Originally posted by Chrawnus
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
Christianity 201 Guidelines
orthodox Christians only.
Discussion on matters of general mainstream evangelical Christian theology that do not fit within Theology 201. Have some spiritual gifts ceased today? Is the KJV the only viable translation for the church today? In what sense are the books of the bible inspired and what are those books? Church government? Modern day prophets and apostles?
This forum is primarily for Christians to discuss matters of Christian doctrine, and is not the area for debate between atheists (or those opposing orthodox Christianity) and Christians. Inquiring atheists (or sincere seekers/doubters/unorthodox) seeking only Christian participation and having demonstrated a manner that does not seek to undermine the orthodox Christian faith of others are also welcome, but must seek Moderator permission first. When defining “Christian” or "orthodox" for purposes of this section, we mean persons holding to the core essentials of the historic Christian faith such as the Trinity, the Creatorship of God, the virgin birth, the bodily resurrection of Christ, the atonement, the future bodily return of Christ, the future bodily resurrection of the just and the unjust, and the final judgment. Persons not holding to these core doctrines are welcome to participate in the Comparative Religions section without restriction, in Theology 201 as regards to the nature of God and salvation with limited restrictions, and in Christology for issues surrounding the person of Christ and the Trinity. Atheists are welcome to discuss and debate these issues in the Apologetics 301 forum without such restrictions.
Additionally and rarely, there may be some topics or lines of discussion that within the Moderator's discretion fall so outside the bounds of mainstream orthodox doctrine (in general Christian circles or in the TheologyWeb community) or that deny certain core values that are the Christian convictions of forum leadership that may be more appropriately placed within Unorthodox Theology 201. NO personal offense should be taken by such discretionary decision for none is intended. While inerrancy is NOT considered a requirement for posting in this section, a general respect for the Bible text and a respect for the inerrantist position of others is requested.
The Tweb rules apply here like they do everywhere at Tweb, if you haven't read them, now would be a good time.
Forum Rules: Here
Discussion on matters of general mainstream evangelical Christian theology that do not fit within Theology 201. Have some spiritual gifts ceased today? Is the KJV the only viable translation for the church today? In what sense are the books of the bible inspired and what are those books? Church government? Modern day prophets and apostles?
This forum is primarily for Christians to discuss matters of Christian doctrine, and is not the area for debate between atheists (or those opposing orthodox Christianity) and Christians. Inquiring atheists (or sincere seekers/doubters/unorthodox) seeking only Christian participation and having demonstrated a manner that does not seek to undermine the orthodox Christian faith of others are also welcome, but must seek Moderator permission first. When defining “Christian” or "orthodox" for purposes of this section, we mean persons holding to the core essentials of the historic Christian faith such as the Trinity, the Creatorship of God, the virgin birth, the bodily resurrection of Christ, the atonement, the future bodily return of Christ, the future bodily resurrection of the just and the unjust, and the final judgment. Persons not holding to these core doctrines are welcome to participate in the Comparative Religions section without restriction, in Theology 201 as regards to the nature of God and salvation with limited restrictions, and in Christology for issues surrounding the person of Christ and the Trinity. Atheists are welcome to discuss and debate these issues in the Apologetics 301 forum without such restrictions.
Additionally and rarely, there may be some topics or lines of discussion that within the Moderator's discretion fall so outside the bounds of mainstream orthodox doctrine (in general Christian circles or in the TheologyWeb community) or that deny certain core values that are the Christian convictions of forum leadership that may be more appropriately placed within Unorthodox Theology 201. NO personal offense should be taken by such discretionary decision for none is intended. While inerrancy is NOT considered a requirement for posting in this section, a general respect for the Bible text and a respect for the inerrantist position of others is requested.
The Tweb rules apply here like they do everywhere at Tweb, if you haven't read them, now would be a good time.
Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less
manoah & the Angel of the Lord
Collapse
X
-
-
Originally posted by Sparko View PostA vision of someone sitting on a throne is basically a representative dream, symbolic in nature. It represents God. Doesn't mean it actually IS God. It's a vision. Like seeing a lamb represents Jesus. Doesn't mean Jesus is an actual lamb.
Or perhaps the question is simply misguided, I don't know.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Chrawnus View PostBut the NT does say, in numerous places (mostly in the Gospel of John and his first letter) that no one has ever seen the Father, except the Son, and that it is impossible to see the Father except through the Son. In light of this it cannot have been anyone other than the Son who appeared to all these people in OT times.When I Survey....
