The Real John Milton
Well-known member
Where does the text say these angels became men ?
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
GNT grammar does not support “ God the son”
- Thread starter The Real John Milton
- Start date
John Milton
Well-known member
It says they were men. You just cannot handle it.Where does the text say these angels became men ?
The Real John Milton
Well-known member
It says they were Angels ( see Genesis 19:1). “You just cannot handle it.”It says they were men. You just cannot handle it.
Scripture tells us to answer a fool according to his own folly, lest he be wise in his own eyes. That’s why I have to do this.
No. Angels being able to take human form is an accepted principle of OT theology. It is also an accepted principle of OT theology that angels can be referred to as God. It is also an accepted principle of OT theology that seeing an angel was seeing God. You have rejected the NT passages and teachings that I have already given you. e.g. Gal 3:19, Heb 1:1, Heb 1:2 Heb 2:2, as "my problem" but in fact they are your problem.You and cjab can’t even see the inconsistencies in the way you approach these similar ideas. You claim Jesus can’t be God because the texts say he’s a man, yet you claim the angels can’t be men because they are angels. Do you see your problem yet?
Gen 31:11 "And the angel of God spake unto me in a dream, saying, Jacob: And I said, Here am I."
.
.
Gen 31:13 "I am the God of Bethel, where thou anointedst the pillar, and where thou vowedst a vow unto me: now arise, get thee out from this land, and return unto the land of thy kindred."
&
Gen 32:24 "And Jacob was left alone; and there wrestled a man with him until the breaking of the day."
.
.
Gen 32:30 "And Jacob called the name of the place Peniel: for I have seen God face to face, and my life is preserved."
.
.
Gen 48:16 "The Angel which redeemed me from all evil, bless the lads; and let my name be named on them, and the name of my fathers Abraham and Isaac; and let them grow into a multitude in the midst of the earth."
Last edited:
The Real John Milton
Well-known member
The Angel is not actually being referred to as God, but because it acts as God's interpreter / agent/ Shaliach / direct representative, the prophet speaks to it as though he is speaking to God directly and it (the angel) in turn relays God's commands directly, using the first person pronouns of God. Even today the interpreters representing dignitaries often do the same . Here is a good example, where Ahmadinejad is speaking to a reporter through an interpreter, and the latter uses the first person pronoun of Ahmadinejad in reply:No. Angels being able to take human form is an accepted principle of OT theology. It is also an accepted principle of OT theology that angels can be referred to as God. It is also an accepted principle of OT theology that seeing an angel was seeing God. You have rejected the NT passages and teachings that I have already given you. e.g. Gal 3:19, Heb 1:1, Heb 1:2 Heb 2:2, as "my problem" but in fact they are your problem.
Gen 31:11 "And the angel of God spake unto me in a dream, saying, Jacob: And I said, Here am I."
.
.
Gen 31:13 "I am the God of Bethel, where thou anointedst the pillar, and where thou vowedst a vow unto me: now arise, get thee out from this land, and return unto the land of thy kindred."
&
Gen 32:24 "And Jacob was left alone; and there wrestled a man with him until the breaking of the day."
.
.
Gen 32:30 "And Jacob called the name of the place Peniel: for I have seen God face to face, and my life is preserved."
.
.
Gen 48:16 "The Angel which redeemed me from all evil, bless the lads; and let my name be named on them, and the name of my fathers Abraham and Isaac; and let them grow into a multitude in the midst of the earth."
"I was talking against the zionist regime....." Only a fool would conclude from this method of speech that the interpreter is Ahmadinejad himself.
Whilst not discounting your point vis-a-vis the words of the angels themselves, Jacob the human did say "I have seen God face to face" when what he meant was "an angel."The Angel is not actually being referred to as God, but because it acts as God's interpreter / agent/ Shaliach / direct representative, the prophet speaks to it as though he is speaking to God directly and it (the angel) in turn relays God's commands directly, using the first person pronouns of God. Even today the interpreters representing dignitaries often do the same . Here is a good example, where Ahmadinejad is speaking to a reporter through an interpreter, and the latter uses the first person pronoun of Ahmadinejad in reply:
"I was talking against the zionist regime....." Only a fool would conclude from this method of speech that the interpreter is Ahmadinejad himself.
