Did Jesus say he was God???

[1robin]

Would you recognize that? I think you are unique if you would accept that anyone other than Jesus could do the things he did.

How could I not recognize if the dead were raised? I think you are wrong about how many people would agree. Even Jesus said:

New International Version
Very truly I tell you, whoever believes in me will do the works I have been doing, and they will do even greater things than these, because I am going to the Father.

Billy Graham and Mother Theresa come to mind.

One of the things that we need to remember is that all the writing done in the NT was done with the motivation to make Jesus a new leader of a new religion.

Do you mean to suggest they manufactured miracles or lied to do this?

It was written by people who in some cases never even met Jesus while he was alive. Jesus himself never wrote anything that we know of. In their fervor to make Jesus a divine leader of their new 'spirituality' they attributed a whole lot of things to him. None, however, are known to be true. He may have been an immensely wise and evolved human being, but the things that were attributed to him, like raising people from the dead etc. could all be symbolic referrals to people being spiritually dead and Jesus touching their lives and awakening them to a new 'life'. Healing the sick could very easily been the same. Healing the blind, yes, once again their eyes were opened and they saw the truth of things for the first time. It doesn't mean it had to be physical and it doesn't mean that there was anything he did that was God like in that sense.

I can debate the literalness of healing or miraculous verses if you wish. However I wanted to know if you are a Baha'i first. I must know what is motivating you refusal of clearly literal contexts in order to tailor my response.

Much of what he taught wasn't new. It had already been taught by others that came before him. Eastern philosophy believed in a more 'passive' ideology. Buddha said many of the things that Jesus later taught. It was new to the Jews, but not to many that grew up in the Eastern religions.

Of course there is some commonality but there exists much he taught no one in history has claimed. Commonality can easily be explained by a God given conscience all men have and a commonality of subject matter. It is however in the exclusive material where the potency of the Gospel exist.

So that's why I ask Christians, if there was someone that said they were speaking with God and he told them certain new things that could change the world for the better, would people listen to them, or would they denounce that person as being a fraud because they were not Jesus?

If they demonstrated things that can only be done with power granted from the supernatural I would certainly take them seriously. Unlike the Bible's 2500 prophecies and countless miracles no other faith reliably records supernatural events on par with the Bible. Muhammad for example flat refused when people asked for miracles as the Biblical prophets had done before him.

Do people believe that God stopped communicating new revelations 2000 years ago?

Nope, at least Christian do not think that.

Or do you believe there could be new information coming through individuals that could change the world and how we do things. Things that might bring more happiness, harmony and unity? If not, why not? If yes, what would that look like to you?

I think it possible yes, I have found almost all those that claim to have such information severely lacking in any evidence demonstrating their divine source. I even believe that there have been many Satanic prophets who even had power (the test to identify them is far more involved that you posts demanded at this time) but yes there have been people with new information that was from God but none of it contradicted anything in the Bible. Nothing supersedes the Bible but there have been additional revelations. I think almost all Christians believe this.

 

[BornAgain]

You seem to have a problem following the basic logic of Shermana's position here. Did you even read what he wrote? :sarcastic
Point 1:
Ergo: God did NOT say "I AM" (present tense), he literally said "I shall become who I am becoming" (future tense)
Point 2:
Ergo:
A) Jesus was never identifying himself BY NAME (as God was)
B) Jesus saying "I am" has become completely IRRELEVANT, and unrelated to the context of what God was talking about since God NEVER said that in the first place!

What part about that do you not understand?

Point 3: (my point)
Greek is different from Hebrew. It doesn't matter that Jesus spoke in the "present tense" in Greek instead of "past tense" because that fact doesn't relate to what tense God spoke in Exodus 3:14 (which is future tense). The language, context, and the very message that he was delivering was completely different! Nothing about their two statements is similar once you dig a little deeper and get past the respective language barriers.

Joh5:39 _ Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me.

What scriptures do you think the Lord Jesus Christ was saying here?

The Septuagint or the LXX, the Greek translation of the Pentateuch.
In the LXX, Exodus 3:14 it says, “EGO EIME” OR “I AM”

In John 8:58 the “I am” is “EGO EIME“.

