Trinitarianism: What Non-Trinitarians Believe

[JudaicChristian]

You guys have been repeatedly reminded about posts 85 and 86 and you all, repeat all, remain entirely silent in terms of what would pass a serious enagement of that argument.

Not to mention the post I made about the "hen metaphor". No one has taken that argument on, either.

You have mixed scriptures and no one wants to deal with your line of reason.

 

[Drew]

You have mixed scriptures and no one wants to deal with your line of reason.

I have already explained why this is not a legitimate response.

I suggest that you really should re-think this strategy of evading the argument I have made.

To restate the general shape of the argument:

1. There is a clear Old Testament theme where God, yes God, promises to return to the people and the temple He has abandoned. Do you deny this theme is present JC? If so, do not evade with vague talk of mixing up Scriptures but rather make an actual case that this theme is not present. You started this thread - why are you not "playing fair" and dealing with arguments that challenge your position?

2. In the book of Luke, Jesus, yes Jesus, acts in a way that makes it clear that Jesus thinks He, yes He (Jesus) is the fulfiller of these promise. Do you deny this, JC? If so, do not evade with vague talk of mixing up Scriptures but rather make an actual case that this theme is not present. You started this thread - why are you not "playing fair" and dealing with arguments that challenge your position?

3. If we agree that Jesus is mentally competent, we must conclude that He believes Himself to be God.

This is not rocket science. If some person who goes by the name "God" says "I will do such and such in the future", and then some person who goes by the name "Jesus" later says "I am the person who is fulfilling those promises that God has made", then we must conclude that Jesus is setting Himself in some kind of identity with God.

The "name" thing is a smokescreen.

It is clear who the being is who makes the promises in the Old Testament - it is God.

It is also clear who the being is who fulfills the promises in the New Testament - it is Jesus.

It is therefore clear, Jesus and God are "one and the same" in a certain sense.

This is where you (and others) have no wiggle room, and I suspect this is why you won't engage the argument.

 

[Sparkey]

Because Trinitarian Christians have removed the name of God from the New Testament, this has caused much confusion. I have been answering your questions, but you are not listening to me. The Old Testament says that Elohiym who is Yahwah created all things. This world was created by Yahwah for Yahshua. Yahshua was a god among many Sons of God, whom Yahwah made His very own.
Acts 13:33
he has fulfilled for us, their children, by raising up Jesus. As it is written in the second Psalm: “‘You are my son; today I have become your father.’

John 10:33. "We are not stoning you for any of these," replied the Jews, "but for blasphemy, because you, a mere man, claim to be God." (or: a god)
34 Jesus answered them, "Is it not written in your Law, 'I have said you are gods'? 35If he called them 'gods,' to whom the word of God came—and the Scripture cannot be broken— 36 what about the one whom the Father set apart as his very own and sent into the world? Why then do you accuse me of blasphemy because I said, 'I am God's Son'?
Now I ask you, did Yahshua say he was God, or did he say he was a god?

Greetings, JudiacChristian --

Thanks, my friend, for explaining your thoughts.

Cordially,
Sparrow

 

[Sparkey]

I have already explained why this is not a legitimate response.

I suggest that you really should re-think this strategy of evading the argument I have made.

To restate the general shape of the argument:

1. There is a clear Old Testament theme where God, yes God, promises to return to the people and the temple He has abandoned. Do you deny this theme is present JC? If so, do not evade with vague talk of mixing up Scriptures but rather make an actual case that this theme is not present. You started this thread - why are you not "playing fair" and dealing with arguments that challenge your position?

2. In the book of Luke, Jesus, yes Jesus, acts in a way that makes it clear that Jesus thinks He, yes He (Jesus) is the fulfiller of these promise. Do you deny this, JC? If so, do not evade with vague talk of mixing up Scriptures but rather make an actual case that this theme is not present. You started this thread - why are you not "playing fair" and dealing with arguments that challenge your position?

3. If we agree that Jesus is mentally competent, we must conclude that He believes Himself to be God.

This is not rocket science. If some person who goes by the name "God" says "I will do such and such in the future", and then some person who goes by the name "Jesus" later says "I am the person who is fulfilling those promises that God has made", then we must conclude that Jesus is setting Himself in some kind of identity with God.

The "name" thing is a smokescreen.

It is clear who the being is who makes the promises in the Old Testament - it is God.

It is also clear who the being is who fulfills the promises in the New Testament - it is Jesus.

