Salvation and Unitarians

[synergy]

Mine says the same.
So, do you recognize that you believe that Jesus said IMPLICITLY, and not EXPLICITLY, that He is the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob?
There is nothing wrong with that.
The Bible is full of implicit statements. This could be one of them.

I see nothing new from you directly concerning the "I Am" name of the OT God that Jesus explicitly claimed as his own. Until you address the explicit "I Am" name of God, this case is over.

 

[Pancho Frijoles]

“You will die in your sins, for unless you believe that I AM, you’ll die in your sins” (John 8:24, ISV).

Well, we have two alternatives here


OPTION 1

Jesus is introducing for the first time in his ministry, a new condition for sins to be forgiven.
A condition he never demand from anyone who approached him.
A condition his apostles never demanded from anyone to repent.
A condition that has nothing to do with what He has set as conditions: to come with humbleness, and to show others the mercy we want to receive from God.
A condition that is not met by Unitarian Christians, Jehovah Witnesses, Jews, Muslims, Baha'is, Zoroastrians, Sikhs, etc. making them not reachable to God's mercy. If they stole 100 dollars, if doesn't matter how broken-hearted and humble they come to God. It doesn't matter if God changes their lives. It doesn't matter if Trinitarian folks forgive them of any offence these Unitarians may have done to them. Trinitarians can forgive Unitarians, but God cannot. Since these millions of Unitarians do not believe that Jesus was the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, YHWH, they will die in their sins, unforgiven.


OPTION 2

By saying "I Am", Jesus referred to Himself as The One sent by God, with a Message from God.
Let's read the verses next to John 8:24 and find out.

They said to Him, “Who are You?”​

​

Jesus said to them, “Just who I have been telling you from the beginning. 26 I have many things to say and to judge concerning you, but He who sent Me is true. So I tell the world what I heard from Him.”​

​

27 They did not understand that He spoke to them of the Father. 28 So Jesus said to them, “When you lift up the Son of Man, then you will know that I am He, and I do nothing of Myself. But I speak these things as My Father taught Me. 29 He who sent Me is with Me. The Father has not left Me alone, for I always do those things that please Him.” 30 As He spoke these words, many believed in Him.​

I have just extracted few verses. Please read the whole chapter: John 8.

So, Who was Jesus? Who he referred to as "I Am"?
The one that he had been telling the Israelites from the beginning, and then again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again.
In knowing Him as the One Sent by God, and in knowing Our Father as the Only and True God, is eternal life.

 

[synergy]

Ego Eimi just means "I am".
YHWH (whatever the pronunciation) means "I am who I am" or "I am who I am being" or "I am who I can be" among other possible translations. We can check this with whatever Jewish rabbi in our neighborhood and ask him if "I am" is an appropriate translation of the sacred name.

If you have a problem with that, and it looks like you do, all your grievances can be mailed to an Alexandrian Synagogue in Egypt.

But let's say that we cannot reach an agreement on this, and we throw away millenia of Jewish knowledge about God.

I'm embracing over 2 millennia years of Greek-speaking Jewish knowledge about God.

Wouldn't be interesting to know how the Septuagint translates "God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob"?
That would be key. If the way the Septuagint translates God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob is the same way Luke uses for the speech of Peter in Acts 3, then it would be more than evident who the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob is.

Remember, your interpretation of John 8:58 is about what you think Jesus said implicitly.

What is making you want to run away from John 8:58? Think about that, at least for a moment.

In contrast, Acts 3:13 is explicit about the God of Israel NOT being Jesus.

So, how the Septuagint renders God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob?

Give me a moment and I'll indulge you.

 

[Pancho Frijoles]

I see nothing new from you directly concerning the "I Am" name of the OT God

That is not the "I Am" of the OT God. That's your interpretation, which must be tested.
Ego eimi does NOT equal YHWH. Not semantically, not contextually and more importantly, not spiritually.