The Real John Milton
Well-known member
Notice he did not actually see God but an angel of God, a faithful and fanatical slave of God. The same principle of the Shaliach is at work here. Just as to see Jesus is to see God because Jesus speaks God's words and does God's deeds, and not because he is actually God. In other words, if God could become a human being he would be just like Jesus in word and deed. Hence "my beloved Son, in whom I rejoice."Whilst not discounting your point vis-a-vis the words of the angels themselves, Jacob the human did say "I have seen God face to face" when what he meant was "an angel."
ὁ ἑωρακὼς ἐμὲ ἑώρακεν τὸν Πατέρα·
John 14:9
Here is a good resource:
Shaliach — the word means "agent" and "emissary" — is a halachic (Torah-legal) term for a person empowered by someone else to act in his stead. The shaliach first appears in the Torah in the person of Eliezer, whom Abraham commissioned to find a wife for his son, Isaac. Rebecca was selected and betrothed as a wife for Isaac by Eliezer — she was legally Isaac's wife without her actual husband having ever set eyes on her or having exchanged a single word with her. In the words of the Talmud, "A person's shaliach is as he himself."
There exists a halachic model (the eved or "slave") for one who has abnegated his will, personality and very identity to that of his "master." There also exists the model of the "employee" (sachir), who assumes the obligation to perform a certain task for someone else, but whose personality and identity remain separate and distinct from the personality and identity of his "employer." The shaliach is unique in that he or she retains a great degree of autonomy in carrying out his mission, yet at the same time becomes a virtual extension of the person who commissioned him (the meshaleiach).
The shaliach does not abnegate his intellect, will, desires, feelings, talents and personal "style" to that of the one whom he represents; rather, he enlists them in the fulfillment of his mission. The result of this is not a lesser bond between the two, but the contrary: the meshaleiach is acting through the whole of the shaliach — not only through the shaliach's physical actions, but also through the shaliach's personality, which has become an extension of the meshaleiach's personality.
John Milton
Well-known member
It's exactly like I said. When an angel or God is said to be man, you still see them as an angel or God, even though that's not what the text says. When the text tells you that Jesus was God and he becomes a man, suddenly you deny that he was God. You are inconsistent, and you have no valid explanation for the difference.No. Angels being able to take human form is an accepted principle of OT theology. It is also an accepted principle of OT theology that angels can be referred to as God. It is also an accepted principle of OT theology that seeing an angel was seeing God. You have rejected the NT passages and teachings that I have already given you. e.g. Gal 3:19, Heb 1:1, Heb 1:2 Heb 2:2, as "my problem" but in fact they are your problem.
John Milton
Well-known member
That's ridiculous. I accept both. A change of form doesn't change identity. We've been over this.It says they were Angels ( see Genesis 19:1). “You just cannot handle it.”
I'm sure Jesus is really proud of you making false accusations and abusing scripture to justify insulting someone.Scripture tells us to answer a fool according to his own folly, lest he be wise in his own eyes. That’s why I have to do this.
John Milton
Well-known member
That's one way to take it. Another is that God's true image is concealed when he manifests as a person by nature of the change from spiritual to physical and thus it is still true to say no one has seen God even though scripture also records that a few people have seen something of God.Whilst not discounting your point vis-a-vis the words of the angels themselves, Jacob the human did say "I have seen God face to face" when what he meant was "an angel."
See TRJM's post above and (also John 10:34-36.) Actually that post should have been directed to you, as I have no issue with it and it reflects my own views.It's exactly like I said. When an angel or God is said to be man, you still see them as an angel or God, even though that's not what the text says. When the text tells you that Jesus was God and he becomes a man, suddenly you deny that he was God. You are inconsistent, and you have no valid explanation for the difference.
What Jesus says is that every occasion of men or angels being labelled "God" is a reference to the principal of the minister of God's word, i.e. YHWH, whether man (Jesus), or an angel, or an angel in the form of a man. Even in respect of the Word in heaven, which entails a special sense of agency, where the agent is invested with the very glory of God, the use of "God" (i.e. in Jn 1:1c) infers the principal, i.e. the Father, by whose authority the Word acts.
However, as you defer to me, always, as a liar, you will no doubt disregard my post as always.
