Christ signified...?

[John317]

Prov 25:2 [it is] the glory of God to conceal a thing: but the honour of kings [is] to search out a matter.

1Cor 10:4 And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ.

Is there that which might be searched out in the above passage of St Paul?s? mebbe? mebbe not? perhaps, there was/is insufficient accrual of ?glory? and nothing is concealed -- the passage being

a simple treat upon the OT Messiah -- with St Paul asserting that Christ-as-Messiah had been already manifest and accompanying the COI in their wilderness sojourn; albeit, in a spiritual sense, only. Then again??

Might it behoove one to attempt to discern how St Paul might have employed ?spiritual? in this particular passage? ...but certainly!

?fool?s errand or a king?s honour? So, how now brown cow?? [/introspectively]

No, I don't think that it was only in a spiritual sense that the Messiah was leading the Isrealites in the wilderness. There is much evidence that it was the pre-incarnate Christ who was actually there in 1445 BC. Below is a little of that evidence:

There can be no doubt that the original of I Cor. 10: 9 reads Christ and not Lord. That is the reading of the oldest manuscript containing that verse, which dates back to about AD 200, as well as the vast majority of ancient Greek manuscripts. In fact, the reading "Kurios" basically relies on only 2 or 3 manuscripts from the 4th and 5th centuries, and those contain many errors.

The verse signifies that it was actually the Christ whom the Israelites tested in the desert and were therefore bitten to death by serpents. There's an obvious connection between 1 Cor. 10:9, John 3:14, 15; John 8:58, and Exodus 3:14. When you connect the dots, it becomes obvious that Jesus Christ was the Yahweh of the Old Testament. Both the Father and the Son were called Yahweh.

Therefore, it was Yahweh Himself who came to this earth and was born as a baby in a barn and lay in swaddling clothes in a box of hay. Amazingly, the great Creator came and did this for us, He loved all of us so much!!!! Of course, none of us deserve it. No wonder the prophet would say, Who would believe our report? Indeed, many do not believe the New Testament's report. (Compare John 1:1 and Hebrews 1:10.)

[David Koot]

There can be no doubt that the original of I Cor. 10: 9 reads Christ and not Lord. That is the reading of the oldest manuscript containing that verse, which dates back to about AD 200, as well as the vast majority of ancient Greek manuscripts.

That certainly is the reading in Nestle-Aland. And, as you point out, Christ in the NT is YHWH in the OT. Wish I still had my hard copy of the critical text. that would help, even if I had nothing else. Oh, well.

[John317]

Originally Posted By: John317

There can be no doubt that the original of I Cor. 10: 9 reads Christ and not Lord. That is the reading of the oldest manuscript containing that verse, which dates back to about AD 200, as well as the vast majority of ancient Greek manuscripts.

That certainly is the reading in Nestle-Aland. And, as you point out, Christ in the NT is YHWH in the OT. Wish I still had my hard copy of the critical text. that would help, even if I had nothing else. Oh, well.

Yes, the Nestle-Aland changed their reading in that verse because they recognized the overwhelming textual evidence for Christ as opposed to Lord. It is also the reading of the United Bible Society's 3rd and 4th editions. It's interesting, too, that the good ol' King James Version had it right all along, ever since 1611.

When I was studying with Jehovah's Witnesses on the subject of the Trinity, they were utterly shocked by this verse and the evidence for the reading of Christ. Even their own study Bible (the large one with references) shows the evidence for Christ here instead of Lord, which the NWT translates as Jehovah. I asked them, "Would it make any difference to you if the original read Christ instead of Jehovah?" They never gave me a straight yes or no answer but indicated they could not believe that could have been what Paul actually wrote. On the other hand, I can't think of a single well supported variant, or alternative reading in the New Testament, that I would not be perfectly willing to accept.