So, the case is far from over.
If it is over for you, then you have discovered a new condition for God's forgiveness... never presented before that episode, and never presented after that episode.
If the case is over for you, then admit that, for you, millions of Jews and Muslims, as well as @Peterlag, @Runningman and @Studyman are dammed to die unforgiven.

Admit, then, that you will forgive me for any offence that I can make to you, but God will not.

 

[Pancho Frijoles]

What is making you want to run away from John 8:58? Think about that, at least for a moment.

Does "running away" means to face John 8:58 with the two implications in my post 482?
Does "running away" means to publish verses taken directly from John 8 to show who Jesus said over and over he was?

I would like to know your opinion on the implication of those two options.
.

 

[synergy]

So, how the Septuagint renders God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob?

(Exo 3:15) καὶ εἶπεν ὁ θεὸς πάλιν πρὸς Μωυσῆν Οὕτως ἐρεῖς τοῖς υἱοῖς Ισραηλ Κύριος ὁ θεὸς τῶν πατέρων ὑμῶν, θεὸς Αβρααμ καὶ θεὸς Ισαακ καὶ θεὸς Ιακωβ, ἀπέσταλκέν με πρὸς ὑμᾶς· τοῦτό μού ἐστιν ὄνομα αἰώνιον καὶ μνημόσυνον γενεῶν γενεαῖς.

The highlighted portion, which you asked for, transliterates in English to "Lord the God of your Fathers, God of Abraham and God of Isaac and God of Jacob". As the Father cannot be seen by man and because God said He was "Κύριος ὁ θεὸς" (Lord the God) then tell me who else can be appearing to Moses other than the Preincarnate Christ?

 

[civic]

That is not the "I Am" of the OT God. That's your interpretation, which must be tested.
Ego eimi does NOT equal YHWH. Not semantically, not contextually and more importantly, not spiritually.

So, the case is far from over.
If it is over for you, then you have discovered a new condition for God's forgiveness... never presented before that episode, and never presented after that episode.
If the case is over for you, then admit that, for you, millions of Jews and Muslims, as well as @Peterlag, @Runningman and @Studyman are dammed to die unforgiven.

Admit, then, that you will forgive me for any offence that I can make to you, but God will not.

Do you believe there are many ways to God and al roads lead to heaven regardless of who you believe Jesus or God to be ?

For instance Muhammad who was a sinner is equal to Jesus who was sinless and the Savior of all mankind ?

 

[Pancho Frijoles]

Do you believe there are many ways to God and al roads lead to heaven regardless of who you believe Jesus or God to be ?

For instance Muhammad who was a sinner is equal to Jesus who was sinless and the Savior of all mankind ?

Hi Civic

I believe there is only one way to be forgiven by God.
To humble ourselves. To prove that our repentance is genuine by showing to others the mercy we ask from God.

This is the eternal way. There has been no change from the OT to the NT. No change from Chinese to Incas.
It is the very same requirement for Jews, Muslims and Christians. For you and me.

Jesus didn't mean that those who didn't believe He was the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob would die in their sins.
Jesus meant that those who didn't abide by his Message would die in their sins, since his Message is not his, but of God who sent Him.

Jesus represents ("incarnates") the Word of God. If we reject the Word of God, we cannot escape from our sins.

 

[civic]

Hi Civic

I believe there is only one way to be forgiven by God.
To humble ourselves. To prove that our repentance is genuine by showing to others the mercy we ask from God.

This is the eternal way. There has been no change from the OT to the NT. No change from Chinese to Incas.
It is the very same requirement for you and me.

Jesus didn't mean that those who didn't believe He was the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob would die in their sins.
Jesus meant that those who didn't abide by his Message would die in their sins.

Jesus represents ("incarnates") the Word of God. If we reject the Word of God, we cannot escape from our sins.

So the forgiveness of ones sins can be done apart from Jesus ?

