ARCHIVE: Is this really demonic doctrine or what...

[smilax]

Genesis xvi, 7-13: "And the angel of the LORD found her by a fountain of water in the wilderness, by the fountain in the way to Shur. And he said, Hagar, Sarai's maid, whence camest thou? and whither wilt thou go? And she said, I flee from the face of my mistress Sarai. And the angel of the LORD said unto her, Return to thy mistress, and submit thyself under her hands. And the angel of the LORD said unto her, I will multiply thy seed exceedingly, that it shall not be numbered for multitude. And the angel of the LORD said unto her, Behold, thou art with child, and shalt bear a son, and shalt call his name Ishmael; because the LORD hath heard thy affliction. And he will be a wild man; his hand will be against every man, and every man's hand against him; and he shall dwell in the presence of all his brethren. And she called the name of the LORD that spake unto her, Thou God seest me: for she said, Have I also here looked after him that seeth me?"

Was it the angel that spoke to her, or God Himself?

Using your logic, of course, a word is a word, not God.

 

[1013]

Believing what Detective believes though is heretical. Jesus was never an angel.

If an angel is a messenger and Jesus is the "word" or the messege, it is not a far leap of logic to call him a messenger, (he delivered his own messege)




dd nor I challenge you on the dogmatism with regard to the trinity. but I don't understand why you should be so dogmatic on the range of meaning for the term "angel"

 

[1013]

who are you talking to smilax?

 

[smilax]

A green dinosaur.

 

[1013]

oh never mind

 

[Freak]

Originally posted by smilax
Genesis xvi, 7-13: "And the angel of the LORD found her by a fountain of water in the wilderness, by the fountain in the way to Shur. And he said, Hagar, Sarai's maid, whence camest thou? and whither wilt thou go? And she said, I flee from the face of my mistress Sarai. And the angel of the LORD said unto her, Return to thy mistress, and submit thyself under her hands. And the angel of the LORD said unto her, I will multiply thy seed exceedingly, that it shall not be numbered for multitude. And the angel of the LORD said unto her, Behold, thou art with child, and shalt bear a son, and shalt call his name Ishmael; because the LORD hath heard thy affliction. And he will be a wild man; his hand will be against every man, and every man's hand against him; and he shall dwell in the presence of all his brethren. And she called the name of the LORD that spake unto her, Thou God seest me: for she said, Have I also here looked after him that seeth me?"

Was it the angel that spoke to her, or God Himself?

Using your logic, of course, a word is a word, not God.

When the Scriptures use the word angel it means angel. Angel of the Lord is an angel. . The burden of proof lies with you to tell me God' Son at times manifested as a angel.

Jesus never manifested as an angel. He is the unique God-man.

 

[Freak]

This is my problem.

Me Again stated: I also believe that Michael the Archangel was actually the Lord Jesus Christ in his pre-human birth form. He came here with the authority of the Father

 

[Dee Dee Warren]

And I want to know if I also am a heretic for believing that the Angel of the Lord in the OT was primarily the preincarnate Christ. Why can't you answer that question?

 

[Brother Vinny]

Before I dig in to the topic at hand, I'd like to thank Freak for presenting a worthwhile topic in this thread. And while, yes, Freak is being inconsistent in his attack on what he regards as me again's heresy (all the while giving c. moore's heresies, which are arguably more Satanic, a wink and a nod), this is fodder for another thread, and we should stick to the question at hand.

All of that being said, I have to fall on Dee Dee's "side" of this debate-- I don't believe Michael was the "angel of the LORD," but I do believe that the angel of the LORD (at least, the Old Testament references to him) was a visible manifestation of Him, and that those who do believe that Michael is the pre-incarnate Christ are no more heretical than those who believe Christ was nailed to the cross through the palms of His hands rather than the wrists.

Strong's defines the Hebrew word for angel as:

1) messenger, representative
1a) messenger
1b) angel
1c) the theophanic angel

Pay special attention to definition 1c), as it is the one that has bearing on our discussion. Webster's defines "theophany" (of which "theophanic" is the adjectival form) as:

a visible manifestation of a deity

Now, as Trinitarians, I kinda sorta think we have to believe that Christ appeared in a pre-incarnate form in the Old Testament. Why? Because of a little statement made by John in his Gospel:

No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared [him]. --John 1:18

For this statement to be true, how do we account for all the times in the Old Testament where it quite clearly says that man saw God? Moses was at least allowed to see the Lord's backside. How is this?

Simple. God the Son acted as a messenger (or angel, if you will) for God the Father. Not only is this view necessary for the Trinitarian, it also makes it necessary for those who would be within the pale of orthodoxy to be Trinitarian.

 

[Dee Dee Warren]

And Paul, you have presented by far the majority view within Trinitarianism. But Freak has made a blanket statement, that he refuses to retract or correct, that seems to indicate that anyone who would believe that the Angel of the Lord was Christ believes a heresy. He really needs to address that.

 

[Dee Dee Warren]

And here is my documentation on my earlier statement:

C. Jonathin Seraiah, The End of All Things... page 155 and footnote 6.

The notes in the 1599 Geneva Bible (the preferred Bible of the Puritans)

John Calvin, Commentaries on the Book of the Prophet Daniel, Vol 2, pp. 369ff

Philip Mauro, The Seventy Weeks and the Great Tribulation p 164

 

[Brother Vinny]

Originally posted by Dee Dee Warren
And Paul, you have presented by far the majority view within Trinitarianism. But Freak has made a blanket statement, that he refuses to retract or correct, that seems to indicate that anyone who would believe that the Angel of the Lord was Christ believes a heresy. He really needs to address that.

I agree. He also needs to address his other inconsistencies as heretic-hunter/heretic-defender.

Would you like to start the thread? Or shall I?

 

[Dee Dee Warren]

Would you like to start the thread? Or shall I?

Paul.. have I told you today that I love you?? I was trying to give him a chance to come clean here.. but I was planning on starting a thread if he did not. I keep asking the question, and Freak keeps dancing instead of answering. But you know... if the feeling moves you... go for it!!

 

[Brother Vinny]

Originally posted by Dee Dee Warren


Paul.. have I told you today that I love you?? I was trying to give him a chance to come clean here.. but I was planning on starting a thread if he did not. I keep asking the question, and Freak keeps dancing instead of answering. But you know... if the feeling moves you... go for it!!

Well, I really hate to start threads , so I'll give Freak a final opportunity to "come clean" here before I spin a new one off.

Freak, I really hope your next post clarifies your beliefs on this matter. . . .

 

[me again]

Well Freak? :up:

 

[Axacta]

That Jesus was the archangel Michael is so easily disproved:

-God has complete authority over Satan JOB_1:6-2:7

-Archangel Michael has no authority over Satan JUDE_9

-Jesus, the Son of Man is less than Angels HEB_2:7-9

-Jesus, the Son of God has authority over Satan MT_4:10, MK_8:33, LK_22:31

Well me again?

 

[smilax]

Originally posted by Freak
When the Scriptures use the word angel it means angel. Angel of the Lord is an angel. . The burden of proof lies with you to tell me God' Son at times manifested as a angel.

It says the Lord spoke to her. Why is the angel called the Lord?

 

[Pilgrimagain]

I love starting my day with a good laugh.

 

[Dee Dee Warren]

I am still waiting for an answer.

 

[smilax]

I am still waiting for an answer.