- This topic is empty.
- Posts
David, Very sound words that I agree with completely. However, we each are learning. With the world the way it is under the deceptive powers of darkness I have no choice but take up my cross and prove all things myself. I believe that Jesus was the angel of the Lord. Jesus is unique and is the firstborn of all creation. He is who Moses spoke with in the burning bush. Jesus was God’s messenger who said the words, “I AM”. (that would maybe help with some trinitarians in their understanding)So far I think we agree, for the most part. It is when coming to Michael we disagree. I believe in Daniel chapter 10 verse 13 it states that Michael is “one” of the chief princes. I believe Jesus is the prince of princes.13 But the prince of the Persian kingdom resisted me twenty-one days. Then Michael, one of the chief princes, came to help me, because I was detained there with the king of Persia. I also believe that many books of the apocrypha contain alot of information that people refuse to consider. Just as you have referenced secular sources and historical documentations to make points during discussions. So to do I reference these sources. The sources unanimously declare that Michael is but one of the archangels. The book of Enoch (written prior to Revelation) discusses the four living creatures that sit around the throne of God. These are described as archangels. Michael, Gabriel, Raphael and Phaneul. I consider the evidence like you do, but have come to a different conclusion. Jesus was hidden in the bosom of the Father. Michael was not. Michael was well known as the patron defender of Israel. Angels were once watchers, they have dominions. Wicked men have tried to keep this from us. Notice the difference in these verses. The oldest Masoretic texts state that God established bounders for men based on the number of angels he placed as guardians or watchers. Priests altered the texts supposedly to prevent angels from being worshipped. I believe the bible is filled with references to angels and serpent seeds. This has all been forgotten and hidden just as Satan wanted it. KJV 8When the Most High divided to the nations their inheritance, when he separated the sons of Adam, he set the bounds of the people according to the number of the children of Israel.NIV8 When the Most High gave the nations their inheritance, when he divided all mankind, he set up boundaries for the peoples according to the number of the sons of Israel. NLT 8 When the Most High assigned lands to the nations, when he divided up the human race, he established the boundaries of the peoples according to the number of angelic beings. CEV 8that God Most High gave land to every nation. He assigned a guardian angel to each of them,ESV8When the Most High gave to the nations their inheritance, when he divided mankind, he fixed the borders of the peoples according to the number of the sons of God. Michael is simply one of these watchers. One who remained true, unlike the prince of Persia whom withstood him.
Hi mercy,
You say
“I believe that Jesus was the angel of the Lord. Jesus is unique and is the firstborn of all creation. He is who Moses spoke with in the burning bush. Jesus was God's messenger who said the words, “I AM”.Why do you believe these things without any scriptural proofs?
If Jesus appeared on earth before his birth then we cannot follow him as he has advantages over us.Jesus was contrasted with the angels in Heb 1-2 .
If he is the angel of the Lord then who is the Son of God?Quote If he is the angel of the Lord then who is the Son of God? And if Jehovah is God, who is the Father?
If the Creator is the Almighty, who is God?
If the King of Eternity is….you get the idea.Don't you?
Israel, Jacob
Simon, Peter
Saul, Paul
Abram, Abraham
Sarai, Sarah,
etc…Hi david,
“And if Jehovah is God, who is the Father?”Jesus gave us these words. They are written.
Jn 8.54
“54Jesus answered, If I honour myself, my honour is nothing: it is my Father that honoureth me; of whom ye say, that he is your God:”My advice for what it is worth.
Do not go beyond what is written in what you teach if you wish to stay in the love of God.
Don't try to be so clever with words you dig a deep hole for yourself with them.Quote Don't try to be so clever with words you dig a deep hole for yourself with them.
Not trying to be clever. You stated that if Jesus was the Angel of the Lord, who is the Son of God?