It is therefore clear, Jesus and God are "one and the same" in a certain sense.

This is where you (and others) have no wiggle room, and I suspect this is why you won't engage the argument.

Drew, God made the promise -- like the promise that he made to the seed of the woman in the garden. God fulfulled the promise. He did that through the man, Christ Jesus.

The strength of your argument and lack of wiggle room isn't there.

 

[JudaicChristian]

After killing Hebrew Christians, the Jews would take the New testament scripture written in Hebrew, and carefully cut the name of God out. Then they would place the divine name in a safe place to keep. Following that, they then would burn the remainder of the scrolls in a fire. Rabbi Yose who lived during the second century AD states that, "One cuts out the reference to the Divine Name which are in them [the Christian writings] and stores them away, and the rest burns." One of his characteristic sayings is, "He who proclaimed the coming of the Messiah,[John] and he who hated scholars [Yahshua] and his disciples; and that false prophet and those slanderers, will have no part in the future world." According to Wilhelm Bacher this was directed against the Hebrew Christians. And so it is an established fact then, that the disciples of Christ did in fact write the Holy Name of God into the New Testament.
The Trinitarian Christians also burned the Judaizing Christians along with their scriptures, and replaced scriptures with their version which excluded God's Holy name.

 

[JudaicChristian]

Yahshua worked to fulfill prophecy by establishing God's Holy Name in the New Testament. But Trinitarian Christians burned the originals to establish there own version of scriptures.
Hebrews 2:12
He says, “I will declare your name to my brothers and sisters; in the assembly I will sing your praises.â€

Where is God's actual personal name in the New Testament?

 

[Sparkey]

Jehovah's Witnesses say Jesus was ‘a god’ - the KJV says Jesus ‘was God’.
My question here is simple; “Which one of the above translations is right - “was (a) god =NWTâ€, or “was God = KJVâ€?â€

The Greek and Hebrew languages do not make a distinction. In translating from Greek or Hebrew to English, the scholar must determin if the letter should be upper or lower case, and he must deside if the article (a) should be added. Example: Judaic Christian Forum - No one has ever seen Yahwah

The example you bring relates to the Hebrew word "Elohim" and I would agree that this particular word can be translated "god" or "God" depending on context. A case could be made that the word "elohim" can sometimes be used in reference to angels. That is not the case for Logos. Jesus was not a logos. Do you have an example other than your reference to elohim that can better illustrate your concept, please? Greek is a very precise and exact language. If your translation of John 1:1 is to be upheld, it introduces inconsistancies to your argument.

If Jesus was with God and was "(a) god" then how do we try to reconcile the truth of the following:
"Beside me there is no God." (Isa. 44:6.)

"I am God, and there is none else; there is no God beside me." (Isa. 45:5.)

"I am God, and there is none else." (Isa. 46:9.)

"One God and Father of all, who is above all." (Eph. 4:6.)

"Hear, o Israel, the Lord our God is one Lord." (Deut. 6.4.)

"If Jesus was with God and was "(a) god" then how do we try to reconcile the truth of the following:
"Beside me there is no God." (Isa. 44:6.)"

My simpleton thinking understands that when it says "Beside me there is no God" it is saying they do not exist beside Him in a right of their own.

JudaicChristian,

I never did get your reply to my question about your belief. I know that this thread gets a little busy so it's understandable.

Would you agree with Who Says then? When God said, "Beside me there is no God," what he meant was, "There are perhaps lots of gods beside me, but they don't exist beside me in a right of their own." When He said, "I am God, and there is none else; there is no God beside me," why did He not mention Jesus, if it is as you say, that Jesus was (a) god who existed with God at the time.

My question then becomes, are you a monotheist? I thought you were and think that you are --but can you see the problem that the intrepretation "(a) God" --one who preexisted his birth, who existed with Yahwah even as (a) god creates?

It is like Jesus said, "I and my Father are one." God is Spirit -- we all agree. I know that I didn't exist before I was created. Jesus did. He appeared in flesh. He came and tabernacled here with us. I think that the promise of eternal life is based on our belief that Jesus, the man, is the Son of God and upon that simple truth we all agree. There still remains though some difference about who Jesus was (before his birth).

 

[Sparkey]

Yahshua worked to fulfill prophecy by establishing God's Holy Name in the New Testament. But Trinitarian Christians burned the originals to establish there own version of scriptures.
Hebrews 2:12
He says, “I will declare your name to my brothers and sisters; in the assembly I will sing your praises.â€

Where is God's actual personal name in the New Testament?