God ALWAYS manifests himself through angels in the OT. That much is incontrovertible. Angels are servants (agents) of God, not alternative forms of God.That's one way to take it. Another is that God's true image is concealed when he manifests as a person by nature of the change from spiritual to physical and thus it is still true to say no one has seen God even though scripture also records that a few people have seen something of God.
John Milton
Well-known member
I don't have any problem with that passage either. The difference is that I don't use it as a justification for ignoring what scripture says in other places, especially in those places where what is said there clearly does not apply such as John 1, Hebrews 1, Colossians 1, etc.See TRJM's post above and (also John 10:34-36.) Actually that post should have been directed to you, as I have no issue with it and it reflects my own views.
That is an unjustifiable enlargement of what Jesus says, and it goes against what John says about Jesus in his own gospel. As I've already explained to you, you are interpreting the entirety of John's book by the middle. That's just not how it works.What Jesus says is that every occasion of men or angels being labelled "God" is a reference to the principal of the minister of God's word, i.e. YHWH, whether man (Jesus), or an angel, or an angel in the form of a man.
No, it doesn't. The Word is consciously presented independently of the Father.Even in respect of the Word in heaven, which entails a special sense of agency, where the agent is invested with the very glory of God, the use of "God" (i.e. in Jn 1:1c) infers the principal, i.e. the Father, by whose authority the Word acts.
I don't always refer to you as a liar. I only do so when it is clearly true. And I don't disregard your posts, I counter them.However, as you defer to me, always, as a liar, you will no doubt disregard my post as always.
Here's a good example of what I said immediately above. You've made a false statement. I can't really call it a lie right now, because I'm not sure if you knew this scripture existed. Here is a citation that shows that your assertion is incorrect.God ALWAYS manifests himself through angels in the OT. That much is incontrovertible. Angels are servants (agents) of God, not alternative forms of God.
Exodus 33:21-23, "And the LORD said, “Behold, there is a place by me where you shall stand on the rock, 22 and while my glory passes by I will put you in a cleft of the rock, and I will cover you with my hand until I have passed by. 23 Then I will take away my hand, and you shall see my back, but my face shall not be seen.”
Now if you say at some point in the future that "God ALWAYS manifests himself through angels in the OT" you will be lying, because I know that you know better. Do you see how this works?
The Real John Milton
Well-known member
Having the form of a man is not the same as being a man. The Angel just looks like a man.That's ridiculous. I accept both. A change of form doesn't change identity. We've been over this.
I'm sure Jesus is really proud of you making false accusations and abusing scripture to justify insulting someone.
John Milton
Well-known member
They are called "men". I can't help it you still don't like the facts.Having the form of a man is not the same as being a man. The Angel just looks like a man.
The Real John Milton
Well-known member
Because they look like men ( have the form of men). They are not real men, that is, not of the seed of Adam.They are called "men". I can't help it you still don't like the facts.
John Milton
Well-known member
It doesn't say they look like men. The text calls them men.Because they look like men ( have the form of men). They are not real men, that is, not of the seed of Adam.
The Real John Milton
Well-known member
Correct,it does not have to. By the same token it doesn’t say they “became” men either. So you should follow your own foolish MO and stop insisting that these Angels “became” men. I am simply giving you a reason as to why the bible calls them “men”; it is not because they “became” actual men ( as you falsely state), but because they “look like” men.It doesn't say they look like men. The text calls them men.
John Milton
Well-known member
Your reason is speculation, and it contradicts your other position as I've already demonstrated.Correct,it does not have to. By the same token it doesn’t say they “became” men either. So you should follow your own foolish MO and stop insisting that these Angels “became” men. I am simply giving you a reason as to why the bible calls them “men”; it is not because they “became” actual men ( as you falsely state), but because they “look like” men.
The Real John Milton
Well-known member
Where does the text say these Angels “became” men? It just calls them men, probably for the reason I gave.Your reason is speculation, and it contradicts your other position as I've already demonstrated.
He replied, “Go tell that fox, ‘I will keep on driving out demons and healing people today and tomorrow, and on the third day I will reach my goal.’
Luke 13:32
Do you also believe that Herod was a real fox ?
John Milton
Well-known member
You assume that they became men just as you assume that they couldn't be men and still be "God" or "angels".Where does the text say these Angels “became” men? It just calls them men, probably for the reason I gave.
Different contexts.Luke 13:32
Do you also believe that Herod was a real fox ?