

Ez 2:1

New International Version (©1984)
He said to me, "Son of man, stand up on your feet and I will speak to you."New Living Translation (©2007)
"Stand up, son of man," said the voice. "I want to speak with you."
English Standard Version (©2001)
And he said to me, “Son of man, stand on your feet, and I will speak with you.”
New American Standard Bible (©1995)
Then He said to me, "Son of man, stand on your feet that I may speak with you!"
King James Bible (Cambridge Ed.)
And he said unto me, Son of man, stand upon thy feet, and I will speak unto thee.
GOD'S WORD® Translation (©1995)
He said to me, "Son of man, stand up, and I will speak to you."

 

[glass shadows]

@Dirty Penguin
The ''sign'' was given to the ''House of David'' for a latter time. The sign did not happen in the reign of Ahaz.

Isaiah 7:13 And he said, Hear ye now, O house of David; Is it a small thing for you to weary men, but will ye weary my God also?

Ahaz said that he would not ''tempt'' the Lord for a sign from Heaven nor upon the Earth. So God states clearly the sign will be for the House of David...... Sign is another term for great miracle. No great miracle happened in Ahaz days.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

My research reveals this: external evidence to the effect that Matthew originally wrote this Gospel in Hebrew reaches as far back as Papias of Hierapolis, of the second century C.E. Eusebius quoted Papias as stating: “Matthew collected the oracles in the Hebrew language.” (The Ecclesiastical History, III, XXXIX, 16) Early in the third century, Origen made reference to Matthew’s account and, in discussing the four Gospels, is quoted by Eusebius as saying that the “first was written . . . according to Matthew, who was once a tax-collector but afterwards an apostle of Jesus Christ, . . . in the Hebrew language.” (The Ecclesiastical History, VI, XXV, 3-6) The scholar Jerome (of the fourth and fifth centuries C.E.) wrote in his work De viris inlustribus (Concerning Illustrious Men), chapter III, that Matthew “composed a Gospel of Christ in Judaea in the Hebrew language and characters for the benefit of those of the circumcision who had believed. . . . Moreover, the Hebrew itself is preserved to this day in the library at Caesarea, which the martyr Pamphilus so diligently collected.”—Translation from the Latin text edited by E. C. Richardson and published in the series “Texte und Untersuchungen zur Geschichte der altchristlichen Literatur,” Leipzig, 1896, Vol. 14, pp. 8, 9.

It has been suggested that Matthew, after compiling his account in Hebrew, may have personally translated it into Koine, the common Greek.

And mine says....

"It is the near-universal position of scholarship that the Gospel of Matthew is dependent upon the Gospel of Mark. This position is accepted whether one subscribes to the dominant Two-Source Hypothesis or instead prefers the Farrer-Goulder hypothesis.
It is also the consensus position that the evangelist was not the apostle Matthew. Such an idea is based on the second century statements of Papias and Irenaeus. As quoted by Eusebius in Hist. Eccl. 3.39, Papias states: "Matthew put together the oracles [of the Lord] in the Hebrew language, and each one interpreted them as best he could." In Adv. Haer. 3.1.1, Irenaeus says: "Matthew also issued a written Gospel among the Hebrews in their own dialect while Peter and Paul were preaching at Rome and laying the foundations of the church." We know that Irenaeus had read Papias, and it is most likely that Irenaeus was guided by the statement he found there. That statement in Papias itself is considered to be unfounded because the Gospel of Matthew was written in Greek and relied largely upon Mark, not the author's first-hand experience.
Herman N. Ridderbos writes (Matthew, p. 7):"

 

[Dirty Penguin]

@Dirty Penguin
The ''sign'' was given to the ''House of David'' for a latter time.

This was a military issue and Ahaz was going to get assistance from the Assyrians and Isaiah was sent to inform Ahaz that all was not lost if he trust in "God's" plan. Since Ahaz was faced with a pending military confrontation a future prophecy (designated 731 years in the future) to a king, Ahaz who was pretty much a non-believer (faithless), meant nothing. The prophecy was of a child to be born to lead them out of the struggles they were having.

The sign did not happen in the reign of Ahaz.

A sign that a young woman was pregnant and would have a child, according to the scriptures, did happen.

Isaiah 7:13 And he said, Hear ye now, O house of David; Is it a small thing for you to weary men, but will ye weary my God also?

