Who is the Angel of the Lord?

dreadnought said:

Does the Bible tell us everything?

Click to expand...

Amos 3:7

For the Lord God does nothing
without revealing his secret
to his servants the prophets.

Not only has God promised us that He will reveal to us everything He is going to do, He promises us that He is NOT going to do anything He hasn't revealed to us in advance.

dreadnought said:

I don't consider it a matter of major importance. It just makes sense to me.

Click to expand...

You are guilty of what I have heard referred to as a "Danteism." You are letting sources like Milton from Paradise Lost, Dante from his Divine Comedy, and other "pop culture" sources cloud your understanding of scripture.

Unless you are a Mormon. In that case, it is your churches's actual teaching.

Angels are usually either human beings or they are spirits which most often seem to reveal themselves through visions/hallucinations. Spirits are motivating principles, not people like you and me, they are forces that motivate thought Nd behavior. The details in the scriptures prove that they are not physical creatures and in many cases the angel is only seen by 1 person while there are I think 2 cases in which angels were seen by multiple people but still not everyone that was 'there' such as the rapture of Elijah and the transfiguration of Christ.

Instead of attaching all this esoteric nonsense on words like angels just think of the Angel of the Lord as God's "message delivering apparatus"...

I wouldn't think of the Angel of the Lord as any specific angel, but any one. Michael and Gabriel are both Angels of the Lord but in most cases of prophetic Revelation it's Gabriel and he reveals himself through powerful visions, the same way that Christ did when he appeared as the Angel of the Lord to John...

Now, the Angel of the Lord that healed Paul was certainly a Christian person who simply obeyed the voice of God. If you read some of the old healing preachers like Smith Wigglesworth you'll find that people often claimed to see an angel or even Jesus Himself when Wigglesworth came to the home to pray for a person... I've actually seen and personally experienced similar phenomena... Faith is a powerful thing... more powerful than you can imagine.

I believe the "Angel of the LORD" was the aspect of the Trinity that later was made man in Jesus. The Trinity is divided into the Father, who creates, the Holy Spirit, which is the influence of God on man (by whom Mary was with child, etc.), and the Angel of the LORD, AKA the Son, AKA Jesus.

It makes sense that the Angel of the LORD existed before Jesus was born, and it makes sense that the aspect of God that spoke directly to people would later become Jesus. Also, when the Angel of the LORD appears and speaks, He (or It? I don't think a burning bush has a gender.) speaks in the first person.

Regardless, there is no concrete proof. Some people historically have suggested that the Angel of the LORD was YHWH in totality, YHWH appearing in the form of an angel, or just an angel, with the first person pronouns being a peculiarity of the Hebrew language whereby prophets spoke as though they were God making the proclamation. No theories exist that only use the Bible without adding in outside ideas.

LutheranGuy123 said:

I believe the "Angel of the LORD" was...

Click to expand...

I'm not picking apart your post, LutheranGuy. I just want to say that, as a general practice, we shouldn't make broad general statements (exception to follow in guideline number three).

There are some general guidelines for biblical hermanutics that we should always strive to follow (hermeneutics is the art and science of biblical interpretation).

1) Christians always interpret the Old Testament in light of the New Testament, but never the New Testament in light of the Old Testament.

2) Passages should always be viewed in context. That's what kicked off this post. We shouldn't be trying to say what "Angel of the LORD" is without chapter & verse to view the context.

3) A general exception to number two is called "The Law of First Mention." The first time we see a thing mentioned in scripture, we can use that context as a general guideline for understanding that thing throughout all scripture.

This is normally where someone like me says something like "I hate being pedantic" but honestly that's just not true. When it comes interpreting scripture I always make a point of holding the bar very high, and I'm rather unapologetic in that regard.

phydaux said:

I'm not picking apart your post, LutheranGuy. I just want to say that, as a general practice, we shouldn't make broad general statements (exception to follow in guideline number three).

Click to expand...

