- This topic is empty.
- Posts
Now back to the topic WJ.
Do you acknowledge that Malachi the prophet is a man, who must be a son of God, due to contributing scripture to the bible. And that Malachi is actually the word for angel. So this man was called mal'ak.
A simple nod or a yes will do.
We can then move on.
Quote (t8 @ April 01 2011,17:43) Now back to the topic WJ. Do you acknowledge that Malachi the prophet is a man, who must be a son of God, due to contributing scripture to the bible. And that Malachi is actually the word for angel. So this man was called mal'ak.
A simple nod or a yes will do.
We can then move on.
t8Okay, so what does that prove? I know a woman who has the name “Angel”, does that mean she is an “Angel”.
BTW, Malachi is the Hebrew word “Mal`akiy” Strong's H4401 and means…
Malachi = “My messenger”
1) the prophet who wrote the last book of the Old Testament; nothing else is known
So Malachi is not the word used for “angels” in the Hebrew scriptures.
The Hebrew word used for “angels” is…
Strong's H4397 – mal'ak;
1) messenger, representative
a) messenger
b) angel
c) the theophanic angel
Try again. Or admit you are wrong and move on!
WJ
Although I do not necessarily agree with your statement, I will run with what you said for now because yes a name is a name and isn't necessarily saying that he is an angel/malak.
However, if I give you proof that a son of God is called by the title malak/angel/messenger will you admit that it is possible then? And if I prove it to you, what is the point you are trying by denying this?
I ask because if the point is pointless, then I don't see any need to show the evidence.
Quote (t8 @ April 01 2011,20:33) However, if I give you proof that a son of God is called by the title malak/angel/messenger will you admit that it is possible then?
t8If you are talking about JTB then that won't do because we know that John was not an angel but was a man. Besides the Greek word for angel in the NT is always about angels except one verse.
But even so if we say that JTB is an angel then how does that prove that all angels are sons of God?
Wouldn't the angels also have to be man and angel also?
Are angels men? Then why would angels be sons of God?
And why does Jesus make a difference between angels and us?
WJ
WJ, an angel is a messenger and that word can be applied to Man, Seraph, Cherub, and probably any type of creature that God uses as a messenger.
God sent most of the time, messengers from Heaven to proclaim a message. Moses for example saw an angel/messenger on Mt Sinai. The prophets often were shown things by heavenly angels. But men can also be called angels.
As far as angels being sons of God, I only need to demonstrate that one angel is also a son of God to prove that you can be both.
But like I have said earlier, I fail to see where you are going with this. What bearing does this have with the topic?
WJ, if I can show you one scripture that calls one man an angel, then you have to concede that you are wrong about Malak being exclusively reserved as a word for heavenly beings.
You know WJ, you can try to diverge the topic, but I will hold you to answering the question that this debate is about.
Why do you accuse Jesus of blasphemy by saying that he is God, when he actually said, 'I am God’s Son'?.
You will have to answer this question, or admit that you have no defense and thus you accuse Jesus of blasphemy because you say that Jesus is God.
WJ, I am just checking.
Are you still engaging in this debate?
If so, then I can wait for your answers.
There are 2 outstanding questions and they are on this page.
I just need to know whether this debate is being conceded by you or if you still wish to engage in it.
If it is the former, then the debate will be closed and the result will be logged in the Debate Log.
Quote (t8 @ April 06 2011,17:31) No probs. No pressure then. Sort out the other stuff first.
Cheers.
Thanks!Hi t8
Quote (t8 @ April 03 2011,00:30)
WJ, an angel is a messenger and that word can be applied to Man, Seraph, Cherub, and probably any type of creature that God uses as a messenger.