Shermana’s translation is from the Hebrew or Masoretic text AND THIS WAS NOT IN USE AT THAT TIME.

Just imagine the Jews in Christ’s time, what SCRIPTURES they were reading?

It is the LXX where it says “I AM” or “EGO EIMI” in Exodus 3:14, and ONLY after the Jews abandoned the LXX, A.D.100 or so, they went back to the Hebrew version of the Pentateuch OR the masoretic text where it says in Exodus 3:14 “I am” as “I shall be” or “Ehyeh”.

The TIMELINE is very crucial to our understanding of what was said during that time, and what language they were using during that time.

READ ALEXANDER THE GREAT FOR MORE UNDERSTANDING.

They, the Jews, SAID CHRIST; “search the SCRIPTURES OR THE LXX” and NOT the Hebrew version OR the Pentateuch.

SO, WHEN CHRIST SAID IN Joh8:58 Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am.

The Jews reaction from the “I AM/EGO EIMI”, spoken by Christ, WAS the same AS WAS CLAIMED BY GOD from Exodus 3:14 “I AM/EGO EIMI” OF THE LXX VERSION AND NOT FROM MASORETIC TEXT “I SHALL BE OR EHYEH”

Shermana’s and your version of Exodus 3:14 were from the Hebrew version. This Hebrew version were not in use at the time when Christ was ministering here on earth.

THEY WOULD NOT UNDERSTAND EACH OTHER IF ONE IS USING A HEBREW VERSION OF THE PENTATEUCH WHILE OTHERS WERE SPEAKING IN GREEK.

WHEN Christ said “I AM” as “EGO EIMI” AND WHAT GOD SAID IN EXODUS 3:14 “I AM” AS “EGO EIMI” [LXX VERSION] IT IS THE SAME CLAIM BY GOD AND CHRIST AS ONE/ECHAD.

THE JEWS UNDERSTOOD THIS VERY WELL THAT WHAT CHRIST WAS CLAIMING IN JOHN 8:58 AS THE SAME [DEITY] AS WHAT GOD WAS CLAIMING IN EXODUS 3:14, THE GREAT “I AM”.

YOU ARE MIXING TWO LANGUAGES IN ONE GENERATION.

YOU SHOULD READ THE HISTORY OF THE BIBLE FIRST BEFORE YOU MAKE A CLAIM.

NOW, TELL ME WHO CAN NOT UNDERSTAND?

 

[Philomath]

^
Someone needs a chill pill

 

[BornAgain]

^
someone needs a chill pill

changed your religion again man!

What happen you cop-out? No more sadhu?

 

[Philomath]

changed your religion again man!

What happen you cop-out? No more sadhu?

Inner Sadhu wasn't a religion to begin with.

 

[BornAgain]

inner sadhu wasn't a religion to begin with.

still that is a cop-out.

You should change your avatar if you are not a sadhu in or out or whatever up or down.

 

[Philomath]

still that is a cop-out.

You should change your avatar if you are not a sadhu in or out or whatever up or down.

How is that a cop out? I am free to display my Avatar as whatever I please, so no.

 

[captainbryce]

Joh5:39 _ Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me.

What scriptures do you think the Lord Jesus Christ was saying here?

The Septuagint or the LXX, the Greek translation of the Pentateuch.

No. He was referring to the Hebrew scriptures BEFORE they were ever translated! Jesus did not speak Greek, he spoke Aramaic (a dialect of biblical Hebrew). So when his words "search the scriptures" are translated into Greek, it still means search the Hebrew scriptures (the language that he and the Jews spoke), not the Greek translation of them.

The Septuagint or the LXX, the Greek translation of the Pentateuch.
In the LXX, Exodus 3:14 it says, “EGO EIME” OR “I AM”

In John 8:58 the “I am” is “EGO EIME“.

Shermana’s translation is from the Hebrew or Masoretic text AND THIS WAS NOT IN USE AT THAT TIME.

Your argument is self defeating. It is the Masoretic text that is translated "I AM THAT I AM". The Septuagint does not!