Very good question there, my friend.

"And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name JESUS: for he shall save his people from their sins. Now all this was done, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying, Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us." - Matthew 1:21-23 KJV

He is θεός μετά ἡμῶν , transliterated: Theos meta hēmōn, meaning: God with us.

 

[Drew]

Drew, God made the promise -- like the promise that he made to the seed of the woman in the garden. God fulfulled the promise. He did that through the man, Christ Jesus.

The strength of your argument and lack of wiggle room isn't there.

God did not say "someone other than me" would return to the nation of Israel and to the temple. No - God said that He, that is God, would return to Zion.

If the promise had been "my people will be rescued" or "someone will come to the temple", then you might have a point.

But the promises are clear - God promises that He, God, will return to His people and to the temple. And so, of course, when Jesus acts in a manner that would be seen by any Biblical literate Jews as fulfilling these prophecies, this leaves only three possibilities, as far as I can see:

1. Its a massive co-incidence - Jesus "accidentally" does all these things that God said that He (God) would do;

2. Jesus knows what He is doing but is implicitly misrepresenting Himself as God;

3. Jesus does these things intentionally, genuinely believing Himself to the embodiment of Israel;s God.

 

[Sparkey]

God did not say "someone other than me" would return to the nation of Israel and to the temple. No - God said that He, that is God, would return to Zion.

If the promise had been "my people will be rescued" or "someone will come to the temple", then you might have a point.

But the promises are clear - God promises that He, God, will return to His people and to the temple. And so, of course, when Jesus acts in a manner that would be seen by any Biblical literate Jews as fulfilling these prophecies, this leaves only three possibilities, as far as I can see:

1. Its a massive co-incidence - Jesus "accidentally" does all these things that God said that He (God) would do;

2. Jesus knows what He is doing but is implicitly misrepresenting Himself as God;

3. Jesus does these things intentionally, genuinely believing Himself to the embodiment of Israel's God.

Thanks, Drew. I understand your thought better now. Would you not agree that God promised "The Christ" -- The Messiah to be sent? That is what I understood to be the case.

"But Jesus held his peace. And the high priest answered and said unto him, I adjure thee by the living God, that thou tell us whether thou be the Christ, the Son of God." - Matthew 26:63 KJV

"And it was revealed unto him by the Holy Ghost, that he should not see death, before he had seen the Lord's Christ." - Luke 2:26 KJV

"Be it known unto you all, and to all the people of Israel, that by the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom ye crucified, whom God raised from the dead, [even] by him doth this man stand here before you whole." - Acts 4:10 KJV

"For he mightily convinced the Jews, [and that] publickly, shewing by the scriptures that Jesus was Christ." - Acts 18:28 KJV

We do see that Jesus was the Lamb of God and that He fullfulled the promises made; God can not die. The one sent by God was not allowed to suffer decay and was raised triumphant. Again, my point is that we cannot make Jesus into God Incarnate without emphasis on Him dwelling in flesh. Jesus genuinely believed himself to be the embodiement of the God of Israel, agreed. When we look at Jesus, we see God. That is exactly what he said to Phillip, "Jesus saith unto him, Have I been so long time with you, and yet hast thou not known me, Philip? he that hath seen me hath seen the Father; and how sayest thou [then], Shew us the Father?" - John 14:9 KJV

Drew, what you are saying is clearly seen in the prophecy of Zacharias, "And his father Zacharias was filled with the Holy Ghost, and prophesied, saying, Blessed [be] the Lord God of Israel; for he hath visited and redeemed his people," - Luke 1:67-68 KJV

 

[TRUTH over TRADITION]

One Old Testament theme is often overlooked is the theme of the promised return of YHWH to Zion – that though God has abandoned His people through the exile, He will, one day, return to them. A wide range of Old Testament texts embody this hope. Here are just two:

Ezekiel 43:1-7:

Remember the context. The Jews are in a state of exile. The temple had been abandoned by God and destroyed. This vision given to Ezekiel constitutes a promise that God will return to inhabit the “temple†once more.

Malachi 3
Behold, I am going to send My messenger, and he will clear the way before Me And the Lord, whom you seek, will suddenly come to His temple; and the messenger of the covenant, in whom you delight, behold, He is coming," says the LORD of hosts. 2"But who can endure the day of His coming? And who can stand when He appears? For He is like a refiner's fire and like fullers' soap.

