- This topic is empty.
- Posts
Quote (mikeboll64 @ July 05 2012,15:38) How about in Acts 1:10? Men or angels? I think angels in the account of the tomb and in 1:10 – but that could be because that's the first thing that came to mind the first time I read those passages, and now it's stuck there.
Yeah my initial understanding was heavenly angels until I saw the 2 parallel accounts and understood that 2 men also appeared with Jesus in the transfiguration event. So that possibility opened up for me.Good to know that we can be open to different interpretations and judge them in a fair way.
Likewise when I first read the scripture the Holy Spirit descended like a dove I imagined a dove. But it says that it descended like a dove and hence it could equally be it descended in bodily form (like a man) but in the graceful way a dove descends.
Equally we think 3 kings of the east came to visit Jesus as a baby, but the Maggi gave 3 gifts and it doesn't say how many men were present.
Quote (t8 @ July 04 2012,22:09) Good to know that we can be open to different interpretations and judge them in a fair way. 
Looking at ONLY THE ENGLISH TRANSLATIONS, I do not believe there are any instances where men are called the English word “angels.” I do see several instances where angels take on the form of men, when they appear to men, and hence, they are called “men” and yet, in parallel accounts called “angels.” I think that makes a lot more sense than to believe that they were normal “men” who were called angels.
I don't think men were PURPOSELY called angels by any English translator. If the ones in white at the tomb were men, then it is clear the translator THOUGHT they were angels, or he wouldn't have translated as such.
Hi david. I don't think anyone in this thread is making the point that it was grounded men. Rather resurrected men or heavenly angels.
I think it is possible that it was the two resurrected men that appeared with Jesus when he was transfigured. It is certainly circumstantial and worth considering as a possibility. And the fact that two gospels record the same event as angel and men adds a little weight to it too.
However, as mentioned before it could well be 2 heavenly angels and a translation issue in tandem. If that was the case it would be the first time 2 angels were mentioned together in the New Testament I think. You usually hear of one angel or a host of angels.
And what of these:
Revelation 2
1 “To the angel[a] of the church in Ephesus write………………8 “To the angel of the church in Smyrna write…………..
etc……….
The NIV footnote included with verse 1 says, “Or messenger; also in verses 8, 12 and 18″
Who out there in HN land thinks John needed to write things down for angelic beings? I'm leaning toward human messenger in these verses. Any other opinions?
Quote (mikeboll64 @ July 07 2012,19:24) And what of these: Revelation 2
1 “To the angel[a] of the church in Ephesus write………………8 “To the angel of the church in Smyrna write…………..
etc……….
The NIV footnote included with verse 1 says, “Or messenger; also in verses 8, 12 and 18″
Who out there in HN land thinks John needed to write things down for angelic beings? I'm leaning toward human messenger in these verses. Any other opinions?
mIKEQuote Who out there in HN land thinks John needed to write things down for angelic beings? I'm leaning toward human messenger in these verses. Any other opinions? if I understand correctly your question ;would be are the angels here humans or heavenly being
or the reason why John at to wright it down was because what was said was address to men as message
or what
Mike
Rev 1:11 which said: “Write on a scroll what you see and send it to the seven churches: to Ephesus, Smyrna, Pergamum, Thyatira, Sardis, Philadelphia and Laodicea.”
Rev 1:20 The mystery of the seven stars that you saw in my right hand and of the seven golden lampstands is this: The seven stars are the angels(messengers) of the seven churches, and the seven lampstands are the seven churches.(the recipients of the message (letters) )
the way I understand those scriptures is that Christ his sending the message via messengers (man )so that all what they do or think can be judge from Christ and corrected if they obey,
the time line for this ;Rev 1;19 -what is now and what will take place later.-
Quote (terraricca @ July 06 2012,23:16) the way I understand those scriptures is that Christ his sending the message via messengers (man )so that all what they do or think can be judge from Christ and corrected if they obey,
I agree, Pierre. My OPINION is that Jesus referred to human messengers in these verses, not spirit messengers.Quote (mikeboll64 @ July 08 2012,09:33) Quote (terraricca @ July 06 2012,23:16) the way I understand those scriptures is that Christ his sending the message via messengers (man )so that all what they do or think can be judge from Christ and corrected if they obey,
I agree, Pierre. My OPINION is that Jesus referred to human messengers in these verses, not spirit messengers.ps;God has never ask to put anything in written words if it was not for men to be inform by the writhing.as far as I know.