Comment
-
-
Originally posted by Chrawnus View PostSure, but the question is if the vision represents God the Son, or God the Father.
Or perhaps the question is simply misguided, I don't know.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Chrawnus View PostGod in John 1:18 refers to God the Father, not God as in the Godhead which is clear from the context.When I Survey....
Comment
-
Originally posted by Faber View PostIt says God. It doesn't specify. That's how I take it.
There's two persons who's called God here. The second Person in this verse to be called God is "at the Father's side" and makes Him, i.e the Father( which refers back to the first "God" in this verse) known. In other words, the second person in this verse is the Son/Logos, who makes the first Person, the Father, known.
Originally posted by Faber View PostGod cam manifest Himself as a symbol or an image any way, ant time He wants. Even as an angel. Or a man. It's not God they saw. God is a Spirit.
Comment
-
After looking at the passage further, I think it's possible that the glowing man and the lamb are both meant to represent Jesus. It may be showing Jesus in his pre-incarnation state, and then illustrating that he needed to become a man and endure the cross in order to break the seals.
Also, in Revelation 4, it may be that the glowing man represents the Word, the lamps represent the Spirit, and the lightning, thunder, and voices represent the Father.
Revelation 4:2-5
And immediately I was in the spirit: and, behold, a throne was set in heaven, and one sat on the throne. And he that sat was to look upon like a jasper and a sardine stone: and there was a rainbow round about the throne, in sight like unto an emerald. . . . And out of the throne proceeded lightnings and thunderings and voices: and there were seven lamps of fire burning before the throne, which are the seven Spirits of God.
Comment
-
In Ezekiel 1, you have fire like "lamps" that goes up and down the four living creatures and enables the creatures to travel with lightning. This fire may be showing that the Holy Spirit somehow works through or empowers the creatures. The flapping wings of all four creatures can also join together to sound like a voice -- presumably the voice of God the Father (or possibly the Holy Spirit). There is also another voice from the throne itself, presumably another voice from the Father. Then there is also a being on the throne that looks like man. This would be the Word of God. So Ezekiel seems to be describing at least two members of the Trinity, or more likely all three.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Chrawnus View PostI think the one who sits on the throne in Revelation 4-5 is the Father. My guess is that having a vision of the Father isn't the same as actually seeing Him. I don't think the Father has ever taken a visible pre-incarnate form the same way that the Son has done.1Cor 15:34 Come to your senses as you ought and stop sinning; for I say to your shame, there are some who know not God.
.⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛
Scripture before Tradition:
but that won't prevent others from
taking it upon themselves to deprive you
of the right to call yourself Christian.
⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛
Comment
-
-
They saw a reflection or image of the Father, not the Father himself. That's what he means. He isn't calling himself the Father.
John 1:14
And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Scrawly View PostThe Angel of the Lord in the OT is a great topic. One of my favorite encounters is with Manoah and his wife:
1)The connection between the angel of the Lord and the preincarnate appearance of the Messiah cannot be denied. Manoah meets the angel of the Lord, and declares that he has seen God. The angel accepts worship from Manoah and his wife as no mere angel, and refers to himself as "Wonderful," the same term applied to the coming deliverer in Isaiah 9:6 ( Jud 13:9-22 ). The functions of the angel of the Lord in the Old Testament prefigure the reconciling ministry of Jesus. In the New Testament, there is no mention of the angel of the Lord; the Messiah himself is this person.
Source: http://www.biblestudytools.com/dicti...-the-lord.html
2) Manoah is instructed in verse 16 to make his offering to the Lord. The reason given is that "Manoah did not realize that it was the angel of the LORD." Manoah needed this explanation because he was going to offer this to the man, but did not even regard him as an angel, let alone the Lord Himself. Verses 17 -18 remind us of the wrestling match between the angel of the Lord and Jacob back in Genesis 32, in which the angel declines to give His name, instead saying, “Why do you ask my name?” The statement given in verse 18 of Judges 13 ("it is beyond understanding") has also been rendered "it is Wonderful." This bears a striking resemblance to Isaiah 9:6, in which one of the names given to the promised incarnate divine Messiah is "Wonderful." When Manoah and his wife make an offering to the Lord, the angel of the Lord ascends in the flame. This reminds us of the sacrifice of Christ who, being God incarnate, was made a sacrifice unto the Father. The ascension of the angel of the Lord in the flame which rises from the burnt offering on the alter carries much symbolic significance and undoubtedly represents the coming sacrifice of Christ as an atonement for sin.