Exodus 3:14 (Septuagint to old English)
And God spoke to Moses, saying, I am THE BEING; and he said, Thus shall ye say to the children of Israel, THE BEING has sent me to you.

Exodus 3:14 (Masoretic to old English)
3:14 And God said unto Moses, I AM THAT I AM: and he said, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, I AM hath sent me unto you.

John 8:58 (Textus Receptus transliteration)
Said to them the Jesus Amen Amen I am saying to you before Abraham to be becoming I am. (BTW it's "ergo eimi", not "ergo eime").

"I am" in this particular statement does not denote name or identity, it denotes nature or "origin", as opposed to the "I am THE BEING" in Exodus (which denotes specific identity). Jesus is speaking in a completely different context about something completely different than what God was speaking about.

Just imagine the Jews in Christ’s time, what SCRIPTURES they were reading?

NOT the Septuagint (since it was a translation into a language that they didn't speak)!

Yes, some Jews probably did read the Greek translation of their texts, but that doesn't mean that these are the scriptures that Christ was referring to.

The TIMELINE is very crucial to our understanding of what was said during that time, and what language they were using during that time.

I agree. But you seem to be confused as to what language they were actually using! But even more relevant than that is the context under what was being said. God was saying one thing, and Jesus was saying something completely different. The language details are almost secondary to that fundamental discrepancy between your association with the two unrelated statements.

READ ALEXANDER THE GREAT FOR MORE UNDERSTANDING.

I'd rather read the scriptures with guidance under the Holy Spirit. Because that's what I choose to place my faith in. But if you'd rather place your faith in men, by all means do so. But I don't think that will lead you to the truth!

They, the Jews, SAID CHRIST; “search the SCRIPTURES OR THE LXX” and NOT the Hebrew version OR the Pentateuch.

Why would the Jews tell other Jews to search the Jewish scriptures that Christ (a Jew) spoke about, yet be referring to a Greek translation? That doesn't make any sense. And when things don't make sense, they aren't true. All things being equal, the simplest explanation is correct. When Christ said search the scriptures, he was referring to the Hebrew scriptures (written in HEBREW), not the Hebrew scripture translated into Greek.

Shermana’s and your version of Exodus 3:14 were from the Hebrew version. This Hebrew version were not in use at the time when Christ was ministering here on earth.

Luke 4:16-17
16 He went to Nazareth, where he had been brought up, and on the Sabbath day he went into the synagogue, as was his custom. He stood up to read, 17 and the scroll of the prophet Isaiah was handed to him. Unrolling it, he found the place where it is written:

Now, you are telling me that when Jesus went to the Jewish synagogue and read the scriptures and referred to them, he was actually referring to the Greek Septuagint? Just think about that one for a moment...

Second, nowhere does the Bible say that Jesus or the apostles are quoting from a translation. We read nothing about a translation anywhere in Scripture. That teaching must be put into the text in order to get it out. One would think that a translation would be mentioned if one of the apostles were depending on it. Not one time in the gospels or the epistles does a writer ever allude to the Septuagint. It isn't in there.

Third, there is tremendous Scriptural evidence that Jesus and the Apostles were using the Hebrew text. Even in the passage in question, we should consider what kind of scroll would be used in a Jewish synagogue. It would not have been a Greek one. By saying, "It is written," Jesus would not have been referring to a translation. "It was written" (v. 17) is perfect passive, so it is a past action with ongoing results. What Moses had written was still written to that day, which is why Luke would have used that word.

When Jesus refers to Scripture, He refers to the three fold division of the law (Luke 24:27, 44). which was not the case with the Septuagint. The Apostle Paul does the same in Acts 26:22. The Hebrew text had the three fold division. Also we should see exactly how Jesus uses the Hebrew text of the Old Testament in Luke 11:51, moving from the first book, Genesis, with the example of Abel, to the last book, 2 Chronicles, with the example of Zacharias. If you were looking for the last book of the Old Testament in the Septuagint, you would look in Malachi for Zacharias. He isn't in there. 2 Chronicles is the last book of the Hebrew Old Testament.