This is not a sound way to reason, as I showed by stating simply that many in the Bible have more than one role, more than one name, more than one position.Jesus is the firstborn son of God who revealed God's word to the patriarchs. He was chosen before the foundation of the world to be our messiah. Through his obedience and love for righteousness as the firstborn he inherited the kingdom of God.
From the very beginning God was pleased to have his fullness of deity reside within his firstborn son.
Nick,
You may not agree with my conclusions but read t8's posts at the beginning of this thread. I am one of the people he refers to that believe Jesus was the angel of the Lord. He provided alot the scriptures that give credance to my claim.
Please literally respond to the following question.
If God has never been seen by man then whose backside did Abraham see? We are told it was Gods. But if it was not God then who was it? His firstborn who is made exactly in his image and is the express representation of his glory?
I am not defining Jesus as a particular angel. I am not saying he is like any other son of God. I know he is unique, but he is a son just as the other angels are. I am not saying he is a cherub or a seraph etc…
Hi mercy,
You say
“From the very beginning God was pleased to have his fullness of deity reside within his firstborn son” Do you have scriptures to support that God lived in His Son in the beginning?Hi mercy,
You say
“If God has never been seen by man then whose backside did Abraham see? We are told it was Gods. But if it was not God then who was it? His firstborn who is made exactly in his image and is the express representation of his glory?”
It is fine to argue that God has never been seen as scripture says that.
But to take a leap into presumption to say that if it was not God then it must have been someone else, perhaps Jesus, that step is outside of faith.
We have to look for other explanations.
Perhaps he saw a manifestation of God as often happens?You forgot to answer my question Nick.
I did not say he lived in Jesus, I said that the fullness of his being existed in his son. (Or was replicated in his son.)
You can't be made in the exact image without having the fullness of that image. It wouldn't be exact if that was the case.
3The Son is the radiance of God's glory and the exact representation of his being, sustaining all things by his powerful word.
Christ was the architect at God's side.
1In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2He was with God in the beginning.
3Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made.God was sharing his divine nature from the beginning with his son.
Hi mercy,
You say“Jesus is the firstborn son of God who revealed God's word to the patriarchs.”
A closer reading of 1 Peter 1.10f says that it was not Jesus himself, but the Spirit of Christ. Now since the Spirit did not get poured into the Son till the Jordan, unless you can show evidence from scripture of a previous filling, then it was the Holy Spirit spoken of, that Which in Christ became the Spirit of Christ. This is a prophetic use of the phrase linking the past to eternity.
You are correct.
When I said God's word I did not mean necessarily scripture. I did not mean the angel of the Lord dictated scripture.
I meant he spoke on God's behalf on the mountains of Hebron and Sinai.
Quote (Mercy @ Sep. 27 2006,08:31) Jesus is the firstborn son of God who revealed God's word to the patriarchs. He was chosen before the foundation of the world to be our messiah. …
Please literally respond to the following question.If God has never been seen by man then whose backside did Abraham [You mean Moses!] see? We are told it was God's. But if it was not God then who was it? His firstborn who is made exactly in his image and is the express representation of his glory?
I am not defining Jesus as a particular angel. I am not saying he is like any other son of God. I know he is unique, but he is a son just as the other angels are. I am not saying he is a cherub or a seraph etc…
Mercy … somethings you need to considerThe term 'firstborn' is being used in the sense of inheritance.
'firstborn' is equivalent to 'heir'
It was the firstborn who inherited all things.
As such Jesus although he was actually born around 2000 years ago; has been appointed by GOD has the firstborn of all creation i.e. the heir of all things.Moses simply saw 'an angel of the LORD' … an angel of YAHWEH
The patriarchs saw and spoke to angels of GOD.
The Bible is not silent on the issue.It is called the law of agency.
Whereby GOD would use an agent, a representative; in this case, His angels; to speak through and act through and appear through.The patriarchs, the OT saints, the early church; understood this. They understood the concept of agency since it was used in everyday life in Jewish culture of those days.