 

[synergy]

Well, we have two alternatives here


OPTION 1

Jesus is introducing for the first time in his ministry, a new condition for sins to be forgiven.
A condition he never demand from anyone who approached him.
A condition his apostles never demanded from anyone to repent.
A condition that has nothing to do with what He has set as conditions: to come with humbleness, and to show others the mercy we want to receive from God.
A condition that is not met by Unitarian Christians, Jehovah Witnesses, Jews, Muslims, Baha'is, Zoroastrians, Sikhs, etc. making them not reachable to God's mercy. If they stole 100 dollars, if doesn't matter how broken-hearted and humble they come to God. It doesn't matter if God changes their lives. It doesn't matter if Trinitarian folks forgive them of any offence these Unitarians may have done to them. Trinitarians can forgive Unitarians, but God cannot. Since these millions of Unitarians do not believe that Jesus was the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, YHWH, they will die in their sins, unforgiven.


OPTION 2

By saying "I Am", Jesus referred to Himself as The One sent by God, with a Message from God.
Let's read the verses next to John 8:24 and find out.

They said to Him, “Who are You?”​

​

Jesus said to them, “Just who I have been telling you from the beginning. 26 I have many things to say and to judge concerning you, but He who sent Me is true. So I tell the world what I heard from Him.”​

​

27 They did not understand that He spoke to them of the Father. 28 So Jesus said to them, “When you lift up the Son of Man, then you will know that I am He, and I do nothing of Myself. But I speak these things as My Father taught Me. 29 He who sent Me is with Me. The Father has not left Me alone, for I always do those things that please Him.” 30 As He spoke these words, many believed in Him.​

I have just extracted few verses. Please read the whole chapter: John 8.

So, Who was Jesus? Who he referred to as "I Am"?
The one that he had been telling the Israelites from the beginning, and then again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again.
In knowing Him as the One Sent by God, and in knowing Our Father as the Only and True God, is eternal life.

I'll take Option 3.

Option 3:

I believe the verse exactly as it is stated:

“You will die in your sins, for unless you believe that I AM, you’ll die in your sins” (John 8:24, ISV).

The only thing new is the Audience. The Audience are people who are 24/7 in front of the word of God and they have no excuse. They are responsible for feeding the flock spiritually and to fail to understand the fact that Jesus is proclaiming can and will cost them dearly.

 

[synergy]

That is not the "I Am" of the OT God. That's your interpretation, which must be tested.

Exodus 3:14 rebukes you.

Exo 3:14 And God said to Moses, I AM THAT I AM. And He said, So you shall say to the sons of Israel, I AM has sent me to you.

Ego eimi does NOT equal YHWH. Not semantically, not contextually and more importantly, not spiritually.

It does equate to whatever Hebrew word was translated by the Alexandrian Jews and adopted/endorsed by all the Apostles. If I had to choose between the Apostles and you? Sorry, I choose to side with the Apostles. Friendships only go so far.

So, the case is far from over.
If it is over for you, then you have discovered a new condition for God's forgiveness... never presented before that episode, and never presented after that episode.
If the case is over for you, then admit that, for you, millions of Jews and Muslims, as well as @Peterlag, @Runningman and @Studyman are dammed to die unforgiven.

Different audience -> different accountabilities.
Allah might paint everyone with the same broad brush but God doesn't.
We should start a discussion, in another thread, of how radically different Allah is from God.
We all know that Muhammad is a clear antichrist.

Admit, then, that you will forgive me for any offence that I can make to you, but God will not.

God will do a much better job of that than I can ever do. He can see into your heart but I can't. God takes into account one's circumstances. For example, what happens to aborted children in light of John 8:24? How an aborted child possibly satisfy that criterion?