.....Yes because it was King Ahaz and ("Judah") that were seeking assistance from Assyria.

Ahaz said that he would not ''tempt'' the Lord for a sign from Heaven nor upon the Earth. So God states clearly the sign will be for the House of David...... Sign is another term for great miracle. No great miracle happened in Ahaz days.

Not a virgin birth though. A young woman would conceive and give birth to a son. Later we find out that the child was indeed born. That sign was given and according to the scripture it came true.

 

[idav]

.... Jesus, is called the only-begotten Son of God because He is the unique as the only being who is fully God (Son of God) and fully human (Son of man) and has a special purpose as Savior of the world.

You can't just arbitrarily define 'son of god' as 'God the son' cause then your missing my whole point which you agreed with about being a literal son. Even a literal son does not make him God the son. My other point was that the lord father would have to pass it on to the son(on purpose) and this is the case because the son clearly states that all the power and glory is indeed from the father.

 

[InChrist]

You can't just arbitrarily define 'son of god' as 'God the son' cause then your missing my whole point which you agreed with about being a literal son. Even a literal son does not make him God the son. My other point was that the lord father would have to pass it on to the son(on purpose) and this is the case because the son clearly states that all the power and glory is indeed from the father.

Does a human father have to pass on humanity to his son? No,a human son is human and already comes with human nature, features, etc which make a person human. God is eternal with eternal qualities, attributes, and powers, therefore to be the Father God's Son, this Son must be eternal and already possess same eternal nature and qualities. This is what the scriptures mean by Son of God. The Son only gave up His eternal power and subjected Himself to a position of lower power and glory to become human which fits perfectly with the partial quote you included above. Besides, from the perspective of one as myself who believes in the triune nature of God, the Son has always throughout eternity given honor to His Father. This in no way means that the Son is any less God than His Father, anymore than a human son is any less human because he shows honor to his father.

 

[InChrist]

Jesus was also called Son of Man.

Perhaps you're unaware that Ezekiel was also called "Son of Man".

With a Capital S apparently too!

Ez 2:1





The term “son of man” is used 93 times in reference to Ezekiel in the book of Ezekiel. It is used because it showed that Ezekiel was a son of man or human in comparison to God., yet Ezekiel was chosen by God to bring a message to the people and in many ways his life was a foreshadow of Christ. The only reason S is capitalized in verse 2:1 and others where it is capitalized is because the word son happens to be at the beginning of the sentence or in a quote at the beginning of the sentence being quoted. It is capitalized for proper grammar. Every other time it is used in Ezekiel when the term is not at the beginning of the sentence son or man is not capitalized.


The term, Son of Man, used by Jesus Himself in reference to Himself, shows that in a unique way He was fully human…unique because He was not simply a son of man or human, but was also fully God who became flesh, the Son of God. Jesus used this term to also show that He was the Messiah.

Jesus said, “I am. And you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Power, and coming with the clouds of heaven.” Then the high priest tore his clothes and said, “What further need do we have of witnesses? You have heard the blasphemy! What do you think?”


And they all condemned Him to be deserving of death. Mark 14:62-64
This is used as a reference to Daniel 7:13-14 which says, "In my vision at night I looked, and there before me was one like a son of man, coming with the clouds of heaven. He approached the Ancient of Days and was led into his presence. He was given authority, glory and sovereign power; all peoples, nations and men of every language worshiped him. His dominion is an everlasting dominion that will not pass away, and his kingdom is one that will never be destroyed."

 

[InChrist]

And it's wrong which is why I gave you the link to the definition of the word from a known trinitarian online bible. The word "almah" doesn't denote virginity at Isaiah 7:14. "Bethula" denotes virginity.

I have to disagree. All the research I’ve done clearly indicates that the word used in Is. 7:14, almah, also means virgin/vitginity and not only in this verse, but in others where it is used.
In each of the following verses the Hebrew word almah explicitly means "virgin”.
Genesis 24:43; Exodus 2:8; 3 Isaiah 7:14; Song of Songs 1:3; Song of Songs 6:8; Psalms 68:25; Proverbs 30:19.

"There is no instance where it can be proved that 'almâ designates a young woman who is not a virgin. The fact of virginity is obvious in Gen 24:43 where 'almâ is used of one who was being sought as a bride for Isaac." (R. Laird Harris, et al. Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament, p. 672.)
Blue Letter Bible - Lexicon
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT][FONT=&quot]

[/FONT]

Once again, the link above informs us this is not in reference to Yeshua as the prophecy says....Ahaz would be given the sign. He would see it unfold in his lifetime. It's not a prophecy projecting 731 year into the future. This is about a war with neighboring lands. The prophecy is describing the coming of a military leader against oppressors.