The Jews understood that the patriarchs, Moses, etc; NEVER ACTUALLY saw or spoke to GOD Himself literally!
GOD would speak and appear via an angel.This, in the concept of divine agency, was 'as good as' speaking and seeing GOD Himself! Although not literally!!!
Therefore, to see an angel, was scripturally equivalent, to seeing GOD!!Like I said, the early church understood this concept hence we have verses such as
- (Acts 7:30) And when forty years were expired, there appeared to him in the wilderness of mount Sina an angel of the Lord in a flame of fire in a bush.
- (Acts 7:35) This Moses whom they refused, saying, Who made thee a ruler and a judge? the same did God send to be a ruler and a deliverer by the hand of the angel which appeared to him in the bush.
- (Acts 7:38) This is he [Moses], that was in the church in the wilderness with the angel which spake to him in the mount Sina, and with our fathers: who received the lively oracles to give unto us:
- (Acts 7:53) Who have received the law by the disposition of angels, and have not kept it.
- (Gal 3:19) Wherefore then serveth the law? It was added because of transgressions, till the seed should come to whom the promise was made; and it was ordained by angels in the hand of a mediator.
- (Heb 2:2) For if the word spoken by angels was stedfast, and every transgression and disobedience received a just recompense of reward;
- (Heb 13:2) Be not forgetful to entertain strangers: for thereby some have entertained angels unawares.
- (And also remember 'the Angel of the Lord' is still mentioned continuously in the NT as well!)
It was angels that spoke to Abraham, it was angels that spoke & gave the law, it was angels that spoke to the fathers, it was angels that spoke to Moses, etc.
Nowhere is there any hint that the Messiah was indeed an OT angel of GOD! And like I said, again & again, the writer of Hebrews deliberately refutes such a notion.
(And if memory serves me well, not even in the Jewish apocryphal writings will you find any concept that the Messiah is the OT angel of the LORD!!!)And Matthew and Luke have no concept of Jesus existing before his conception. They portray Jesus the Messiah as a human being who came into existence by a miraculous conception.
For more info on divine agency,
see Divine Agency in the ScripturesHave a read also of The Origin of Jesus, the Son of God
What follows is a post from another thread which I wrote with you in mind … Hope it helps …
Quote (Adam Pastor @ Sep. 26 2006,23:46) Jesus could not be the Angel of the Lord in the OT;
1) Because he is a human being NOT an angelic being
2) And as such he was not even conceived/begotten yet at the time of the OTJesus cannot be an/the 'Angel of the Lord'
Now when I speak of an 'angel' I am speaking of the non-human kind i.e. the host of heaven … angelic beings.Now if Jesus was an Angel of the Lord he could not qualify to be GOD's Only-Begotten Son!
Why? Because GOD said so, and it appears that the Early Church including the writer of Hebrews were fully aware of this & had no concept that Jesus was at anytime, an angelic being- (Heb 1:4-7) Being made so much better than the angels, as he hath by inheritance obtained a more excellent name than they. 5 For unto which of the angels said he at any time, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee? And again, I will be to him a Father, and he shall be to me a Son? 6 And again, when he bringeth in the firstbegotten into the world, he saith, And let all the angels of God worship him. 7 And of the angels he saith, Who maketh his angels spirits, and his ministers a flame of fire.
- (Heb 1:13) But to which of the angels said he at any time, Sit on my right hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstool?
- (Heb 2:5-9) For unto the angels hath he not put in subjection the world to come, whereof we speak. 6 But one in a certain place testified, saying, What is man, that thou art mindful of him? or the son of man, that thou visitest him? 7 Thou madest him a little lower than the angels; thou crownedst him with glory and honour, and didst set him over the works of thy hands: 8 Thou hast put all things in subjection under his feet. For in that he put all in subjection under him, he left nothing that is not put under him. But now we see not yet all things put under him. 9 But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels for the suffering of death, crowned with glory and honour; that he by the grace of God should taste death for every man.