Source: http://apologeticsuk.blogspot.ca/201...l-of-lord.html
I think it was an "angelic being", a "supernatural" messenger, that had the sole function of mediating God's Will to men. Not a theophany or Christophany in a "Personal" sense - so, not God made visible to men, and not the "pre-incarnate" Christ either. It has authority to act for God, because it functioned on behalf of God, without being God. Its identity with God is not personal, but functional. In "real terms" - so-called - it may have been seen in vision only; so that an uninvolved onlooker would have seen Manoah and his wife, but no angel.
Seems to me that what the OT calls the AOTL can usefully be regarded as an Israelite equivalent of heavenly messengers like Iris, the messenger of Zeus. She speaks to mortals with the authority of Zeus, on behalf of Zeus, and is sent by Zeus. She is not "personally" Zeus. The will and authority of Zeus is mediated through her, and by the message spoken through her. So to disobey the message spoken through her, is to disobey not her, but Zeus who sends her.
This way of thinking is also bound up with ideas about the sacredness of heralds, an idea which has survived, in secularised form, down to our own day. The messengers of King David were dishonoured by Hanun, the new king of Ammon, and this was for all practical purposes an assault on King David, so it led to war (and to much else - see 2 Samuel).
Something of this way of thinking about messengers of God survives as late as St Luke 10.16. There are Babylonian and Ugaritic mythological texts which contain similar ideas about Divine messengers. Although one must allow for the differences between the OT and extra-OT texts, the comparisons are very suggestive.
It is a great topic.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Rushing Jaws View PostAs to what the AOTL was, I don't think it was a Divine "Person".
I think it was an "angelic being", a "supernatural" messenger, that had the sole function of mediating God's Will to men. Not a theophany or Christophany in a "Personal" sense - so, not God made visible to men, and not the "pre-incarnate" Christ either. It has authority to act for God, because it functioned on behalf of God, without being God. Its identity with God is not personal, but functional. In "real terms" - so-called - it may have been seen in vision only; so that an uninvolved onlooker would have seen Manoah and his wife, but no angel.
Seems to me that what the OT calls the AOTL can usefully be regarded as an Israelite equivalent of heavenly messengers like Iris, the messenger of Zeus. She speaks to mortals with the authority of Zeus, on behalf of Zeus, and is sent by Zeus. She is not "personally" Zeus. The will and authority of Zeus is mediated through her, and by the message spoken through her. So to disobey the message spoken through her, is to disobey not her, but Zeus who sends her.
This way of thinking is also bound up with ideas about the sacredness of heralds, an idea which has survived, in secularised form, down to our own day. The messengers of King David were dishonoured by Hanun, the new king of Ammon, and this was for all practical purposes an assault on King David, so it led to war (and to much else - see 2 Samuel).
Something of this way of thinking about messengers of God survives as late as St Luke 10.16. There are Babylonian and Ugaritic mythological texts which contain similar ideas about Divine messengers. Although one must allow for the differences between the OT and extra-OT texts, the comparisons are very suggestive.
It is a great topic.
Comment
-
The Old Testament records quite a few people as having seen God. The New Testament records Jesus as saying "no man has seen the Father", and John claiming "no man has seen God." Given that John cites Jesus' statement, it seems that his claim that "no man has seen God" can't be taken at face value. Ultimately, there's likely to be a meaning that isn't self evident, or perhaps, he was using "God" in the sense of "the Father."1Cor 15:34 Come to your senses as you ought and stop sinning; for I say to your shame, there are some who know not God.
.⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛
Scripture before Tradition:
but that won't prevent others from
taking it upon themselves to deprive you
of the right to call yourself Christian.
⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛
Comment
Related Threads
Collapse
Topics | Statistics | Last Post | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
Started by Thoughtful Monk, 04-14-2024, 04:34 PM
|
4 responses
32 views
0 likes
|
Last Post Yesterday, 03:47 PM | ||
Started by One Bad Pig, 04-10-2024, 12:35 PM
|
0 responses
27 views
1 like
|
Last Post
by One Bad Pig
04-10-2024, 12:35 PM
|
||
Started by Thoughtful Monk, 03-15-2024, 06:19 PM
|
35 responses
178 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by Cow Poke
03-27-2024, 08:28 AM
|
||
Started by NorrinRadd, 04-13-2022, 12:54 AM
|
45 responses
338 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by NorrinRadd
04-12-2024, 04:35 PM
|
||
Started by Zymologist, 07-09-2019, 01:18 PM
|
329 responses
17,095 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by One Bad Pig
04-15-2024, 08:41 AM
|
Comment