Remember, a lot of this was centered around Ahaz's lack of faith and the military struggles facing him so Isaiah comes to him to inform him all is not lost and this prophecy given to him would be one he would see come to fruition during his lifetime. It would have meant nothing to him to be given a prophecy designated to occur 731 years later. And it did. The young woman conceived and gave birth to a child.




It's easy to draw that conclusion from the writer's interpretation of the OT but this wasn't the case because the woman described in Isaiah was not being described as a "bethula" (virgin).

But Mary the mother of Jesus was an almah (virgin) and all scripture is given by inspiration of God (2 Tim. 3:16). And so we have the prophetic word confirmed, which you do well to heed as a light that shines in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts; knowing this first, that no prophecy of Scripture is of any private interpretation, for prophecy never came by the will of man, but holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit. (2 Peter 1:19-21)

Well you have to read in 2 Chronicles where Ahaz was defeated. Isaiah's later chapters describe Israels trials and tribulations and what the people endured.

The account of the trials and tribulations the people endured still does not show that the prophecy had complete fulfillment of peace with no end, which it did not occur at that time and has not yet occurred, so complete fulfillment is yet future. Many prophecies are like this with partial immediate fulfillment and future completion. The child born during the time of King Ahaz was a sign at that point in history, but he was not the ultimate one who would bring in final peace to Israel. I am not alone in my view that these passages apply to Jesus Christ, that He is the Messiah in reference or that He is God who came in the flesh. There are many with more scholarly ability that me, who have spent their lives studying the Greek and Hebrew scriptures who have come to the same conclusion. But more importantly for me, is that when I trusted and came to know Jesus Christ as my Savior the Holy Spirit brought these scriptures and others alive verifying the reality and truth that Jesus is the fulfillment and He is God.

Which ones? The ones in the Catholic version containing 73 scrolls or the ones in the Protestant version containing 66?.......Are we only talking about the canonized scriptures or can we add the ones the early church leaders saw fit to reject? Were the rejected scriptures not inspired by "God" as well?

The 66 books-
“When it came to the Old Testament, three important facts were considered: 1) The New Testament quotes from or alludes to every Old Testament book but two. 2) Jesus effectively endorsed the Hebrew canon in Matthew 23:35 when He cited one of the first narratives and one of the last in the Scriptures of His day. 3) The Jews were meticulous in preserving the Old Testament Scriptures, and they had few controversies over what parts belong or do not belong. The Roman Catholic Apocrypha did not measure up and fell outside the definition of Scripture and has never been accepted by the Jews.

Most questions about which books belong in the Bible dealt with writings from the time of Christ and forward. The early church had some very specific criteria in order for books to be considered as part of the New Testament. These included: Was the book written by someone who was an eyewitness of Jesus Christ? Did the book pass the “truth test”? (i.e., did it concur with other, already agreed-upon Scripture?). The New Testament books they accepted back then have endured the test of time and Christian orthodoxy has embraced these, with little challenge, for centuries.”
What is the canon of Scripture?

[FONT=&quot]What is the canon of Scripture?[/FONT]

Case in point....

Zachariah 11:12-13
And I said unto them, If ye think good, give [me] my price; and if not, forbear. So they weighed for my price thirty [pieces] of silver. And the LORD said unto me, Cast it unto the potter: a goodly price that I was prised at of them. And I took the thirty [pieces] of silver, and cast them to the potter in the house of the LORD.

Compare to Matthew

Matthew 27:9-10
Then what was spoken by Jeremiah the prophet was fulfilled: "They took the thirty silver coins, the price set on him by the people of Israel, and they used them to buy the potter's field, as the Lord commanded me.

This so-called "inspired word of God"....is confused here as to whom the prophet is....Not to mention Zacharia 11:12-13 is not even a prophecy...... ....There was no prophecy given and Matthew 27:9-10 vaguely resembles Zachariah but still is a ways off.