The writer of Hebrew is obviously refuting 'angel-christology' which appears was prevalent at his time; he is refuting it using the strongest possible terms.
He is showing that Jesus the Messiah, GOD's Son, was NOT an angelic being at any time!
How much clearer could the writer make it?
The questions in Heb. 1:5, 13; are NOT rhetorical questions.
The answer therefore is:- TO NONE OF THE ANGELS, DID GOD AT ANYTIME SAY …
Thus, Jesus the Messiah, GOD's only-bego
tten human son was NOT & is NOT an angelic being at anytime!GOD never ever intended the world to come to be put in subjection under any angel. It was always the will of GOD that the world be under subjection to human beings, not angelic beings hence the terms, 'man & son of man'.
In chapter 2, the writer of Hebrews is equating Jesus, even the risen Jesus, as a bonafide human being, a man, a son of man, and not an angelic being!Stephen [Acts 7] & Paul [Gal 3.19; cp. Heb 2.2] were fully aware of the OT and they stated that what spoke to the patriarchs were 'angels', angelic beings, plain and simple … they never equate Jesus as an OT angel … never!
There is simply no verse which equates the Messiah with the OT Angel of the Lord! No not one.
Therefore, in the OT, via what the Jews call, the law of agency, GOD spoke and acted via/thru His angels.
- (Acts 7:30) And when forty years were expired, there appeared to him in the wilderness of mount Sina an angel of the Lord in a flame of fire in a bush.
- (Acts 7:35) This Moses whom they refused, saying, Who made thee a ruler and a judge? the same did God send to be a ruler and a deliverer by the hand of the angel which appeared to him in the bush.
- (Acts 7:38) This is he, that was in the church in the wilderness with the angel which spake to him in the mount Sina, and with our fathers: who received the lively oracles to give unto us:
- (Acts 7:52-53) Which of the prophets have not your fathers persecuted? and they have slain them which showed before of the coming of the Just One; of whom ye have been now the betrayers and murderers: 53 Who have received the law by the disposition of angels, and have not kept it.
- (Acts 7:55-56) But he, being full of the Holy Ghost, looked up stedfastly into heaven, and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing on the right hand of God, 56 And said, Behold, I see the heavens opened, and the Son of man standing on the right hand of God.
Stephen mentions the well-known facts that it was 'angels' that appeared & spoke to the patriarchs, GOD working thru them.
He finally begins to speak of the Messiah in verse 52ff … he nevers says that it was the Messiah who spoke to the patriarchs; rather, Stephen states that it was Stephen's audience who were the betrayers & murderers of the Messiah in NT times! i.e. in their time! He does not depict the Messiah in OT times but rather depicts the Coming of the Messiah in their NT time! Not only did the Messiah come, but his audience were instrumental in his death!And finally, if GOD had spoken thru His Son in OT times via any means, the following verses would not make sense …
(Heb 1:1-2) God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets, 2 Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds;
(Compare: (1 Pet 1:20) Who verily was foreordained before the foundation of the world, but was manifest in these last times for you, )
You see!
GOD did NOT speak via His Son in time past (simply because His Son was NOT conceived/begotten yet!)It wasn't until Jesus came into being … until he was begotten … in the fulness of time, in these last days that GOD had an only-begotten Son to speak TO US thru!!!
GOD's Son was foreordained even in OT times. He did not exist in OT times. He did not exist until he was conceived/begotten like every other human being
Jesus was & ever will be a human being
He was never at any time, an angelic being!(Oh BTW, remember, the Angel of the Lord continues to appear in the NT e.g. Matt 1:20,24; 2.13, 28.2; Luke 2.9, etc; so again, it can't be Jesus the Messiah!)
Reread Hebrews Chapters 1 thru 2, again!
Quote The term 'firstborn' is being used in the sense of inheritance.