Really? t8 there is ambiguity around your statement because not “all messengers of God” are “angelic beings” are they?Here is the description of the Cherubim…
The prophet Ezekiel describes cherubims as a tetrad of living creatures, each having four faces: of a man, a lion, an ox, and an eagle. They are said to have the stature and hands of a man, feet as a calf, and four wings each. Two of the wings extended upward, meeting above and sustaining the throne of God; while the other two stretched downward and covered the creatures themselves. In the Christian New Testament similar beings are mentioned in the fourth chapter of the Book of Revelation. Wiki
We see “Angels” in a different form. Cherubim, Seraphim, and Angels are obviously in a different class of being and so is man.
So I agree with you as far as man as a messenger (angel), but not that man is an angelic being or in the angelic class of beings.
Do you believe that men are in the same class as angelic beings?
Once we establish this then we can discuss the Hebrew and Greek words for angels and their meaning in the scriptures.
Quote (t8 @ April 03 2011,00:30) God sent most of the time, messengers from Heaven to proclaim a message. Moses for example saw an angel/messenger on Mt Sinai. The prophets often were shown things by heavenly angels. But men can also be called angels.
But are men “angelic beings”?Quote (t8 @ April 03 2011,00:30) As far as angels being sons of God, I only need to demonstrate that one angel is also a son of God to prove that you can be both.
But you would have to demonstrate that the one being called “messenger” (angel) is an angelic being or in the angelic class.Quote (t8 @ April 03 2011,00:30) But like I have said earlier, I fail to see where you are going with this. What bearing does this have with the topic?
I agree it is off topic. But if Jesus is the “Only Begotten Son of God” then that means he is in a class all by himself and could not be an “angelic being” and if he is an “angelic being” then that would mean the Father also is an “angelic being” since like begets like.So, do you believe that men are in the same class of being as angelic beings?
WJ
Quote (WorshippingJesus @ April 22 2011,03:40) So I agree with you as far as man as a messenger (angel), but not that man is an angelic being or in the angelic class of beings. Do you believe that men are in the same class as angelic beings?
Then we are in agreement because you now admit that man can be referred to as an angel. I guess by me making you look into it, it forced you to change your stance and that is a good thing. We need to be able to change when the facts are presented to us.Therefore when we see the Angel of the LORD for example, we need not necessarily imagine a winged creature of some sort. In fact he often appeared as a man.
Do I believe that men are the same class of being?
Well I think that angels from above are spirits and we are flesh, so in that sense no. We will however be like them one day, so maybe in the future.Now that this is sorted, can we move back to the question:
Why do you accuse Jesus of blasphemy by saying that he is God, when he actually said, 'I am God’s Son'?And to stop any diversion on this question, I would prefer that any further discussion on angels be made in a new debate between you and me. You could start this debate yourself. Also, this should disprove any sentiment or accusation that that I might be trying to diverge from this topic. No. I want the above question answered and I am willing to discuss/debate anything in the appropriate place.
WJ, I am just checking that you are going to answer this question.
If not, then at least we can conclude that you are stumped.Quote (t8 @ May 16 2011,20:39) WJ, I am just checking that you are going to answer this question.
If not, then at least we can conclude that you are stumped.
t8I had PMd Mike and told him that I wouldn't be able to post here for a few weeks due to personal problems.
I am not stumped, Plz be patient.
WJ
Quote (t8 @ May 02 2011,19:43)
Why do you accuse Jesus of blasphemy by saying that he is God, when he actually said, 'I am God’s Son'?
Hi t8First you will have to prove that calling Jesus God is scripturally blasphemous. It was the unbelieving Jews that said it was blasphemous to call Jesus God.
Why do you agree with the unbelieving Jews?
So your question is built on false premises that you have not proven scripturally.
I confess Jesus is the “Only Begotten Son of God” according to the scriptures, but I also confess that “Jesus is God” according to the scriptures.
I might ask you, ”why do you blaspheme by not calling Jesus God according to the scriptures”?
Blessings!
