There is a lot of nuance in how the word "angel" is used. In Hebrew the word simply means "messenger" and can be translated in different ways depending on the context. The word is sometimes translated as a human messenger. Not all spiritual beings are angels either; cherubim and seraphim are spiritual beings in the heavenly realm but are not the same sort of being as an angel like Gabriel. The context of the passages with the Angel of YHWH suggests that this Angel is identifying himself as God, and people also identify him as God. Contrast that with angels who bring messages to people in the Bible; they often tell people not to worship them because they are not God. The Angel of YHWH does not do this. He claims to be God and accepts the worship and recognition of humansThere is some historical precedence for the argument that Jesus was the Angel of the Lord who appeared to men throughout the OT, I will give you that. However, it is simply not inline with the New Testament. The opening chapter of Hebrews, in particular, denounces this entire idea:
Then you disagree with Paul, but ok
There is a lot of nuance in how the word "angel" is used. In Hebrew the word simply means "messenger" and can be translated in different ways depending on the context. The word is sometimes translated as a human messenger. Not all spiritual beings are angels either; cherubim and seraphim are spiritual beings in the heavenly realm but are not the same sort of being as an angel like Gabriel. The context of the passages with the Angel of YHWH suggests that this Angel is identifying himself as God, and people also identify him as God. Contrast that with angels who bring messages to people in the Bible; they often tell people not to worship them because they are not God. The Angel of YHWH does not do this. He claims to be God and accepts the worship and recognition of humans
No, I disagree with your errant ideas as I do with all evangelicals like you who think that individualism is Christianity. I reject any ideas like yours as very dangerous and poisonous to true Christianity
You are blatantly ignoring scripture that defines the church as the individuals that compose it. You really wouldn't have liked someone like Jesus or any of the other prophets were they alive today. You would be there with the institution stoning them - like Paul before his conversion.
The position being argued for is the heresy of Socinianism which is basically a tweaking of Arianism. Which I might add was rejected by Luther, Calvin and Zwingli. @redleghunter gave a good response which Rome and and the East agree. Assume Unitarianism and this is where one winds up. Of course it cannot answer Col 2:9. Nor will it try. Somehow fullness means something other than fullness.These issues were all solved well over a thousand years ago. No need to reinvent them.
As a theologian friend of mine who worked on the 1995 NASB, “How full does He need to be to convince doubters.”Somehow fullness means something other than fullness.
I’m encouraged brother @His student is asking questions as are many others. I was hoping this would be a productive and informative thread and for the most part it has been.These issues were all solved well over a thousand years ago. No need to reinvent them.
So you are in opposition to traditional churches which ordain homosexuals and marry same sex couples?We will have to disagree, I do not believe in the religion of the individual. I do believe God put the Church in charge not the individual person.
He IS above the angels. In the old testament the Angel of YHWH is just a title. It's not just semantics. Your understanding of the cultural context of the word "angel" is flawed. You should really watch the video I linked in my post before last.You are trying to play semantics. The fact is that Hebrews 1 quite handily dismisses the notion that Jesus is or ever was an angel. Instead Hebrews teaches that Jesus was made a little lower than the angels - fully human - for a time, and was subsequently raised up over and above the angels, over everything except God himself.
So you are in opposition to traditional churches which ordain homosexuals and marry same sex couples?
Maybe start a thread on the poison of Evangelicals.No, I disagree with your errant ideas as I do with all evangelicals like you who think that individualism is Christianity. I reject any ideas like yours as very dangerous and poisonous to true Christianity
He IS above the angels. In the old testament the Angel of YHWH is just a title. It's not just semantics. Your understanding of the cultural context of the word "angel" is flawed. You should really watch the video I linked in my post before last.
Maybe start a thread on the poison of Evangelicals.
I started a thread asking which Episcopal churches ordain homosexual clergy and “marry” same sex couples.
Where does the Episcopal Church stand on ordaining and marrying homosexuals?
This way you can generally bash Evangelicals until satisfied and I can find an answer on why a Traditional church as your own can’t agree on basic Biblical morals.
You were “Episcopalian Charismatic” last night.I have no idea what you are talking about I am not Episcopalian or Anglican. My Church does not do these sinful things like the Episcopal /Anglican Church
So was transubstantiation, papal authority, and the veneration of relics - right?These issues were all solved well over a thousand years ago. No need to reinvent them.
The same Paul said fullness of Deity as well. So the context of your quote is not about Jesus being lesser. That’s what happens when we search the Scriptures for what we want to prove, instead of the Scriptures speaking for themselves.Context redleghunter, context. Paul is distinguishing Christ, the Son, from "God himself" - not "the Father." Don't go inserting things into scripture.
Those were later. But probably for another thread.So was transubstantiation, papal authority, and the veneration of relics - right?
Before 1000 years ago - was the time frame mentioned by "chevyonthriver" to which I was responding.Those were later.
Then it would have been good for "chevyontheriver" to have placed the post mentioning them in another thread.But probably for another thread.