 

[Pancho Frijoles]

(Exo 3:15) καὶ εἶπεν ὁ θεὸς πάλιν πρὸς Μωυσῆν Οὕτως ἐρεῖς τοῖς υἱοῖς Ισραηλ Κύριος ὁ θεὸς τῶν πατέρων ὑμῶν, θεὸς Αβρααμ καὶ θεὸς Ισαακ καὶ θεὸς Ιακωβ, ἀπέσταλκέν με πρὸς ὑμᾶς· τοῦτό μού ἐστιν ὄνομα αἰώνιον καὶ μνημόσυνον γενεῶν γενεαῖς.

The highlighted portion, which you asked for, transliterates in English to "Lord the God of your Fathers, God of Abraham and God of Isaac and God of Jacob".

Thank you very much for taking the time. I really appreciate it
The reason why I asked that question is this:

1. Some believe that the "Ego eimi" in John equals the "Ego eimi" translated from Hebrew from Exodus 3 in the Septuagint. Some do not agree, claiming that Ego eimi from the Septuagint fell short of conveying the Hebrew meaning of YHWH.
2. To my knowledge, there has never been a dispute on the accuracy of the Septuagint translation of "The God of Abraham, Isaac and Israel" from Hebrew.
3. YHWH is identified as "The God of Abraham, Isaac and Israel" in Exodus 3:15. So, we have a title that, given the dispute over Ego eimi, could help us as a bridge. If Jesus is YHWH, he must be "The God of Abraham, Isaac and Israel"
4. Luke, who knew the Septuagint, presents Jesus as the son of "The God of Abraham, Isaac and Israel". Specifically, as his son (Acts 3:13).
5. The title "The God of Abraham, Isaac and Israel" used by Luke happens to be the same given by the translators of the Septuagint in Ex 3:15
6. So, Luke is telling us that such "God of Abraham, Isaac and Israel" who the Septuagint had identified with Ego Eimi, is the Father of Jesus.

As the Father cannot be seen by man and because God said He was "Κύριος ὁ θεὸς" (Lord the God) then tell me who else can be appearing to Moses other than the Preincarnate Christ?

Whoever God sent as his Angel (Messenger).
Pre-incarnate Jesus Christ is a good possibility. It could have been, however, Enoch or Noah. It could be pre-incarnate Bahá'u´lláh, as we believe.
Whoever he was makes no difference. If the Bible says that

1. God is invisible, and
2. God spoke with Moses through an Angel
3. Whoever spoke to Moses, did it on behalf of God, as a Messenger.

 

[Pancho Frijoles]

Exodus 3:14 rebukes you.

Exo 3:14 And God said to Moses, I AM THAT I AM. And He said, So you shall say to the sons of Israel, I AM has sent me to you.

God wasn't speaking directly to Moses. God did it through a Messenger, as the Bible says in both the Exodus and the New Testament.

So we have two interpretations of the so called "theophanies" :

1. When the Bible says "The Angel of YHWH", it is not really an angel, but YHWH himself.
2. When the Bible says "The Angel of YHWH", it is an angel: one who speaks, behaves, and is feared and treated as if he were YHWH.

Under interpretation 1, Abraham, Jacob, Moses, Manoah and his wife, Gideon and perhaps others have seen God.
Under interpretation 2, nobody has seen God.

Under interpretation 1, God sends himself to speak on behalf of himself and that's why He is a Messenger of Himself.
Under interpretation 2, God sends a Messenger to speak and act on his behalf.

 

[praise_yeshua]

So the forgiveness of ones sins can be done apart from Jesus ?

Yep. Jesus has no meritorious value to him.

 

[praise_yeshua]

God wasn't speaking directly to Moses. God did it through a Messenger, as the Bible says in both the Exodus and the New Testament.

So we have two interpretations of the so called "theophanies" :

1. When the Bible says "The Angel of YHWH", it is not really an angel, but YHWH himself.
2. When the Bible says "The Angel of YHWH", it is an angel: one who speaks, behaves, and is feared and treated as if he were YHWH.

Under interpretation 1, Abraham, Jacob, Moses, Manoah and his wife, Gideon and perhaps others have seen God.
Under interpretation 2, nobody has seen God.