[/quote]

I have read several explanations as to the reasons that Matthew referred to Jeremiah rather than Zachariah and I am not sure as to definitely why he did so, although some are certainly feasible. One thing, I am sure of is that simply because we do not have all the information, reasons, or understanding as to why Matthew quoted as he did does not in any way prove the Bible is faulty. The scriptures have proved themselves to be reliable through archeology, history, fulfilled prophecy, and various other ways. At this point, it is only human inability to fully understand everything that causes confusion, not the scriptures.

“Leaving an issue open does not imply disrespect for the authority of Scripture; in fact, under the right circumstances, delaying a decision could be indeed the best way to show God’s Word respect. And one should also keep in mind that the doctrine of inerrancy does not necessarily go down the drain in the midst of biblical questions left unanswered. In fact, Moreland argues that “one can be rational in affirming inerrancy in the presence of a number of anomalies even if this involves suspending judgment.”94 So then, maybe we ought to stop here.”
http://bible.org/article/managing-“over-cites”-learning-evangelical-treatments-faulty-new-testament-citations-old-tes

The entire point of the scriptures, Old and New Testaments, is to be a testament to Jesus Christ the Savior of the world, God the Son who came to redeem His creation. The following passage which I realize has been debated again and again could not be more straightforward and clear, unless someone does not want to believe it and has their mind made up that they will not believe Jesus is God.
Thomas said to Jesus, “My Lord and my God!”. Thomas believed that Jesus was God and Jesus did not correct him, but commended him for believing.

Then He said to Thomas, “Reach your finger here, and look at My hands; and reach your hand here, and put it into My side. Do not be unbelieving, but believing.” And Thomas answered and said to Him, “My Lord and my God!” Jesus said to him, “Thomas, because you have seen Me, you have believed. Blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed.” John 20:27-29

 

[URAVIP2ME]

'Before' John [20vs27-29] please notice the previous verse 17 where Jesus is clear that he was going to his Father and to his God.
Please also notice 'after' verse 29 in verse 31 John says he wrote so that we might believe Jesus is the Christ the Son of God.....

The resurrected heavenly Jesus at Rev.[2v18] still considers himself to be the Son of God.
At Rev. [3v12] Jesus still thinks he has a God over him.
At Rev. [3v14 B] Jesus still thinks he is the beginning of the creation by God.

Remember too that 'God' is a title Not a name. Not the Tetragrammaton [YHWH]
Isaiah [9v6] refers to Jesus as: Mighty God.
But No where is Jesus called as: Almighty God.

 

[InChrist]

'Before' John [20vs27-29] please notice the previous verse 17 where Jesus is clear that he was going to his Father and to his God.
Please also notice 'after' verse 29 in verse 31 John says he wrote so that we might believe Jesus is the Christ the Son of God.....

The resurrected heavenly Jesus at Rev.[2v18] still considers himself to be the Son of God.
At Rev. [3v12] Jesus still thinks he has a God over him.
At Rev. [3v14 B] Jesus still thinks he is the beginning of the creation by God.

Remember too that 'God' is a title Not a name. Not the Tetragrammaton [YHWH]
Isaiah [9v6] refers to Jesus as: Mighty God.
But No where is Jesus called as: Almighty God.

[FONT=&quot]Yes, Jesus is the Son of God and always will be the eternal Son of God with the same attributes and essence/nature as His eternal Father. The difference is that Jesus, unlike any other Being in existence, while being fully God is also a fully resurrected human. From this position of a resurrected human Jesus can address the Father as God anytime He sees fit to do so.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]The Greek word used in Revelation 3:14 for “beginning” is arche. It is translated as: beginning, corner, magistrate, power, principality, principle rule in the Strong’s Concordance. Arche is the root for the English word architect. This verse does not say that Jesus had a beginning. It indicates as do other scriptures that Jesus Christ is the source, the power, and the Creator who began creation.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Personally, I believe the Son (Jesus) is YHWH, but I don’t have time now to discuss that. From my perspective which I believe the scriptures support I see Mighty God and Almighty God as interchangeable, after all the scriptures are clear there is only One God.[/FONT]

 

[URAVIP2ME]

[FONT=&quot]Personally, I believe the Son (Jesus) is YHWH, but I don’t have time now to discuss that. From my perspective which I believe the scriptures support I see Mighty God and Almighty God as interchangeable, after all the scriptures are clear there is only One God.[/FONT]

Who are the two [2] LORD/Lord's of Psalm 110v1 ?

Isn't the Tetragrammaton only applied to the one LORD [YHWH] in all capitals ?

