J
J6o7h8n3
Guest
I know in my KJV study bible, it says the angel of the lord is Jesus Christ and after reading some verses yesterday I am nearly convinced the angel of the lord is indeed christ.
Christian Forums
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
-
Desire to be a vessel of honor unto the Lord Jesus Christ?
Join For His Glory for a discussion on how
https://christianforums.net/threads/a-vessel-of-honor.110278/
-
Taking the time to pray? Christ is the answer in times of need
https://christianforums.net/threads/psalm-70-1-save-me-o-god-lord-help-me-now.108509/
-
-
Depending upon the Holy Spirit for all you do?
Read through the following study by Tenchi for more on this topic
https://christianforums.net/threads/without-the-holy-spirit-we-can-do-nothing.109419/
-
-
How are famous preachers sometimes effected by sin?
Join Sola Scriptura for a discussion on the subject
https://christianforums.net/threads/anointed-preaching-teaching.109331/#post-1912042
-
Bible Study Who is the ''Angel of the Lord''?
- Thread starter jgredline
- Start date
Who is the "angel of the Lord"?
Fellow believers: I know there is a tendency to "label" others, if their interpretation is different, but, the final meaning of some subject or doctrine should be what the Scriptures teach, period.
For your info, I am not a JW or Mormon. I belong to an independent Presbyterian Church in Southern Calif. But, while a "member" I disagree with their Reformed Theology, which is a-millenialism.
My point regarding the literal meaning of "malak"- Heb. and "angellos"- Gk., is this: many of those appearances of a spirit being thought to be God, could very well be Christ, the Word. But, the compilers of the English OT from the Hebrew, could just as well have translated "malak" as "agent" or "messenger" rather then "angel". Since "angel" is based on the Greek, why didn't they transliterate from the Hebrew, and call it "the malak of the Lord"?
Anyway, to me, Christ before the incarnation, was not an angel, one of the many created spirit beings who perform as messengers of God.
Further, all things were created through Christ; He created all spirit beings.
Col.1:14-16, CV, "..in Whom we are having the deliverance, the pardon of sins, Who is the Image of the invisible God, First born of every creature, for in HIm is (the) all created, that in the heavens and on the earth, the visible and the invisible."
Finally, the context must be considered, whether to translate it "angel"--a created being, or "messenger" or "agent", which, to me, would be the right choice.
Bick
Fellow believers: I know there is a tendency to "label" others, if their interpretation is different, but, the final meaning of some subject or doctrine should be what the Scriptures teach, period.
For your info, I am not a JW or Mormon. I belong to an independent Presbyterian Church in Southern Calif. But, while a "member" I disagree with their Reformed Theology, which is a-millenialism.
My point regarding the literal meaning of "malak"- Heb. and "angellos"- Gk., is this: many of those appearances of a spirit being thought to be God, could very well be Christ, the Word. But, the compilers of the English OT from the Hebrew, could just as well have translated "malak" as "agent" or "messenger" rather then "angel". Since "angel" is based on the Greek, why didn't they transliterate from the Hebrew, and call it "the malak of the Lord"?
Anyway, to me, Christ before the incarnation, was not an angel, one of the many created spirit beings who perform as messengers of God.
Further, all things were created through Christ; He created all spirit beings.
Col.1:14-16, CV, "..in Whom we are having the deliverance, the pardon of sins, Who is the Image of the invisible God, First born of every creature, for in HIm is (the) all created, that in the heavens and on the earth, the visible and the invisible."
Finally, the context must be considered, whether to translate it "angel"--a created being, or "messenger" or "agent", which, to me, would be the right choice.
Bick
Who is the "angel of the Lord"?
Deleted. I apologize for all these deletes. On my PC I saw no lower box indicating it was being submitted. So I kept hitting "submit" but nothing happened. Then, I found out it took about 30 seconds before the screen tells me my post was submitted. Bick
Deleted. I apologize for all these deletes. On my PC I saw no lower box indicating it was being submitted. So I kept hitting "submit" but nothing happened. Then, I found out it took about 30 seconds before the screen tells me my post was submitted. Bick
jgredline said:
I believe in The Father, The Son and The Holy Spirit as revealed in Scripture.
Let me ask, are you a Roman Catholic? And Eastern Orthodox?
How can you believe that The Angel of the Lord is Christ incarnate? Do you not know that "incarnate" means "in flesh"? Certainly, there were theophanies where the Lord appeared as a man. And even ate and drank with Abram. But, His body was not like our fleshly bodies.
IMO, it was only at Bethlehem, through the virgin Mary, that the Word became flesh, as we are.
And, also: why do you and others say it was "Jesus" who was the one appearing in the theophanies? It was only when he was born that He was given the name of Jesus.
Bick
jgredline
Member
Bick said:
Bick
Before I go into detail and answer your questions, let me fisrt ask you this and give you something to think about?
Has anyone or anybody ever seen the Holy Spirit?
Has anyone or anybody ever seen God the Father?
keep in mind that the scriptures say that no man has seen the father.
If you say its the Holy Spirit who appeared, I will ask, ''how does a spirit eat and drink''?
Now you just said that ''there were theophanies where the Lord appeared as a man. And even ate and drank with Abram'' Now if this is true as you say and I agree with this statement, then Who is left? Who can it be? There is only one answer and his name Is Jesus, God in-carnite, yes in the flesh.