'firstborn' is equivalent to 'heir'And Ca′naan became father to Si′don his firstborn and Heth
And the firstborn proceeded to say to the younger woman: “Our father is old and there is not a man in the land to have relations
then the firstborn went in and lay down with her father,
day that the firstborn then said to the younger: “Here I lay down with my father last night. Let
In time the firstborn became mother to a son and called his name Mo′ab.
Uz his firstborn and Buz his brother and Kem·u′el the father of A′ram,
Ish′ma·el’s firstborn Ne·ba′ioth
To this Jacob said: “Sell me, first of all, your right as firstborn!” 3
And he proceeded to swear to him and to sell his right as firstborn to Jacob.
Jacob went on to say to his father: “I am E′sau your firstborn.
“I am your son, your firstborn, E′sau.”
“It is not customary to do this way in our place, to give the younger woman before the firstborn. 27
The sons by Le′ah were Jacob’s firstborn Reu′ben and Sim′e·on and Le′vi and Jud
The sons of El′i·phaz, E′sau’s firstborn: Sheik Te′man, sheik O′mar,
In time Judah took a wife for Er his firstborn, and her name was Ta′mar. 7 But Er, Judah’s firstborn, proved to be bad
So Joseph called the name of the firstborn Ma·nas′seh,
And they were seated before him, the firstborn according to his right as firstborn and the youngest according to his youngness;
Now these are the names of Israel’s sons who came into Egypt: Jacob and his sons: Jacob’s firstborn was Reu′ben.
He purposely laid his hands so, since Ma·nas′seh was the firstborn.
“Not so, my father, because this is the firstborn.
“Reu′ben, you are my firstborn, my vigor and the beginning
So that's Genesis and I think part of Exodus. There are about 150 times where “firstborn” occurs in the Bible. “firstborn” is not “equivelent” to “heir.”
In the places I've put in bold, they do mean the same thing. They can mean the same thing. But this does not make them equivelant. In the other 98% of the scriptures, the word firstborn means just that, firstborn. I don't feel like showing them all.According to the customary meaning of “firstborn,” that scripture indicates that Jesus is the eldest in Jehovah’s family of sons.
So that's how they get around the “firstborn of all creation” scripture. What about Jesus being the “beginning of the creation by God” scripture (Rev 3:14)
Actually, instead of looking up just “firstborn,” I should have looked up “the firstborn of.”
Before Colossians 1:15, the expression “the firstborn of” occurs upwards of 30 times in the Bible, and in each instance that it is applied to living creatures the same meaning applies—the firstborn is part of the group. “The firstborn of Israel” is one of the sons of Israel; “the firstborn of Pharaoh” is one of Pharaoh’s family; “the firstborn of beast” are themselves animals. What, then, causes some to ascribe a different meaning to it at Colossians 1:15?Is it Bible usage or is it a belief to which they already hold and for which they seek proof?
Hi Adam
You say
“And Matthew and Luke have no concept of Jesus existing before his conception. They portray Jesus the Messiah as a human being who came into existence by a miraculous conception.”
I would dispute that.Matt 21
“33Hear another parable: There was a certain householder, which planted a vineyard, and hedged it round about, and digged a winepress in it, and built a tower, and let it out to husbandmen, and went into a far country:34And when the time of the fruit drew near, he sent his servants to the husbandmen, that they might receive the fruits of it.
35And the husbandmen took his servants, and beat one, and killed another, and stoned another.
36Again, he sent other servants more than the first: and they did unto them likewise.
37But last of all he sent unto them his son, saying, They will reverence my son.
38But when the husbandmen saw the son, they said among themselves, This is the heir; come, let us kill him, and let us seize on his inheritance.
39And they caught him, and cast him out of the vineyard, and slew him.”
Both Luke[20] and Matthew gave us this parable about an existing son going into God's vineyard.
Sorry Adam.
I know Jesus existed before the foundation of the earth. I could go into trying to defend my position, but I don't think you would hear it. Besides this forum is filled with apologetics in that direction.
