Loomis

Right. The author was Moses, but Moses was quoting the Lord.
You can tell that the speaker was a god because in the next verse the speaker equates himself with other gods.
See?

The prophet was to have the LORD's name.

There's an allusion to it here:

Loomis

But I’m not saying that they didn’t.

The Lord in Deuteronomy 32:8-9 LXX and Psalm 82 LXX is not the Father; the Lord is not the Most High. The Lord is a separate deity.

It is conceivable that the author of Romans 10 recognized this distinction and exploited it.

Loomis

Right.

But the Lord in Deuteronomy 32:8-9 LXX and Psalm 82 LXX is not the Father; the Lord is not the Most High. He is a separate deity.

The Lord is not Theos. The Lord is not El, Elyon, or Elohim. He’s just “the Lord.” A separate deity.

Loomis

Right. But in Numbers 13:16 Moses gives Hoshea the name Jesus for some reason. (It was not his original name.)

Evidently the name Jesus was a name that could be given later in life.

Evidently the name Jesus was a name that was ABOVE Hoshea.

Loomis

Right. But Matthew wasn’t written by the author of Romans. So what difference does Matthew’s opinion make?

In Matthew 27:28-29 the author equated Jesus with Joshua (not the Lord).

The bad guys are reenacting/ mocking this scene:

aa5874

The prophet was not a god since he was only speaking on BEHALF of the god that he had chosen.

The speaker could speak in the name of the Lord or speak in the name of some other god and suffer the conseqence.

It must be noted that the Prophets spoke in the name of the Lord.

See Isaiah 8, Jeremiah 1.2, Joel1.1, Ezekiel 12.1, Micah1.1, Amos 3.1 and the other prophets.


None of the prophets AFTER Deuteronomy had the LORD'S name. They spoke on BEHALF of the LORD or it was believed the LORD spoke through them.

But, Jesus was INTRODUCED as equal to God and was God in the very first passages of gJohn.

I know of no other prophet that was considered equal to God.

And gJohn is fiction. RIGHT?

Loomis

I think your primary claim that Philippians 2:5-11 was written by Constantine has merit, but your secondary claim (that it does not barrow from earlier traditions) is off.

That's okay though. You are still the best regular poster on this forum.

Loomis

Noted.

But it is obvious that some of the details of Jesus are barrowed from Old Testament snippets with complete abandonment - with total disregard for their original context. So even though other prophets did speak in the name of the Lord it is still possible that Romans 10 took that idea and ran with it. Your argument depends on a degree of literary unity for which there is no compelling evidence.

Note too that the Prophet in Deuteronomy 18 in named Jesus.

------
Romans 10:13 treats Joel 2:32 LXX like a prophecy that was fulfilled when Jesus died.

It was a revelation: Jesus was the Lord. Jesus was the name of the Lord. No need to guess about the Lord’s name anymore; it’s Jesus.

aa5874

But, even in Hebrew Scripture, Joshua was NOT LORD.

In the very first verse of Zechariah 3, Joshua was brought before the angel of the LORD.

ZeCh 3.1

Loomis

Right. In the Hebrew scripture Joshua and Yahweh had separate names. But in the LXX Yahweh is nameless, and looks like some sort of mystery Lord set apart from Theos.

Again your argument depends on the unsupported premise that all of these authors slept together, and that they were on the same literary wavelength.

They weren’t.

The only unifying element is that the stories center around a messiah/ prophet, and are created by barrowing motifs from the OT.

The Book of Hebrews (in the NT) for example, is based firmly on the premise that Jesus is Joshua. Whereas in Romans 10 Jesus is “the Lord” as depicted in Joel 2:32 LXX.