LORD or Lord? KING or King?

[michaelvpardo]

Shalom, Michael.


You're assuming that I am making Him somehow inferior to His Father. Has it ever occurred to you that Yeshua` HIMSELF continues to make Himself "inferior" to His Father?


You can be "inclined" to believe anything that you wish, but without the support of proof from God's Word.

I see Jesus in the gospels, submitting to His father's will, but where do you see Him make Himself inferior? Perhaps I'm just misunderstanding the use of the words.
My inclinations with respect to belief are all based upon scripture along with whatever I've come to understand of the nature of the physical universe (or creation.) Time, being part of creation, is not relevant in eternity. I believed the gospel and received Jesus as my Lord at a specific point in time, about 18 years ago, but the Lord saw me as one of His redeemed from before the foundation of the world. Jesus has a body, had a body, and will always have a body, but His body was born of a virgin in a real moment of time, and it was in a real moment of time that He inhabited it, yet He existed before His birth.
When Jesus said, "before Abraham was, I am," what was it that He meant? When David was given the promise that the throne of his kingdom would go on forever, it couldn't have been a promise of a continuous string of heirs to a continuous throne, as the nation didn't survive the 1st century(unless there are well hidden decedents of King David among the Jewish population that the Jews honor as their king.) When Isaiah wrote of the prince of peace in chapter 9 of the book of Isaiah and of His eternal throne ("that time forward, even forever") wasn't He referring to Jesus' kingdom?
We understand that Jesus will present the kingdom to His Father, but isn't it the promise of God that the heir (Jesus) will remain the ruler over all things, the judge of the living and of the dead?
Did God give Jesus the name above all names, or are the JW's correct in saying that God gave Him the name above all (other) names?
When discussing Christ as He appears in the gospels, we are discussing Him according to our knowledge of Him in the flesh, but He came from glory and tells us that He had glory in the presence of His Father and asked for the restoration of that glory in the course of His "high priestly prayer" in John's gospel. In His glorification He remains "the Son of Man" as He uses the same terms when speaking of returning in His glory, but in this usage He remains the inheritor of God's promises to man of dominion over the Earth, yet fulfills God's promise to walk among us (His people) as God (Immanuel,) and yet remains Lord and King.
You can present pages of argument over the distinctions between the Father and the Son, but no one has seen the Father and our only knowledge of Him remains that which the Spirit of Christ has given us through the prophets, His angels (which Christ created), and through His own person in the person of His Son, Jesus (or Yashua if you prefer.)
I suppose that what I really want to ask here is "What's the point of the OP?" Where are you going with all this? I believe that the distinctions between the persons of the godhead exist largely for the benefit of our limited minds and inability to apprehend infinity, in other words, as another example of the grace of God and His desire to make Himself known to us, His creation.
Will your line of argument give me a closer relationship with God, or help to renew me in His image, or increase my awareness of His holiness (and my own lack of it absent His Spirit?)
I'm not capable of grasping any more than what He gives (and I already know that I'm incapable of keeping "the law") so, what's the point? I'm not trying to be obtuse and you clearly took some time to present a substantial volume of scripture in your argument, but I'm not feeling edified and must surely be missing something. I can't in any way equate Solomon with Jesus by any stretch of the imagination, so if your point was summed up in the last statement of the OP, I'll have to apologize for laboring my own points and camp on my own faith (which I trust more than your assertion as stated in the OP.)
Out of curiosity, who do you think the Lord meant when He spoke to pharaoh through Moses, saying " Israel is my son, my firstborn" in Exodus 4:22?

 

[Retrobyter]

Shalom, Michael, and Happy Independence Day!

I see Jesus in the gospels, submitting to His father's will, but where do you see Him make Himself inferior? Perhaps I'm just misunderstanding the use of the words.