I have examined your position in the past and it doesn't fit with scripture. I appreciate your desire to catch me from stumbling. Yet, I would rather make the gravest of errors than surrender my own judgment.
I see overwhelming evidence that Jesus existed prior to his incarnation. I see a some strong evidence that he was the angel of the Lord. I am not alone on this as the early church fathers (pre-Roman) had the same belief.
Hi mercy,
Can you please share this evidence as it was not long after the apostles died that men started walking off the path of truth and adultery with Rome was only the culmination of such folly.THE FIRST APOLOGY OF JUSTIN MARTYR.
Chapter LXIII.[63] – How God Appeared to Moses.And all the Jews even now teach that the nameless God spake to Moses; whence the Spirit of prophecy, accusing them by Isaiah the prophet mentioned above, said “The ox knoweth his owner, and the ass his master's crib; but Israel doth not know Me, and My people do not understand.”131 And Jesus the Christ, because the Jews knew not what the Father was, and what the Son, in like manner accused them; and Himself said, “No one knoweth the Father, but the Son; nor the Son, but the Father, and they to whom the Son revealeth Him.”132 Now the Word of God is His Son, as we have before said. And He is called Angel and Apostle; for He declares whatever we ought to know, and is sent forth to declare whatever is revealed; as our Lord Himself says, “He that heareth Me, heareth Him that sent Me.”133 From the writings of Moses also this will be manifest; for thus it is written in them, “And the Angel of God spake to Moses, in a flame of fire out of the bush, and said, I am that I am, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, the God of Jacob, the God of thy fathers; go down into Egypt, and bring forth My people.”134 And if you wish to learn what follows, you can do so from the same writings; for it is impossible to relate the whole here. But so much is written for the sake of proving that Jesus the Christ is the Son of God and His Apostle, being of old the Word, and appearing sometimes in the form of fire, and sometimes in the likeness of angels; but now, by the will of God, having become man for the human race, He endured all the sufferings which the devils instigated the senseless Jews to inflict upon Him; who, though they have it expressly affirmed in the writings of Moses, “And the angel of God spake to Moses in a flame of fire in a bush, and said, I am that I am, the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob,” yet maintain that He who said this was the Father and Creator of the universe.
Justin Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho, chapter 113:
” … I have proved that it was Jesus who appeared to and conversed with Moses, and Abraham, and all the other patriarchs without exception,…”
Eusebius Pamphili, Bishop of Cæsarea in Palestine, Hist. Eccles., I, ii, 7
Chapter 2. Summary view of the pre-existence and divinity of our Saviour and Lord Jesus Christ.
… You will perceive also from the same words that this was no other than he [Jesus] who talked with Moses. For the Scripture says in the same words and with reference to the same one, “When the Lord saw that he drew near to see, the Lord called to him out of the bush and said, Moses, Moses. And he said, What is it? And he said, Draw not nigh hither; loose thy shoe from off thy feet, for the place whereon thou standest is holy ground. And he said unto him, I am the God of thy fathers, the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob.”
TERTULLIAN, AN ANSWER TO THE JEWS, (Adversus Iudaeos)
TRANSLATED BY THE REV. S. THELWALL.