Jews knew Hebrew. They didn't need a Greek translation at that time. Pilate included Hebrew as one of the languages in the signage he placed over Jesus on the cross (John 19:20). In Acts 21:40, Paul spoke to the Jews in Jerusalem in "the Hebrew tongue." Jesus talked to Paul in the Hebrew tongue in Paul's conversion on the road to Damascus (Acts 26:14). The Torah was the basis for teaching in the Jewish synagogue in that day (Acts 15:21). We should assume that Jesus and the Apostles spoke to the Jews in Hebrew. We don't have a basis to believe otherwise. We have a strong exegetical basis to believe that they did.

Did Christ quote from the Septuagint?

YOU ARE MIXING TWO LANGUAGES IN ONE GENERATION.

YOU SHOULD READ THE HISTORY OF THE BIBLE FIRST BEFORE YOU MAKE A CLAIM.

Oh, the irony!

NOW, TELL ME WHO CAN NOT UNDERSTAND?[/QUOTE]

 

[BornAgain]

No. He was referring to the Hebrew scriptures BEFORE they were ever translated! Jesus did not speak Greek, he spoke Aramaic (a dialect of biblical Hebrew). So when his words "search the scriptures" are translated into Greek, it still means search the Hebrew scriptures (the language that he and the Jews spoke), not the Greek translation of them.

YOU DO NOT KNOW WHAT YOU ARE SAYING.

The New Testament was written in “common” Greek, the everyday business language used throughout the Greek-speaking part of the Roman Empire. This common Greek, which also is known as “Koine” or Hellenistic Greek, was a simplified version of classical Greek and was spread by Alexander the Great throughout the Mediterranean world.

Attic Greek was one the major achievements of the human mind. The richness and subtlety of its syntax, its flexibility, the delicacy of its particles--these and other linguistic features make Attic the most expressive medium ever developed for human thought. The dialect passed with the passing of the city states and with the unification of Greece, and were followed by a basic Greek that developed in the form of a simplified Attic. This, spread by Alexander’s conquest throughout the eastern end of the Mediterranean, and was called the “KOINE” or common dialect. It was the speech of the LXX and the NT, the global gospel of Paul of Tarsus, the Christian church, and modern Europe.

The Septuagint was in popular use in Jesus’ time and is often quoted by New Teatament writers. It is a translation of Hebrew into Greek by Jewish scholars in Alexandria, Egypt. The Pentateuch was translated about 250 B.C. and the entire OT completed 100 years later. The term septuangint is the latin word for 70, representing the 72 rabbis who did the translating under the orders of Ptolemy Philadelphus. The Greek used was not the classical idiom but rather anticipated that of the NT, the “KOINE”. It was designed to preserve the old religion among the dipersed Jews in a language they commonly used.

 

[BornAgain]

how is that a cop out? I am free to display my avatar as whatever i please, so no.

i can understand you are still "Confused"

 

[BornAgain]

The Christian doctrine of the Trinity has been generally misunderstood among the Jewish people, with the result that they believe we worship three Gods. To set forth this idea and the reason for its strong hold on the Jewish people to-day we propose to quote rather extensively from the writings of one who is in a position to understand the problem, - from the writings of Ex-Rabbi Leopold Cohn. Says he:

"The reason that the Jews have become estranged from the doctrine of the Triune God is found in the teachings of Moses Maimonides. He compiled thirteen articles of faith which the Jews accepted and incorporated into their liturgy. One of them is 'I believe with a perfect faith that the Creator, blessed be His name, is an absolute one' (Hebrew, 'Yachid' ) . This has been repeated daily by Jews in their prayers, ever since the twelfth century, when Moses Maimonides lived. This expression of an 'absolute one' is diametrically opposed to the word of God which teaches with great emphasis that God is not a 'Yachid,' which means an only one, or an 'absolute one,' but 'Echad,' which means a united one. In Deuteronomy 6:4 God laid down for His people a principle of faith, which is certainly superior to that of Moses Maimonides, inasmuch as it comes from God Himself. We read, 'Hear O Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is ONE,' stressing the sense of the phrase 'one' by using not 'yachid,' which Moses Maimanides does, but 'Echad,' which means a united one.