Well unless you want to go back and read the Old Testament in Hebrew, the context doesn't carry over in English. The Angel of the LORD speaks in first person. Therefore, the Angel of the LORD is God. That's the end if you just look at the Old Testament.

When you consider the New Testament, God is indicated to have three aspects, AKA the Trinity. Obviously the Angel of the LORD is not the Father, because the Father creates. It's either the Holy Spirit or Jesus. The Angel of the LORD (literally, the messenger of God) is probably Jesus. It just makes sense. Especially since the Angel of the LORD is no longer mentioned after Jesus.

LutheranGuy, I'd really love to have this discussion.

When you say "The Angel of the LORD speaks in first person" what passage are you referring to?

The logical fallacies you're having issues with are due to the nature of the trinity doctrine. Just drop it, it's easy. Biblical scholars have been debating it for over 2000 years and its still an issue... It's not something that makes or breaks your salvation but it certainly causes you to miss some very deep insights into the nature of the Godhead. Just let go. Unlearn what you have learned.

phydaux said:

For the Lord God does nothing
without revealing his secret
to his servants the prophets.

Not only has God promised us that He will reveal to us everything He is going to do, He promises us that He is NOT going to do anything He hasn't revealed to us in advance.

Click to expand...

He tells us what he wants us to know through the Holy Spirit. I was pointing out that he doesn't tell us everything in the Bible.

phydaux said:

LutheranGuy, I'd really love to have this discussion.

When you say "The Angel of the LORD speaks in first person" what passage are you referring to?

Click to expand...

Exodus 3:3-4
Now Moses was pasturing the flock of Jethro his father-in-law, the priest of Midian; and he led the flock to the west side of the wilderness and came to Horeb, the mountain of God. The angel of the Lord appeared to him in a blazing fire from the midst of a bush; and he looked, and behold, the bush was burning with fire, yet the bush was not consumed. So Moses said, “I must turn aside now and see this marvelous sight, why the bush is not burned up.” When the Lord saw that he turned aside to look, God called to him from the midst of the bush and said, “Moses, Moses!” And he said, “Here I am.”

phydaux said:

You are guilty of what I have heard referred to as a "Danteism." You are letting sources like Milton from Paradise Lost, Dante from his Divine Comedy, and other "pop culture" sources cloud your understanding of scripture.

Unless you are a Mormon. In that case, it is your churches's actual teaching.

Click to expand...

I don't think I'm going to hell because I suspect angels are people who have repented of their sin.

Like Gozer, Its whatever it wants to be...

dreadnought said:

I don't think I'm going to hell because I suspect angels are people who have repented of their sin.

Click to expand...

Neither I nor anyone else has said any such thing.

What I did say is that scripture does not support such a position, and that you holding such a position has more to do with the Jimmy Stewart movie It's a Wonderful Life than anything from historic Christian teaching.

klutedavid said:

Exodus 3:3-4
Now Moses was pasturing the flock of Jethro his father-in-law, the priest of Midian; and he led the flock to the west side of the wilderness and came to Horeb, the mountain of God. The angel of the Lord appeared to him in a blazing fire from the midst of a bush; and he looked, and behold, the bush was burning with fire, yet the bush was not consumed. So Moses said, “I must turn aside now and see this marvelous sight, why the bush is not burned up.” When the Lord saw that he turned aside to look, God called to him from the midst of the bush and said, “Moses, Moses!” And he said, “Here I am.”

Click to expand...

This is generally seen as a manifestation of The Father rather than a Christophany.

dreadnought said:

He tells us what he wants us to know through the Holy Spirit. I was pointing out that he doesn't tell us everything in the Bible.

Click to expand...

And I was pointing out that He DOES. He says He does. It's demonstrable that He does.

This is particularly relevant for an Eschatology forum.

GUANO said:

The logical fallacies you're having issues with are due to the nature of the trinity doctrine. Just drop it, it's easy. Biblical scholars have been debating it for over 2000 years and its still an issue... It's not something that makes or breaks your salvation but it certainly causes you to miss some very deep insights into the nature of the Godhead. Just let go. Unlearn what you have learned.