 

[Dirty Penguin]

I have to disagree. All the research I’ve done clearly indicates that the word used in Is. 7:14, almah, also means virgin/vitginity and not only in this verse, but in others where it is used.

And you're wrong. Look, I can do this all night. Your very own "research" proves my point. But first let me give you mine. This is from the English translation of the Jewish Tanakh, not the English translation of the Septuagint.

http://bible.ort.org/books/torahd5.asp?action=displaypage&book=1&chapter=24&verse=43&portion=5

Gen 24:43
"I am now standing by the town well. When a girl comes out to draw water, I will say to her, 'Let me drink some water from your jug".

What we DO know is that if it had been talking about an actual "virgin", some one that has never been with a man, then it would have used the word (betulah) just like it did in that very "same" chapter but only a few verses ago.

24:16
The girl was extremely good-looking, [and] she was a virgin untouched by any man. The girl went down, filled her jug, and then came up again.

24:16 is explicitly showing this is a virgin (betulah) girl. Almah (young girl, young woman, girl, maiden), which appears a few verses later, isn't.

In each of the following verses the Hebrew word almah explicitly means "virgin”.
Genesis 24:43; Exodus 2:8; 3 Isaiah 7:14; Song of Songs 1:3; Song of Songs 6:8; Psalms 68:25; Proverbs 30:19.

Now here's where you're completely wrong. Did you even click the links you provided? They ALL agree with me. Not only that they are from a Catholic website which is just ironic.

Genesis 24:43
.... if I say to a young woman.......

Exodus 2:8
....So the young woman went........

Isaiah 7:14
....the young woman, pregnant and about to bear a son, shall name him Emmanuel.

NOTE: In their rendering they portray, as do may Jewish OT translations, that the woman is already pregnant and getting ready to have the child.

Song of Songs 1:3 and Song of Songs 6:8 - You posted.
(Those links are dead) but considering their pattern above I'm sure it will agree with me. Instead I'll paste the one I got from a Jewish site.

Shir Hashirim - Chapter 1 - Tanakh Online - Torah - Bible
Because of the fragrance of your goodly oils, your name is 'oil poured forth.' Therefore, the maidens loved you.

Shir Hashirim - Chapter 6 - Tanakh Online - Torah - Bible
There are sixty queens and eighty concubines, and innumerable maidens.

Psalms 68:25 (It's actually 26 at their site)
The singers go first, the harpists follow; in their midst girls sound the timbrels.

Proverbs 30:19
the way of a man with a woman

So as you can see, by your own links to an online catholic bible, "almah" is not "clearly indicated" to be used as virgin.

"There is no instance where it can be proved that 'almâ designates a young woman who is not a virgin. The fact of virginity is obvious in Gen 24:43 where 'almâ is used of one who was being sought as a bride for Isaac." (R. Laird Harris, et al. Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament, p. 672.)

And yet YOU refute your own source by the links you've provided above....

But Mary the mother of Jesus was an almah (virgin)

Actually she would have been a (betulah) not an (almah) in that case. The writer of Matthew is copying Isaiah incorrectly to try and tie in prophecy that had nothing to do with Yeshua but Luke is the only one that actually uses the correct word to denote (virgin - a person who has not had sexual intercourse).

I have an online version in Hebrew and the word used at Matthew 1:23 is (ha almah)
http://www.bayithamashiyach.com/Matthew_1.pdf

That same site shows that Luke 1:27 used the correct word (el-b'thulah and hab'thulah).
http://www.bayithamashiyach.com/Luke_1.pdf

The 66 books-.........
[FONT=&quot]What is the canon of Scripture?[/FONT]

I'm very much aware of the history but you made the claim, more than once, that all scripture is inspired by "God" and I'm simply pointing out there are more scrolls than what you have in your bible. It in itself was bound together by men who decided what should be collected together. This isn't a slam against your book. I'm only saying that before you go saying it's the inspired word of "God" you should know there are lots more scrolls out there that didn't make it in. Since man didn't included them then can we consider them the "word of God" as well.....

I have read several explanations as to the reasons that Matthew referred to Jeremiah rather than Zachariah and I am not sure as to definitely why he did so, although some are certainly feasible. One thing, I am sure of is that simply because we do not have all the information, reasons, or understanding as to why Matthew quoted as he did does not in any way prove the Bible is faulty. The scriptures have proved themselves to be reliable through archeology, history, fulfilled prophecy, and various other ways. At this point, it is only human inability to fully understand everything that causes confusion, not the scriptures.