This material, just like the Ezekiel text, was written during the time of exile. Once more we have a promised return of God to the temple.

These and other texts express a deep hope of the Jewish nation – the God that had abandoned them will one day return to them. When we forget such expectations, and reduce the discussion of Jesus’ divinity to technical matters about the boundaries between the concept of “man†and of “godâ€, we entirely overlook what really matters – the Jewish matrix of expectation into which Jesus was born. I suggest the Biblically literate 1st century Jew would be anticipating this return.

When was this 'promised return of YHWH to Zion' to take place? As you stated this was written during the Babylonian exile after the destruction of the temple. If you look to Ezra chapter 5 and following as well as to the book of Nehemiah, you can see that this prophetic promise finds its fulfillment in both the people being returned and the temple being rebuilt. Any 1st century jew who knew the history of their people would not see this text as a Messianic prophecy. They would know that it was fulfilled in Nehemiah.

Now, as for the Malachi text, scholars are in virtual agreement that it was written POST exile. Here are some Wiki excepts that further address this.

There are very few historical details in the book of Malachi. The greatest clue as to its dating may lie in the fact that the Persian-era term for governor (pehâ) is used in 1:8. This points to a post-exilic date of composition both because of the use of the Persian period term and because Judah had a king before the exile. Since, in the same verse, the temple has been rebuilt, the book must also be later than 515 BC.
The book of Malachi was written to correct the lax religious and social behavior of the Israelites – particularly the priests – in post-exilic Jerusalem. Although the prophets urged the people of Judah and Israel to see their exile as punishment for failing to uphold their covenant with Yahweh, it was not long after they had been restored to the land and to Temple worship that the people's commitment to their God began, once again, to wane. It was in this context that the prophet commonly referred to as Malachi delivered his prophecy.

This text is not about what the Ezekiel text was about. For in Malachi the temple had already been rebuilt and the priesthood was re-established. That was not the case when Ezekiel was pinned. These verses in Malachi are Messianic and we know this because of what is said in John about JtB.
Malachi tells us that John the Baptizer would come and prepare the way for Jesus, the Anointed One who would then suddenly come to his "temple". What temple is being spoken of here? Is it the one that would be utterly destroyed within 40 years of Jesus' ministry or rather does temple here simply mean "dwelling place" or body as it does in Corinthians where the body is said to be the "dwellin place" or "temple" of God's Holy Spirit. It could very well mean that the Anointed One would come "in the flesh" as the language of 1 John says to administer a new covenant.

In closing, the Jewish expectation from based on the promises of Ezekiel were NOT about the Messiah, they were about the LORD God and the Temple of the LORD in Jerusalem. Jesus' "divinity" was not even up for discussion in these texts.

 

[Free]

Yahshua worked to fulfill prophecy by establishing God's Holy Name in the New Testament. But Trinitarian Christians burned the originals to establish there own version of scriptures.

Conjecture. Please address post #429.

 

[Drew]

When was this 'promised return of YHWH to Zion' to take place? As you stated this was written during the Babylonian exile after the destruction of the temple. If you look to Ezra chapter 5 and following as well as to the book of Nehemiah, you can see that this prophetic promise finds its fulfillment in both the people being returned and the temple being rebuilt. Any 1st century jew who knew the history of their people would not see this text as a Messianic prophecy. They would know that it was fulfilled in Nehemiah.

First, thanks for the being the first person to actually engage this argument. I will get back to you on this as I am quite busy.

 

[JudaicChristian]

JudaicChristian,

I never did get your reply to my question about your belief. I know that this thread gets a little busy so it's understandable.

Would you agree with Who Says then? When God said, "Beside me there is no God," what he meant was, "There are perhaps lots of gods beside me, but they don't exist beside me in a right of their own." When He said, "I am God, and there is none else; there is no God beside me," why did He not mention Jesus, if it is as you say, that Jesus was (a) god who existed with God at the time.

My question then becomes, are you a monotheist? I thought you were and think that you are --but can you see the problem that the intrepretation "(a) God" --one who preexisted his birth, who existed with Yahwah even as (a) god creates?

It is like Jesus said, "I and my Father are one." God is Spirit -- we all agree. I know that I didn't exist before I was created. Jesus did. He appeared in flesh. He came and tabernacled here with us. I think that the promise of eternal life is based on our belief that Jesus, the man, is the Son of God and upon that simple truth we all agree. There still remains though some difference about who Jesus was (before his birth).