I noticed that Edj gave up on this and never once admitted that he was wrong. He refused to accept the reality that men and heavenly beings were called malak/angels.
Says a lot about the man doesn't it. Fighting against the truth is shameful conduct.
Quote (t8 @ Sep. 05 2012,12:15) I noticed that Edj gave up on this and never once admitted that he was wrong. He refused to accept the reality that men and heavenly beings were called malak/angels. Says a lot about the man doesn't it. Fighting against the truth is shameful conduct.
Hi T8,I will summarize our conversation for you.
malak defines as both Angel and messenger.Don't let your personal interpretations change truth.
Men that are messengers are not called “Angels”.God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.orgHi T8,
Put your dagger away.
“No weapon that is formed against thee (Ed J) shall prosper;
and every tongue that shall rise against thee in judgment thou shalt condemn.
This is the heritage of the servants of the LORD, and their righteousness is of me, saith the LORD.” (Isa 54:17)Your brother
in Christ, Jesus.
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
holycitybiblecode.orgQuote (david @ July 06 2012,11:14) Looking at ONLY THE ENGLISH TRANSLATIONS, I do not believe there are any instances where men are called the English word “angels.” I do see several instances where angels take on the form of men, when they appear to men, and hence, they are called “men” and yet, in parallel accounts called “angels.” I think that makes a lot more sense than to believe that they were normal “men” who were called angels.
For T8Haggai 1:13
13 Then Haggai, the LORD's messenger, gave this message of the LORD to the people: “I am with you,” declares the LORD.The word messenger is a translation from the word mal'ak {mal-awk'}.
That is the word for angel and it is applied to a MAN called Haggai.Now compare it with say Genesis 16:7.
The angel of the Lord found Hagar near a spring in the desert; it was the spring that is beside the road to Shur.Again the word (angel) is exactly the same word as in Haggai 1:13, mal'ak {mal-awk'}.
See how the word mal'ak is applied to both beings:
1) Angel ( mal'ak) of the Lord
2) Haggai, the LORD's messenger ( mal'ak).Same Hebrew word and Haggai is a man is he not?
So a yes or no question EdJ.
Does Haggai 1:13 use exactly the same Hebrew word (mal'ak) to describe Haggai and the being in Genesis 16:7 ?
Please just a YES or NO in your next post.
You can then explain your stance in the following post after that if you wish, but for now, I require a YES or a NO.
I don't require a YES BUT…, or a NO BUT…
YES
NO
Quote (t8 @ Oct. 28 2012,11:42) Haggai 1:13
13 Then Haggai, the LORD's messenger, gave this message of the LORD to the people: “I am with you,” declares the LORD.The word messenger is a translation from the word mal'ak {mal-awk'}.
That is the word for angel and it is applied to a MAN called Haggai.
Hi T8, (H4397)1. ambassador
2. angel
3. king
4. messenger …………… Haggai 1:13You are fixating on only one of the four definitions of the word.
From an unused root meaning to despatch as a deputy;
a messenger; specifically, of God, i.e. An angel
(also a prophet, priest or teacher) —
ambassador, angel, king, messenger.No dice here, try again.
God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.orgQuote (t8 @ Oct. 28 2012,11:42) So a yes or no question EdJ. Does Haggai 1:13 use exactly the same Hebrew word (mal'ak) to describe Haggai and the being in Genesis 16:7 ?
Please just a YES or NO in your next post.
Hi T8,My last post illustrates how that one Hebrew word carries four different meanings,
and [מַלְאַ֧ךְ] is expressed in various verses (confirmed), but carries different meanings
based on the context of the text. There are many cases where one word carries more
than one meaning. So this is NO proof whatsoever, merely 'brain-bondo' on your part.God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.orgHi T8,
Is a messenger a king ?
Is an ambassador an angel?
I guess to YOU, they are – right?God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.orgHi T8,
There “ARE” cases where Angels are called men,
but no-where in Scripture does the opposite occur.God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.org
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