"We want now to trace where these two words, 'yachid' and 'Echad,' occur in the Old Testament and in what connection and sense they are used, and thus ascertain their true meaning.

"In Genesis I we read, 'And there was evening and there was morning, one day.' Here the word 'Echad' is used, which implies that the evening and the morning - two separate objects - are called one, thus showing plainly that the word 'Echad' does not mean an 'absolute one,' but a united one. Then in Genesis 2:24 we read, 'Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother and shall cleave unto his wife, and they shall be one flesh.' Here too the word 'Echad' is used, furnishing another proof that it means a united one, referring, as it does in this case, to two separate persons.

"Now let us see in the Word of God where that expression 'yachid,' an 'absolute one,' is found. In Genesis 22:2 God says to Abraham, 'Take now thy son, thine only son.' Here we read the word 'yachid.' The same identical word, 'yachid,' is repeated in the 12th verse of the same chapter. In Psalm 25:16 it is again applied to a single person as also in Jeremiah 6:26, where we read, 'Make thee mourning as for an only son.' The same word, conveying the sense of one only, occurs in Zechariah 12:10, 'And they shall look upon me whom they have pierced, and they shall mourn for Him as one mourneth for his only son.'

"Thus we see that Moses Maimonides, with all his great wisdom and much learning, made a serious mistake in prescribing for the Jews that confession of faith in which it is stated that God is a 'yachid,' a statement which is absolutely opposed to the Word of God. And the Jews, in blindly following the so-called 'second Moses' have once more given evidence of their old proclivities of perverting the Word of the living God. The Holy Spirit made that serious complaint against them through Jeremiah the prophet, saying, 'For ye have perverted the words of the living God, of the Lord of hosts our God' (Jer. 23:36).

"This is therefore the belief of the true Christian. He does not have three gods, but 'one,' a Scriptural one, which is in Hebrew 'Echad,' and which consists of three personal revelations of God as we shall see in the following Scriptures.

"In the very first verse of the Bible we find two, manifestations of the Godhead. 'In the beginning God created . . , and the Spirit of God moved.' Here we see plainly that God taught us to believe that He is the creator of all things and that His Spirit is moving upon this world of ours to lead, guide and instruct us in the way He wants us to walk. So here in the first chapter of the Bible are two manifestations of God.

"It will interest the reader to know that the most sacred Jewish book, the Zohar, comments on Deuteronomy 6:4 - 'Hear O Israel, Jehovah our God, Jehovah is one,' saying, 'Why is there need of mentioning the name of God three times in this verse?' Then follows the answer. 'The first Jehovah is the Father above. The second is the stem of Jesse, the Messiah who is to come from the family of Jesse through David. And the third is the way which is below (meaning the Holy Spirit who shows us the way) and these three are one.' According to the Zohar the Messiah is not only called Jehovah but is a very part of the Triune Jehovah." (The Trinity in the Old Testament, pp. 3, 4).

 

[Philomath]

i can understand you are still "confused"

k....

 

[Shermana]

The Christian doctrine of the Trinity has been generally misunderstood among the Jewish people, with the result that they believe we worship three Gods. To set forth this idea and the reason for its strong hold on the Jewish people to-day we propose to quote rather extensively from the writings of one who is in a position to understand the problem, - from the writings of Ex-Rabbi Leopold Cohn. Says he:

"The reason that the Jews have become estranged from the doctrine of the Triune God is found in the teachings of Moses Maimonides. He compiled thirteen articles of faith which the Jews accepted and incorporated into their liturgy. One of them is 'I believe with a perfect faith that the Creator, blessed be His name, is an absolute one' (Hebrew, 'Yachid' ) . This has been repeated daily by Jews in their prayers, ever since the twelfth century, when Moses Maimonides lived. This expression of an 'absolute one' is diametrically opposed to the word of God which teaches with great emphasis that God is not a 'Yachid,' which means an only one, or an 'absolute one,' but 'Echad,' which means a united one. In Deuteronomy 6:4 God laid down for His people a principle of faith, which is certainly superior to that of Moses Maimonides, inasmuch as it comes from God Himself. We read, 'Hear O Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is ONE,' stressing the sense of the phrase 'one' by using not 'yachid,' which Moses Maimanides does, but 'Echad,' which means a united one.