Under interpretation 1, God sends himself to speak on behalf of himself and that's why He is a Messenger of Himself.
Under interpretation 2, God sends a Messenger to speak and act on his behalf.

What does "theo" mean?

 

[praise_yeshua]

One problem, while it's true Jesus is called the one Lord, he is not called the one God. Now what?

I thought your favorite argument was related to kurios? Now you're abandoning it. Typical.

Mat 22:44 ειπεν ο κυριος τω κυριω μου καθου εκ δεξιων μου εως αν θω τους εχθρους σου υποποδιον των ποδων σου

 

[praise_yeshua]

Which confirms Jesus was not referring to himself as the I am. Acts 3:13 proves Jesus isn't the God of Abraham, Issaac, and Jacob.

Ironic. The trinity's mother are the false pagan gods of old. It was created by them. You are in over your head in non-Christian beliefs and practices.

"Marie Sinclair, Countess of Caithness, in her 1876 book Old Truths in a New Light, states: "It is generally, although erroneously, supposed that the doctrine of the Trinity is of Christian origin. Nearly every nation of antiquity possessed a similar doctrine. [The early Catholic theologian] St. Jerome testifies unequivocally, 'All the ancient nations believed in the Trinity'" (p. 382).

Notice how the following quotes document belief in a divine trinity in many regions and religions of the ancient world.

Sumeria​

"The universe was divided into three regions each of which became the domain of a god. Anu's share was the sky. The earth was given to Enlil. Ea became the ruler of the waters. Together they constituted the triad of the Great Gods" (The Larousse Encyclopedia of Mythology, 1994, pp. 54-55)

Babylonia​

"The ancient Babylonians recognised the doctrine of a trinity, or three persons in one god—as appears from a composite god with three heads forming part of their mythology, and the use of the equilateral triangle, also, as an emblem of such trinity in unity" (Thomas Dennis Rock, The Mystical Woman and the Cities of the Nations, 1867, pp. 22-23).

India​

"The Puranas, one of the Hindoo Bibles of more than 3,000 years ago, contain the following passage: 'O ye three Lords! know that I recognize only one God. Inform me, therefore, which of you is the true divinity, that I may address to him alone my adorations.' The three gods, Brahma, Vishnu, and Siva [or Shiva], becoming manifest to him, replied, 'Learn, O devotee, that there is no real distinction between us. What to you appears such is only the semblance. The single being appears under three forms by the acts of creation, preservation, and destruction, but he is one.'

"Hence the triangle was adopted by all the ancient nations as a symbol of the Deity . . . Three was considered among all the pagan nations as the chief of the mystical numbers, because, as Aristotle remarks, it contains within itself a beginning, a middle, and an end. Hence we find it designating some of the attributes of almost all the pagan gods" (Sinclair, pp. 382-383).

Greece​

"In the Fourth Century B.C. Aristotle wrote: 'All things are three, and thrice is all: and let us use this number in the worship of the gods; for, as the Pythagoreans say, everything and all things are bounded by threes, for the end, the middle and the beginning have this number in everything, and these compose the number of the Trinity'" (Arthur Weigall, Paganism in Our Christianity, 1928, pp. 197-198).

Egypt​

"The Hymn to Amun decreed that 'No god came into being before him (Amun)' and that 'All gods are three: Amun, Re and Ptah, and there is no second to them. Hidden is his name as Amon, he is Re in face, and his body is Ptah.' . . . This is a statement of trinity, the three chief gods of Egypt subsumed into one of them, Amon. Clearly, the concept of organic unity within plurality got an extraordinary boost with this formulation. Theologically, in a crude form it came strikingly close to the later Christian form of plural Trinitarian monotheism" (Simson Najovits, Egypt, Trunk of the Tree, Vol. 2, 2004, pp. 83-84).