Click to expand...

Actually, no it isn't. The matter was settled quite well at the Council of Nicea in 325 AD. The Nicean Creed, the apostle's Creed, the Creed of Athanasius, and every other statement of Christian doctrine held by the historic Christian church is manifestly trinitarian.

That's something I want to focus on - The historic Christian church. Christianity is not something any one of us has invented in our basement. None of us has the authority to say "Christianity is this" or "Christianity is that." The church fathers have come before us, from Augustine to Luther to Jonathan Edwards. When we break from the historic Christian creeds and the teachings of the church fathers we enter dangerous ground, and do so at great risk.

Now since this is the Eschatology forum and not the Theology Proper forum I will "Just let it go." I encourage anyone who still wants to trod this old ground to do so in the Theology Proper forum.

phydaux said:

Actually, no it isn't. The matter was settled quite well at the Council of Nicea in 325 AD. The Nicean Creed, the apostle's Creed, the Creed of Athanasius, and every other statement of Christian doctrine held by the historic Christian church is manifestly trinitarian.

That's something I want to focus on - The historic Christian church. Christianity is not something any one of us has invented in our basement. None of us has the authority to say "Christianity is this" or "Christianity is that." The church fathers have come before us, from Augustine to Luther to Jonathan Edwards. When we break from the historic Christian creeds and the teachings of the church fathers we enter dangerous ground, and do so at great risk.

Now since this is the Eschatology forum and not the Theology Proper forum I will "Just let it go." I encourage anyone who still wants to trod this old ground to do so in the Theology Proper forum.

Click to expand...

History proves that it was indeed not settled. The Roman Church first attempted to settle it by creed but it didn't stop the heretics from believing whatever they want... Since that didn't 'settle' it, they next moved to murder but they couldn't kill everyone that held the idea, somehow it lived on until it came back up from the abyss of the minds of the new heretics during the Reformation.

The 'traits' established in the creed cannot be backed up by scripture. The origin of 'trinity' doctrine is from the Neo-Babylonian/Chaldean sun cult which is what inspired Catholicism along with the fact that they couldn't control the Christians so they had to co-op them.

Now, with all that being said, i'm comfortable calling the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit a 'trinity' but it's the supposed traits that the doctrine posits that the 3 entities share is where it all goes wrong and has influenced a great many false doctrines. Specifically the trait of omnipresence is certainly not shared---among others.

Did you learn about the trinity in seminary? I assume that you are formally educated because of your use of the phrase "historical Church" which is not actually something that has ever existed but is common in religious propaganda that is used to establish primacy of supposed authority on matters of doctrine...

Guano,

I had asked that any further stomping of this old ground be moved to the Theology Proper forum so as to not derail a thread in the Eschatology forum.

Now, you're the one who brought up the word "heretic." It would be dishonest of me to claim that some people didn't hold non-trinitarian views throughout church history. And I agree with you, that the "historical Church" identified those people as heretics.

Now you disparage the term "historical Church," but just as it would be dishonest of me to claim that no non-trinitarians existed, it would be just as dishonest of you to claim that the Body of Christ at large and through the ages, early church fathers like Athanasius, the Roman Catholic church, the Reformers like Calvin & Luthor, modern theologians like Jonathan Edwards, are all overwhelmingly trinitarian.

Now it's not my place to pull up wheat and tares. It is also neither of ours places to have this discussion in the Eschatology forum. If you want to have this discussion then take it to Theology Proper.

phydaux said:

Neither I nor anyone else has said any such thing.

What I did say is that scripture does not support such a position, and that you holding such a position has more to do with the Jimmy Stewart movie It's a Wonderful Life than anything from historic Christian teaching.

Click to expand...

Now you are reading my mind?

phydaux said:

And I was pointing out that He DOES. He says He does. It's demonstrable that He does.

This is particularly relevant for an Eschatology forum.

Click to expand...

No, we are to develop personal relationships with the Lord and we go on learning.