"We want now to trace where these two words, 'yachid' and 'Echad,' occur in the Old Testament and in what connection and sense they are used, and thus ascertain their true meaning.

"In Genesis I we read, 'And there was evening and there was morning, one day.' Here the word 'Echad' is used, which implies that the evening and the morning - two separate objects - are called one, thus showing plainly that the word 'Echad' does not mean an 'absolute one,' but a united one. Then in Genesis 2:24 we read, 'Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother and shall cleave unto his wife, and they shall be one flesh.' Here too the word 'Echad' is used, furnishing another proof that it means a united one, referring, as it does in this case, to two separate persons.

"Now let us see in the Word of God where that expression 'yachid,' an 'absolute one,' is found. In Genesis 22:2 God says to Abraham, 'Take now thy son, thine only son.' Here we read the word 'yachid.' The same identical word, 'yachid,' is repeated in the 12th verse of the same chapter. In Psalm 25:16 it is again applied to a single person as also in Jeremiah 6:26, where we read, 'Make thee mourning as for an only son.' The same word, conveying the sense of one only, occurs in Zechariah 12:10, 'And they shall look upon me whom they have pierced, and they shall mourn for Him as one mourneth for his only son.'

"Thus we see that Moses Maimonides, with all his great wisdom and much learning, made a serious mistake in prescribing for the Jews that confession of faith in which it is stated that God is a 'yachid,' a statement which is absolutely opposed to the Word of God. And the Jews, in blindly following the so-called 'second Moses' have once more given evidence of their old proclivities of perverting the Word of the living God. The Holy Spirit made that serious complaint against them through Jeremiah the prophet, saying, 'For ye have perverted the words of the living God, of the Lord of hosts our God' (Jer. 23:36).

"This is therefore the belief of the true Christian. He does not have three gods, but 'one,' a Scriptural one, which is in Hebrew 'Echad,' and which consists of three personal revelations of God as we shall see in the following Scriptures.

"In the very first verse of the Bible we find two, manifestations of the Godhead. 'In the beginning God created . . , and the Spirit of God moved.' Here we see plainly that God taught us to believe that He is the creator of all things and that His Spirit is moving upon this world of ours to lead, guide and instruct us in the way He wants us to walk. So here in the first chapter of the Bible are two manifestations of God.

"It will interest the reader to know that the most sacred Jewish book, the Zohar, comments on Deuteronomy 6:4 - 'Hear O Israel, Jehovah our God, Jehovah is one,' saying, 'Why is there need of mentioning the name of God three times in this verse?' Then follows the answer. 'The first Jehovah is the Father above. The second is the stem of Jesse, the Messiah who is to come from the family of Jesse through David. And the third is the way which is below (meaning the Holy Spirit who shows us the way) and these three are one.' According to the Zohar the Messiah is not only called Jehovah but is a very part of the Triune Jehovah." (The Trinity in the Old Testament, pp. 3, 4).

Either Cohn forgot that the word "Echad" is used for a singular non-plural unity in 900 cases and that "Two become one" does not mean anything "united", it's an idiomatic phrase at best that carries no actual literal connotation such as the Trinity's connotation, never learned it when studying Hebrew, or has found newfound moneymaking in being a deliberate liar and fraudulent huckster and very well knows this. I can't believe there are still people pushing this "Echad = plural unity" thing, I can only imagine they are banking on no one actually looking it up for themselves.