It's a matter of semantics. There are many gods real or imagined, but there is only one who is truly God. There are no other TRUE Gods, only Yahwah is a TRUE God. The others who are called gods (small letter g) are called (g)ods because they have life immortal. That is why God says there are no others but Himself. This also means that He is not a Trinity. Yahshua does appear as God in his second coming, but only in appearance. When Yahshua was here on earth Yahwah was also present to preform miracles for Yahshua. Only in the final judgement does Yahwah reveal Himself visibly to mankind.
PS. Peniel was the angel of the Lord who was born into this world as Yahshua. He was the god among us.

 

[JudaicChristian]

How would scriptures read if God's name had not been removed?

John 1


1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god. 2 He was with Yahwah in the beginning. 3 By Yahwah all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. 4 In Yahwah was life, and that life was the light for all mankind.

 

[Sparkey]

It's a matter of semantics. There are many gods real or imagined, but there is only one who is truly God. There are no other TRUE Gods, only Yahwah is a TRUE God. The others who are called gods (small letter g) are called (g)ods because they have life immortal. That is why God says there are no others but Himself. This also means that He is not a Trinity. Yahshua does appear as God in his second coming, but only in appearance. When Yahshua was here on earth Yahwah was also present to preform miracles for Yahshua. Only in the final judgement does Yahwah reveal Himself visibly to mankind.
PS. Peniel was the angel of the Lord who was born into this world as Yahshua. He was the god among us.

Peniel? So Jesus was an angel? Where have I heard that before? And you present this as "what non-trinitarians believe"? Per Wiki, "Nontrinitarian" is not a denominational name. All Christian denominations that reject the articles of the third Ecumenical Council (First Council of Ephesus) are nontrinitarian." What is the name of the group of you subscribe to?

You lose me when you change what the Holy Spirit said through John from, "and the word was God," to "and the word was (a) god" and declare it a matter of semantics. Polytheism could be supported in exactly the same manner. And the word became [the] god.

Jesus said, "I and [my] Father are one." The Jews wanted to stone him on the spot for that." They thought he blasphemed because they knew the Shema, "Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God [is] one LORD:" -
He claimed to be one with the Father. How is that a matter of semantics? He died because of that claim.

 

[Free]

How would scriptures read if God's name had not been removed?

John 1


1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god. 2 He was with Yahwah in the beginning. 3 By Yahwah all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. 4 In Yahwah was life, and that life was the light for all mankind.

Again, this is conjecture. Please address post #429.

 

[JudaicChristian]

Conjecture. Please address post #429.

Scholars have wondered if John 1 is a Gnostic corruption because it contradicts other verses. In Mark, Yahshua addresses God as a separate being who created the heavens.
Mark 13:19
because those will be days of distress unequaled from the beginning, when God created the world, until now—and never to be equaled again.

Here are also some other verses that contradict John 1.
Acts 17:24 24 “The God who made the world and everything in it is the Lord of heaven and earth and does not live in temples built by human hands. 25 And he is not served by human hands, as if he needed anything. Rather, he himself gives everyone life and breath and everything else. 26 From one man he made all the nations, that they should inhabit the whole earth; and he marked out their appointed times in history and the boundaries of their lands. 27 God did this so that they would seek him and perhaps reach out for him and find him, though he is not far from any one of us. 28 ‘For in him we live and move and have our being. ’As some of your own poets have said, ‘We are his offspring.’
29 “Therefore since we are God’s offspring, we should not think that the divine being is like gold or silver or stone—an image made by human design and skill. 30 In the past God overlooked such ignorance, but now he commands all people everywhere to repent. 31 For he has set a day when he will judge the world with justice by the man he has appointed. He has given proof of this to everyone by raising him from the dead.â€
Ephesians 3:9
and to make plain to everyone the administration of this mystery, which for ages past was kept hidden in God, who created all things.

Colossians 1:16
For in him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things have been created through him and for him.

Revelation 4:11
“You are worthy, our Lord and God, to receive glory and honor and power, for you created all things, and by your will they were created and have heir being.â€

 

[JudaicChristian]

Peniel? So Jesus was an angel? Where have I heard that before? And you present this as "what non-trinitarians believe"? Per Wiki, "Nontrinitarian" is not a denominational name. All Christian denominations that reject the articles of the third Ecumenical Council (First Council of Ephesus) are nontrinitarian." What is the name of the group of you subscribe to?