Indeed. Let's start with the semantics:

INFERIOR -
Dictionary:
inferior |inˈfi(ə)rēər| adjective
1 lower in rank, status, or quality: schooling in inner-city areas was inferior to that in the rest of the country.
• of low standard or quality: inferior goods.
• Law (of a court or tribunal) able to have its decisions overturned by a higher court.
• Economics denoting goods or services that are in greater demand during a recession than in a boom, e.g., secondhand clothes.
2 chiefly Anatomy low or lower in position: ulcers located in the inferior and posterior wall of the duodenum.
• (of a letter, figure, or symbol) written or printed below the line.
• Botany (of the ovary of a flower) situated below the sepals and enclosed in the receptacle.
noun
1 a person lower than another in rank, status, or ability: her social and intellectual inferiors.
2 Printing an inferior letter, figure, or symbol.
DERIVATIVES
inferiorly adverb inferior ( sense 2 of the adjective)
ORIGIN late Middle English ( sense 2 of the adjective): from Latin, comparative of inferus ‘low.’

Thesaurus:
inferior adjective
1 poorer people were thought to be innately inferior: second-class, lesser, lower in status, lower-ranking, subordinate, second-fiddle, junior, minor; subservient, lowly, humble, menial, beneath one. ANTONYMS superior.
2 inferior accommodations: second-rate, substandard, low-quality, low-grade, downmarket, bush-league, unsatisfactory, shoddy, deficient; poor, bad, awful, dreadful, wretched; informal crummy, scuzzy, rotten, lousy, third-rate, tinpot, rinky-dink, low-rent. ANTONYMS luxury.
noun
how dare she treat him as an inferior? subordinate, junior, underling, minion, menial, peon. ANTONYMS superior.

Wikipedia:
Inferior
Inferior means of lower station, rank, degree, or grade. It may also refer to:
• Inferiority complex
• An anatomical term of location
• Inferior angle of the scapula, in the human skeleton
• The Inferior, a 2007 novel by Peadar Ó Guilín
See also
Junior disambiguation page


SUBORDINATE -
Dictionary:
subordinate adjective |səˈbôrdnit |
lower in rank or position: his subordinate officers.
• of less or secondary importance: in adventure stories, character must be subordinate to action.
noun |səˈbôrdnit |
a person under the authority or control of another within an organization.
verb |-ˌāt | [ with obj. ]
treat or regard as of lesser importance than something else: practical considerations were subordinated to political expediency.
• make subservient to or dependent on something else.
DERIVATIVES
subordinately adverb.
subordinative |-ətiv | adjective
ORIGIN late Middle English: from medieval Latin subordinatus ‘placed in an inferior rank,’ from Latin sub- ‘below’ + ordinare ‘ordain.’

Thesaurus:
subordinate adjective
1 subordinate staff: lower-ranking, junior, lower, supporting. ANTONYMS senior.
2 a subordinate rule: secondary, lesser, minor, subsidiary, subservient, ancillary, auxiliary, peripheral, marginal; supplementary, accessory. ANTONYMS central.
noun
the manager and his subordinates: junior, assistant, second (in command), number two, right-hand man/woman, deputy, aide, underling, minion; informal sidekick, second banana. ANTONYMS superior.

Thus, by definition, when I said "'inferior' to" I was meaning "subordinate to." I was NOT implying that He was of inferior quality or is of a lower standard in some way! After all, He is the very REPRESENTATIVE (MESSIAH) of God Himself! God has committed all judgment into His hands, and He will rule the world LITERALLY! And, He IS the Son of God; that is, God's own Son!

However, He IS God's own SON! He is the JUNIOR to His SENIOR! Even as He rules and puts all of His enemies under His feet (during the coming Millennium), He anticipates the day when He can turn the Kingdom over to His Father so that His Father may be "all in all."
1 Corinthians 15:20-28
20 But now is Christ risen from the dead, and become the firstfruits of them that slept.
21 For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead.
22 For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.
23 But every man in his own order: Christ the firstfruits; afterward they that are Christ's at his coming.
24 Then cometh the end, when he shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father; when he shall have put down all rule and all authority and power.
25 For he must reign, till he hath put all enemies under his feet.
26 The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death.
27 For he hath put all things under his feet. But when he saith, all things are put under him, it is manifest that he is excepted, which did put all things under him.
28 And when all things shall be subdued unto him, then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him that put all things under him, that God may be all in all.
KJV

Yeshua` (Jesus) will continue to reign in a lesser role as He is said to reign forever:
Luke 1:30-33
30 And the angel said unto her, Fear not, Mary: for thou hast found favour with God.
31 And, behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son, and shalt call his name JESUS.
32 He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the Highest: and the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of his father David:
33 And he shall reign over the house of Jacob for ever; and of his kingdom there shall be no end.
KJV

Notice here that it does NOT say He will reign over the whole earth forever!