Other areas​

Many other areas had their own divine trinities. In Greece they were Zeus, Poseidon and Adonis. The Phoenicians worshipped Ulomus, Ulosuros and Eliun. Rome worshipped Jupiter, Neptune and Pluto. In Germanic nations they were called Wodan, Thor and Fricco. Regarding the Celts, one source states, "The ancient heathen deities of the pagan Irish[,] Criosan, Biosena, and Seeva, or Sheeva, are doubtless the Creeshna [Krishna], Veeshnu [Vishnu], [or the all-inclusive] Brahma, and Seeva [Shiva], of the Hindoos" (Thomas Maurice, The History of Hindostan, Vol. 2, 1798, p. 171).

The Surprising Origins of the Trinity Doctrine
Few understand how the Trinity doctrine came to be accepted - several centuries after the Bible was completed! Yet its roots go back much farther in history.

"The origin of the conception is entirely pagan"​

Egyptologist Arthur Weigall, while himself a Trinitarian, summed up the influence of ancient beliefs on the adoption of the Trinity doctrine by the Catholic Church in the following excerpt from his previously cited book:

"It must not be forgotten that Jesus Christ never mentioned such a phenomenon [the Trinity], and nowhere in the New Testament does the word 'Trinity' appear. The idea was only adopted by the Church three hundred years after the death of our Lord; and the origin of the conception is entirely pagan . . .

"The ancient Egyptians, whose influence on early religious thought was profound, usually arranged their gods or goddesses in trinities: there was the trinity of Osiris, Isis, and Horus, the trinity of Amen, Mut, and Khonsu, the trinity of Khnum, Satis, and Anukis, and so forth . . .

"The early Christians, however, did not at first think of applying the idea to their own faith. They paid their devotions to God the Father and to Jesus Christ, the Son of God, and they recognized the mysterious and undefined existence of the Holy Spirit; but there was no thought of these three being an actual Trinity, co-equal and united in One . . .

"The application of this old pagan conception of a Trinity to Christian theology was made possible by the recognition of the Holy Spirit as the required third 'Person,' co-equal with the other 'Persons' . . .

"The idea of the Spirit being co-equal with God was not generally recognised until the second half of the Fourth Century A.D. . . . In the year 381 the Council of Constantinople added to the earlier Nicene Creed a description of the Holy Spirit as 'the Lord, and giver of life, who proceedeth from the Father, who with the Father and Son together is worshipped and glorified.' . . .

"Thus, the Athanasian creed, which is a later composition but reflects the general conceptions of Athanasius [the 4th-century Trinitarian whose view eventually became official doctrine] and his school, formulated the conception of a co-equal Trinity wherein the Holy Spirit was the third 'Person'; and so it was made a dogma of the faith, and belief in the Three in One and One in Three became a paramount doctrine of Christianity, though not without terrible riots and bloodshed . . .

"Today a Christian thinker . . . has no wish to be precise about it, more especially since the definition is obviously pagan in origin and was not adopted by the Church until nearly three hundred years after Christ" (pp. 197-203).

James Bonwick summarized the story well on page 396 of his 1878 work Egyptian Belief and Modern Thought: "It is an undoubted fact that more or less all over the world the deities are in triads. This rule applies to eastern and western hemispheres, to north and south.

"Further, it is observed that, in some mystical way, the triad of three persons is one. The first is as the second or third, the second as first or third, the third as first or second; in fact, they are each other, one and the same individual being. The definition of Athanasius, who lived in Egypt, applies to the trinities of all heathen religions."

source: https://www.ucg.org/bible-study-tools/bible-study-aids/is-god-a-trinity/how-ancient-trinitarian-gods-influenced-adoption-of-the-trinity

So you don't have verses to support your theology? Got it no surprise coming from a trinitarian pagan.

A "Triune" God is mentioned many times throughout history and in various cultures. This is true in the OT and ancient religions all across the world. Such began before long before Calvary. It begins in the earthly narrative as "let us" and "our" image. After "our" likeness. It came through the children of Abraham and through Egypt. It found its way into the Egyptian culture.... and far eastern cultures through the sons of Keturah.