CHAP. IX. — OF THE PROPHECIES OF THE BIRTH AND ACHIEVEMENTS OF CHRIST
… For He who ever spake to Moses was the Son of God Himself; who, too, was always seen.169 For God the Father none ever saw, and lived.170 And accordingly it is agreed that the Son of God Himself spake to Moses, and said to the people, “Behold, I send mine angel before thy” – that is, the people's – “face, to guard thee on the march, and to introduce thee into the land which I have prepared thee: attend to him, and be not disobedient to him; for he hath not escaped171 thy notice, since my name is upon him.”172 For Joshua was to introduce the people into the land of promise, not Moses. Now He called him an “angel,” on account of the magnitude of the mighty deeds which he was to achieve (which mighty deeds Joshua the son of Nun did, and you yourselves read), and on account of his office of prophet announcing (to wit) the divine will; just as withal the Spirit, speaking in the person of the Father, calls the forerunner of Christ, John, a future “angel,” through the prophet: “Behold, I send mine angel before Thy” – that is, Christ's – “face, who shall prepare Thy way before Thee.”173 Nor is it a novel practice to the Holy Spirit to call those “angels” whom God has appointed as ministers of His power. For the same John is called not merely an “angel” of Christ, but withal a “lamp” shining before Christ: for David predicts, “I have prepared the lamp for my Christ;”174 and him Christ Himself, coming “to fulfil the prophets,”175 called so to the Jews. “He was,” He says, “the burning and shining lamp;”176 as being he who not merely “prepared His ways in the desert,”177 but withal, by pointing out “the Lamb of God,”178 illumined the minds of men by his heralding, so that they understood Him to be that Lamb whom Moses was wont to announce as destined to suffer. Thus, too, (was the son of Nun called) Joshua, on account of the future mystery179 of his name: for that name (He who spake with Moses) confirmed as His own which Himself had conferred on him, because He had bidden him thenceforth be called, not “angel” nor “Oshea,” but “Joshua.” Thus, therefore, each name is appropriate to the Christ of God-that He should be called Jesus as well (as Christ).
ST. CLEMENT OF ALEXANDRIA also says it was the Saviour who spoke from the burning bush:
“The Saviour has many tones of voice, and many methods for the salvation of men; by threatening He admonishes, by upbraiding He converts, by bewailing He pities, by the voice of song He cheers. He spake by the burning bush, for the men of that day needed signs and wonders.”
Irenaeus, bishop of Lyons: Against Heresies book IV, chapter 10:
1. … “For if ye had believed Moses, ye would also have believed Me; for he wrote of Me;” [saying this,] no doubt, because the Son of God is implanted everywhere throughout his writings: at one time, indeed, speaking with Abraham, when about to eat with him; at another time with Noah, giving to him the dimensions [of the ark]; at another; inquiring after Adam; at another, bringing down judgment upon the Sodomites; and again, when He becomes visible, and directs Jacob on his journey, and speaks with Moses from the bush.
Irenaeus, bishop of Lyons: Against Heresies book III, chapter 6:
2. Wherefore, as I have already stated, no other is named as God, or is called Lord, except Him who is God and Lord of all, who also said to Moses, “I AM THAT I AM. And thus shalt thou say to the children of Israel: He who is, hath sent me unto you;” and His Son Jesus Christ our Lord, who makes those that believe in His name the sons of God. And again, when the Son speaks to Moses, He says, “I am come down to deliver this people.” For it is He who descended and ascended for the salvation of men.
Hi Mercy,
You and I have the same sources to access as these men have and they are stepping outside of the safety of a true scriptural footing to make such statements, confirming for me how soon men started wandering after the traditions of men and into greek and other philosphy from the path of truth.
Tertullian of course was one of the architects of trinity theory.Fair Enough, Mercy
Thanks for your reply
Adieu!Oh BTW, Nick
I don't see your point!
The son [Jesus] is sent into the vineyard [Israel] after the ill-treated servants [OT prophets] had been sent! He was the last one sent! So what your point?(Mat 21:37) But last of all he sent unto them his son, saying, They will reverence my son.
The prophets were sent to Israel throughout times past.
And the Son was both born & sent in the fulness of times, in these last days! Makes perfect sense to me!!
No pre-existence necessary in the parable.Like I said, and many who have researched the matter agree! … Matthew & Luke have no knowledge of a literal pre-existence of the Messiah.
As Matthew says in Matthew 1:18 …
(Mat 1:18) Now the birth [GENESIS] of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost.And we know what [GENESIS] means!!
Adieu!
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