The writer of Matthew simply got it wrong and there's nothing wrong with admitting that....but when you say it's the inspired word of "God" then the writer deserves to be called on this faux pas.

 

[Shermana]

[FONT="]Yes, Jesus is the Son of God and always will be the eternal Son of God with the same attributes and essence/nature as His eternal Father. The difference is that Jesus, unlike any other Being in existence, while being fully God is also a fully resurrected human. From this position of a resurrected human Jesus can address the Father as God anytime He sees fit to do so.[/FONT]

[FONT="]
[/FONT]What is "essence/nature" exactly? These words are used often, when explanation is asked for, it is rarely given. Other than that, your second sentence makes no sense, please explain.

[FONT="]The Greek word used in Revelation 3:14 for “beginning” is arche. It is translated as: beginning, corner, magistrate, power, principality, principle rule in the Strong’s Concordance. Arche is the root for the English word architect. This verse does not say that Jesus had a beginning. It indicates as do other scriptures that Jesus Christ is the source, the power, and the Creator who began creation.[/FONT]

The scriptures are clear in Wisdom of Solomon (which Protestants don't accept as Canonical for some reason, even though the ancient Jews did) is that the Logos/Wisdom was the co-creator. John says that all things were made THROUGH the Logos. This is also addressed with Philo's Logos Theology. Jesus was the foreman, the Father was the CEO of Creation. This is also addressed vaguely in some of the apocryphal writings.
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]

[FONT="]Personally, I believe the Son (Jesus) is YHWH, but I don’t have time now to discuss that. From my perspective which I believe the scriptures support I see Mighty God and Almighty God as interchangeable, after all the scriptures are clear there is only One God.[/FONT]

There is only one "god of the gods", there is no other god "after" (meaning like) or "before" (meaning more important) than the Most High god who is "god of the gods". Even Justin Martyr called Jesus an angel. Angels are called gods, this is evident with the Septugaint translation of "Elohim".

 

[Muffled]

Jesus never made any comment that he was YHWH - to do would have meant instant death.

What he did say was that he was a son of the Father - as are we all.

This is the null hypothesis. It is difficult to prove because it lacks evidence. The way to prove it is to make a good case for Jesus needing to say that He is JHVH. My counter to such thinking is that He has already identified Himself as AHYH and therfore has no further need to go on to JHVH.

Howeve Jesus says I and My Father are One. We can't say that.

 

[Muffled]

How is it irrelevant? It's not even being seen as "time" like Greek and English translation which is how John 8:58 is. In every translation (English) "eyeh" is expressed as (to be) or (will be). Jews have rendered it consistently throughout the OT. The difference now is the English from part of the Septuagint rendering breaks at 3:14 in their translation and renders it (I am) but then after that contiunes to render the word to mean (to be or will be) in other areas of the OT. In fact if you look at the Septuagint they render it as (ego eimi ho on) - (I am The Being). Yeshua expresses this in a totally different way because the context of what he said trumps the usual translation. This is why in plenty of bibles as well as Aramaic and in Coptic translations John 8:58 is rendered as (I was or I have been).

See Also:
Strong's Number 1961 Hebrew Dictionary of the Old Testament Online Bible with Strong's Exhaustive Concordance, Brown Driver Briggs Lexicon, Etymology, Translations Definitions Meanings & Key Word Studies - Lexiconcordance.com


Strong's Number 834 Hebrew Dictionary of the Old Testament Online Bible with Strong's Exhaustive Concordance, Brown Driver Briggs Lexicon, Etymology, Translations Definitions Meanings & Key Word Studies - Lexiconcordance.com




Not at all. Eyeh Asher Eyeh is just as eternal (per se) as Ego Eimi Ho On in Exodus 3:14. Time is not really expressed here. But as you can see from this the (ego eimi) in 3:14 is followed by (ho on) which is lacking in John 8:58 which we can clearly see does not mean the same thing as in 3:14. Yeshua expresses time ("before Abraham was").

No. That's not what I think. I think 3:15 is severely overlooked as the commandment from "God" to Moses wasn't complete in 3:14 but clarified in 3:15.