WJ
Quote (t8 @ May 02 2011,19:43) Quote (WorshippingJesus @ April 22 2011,03:40) So I agree with you as far as man as a messenger (angel), but not that man is an angelic being or in the angelic class of beings. Do you believe that men are in the same class as angelic beings?
Then we are in agreement because you now admit that man can be referred to as an angel.
Hi t8No we are not in agreement if you think that scriptures refer to men as “Angelic beings”.
The Hebrew word “mal'ak” and the Greek word “aggelos” depending on context can be translated “a messenger, envoy, one who is sent, an angel, a messenger from God”.
The context always bears out which it is.
Not all “messengers” are “Angelic beings”. You do understand this don't you?
It is the same with the Hebrew and Greek words for “God”, depending on context it is translated as “men, judges, Kings, priest, idols or a god, gods, or God.
This means just because one is called “god” does not mean one is “a god” for context determines if the ones being referred to are judges, men, kings, gods, or God.
This is paramount to understanding and to correctly exegete scripture. You should know this by now t8.
Blessings
WJ
WJ, your above post is either deceptive or you are not listening to what I am saying.
Men are called messengers in scripture as are other beings.
I said this all along and now you appear to be arguing that I am not saying this.
Is this correct?Because your stance was that men are not angels and I argued otherwise that the term indeed includes men.
You then say:
Quote The context always bears out which it is. Not all “messengers” are “Angelic beings”. You do understand this don't you?
Actually it was me that said this and you disagreed that men can be called angels.
I taught you this and now you rebuke me and try to teach me that which I taught you.What a joke WJ.
You poor man if you need to resort to this tactic.
Quote It is the same with the Hebrew and Greek words for “God”, depending on context it is translated as “men, judges, Kings, priest, idols or a god, gods, or God. This means just because one is called “god” does not mean one is “a god” for context determines if the ones being referred to are judges, men, kings, gods, or God.
OMG, we have been teaching you this for years and now you try and teach it to me as if I was ignorant of this.
Again you poor man.
Either you have a legitimate problem with understanding and remembering where this came from, or you are deceiving yourself.
You are a poor man if it is the latter. If it is the former, then it may not be your fault, but I would suggest that you continue to not teach if that is the case or at least just teach, but not to try and discredit someone unjustifiably.Again, I marvel at the cheek. At least you made me laugh.
We have taught you for years that the context bears out what is meant by “theos” as it is not always the Most High God.
And I have taught you that malak also depends on the context because malak means messenger and heavenly beings as well as men are called malak in scripture.
I even made the argument that malak is not a word that defined a species or race, but a word that defines a role that is most often in scripture given to heavenly beings and sometimes to men.Wake up WJ.
At least you appear to agree with me now, rather than oppose me on this.
I'll take that as a win win all the same.
A win for the truth and a win for both of us, at the expense of your character or reputation to some degree however.Quote (WorshippingJesus @ June 08 2011,07:13) ”why do you blaspheme by not calling Jesus God according to the scriptures”?
OK, another dodge, but I will go along anyway.The answer is simply in this question.
Q: Why did Peter blaspheme by not calling Jesus God?
A: He didn't blaspheme.I am no different to Peter, so if you are going to accuse me of something wrong here, then you also do it to Peter.
Matthew 16:13-17 (English-NIV) it says
13 When Jesus came to the region of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples,
“Who do people say the Son of Man is?”
14 They replied, “Some say John the Baptist; others say Elijah; and still others, Jeremiah or one of the prophets.”
15 “But what about you?” he asked. “Who do you say I am?”
16 Simon Peter answered, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.”
17 Jesus replied, “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by man, but by my Father in heaven.
18 And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it.Both myself and Peter say that Jesus is the Christ and the son of God. And Peter never added that he was God given the amazing opportunity to do so if he was. Jesus never corrected him and said, “oh, dont forget that I am God too”. No he in fact built his Church on the truth that Peter spoke.
Jesus is the Christ and the son of God as a truth is the foundation or rock of the Church.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