Does Yeshua` (Jesus) have all the "attributes" of His Father? Can He, being in a body however so glorified, be "omnipresent?"

Acts 1:6-12
6 When they therefore were come together, they asked of him, saying, Lord, wilt thou at this time restore again the kingdom to Israel?
7 And he said unto them, It is not for you to know the times or the seasons, which the Father hath put in his own power.
8 But ye shall receive power, after that the Holy Ghost is come upon you: and ye shall be witnesses unto me both in Jerusalem, and in all Judaea, and in Samaria, and unto the uttermost part of the earth.
9 And when he had spoken these things, while they beheld, he was taken up; and a cloud received him out of their sight.
10 And while they looked stedfastly toward heaven as he went up, behold, two men stood by them in white apparel;
11 Which also said, Ye men of Galilee, why stand ye gazing up into heaven? this same Jesus, which is taken up from you into heaven, shall so come in like manner as ye have seen him go into heaven.
12 Then returned they unto Jerusalem from the mount called Olivet, which is from Jerusalem a sabbath day's journey.
KJV

Being limited as a man on the earth, did He have "omniscience?"

Mark 13:32
32 But of that day and that hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels which are in heaven, neither the Son, but the Father.
KJV

He just ISN'T THE SAME as His Father! He is SUBORDINATE to His Father! And, Yeshua` LIKED and LIKES it that way!

All I'm trying to do is get people to notice that "the clouds are not at the same level as the moon, and the moon is not at the same level as the stars."

Just as people used to look up at the night sky and see all the "host of heaven" as though they were in the same "sphere" or the same "dome" above their heads, we now know that the clouds are a few thousand feet above our heads, the moon is 238,000 miles away, the sun is 93 million miles (4.33 light-minutes) away from earth, and the stars are light-years away from earth.

In the same way, we need to recognize that the "Trinity" is not all on the same level! God the Father IS omnipotent, omnipresent, and omniscient; however, the Son, having a body, has a particular location! He has (or at least, had) certain limitations, being in a body. He experienced death for all, and He was resurrected to life BY HIS FATHER!

Acts 2:22-24
22 Ye men of Israel, hear these words; Jesus of Nazareth, a man approved of God among you by miracles and wonders and signs, which God did by him in the midst of you, as ye yourselves also know:
23 Him, being delivered by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God, ye have taken, and by wicked hands have crucified and slain:
24 Whom God hath raised up, having loosed the pains of death: because it was not possible that he should be holden of it.
KJV

Acts 3:13-15
13 The God of Abraham, and of Isaac, and of Jacob, the God of our fathers, hath glorified his Son Jesus; whom ye delivered up, and denied him in the presence of Pilate, when he was determined to let him go.
14 But ye denied the Holy One and the Just, and desired a murderer to be granted unto you;
15 And killed the Prince of life, whom God hath raised from the dead; whereof we are witnesses.
KJV

Romans 10:6-9
6 But the righteousness which is of faith speaketh on this wise, Say not in thine heart, Who shall ascend into heaven? (that is, to bring Christ down from above:)
7 Or, Who shall descend into the deep? (that is, to bring up Christ again from the dead.)
8 But what saith it? The word is nigh thee, even in thy mouth, and in thy heart: that is, the word of faith, which we preach;
9 That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.
KJV

Even in the last chapters of Revelation the difference is noted:

Revelation 21:23
23 And the city had no need of the sun, neither of the moon, to shine in it: for the glory (Greek: doxa = apparency; brightness) of God did lighten (Greek: efootisen = did-shine) it, and the Lamb is the light (Greek: luchnas = lamp) thereof.
KJV

God is the source of the light, but Yeshua` is the FOCAL POINT of that light! HE is the lamp or lightbulb or flashlight or torch (for our British brethren)!