Exodus 3:14-15
I Will Be Who I Will Be, replied God to Moses. [God then] explained, This is what you must say to the Israelites: I Will Be sent me to you. God then said to Moses, 'You must [then] say to the Israelites, 'YHVH, the God of your fathers, the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, sent me to you.' This is My eternal name, and this is how I am to be recalled for all generations.

[youtube]J84zSeKaDkU[/youtube]
This is my Name -

If you've watched the video you can clearly see how 3:13, 3:14 and 3:14 are put into context. In fact he outright says how context is important here.

They're both pretty much the same. (See video above) so I'm not too sure you know what you're talking about.

Congratulations. That video was well done and provided good information. However the author does not go into the relationship of context or the intricacies involved in translating to English. I don't agree with his conclusion that all the translations are viable. For instance "I will be" is an oxymoron. I can not come into existence in the future if I already am speaking. I can see a case for "I continue to be." That expresses the concept of already existing and going into the future. However "I am" although not referring to the future does not rule it out and seems appropriate to me.

That just occurred to me before reading your text. There is no direct proof that the names are the same but the juxtaposition of the names does suggest that possibility.

This is inconsistent with your statement that I highlighted in purple. There is no evidence that a name without meaning clarifies a name with meaning.

Ex 14 does contain the name without Ho On.

That is exactly why the use of time in the translation is irrelvant because time is not relevant in the Hebrew nor is it relevant to God.

 

[Muffled]

Let's just say that God doesn't exist and leave it at that. This is a topic best left to people who study ancient fake religions like the greek or egyptian gods.

You can say what you want becasue the constitution gurantees the freedom of speech. However if you are going to have any credibility in saying there isn't JHVH, Jesus stands as stark evidence that God exists and you will have to find some way to refute that.

 

[Shermana]

Howeve Jesus says I and My Father are One. We can't say that.

Once again, in John 17:11, Jesus says, speaking of the Disciples, "let them be one AS we are one".

In other words "Let them be one in the same way that we are one".

Thus "We are one" means one in purpose.

 

[Mcshane22]

Once again, in John 17:11, Jesus says, speaking of the Disciples, "let them be one AS we are one".

In other words "Let them be one in the same way that we are one".

Thus "We are one" means one in purpose.

I have been looking for that verse thanks

 

[Dirty Penguin]

Congratulations. That video was well done and provided good information. However the author does not go into the relationship of context or the intricacies involved in translating to English.

We call this (trying to move the goal post). The fact of the matter is the Jews have it right. (ehyeh asher ehyeh)-"I will be who I will be". I'll give you a few examples. The verb (to be) is expressed throughout Genesis. Another good example is Exodus 18:19

Exodus 18:19
עַתָּ֞ה שְׁמַ֤ע בְּקֹלִי֙ אִיעָ֣צְךָ֔ וִיהִ֥י אֱלֹהִ֖ים עִמָּ֑ךְ הֱיֵ֧ה אַתָּ֣ה לָעָ֗ם מ֚וּל הָֽאֱלֹהִ֔ים וְהֵבֵאתָ֥ אַתָּ֛ה אֶת־הַדְּבָרִ֖ים אֶל־הָאֱלֹהִֽים׃
'Now listen to me. I will give you advice, and God will be with you. You must be God's representative for the people, and bring [their] concerns to God.

The way we express this in English is not the same as how Jews perceive it in their language. Since they believe "God" is eternal then "God" is not a (was) or (will be) as far as time is concerned. This verse, just like 3:14, is saying "God" is continuing to be....This is not at all how Yeshua expresses (I am) in context at John 8:58. The context of his statement denotes time. "before Abraham was I (am) was/exist". This is in direct correlation to the question the Jews asked him in reference to not being forty years old yet so how could he have seen Abraham....

I don't agree with his conclusion that all the translations are viable. For instance "I will be" is an oxymoron. I can not come into existence in the future if I already am speaking. I can see a case for "I continue to be." That expresses the concept of already existing and going into the future.

But it does. That's the problem when you're trying to translate and rationalize these text in your mind. It goes against all that you were either taught or know. The verb "to be" in the case of Exodus 3:14 does not denote time even though in English you think it does.

However "I am" although not referring to the future does not rule it out and seems appropriate to me.

While you can translate it as (I am) it's hardly the same as we find it rendered in John 8:58 because in John 8:58 Yeshua is referring to a point in time. We find (I was or I have been) in the Aramaic and the Coptic bibles/translations. Yeshua is saying that (before) Abraham existed I was. This is talking about time and not a constant state of being such as Exodus 3:14.