Examining the Trinity: Echad - 'One'

Torah (Teachings) of/about Yahshua Messiah (Jesus Christ) - REAL Messianic truth rebuking the Trinity and lawlessness

And when one looks in the Tanakh itself at the frequency and usage of the two words - echad and yachid - it is very quickly and easily seen that echad, not yachid, is in fact the standard Hebrew word for a simple one. Echad is used over 900 times in the Hebrew Bible, making it the most frequently used adjective in the Tanakh. Here are some examples of its usage where the word "one" is translated from echad: "one place" (Gen. 1:9); "one man" (Gen. 42:13); "one law" (Ex. 12:49); "one side" (Ex. 25:12); "one ewe lamb" (Lev. 14:10); "one of his brethren" (Lev. 25:48); "one rod" (Num. 17:3); "one soul" (Num. 31:28); "one of these cities" (Deut. 4:42); "one way" (Deut. 28:7); "one ephah" (1 Sam. 1:24); "one went out into the field" (11 Kings 4:39); "one shepherd" (Ezek. 37:24); "one basket" (Jer. 24:2); "one [thing]" (Ps. 27:4); "Two are better than one" (Ecc. 4:9); "one day or two" (Ezra 10:13). Sometimes it is simply part of a number, like "eleven" (echad + 'asar, one plus ten), in , for example Genesis 32:22. Sometimes it is as well translated by an indefinite article (a[n]): "a new cart" (1 Sam. 6:7); "a juniper tree" (1 Kings 19:4,5); "a book" (Jer. 51:60).

Trinitarians push all kinds of gobbledygook but this one takes the cake in showcasing how utterly dishonest they truly are when it comes to the language, the only possible reason they have with this "Echad is a plural unity" nonsense is that they are not counting on people looking it up and saying "Hmmm, maybe its used 900 times for a totally singular non-unity sense of "one" and even when it's used as "flesh shall become one" it doesn't actually mean a "plural unity" but is an idiomatic phrase. This sadly common attempt to try to distort and revision the language is one of the most annoying displays of militant ignorance of all their arsenal of nonsense.

Try asking the Judaism DIR if "Echad is a plural unity". This "Ex-Rabbi" has to know this if he was a true Rabbi, or he is trying to soak up some fat Christian cash from ignoramuses too lazy to be bothered to actually look it up, this is something that can be disproven objectively in 10 seconds, and it speaks volumes about Trinitarian arguments. One of my favorites for that reason.

 

[Shermana]

Joh5:39 _ Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me.

What scriptures do you think the Lord Jesus Christ was saying here?

The Septuagint or the LXX, the Greek translation of the Pentateuch.
In the LXX, Exodus 3:14 it says, “EGO EIME” OR “I AM”

In John 8:58 the “I am” is “EGO EIME“.

Shermana’s translation is from the Hebrew or Masoretic text AND THIS WAS NOT IN USE AT THAT TIME.

Just imagine the Jews in Christ’s time, what SCRIPTURES they were reading?

It is the LXX where it says “I AM” or “EGO EIMI” in Exodus 3:14, and ONLY after the Jews abandoned the LXX, A.D.100 or so, they went back to the Hebrew version of the Pentateuch OR the masoretic text where it says in Exodus 3:14 “I am” as “I shall be” or “Ehyeh”.

The TIMELINE is very crucial to our understanding of what was said during that time, and what language they were using during that time.

READ ALEXANDER THE GREAT FOR MORE UNDERSTANDING.

They, the Jews, SAID CHRIST; “search the SCRIPTURES OR THE LXX” and NOT the Hebrew version OR the Pentateuch.

SO, WHEN CHRIST SAID IN Joh8:58 Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am.

The Jews reaction from the “I AM/EGO EIMI”, spoken by Christ, WAS the same AS WAS CLAIMED BY GOD from Exodus 3:14 “I AM/EGO EIMI” OF THE LXX VERSION AND NOT FROM MASORETIC TEXT “I SHALL BE OR EHYEH”

Shermana’s and your version of Exodus 3:14 were from the Hebrew version. This Hebrew version were not in use at the time when Christ was ministering here on earth.

THEY WOULD NOT UNDERSTAND EACH OTHER IF ONE IS USING A HEBREW VERSION OF THE PENTATEUCH WHILE OTHERS WERE SPEAKING IN GREEK.

WHEN Christ said “I AM” as “EGO EIMI” AND WHAT GOD SAID IN EXODUS 3:14 “I AM” AS “EGO EIMI” [LXX VERSION] IT IS THE SAME CLAIM BY GOD AND CHRIST AS ONE/ECHAD.