You lose me when you change what the Holy Spirit said through John from, "and the word was God," to "and the word was (a) god" and declare it a matter of semantics. Polytheism could be supported in exactly the same manner. And the word became [the] god.

Jesus said, "I and [my] Father are one." The Jews wanted to stone him on the spot for that." They thought he blasphemed because they knew the Shema, "Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God [is] one LORD:" -
He claimed to be one with the Father. How is that a matter of semantics? He died because of that claim.

Angels are a Pagan belief. There is no such thing as Angels. The Hebrew word Messenger has been given the INTERPRETATION angel. Being one with the Father implies unity. I do not subscribe to any group but the Seven Thunders.

 

[Sparkey]

The Nobel laureate S.Y. Agnon said, "Reading a text in translation is like kissing a bride through her veil".

Everett Fox is currently my favorite translator and expositor b/c of his work, "The Five Books of Moses". Here then is a excerpt from his work about "The Face of God" from Gen 32:21.

I will wipe [the anger from] his face with the gift that goes ahead of my face; afterward, when I see his face, perhaps he will lift up my face!

The appearance of the single word in the passage calls attention to the theme of the passage; that theme continues and is developed through the entire reading.

Moshe Sokolow explained well in his article, Vayishlah: Face to Face, "The very next verse (32:22) tells us that "The gift went on ahead" (literally: ahead of his face), "and he spent the night in camp." During that night, Jacob wrestles with "a man" (32:25) and, in the morning, coins the name of Peniel (literally: face of God) for the site of their struggle, declaring: "For I have seen God, face to face, and my life has been spared" (32:30). Later that same day, he is reunited with Esau. They embrace, kiss, and weep. Esau initially declines Jacob's presents, prompting Jacob to respond: "If I have found favor in your eyes, then take this present from my hand, for, after all, I have seen your face as one sees the face of God, and you have been gracious to me" (33:10).

Having struggled with cunning Esau at birth, with his treacherous uncle Laban in Haran, and, lastly, with the angel of the Lord, Jacob is at last be ready to assume the burden of the name he had won barely a few hours earlier. No longer is he Yaakov the crooked grabber but Yisrael the upright wrestler with God—the name borne by his people ever since. Yaakov's walk was affected by his encounter with the Lord God.

This passage under consideration here is translated Hebrew Names Version:

"Ya`akov was left alone, and wrestled with a man there until the breaking of the day. When he saw that he didn't prevail against him, he touched the hollow of his thigh, and the hollow of Ya`akov's thigh was strained, as he wrestled. The man said, "Let me go, for the day breaks." Ya`akov said, "I won't let you go, unless you bless me." He said to him, "What is your name?" He said, "Ya`akov." He said, "Your name will no longer be called 'Ya`akov,' but, 'Yisra'el,' for you have fought with God and with men, and have prevailed." Ya`akov asked him, "Please tell me your name." He said, "Why is it that you ask what my name is?" He blessed him there. Ya`akov called the name of the place Peni'el: for, he said, "I have seen God face to face, and my life is preserved." The sun rose on him as he passed over Peni'el, and he limped because of his thigh. Therefore the children of Yisra'el don't eat the sinew of the hip, which is on the hollow of the thigh, to this day, because he touched the hollow of Ya`akov's thigh in the sinew of the hip." - Genesis 32:24-32 HNV

The name of the place where Ya'akov wrestled and where his name was changed is called Peniel, the Face of God. I fail to understand how you go from this to the conclusion that Jesus was the embodiment of the "messenger" that you say is named Peniel. My thought is that Jacob was able to fight and prevail because of his earlier prayer offered when he feared his brother Esau, "And thou saidst, I will surely do thee good, and make thy seed as the sand of the sea, which cannot be numbered for multitude." Jacob recalled the promise of the Blessing of God and continued in faith, doubting nothing regarding the promise. It was that belief that strengthened him in his fight that night and emboldened him to say, "I will not let thee go, except thou bless me." Jacob asked the name of the one with whom he wrestled but only received the reply, "Wherefore [is] it [that] thou dost ask after my name?"

Jacob named the place, "The Face of God," that is, "Peniel," saying that he had seen the face of God. There is much more to this passage than what meets the eye and it is something to ponder as we continue to wonder about the Ancient of Days, our God. The idea that I come away with is that we know that God loves us and it is the strength of that knowledge that allows us to persist in our struggle. That is but part of what the Word of Truth conveys as the "face of God".