This is inconsistent with your statement that I highlighted in purple. There is no evidence that a name without meaning clarifies a name with meaning.

It is consistent and I never said the title never had a meaning. Ehyeh is (The Being) that exist. In 3:15 "God" clarifies this to Moses saying ('You must say to the Israelites, 'YHVH, the God of your fathers, the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, sent me to you.' This is My eternal name, and this is how I am to be recalled for all generations.'). YHVH, The Being who exist, sent you. The "God" of your fathers....This is my eternal name for all generations.

Ex 14 does contain the name without Ho On.

Exactly....so if you're trying to use (Ego eimi) at Exodus 3:14 from the Septuagint by itself as a representation of "God" then it's incomplete without the (ho on)....'I am The Being'..... Yeshua's statement lacks the (ho on) and since he was referring to a point in time it would make no since contextually for it to be there. It makes perfect since at Exodus 3:14.

That is exactly why the use of time in the translation is irrelvant because time is not relevant in the Hebrew nor is it relevant to God.

But it is in Greek and that's just one of the reasons why John 8:58 has nothing to do with Exodus 3:14. The use of time is explicit at John 8:58. It's not at Exodus 3:14 or 3:15. While you can translate both of them as "I am" they have nothing to do with each other in regards to context. Furthermore the Septuagint rendered Ex. 3:14 as (Ego eimi ho on - I am The Being), whereas John 8:58 is rendered as (I am) and in context it is expressed as (I was or I have been) as we find it in the Aramaic and the Coptic.

 

[InChrist]

And you're wrong. Look, I can do this all night. Your very own "research" proves my point. But first let me give you mine. This is from the English translation of the Jewish Tanakh, not the English translation of the Septuagint.

Now here's where you're completely wrong. Did you even click the links you provided? They ALL agree with me. Not only that they are from a Catholic website which is just ironic.

Thank you for pointing out that the website was Catholic, I didn’t realize that. Although, I don’t see that it makes any difference since I have no disagreement with their perspective on this subject. I notice you don’t seem to mind linking to Catholic, Christian, or Jewish websites when it suits your perspective though you may totally disagree with everything else they believe.

Below are the Strong’s definitions for the Hebrew words almah and bethulah. You can as you say, go on all night or all day, but you are not going to convince me to agree with your position, as it seems I cannot convince you. I have researched this and read all the passages using the word almah and believe the reference in Matthew to be correct, especially because as I have already said he was led by the Holy Spirit to make reference to this passage in Isaiah. Besides that there are instances where the word bethulah is used in the scriptures where the context does not always infer a virgin, as you assert it does.

5959. almah
damsel, maid, virgin
Feminine of elem; a lass (as veiled or private) -- damsel, maid, virgin.

1330. bethulah
[FONT=&quot]maid, virgin [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Feminine passive participle of an unused root meaning to separate; a virgin (from her privacy); sometimes (by continuation) a bride; also (figuratively) a city or state -- maid, virgin. [/FONT]



Virgin - Isaiah 7:14

Virgin - Isaiah 7:14 - A Word from the Word




God offered a sign to King Ahaz, but he refused. God then gave the sign of to the house of David…Then he said, “Hear now, O house of David! Is it a small thing for you to weary men, but will you weary my God also? Therefore the Lord Himself will give you a sign: Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a Son, and shall call His name Immanuel. (Isaiah 7:13-14) This promised sign took place in the birth of Christ to the betrothed young woman, Mary, who was a virgin.

I'm very much aware of the history but you made the claim, more than once, that all scripture is inspired by "God" and I'm simply pointing out there are more scrolls than what you have in your bible. It in itself was bound together by men who decided what should be collected together. This isn't a slam against your book. I'm only saying that before you go saying it's the inspired word of "God" you should know there are lots more scrolls out there that didn't make it in. Since man didn't included them then can we consider them the "word of God" as well.....

I believe in a God who is capable of working through the affairs of men to accomplish His purposes. If scrolls were not included then it is God who chose not to have them included. They might give historical insight, but I don’t consider them to be the word of God.

The writer of Matthew simply got it wrong and there's nothing wrong with admitting that....but when you say it's the inspired word of "God" then the writer deserves to be called on this faux pas.

[/quote]

I agree there is nothing wrong with admitting error, but I am not at the point of honestly seeing error in the scriptures as recorded in Matthew.