This isn't complicated. You just need to know history. The Triune God preexisted ALL the teachings. Which is why Romans 1 reads the way it does....

Rom 1:21 Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.
Rom 1:22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,
Rom 1:23 And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.

Put little more effort into knowing God instead of listen to your sinful peers.

 

[synergy]

Thank you very much for taking the time. I really appreciate it
The reason why I asked that question is this:

1. Some believe that the "Ego eimi" in John equals the "Ego eimi" translated from Hebrew from Exodus 3 in the Septuagint. Some do not agree, claiming that Ego eimi from the Septuagint fell short of conveying the Hebrew meaning of YHWH.

Those who denigrate the Septuagint are denigrating the Apostles who endorsed the Septuagint as it was written.

1. To my knowledge, there has never been a dispute on the accuracy of the Septuagint translation of "The God of Abraham, Isaac and Israel" from Hebrew.
2. YHWH is identified as "The God of Abraham, Isaac and Israel" in Exodus 3:15. So, we have a title that, given the dispute over Ego eimi, could help us as a bridge. If Jesus is YHWH, he must be "The God of Abraham, Isaac and Israel"
3. Luke, who knew the Septuagint, presents Jesus as the son of "The God of Abraham, Isaac and Israel". Specifically, as his son (Acts 3:13).
4. The title "The God of Abraham, Isaac and Israel" used by Luke happens to be the same given by the translators of the Septuagint in Ex 3:15
5. So, Luke is telling us that such "God of Abraham, Isaac and Israel" who the Septuagint had identified with Ego Eimi, is the Father of Jesus.

Whoever God sent as his Angel (Messenger).
Pre-incarnate Jesus Christ is a good possibility. It could have been, however, Enoch or Noah. It could be pre-incarnate Bahá'u´lláh, as we believe.
Whoever he was makes no difference. If the Bible says that

1. God is invisible, and

The Father is invisible. Only the Son (Jesus) has seen him.

1. God spoke with Moses through an Angel

All Angels and Prophets identified themselves as such. That was not the case here. The Person who spoke identified himself as the " the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob". That makes your Angel an Imposter. We've gone through this before.

1. Whoever spoke to Moses, did it on behalf of God, as a Messenger.

That Messenger appeared to Moses. Who is God and can appear to Moses, other than the Preincarnate Christ? I'll give you one guess.

 

[synergy]

God wasn't speaking directly to Moses. God did it through a Messenger, as the Bible says in both the Exodus and the New Testament.

So we have two interpretations of the so called "theophanies" :

1. When the Bible says "The Angel of YHWH", it is not really an angel, but YHWH himself.
2. When the Bible says "The Angel of YHWH", it is an angel: one who speaks, behaves, and is feared and treated as if he were YHWH.

Under interpretation 1, Abraham, Jacob, Moses, Manoah and his wife, Gideon and perhaps others have seen God.

Nobody can see the Father. Interpretation 1 fails.

Under interpretation 2, nobody has seen God.

except for Jesus whom many have seen and communicated with as the Preincarnate Jesus several times in the OT.

Under interpretation 1, God sends himself to speak on behalf of himself and that's why He is a Messenger of Himself.

An Angel or a Prophet is not God. Interpretation 1 fails again.

Under interpretation 2, God sends a Messenger to speak and act on his behalf.

Who is this Messenger "Angel of God" who is God and can be seen? I'll give you one guess.

 

[civic]

Nobody can see the Father. Interpretation 1 fails.

except for Jesus whom many have seen and communicated with as the Preincarnate Jesus several times in the OT.

An Angel or a Prophet is not God. Interpretation 1 fails again.

Who is this Messenger "Angel of God" who is God and can be seen? I'll give you one guess.

Yes unless one wants to make Jesus words a lie, the same with Paul who i Jesus teaching