THE JEWS UNDERSTOOD THIS VERY WELL THAT WHAT CHRIST WAS CLAIMING IN JOHN 8:58 AS THE SAME [DEITY] AS WHAT GOD WAS CLAIMING IN EXODUS 3:14, THE GREAT “I AM”.

YOU ARE MIXING TWO LANGUAGES IN ONE GENERATION.

YOU SHOULD READ THE HISTORY OF THE BIBLE FIRST BEFORE YOU MAKE A CLAIM.

NOW, TELL ME WHO CAN NOT UNDERSTAND?

Once again,

1. The name is "I shall be", literally. Translations that list it as "I am" are not grammatically correct, Ehyeh is simply not Present Tense. You yourself say it.

2. The 4th century Septuagint that has it as "I am" is different from other Septuagints such as from Aquila and Theodotion who have it as "I shall be", and is most likely the product of a Trinitarian editor. There is no way you can prove that Aquila's and Theodotion's changed it from the original Septuagint, if you feel you can somehow prove that the Sinaiticus had it right and there's didn't, feel free. Either way, it would indicate that "I am" can be read in the non present tense of existence, which would nullify your interpretation of John 8:58 to begin with. If anything the Greek of Exodus 3:14 in the 4th century Sinaticus may likely have changed from the earlier editions. I am always amused when I see Christians who think the Sinaiticus translation somehow is the exact same and that Aquila's and Theodotion's earlier works were wrong.

3. God said his NAME was I am. He did not just say "I am". Jesus would have to say "My name is I am" or "I am I am".

Now if you refuse to accept these facts, then you most definitely "can't" understand.

 

[I.S.L.A.M617]

still that is a cop-out.

You should change your avatar if you are not a sadhu in or out or whatever up or down.

So if my avatar is a woman, do I have to be a woman? If my avatar is blue, must I be one of the Avatar people? (see what I did there?)

 

[Shermana]

In English I shall be means that Jesus didn't exist as He said it and it would have meant that Yahweh didn't exist until He said it. In both cases "i shall be" is a false translation.

Come back when you learn basic Hebrew grammar. Perhaps you'd like to prove that Ehyeh is ever used for direct present tense. "I shall be" can indicate future imperfect present, to continue existing as he already exists. Nice try though.

 

[BornAgain]

so if my avatar is a woman, do i have to be a woman? If my avatar is blue, must i be one of the avatar people? (see what i did there?)

to tell you the truth i really don't care if you are elvis or snow white or the seven dwarfs

 

[BornAgain]

Either Cohn forgot that the word "Echad" is used for a singular non-plural unity in 900 cases and that "Two become one" does not mean anything "united", it's an idiomatic phrase at best that carries no actual literal connotation such as the Trinity's connotation, never learned it when studying Hebrew, or has found newfound moneymaking in being a deliberate liar and fraudulent huckster and very well knows this. I can't believe there are still people pushing this "Echad = plural unity" thing, I can only imagine they are banking on no one actually looking it up for themselves.

'I believe with a perfect faith that the Creator, blessed be His name, is an*absolute one' (Hebrew, 'Yachid' ).

This has been repeated daily by Jews in their prayers, ever since the twelfth century, when Moses Maimonides lived. This expression of an 'absolute one' is diametrically opposed to the word of God which teaches with great emphasis that God is not a 'Yachid,' which means an only one, or an 'absolute one,' but 'achid/echad,' which means a*united one.

In Deuteronomy 6:4 God laid down for His people a principle of faith, which is certainly superior to that of Moses Maimonides, inasmuch as it comes from God Himself.

We read, 'Hear O Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is ONE,' stressing the sense of the phrase 'one' by using not 'yachid,' which Moses Maimanides does, but 'achid/echad,' which means a*united*one.

 

[captainbryce]

So if my avatar is a woman, do I have to be a woman? If my avatar is blue, must I be one of the Avatar people? (see what I did there?)

to tell you the truth i really don't care if you are elvis or snow white or the seven dwarfs

Speaking of "cop outs"

Is there a particular reason why you can't ever admit when you are wrong?

 

[I.S.L.A.M617]

to tell you the truth i really don't care if you are elvis or snow white or the seven dwarfs

So why start the fuss over an avatar?