Yes, God gave Yeshua` the name (authority) above every name (authority). I'm not sure at what you are driving in your reference to the JW's, but His authority is FAR above - FAR superior - to all other authorities. He SHALL be the King of the Jews, the King of Isra'el, the King of kings (World Emperor), and all this over the course of a thousand years; however, after He relinquishes the Empire to His Father, He remains the King of Isra'el forever.

This goes hand-in-hand with the concept that we are NOT to be anticipating "going to Heaven," as though that was a place where we will dwell eternally. We are to be anticipating the RESURRECTION of our bodies, "like unto His glorious body," (Phil. 3:21) and our eternal life HERE ON THIS EARTH, albeit a re-created New Earth.

2 Peter 3:3-13
3 Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts,
4 And saying, Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation.
5 For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water:
6 Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished:
7 But the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men.
8 But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.
9 The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.
10 But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up.
11 Seeing then that all these things shall be dissolved, what manner of persons ought ye to be in all holy conversation and godliness,
12 Looking for and hasting unto the coming of the day of God, wherein the heavens being on fire shall be dissolved, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat?
13 Nevertheless we, according to his promise, look for new heavens and a new earth, wherein dwelleth righteousness.
KJV

Revelation 20:7-21:5
7 And when the thousand years are expired, Satan shall be loosed out of his prison,
8 And shall go out to deceive the nations which are in the four quarters of the earth, Gog and Magog, to gather them together to battle: the number of whom is as the sand of the sea.
9 And they went up on the breadth of the earth, and compassed the camp of the saints about, and the beloved city: and fire came down from God out of heaven, and devoured them.
10 And the devil that deceived them was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone, where the beast and the false prophet are, and shall be tormented day and night for ever and ever.
11 And I saw a great white throne, and him that sat on it, from whose face the earth and the heaven fled away; and there was found no place for them.
12 And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; and the books were opened: and another book was opened, which is the book of life: and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works.
13 And the sea gave up the dead which were in it; and death and hell delivered up the dead which were in them: and they were judged every man according to their works.
14 And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death.
15 And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire.
21:1 And I saw a new heaven and a new earth: for the first heaven and the first earth were passed away; and there was no more sea.
2 And I John saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down from God out of heaven, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband.
3 And I heard a great voice out of heaven saying, Behold, the tabernacle of God is with men, and he will dwell with them, and they shall be his people, and God himself shall be with them, and be their God.
4 And God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes; and there shall be no more death, neither sorrow, nor crying, neither shall there be any more pain: for the former things are passed away.
5 And he that sat upon the throne said, Behold, I make all things new. And he said unto me, Write: for these words are true and faithful.
KJV

The "pearly gates," the "streets of gold," the "twelve foundations," etc. all are to be found in the New Jerusalem, not in some otherworldly place called "Heaven!" It's a TANGIBLE, SOLID, REAL place called "Yerushalayim haChadashah" that will take the place of Old Jerusalem, the Land of Isra'el, the Middle East, and up to three time zones of this planet!

That is why in its vicinity there will be "no more sea!" When the city descends and lands upon the New Earth, its weight will raise the lands all around it, forcing the water to run downhill and away from the city!

 

[Nomad]

Does Yeshua` (Jesus) have all the "attributes" of His Father? Can He, being in a body however so glorified, be "omnipresent?"

Acts 1:6-12
6 When they therefore were come together, they asked of him, saying, Lord, wilt thou at this time restore again the kingdom to Israel?
7 And he said unto them, It is not for you to know the times or the seasons, which the Father hath put in his own power.
8 But ye shall receive power, after that the Holy Ghost is come upon you: and ye shall be witnesses unto me both in Jerusalem, and in all Judaea, and in Samaria, and unto the uttermost part of the earth.
9 And when he had spoken these things, while they beheld, he was taken up; and a cloud received him out of their sight.
10 And while they looked stedfastly toward heaven as he went up, behold, two men stood by them in white apparel;
11 Which also said, Ye men of Galilee, why stand ye gazing up into heaven? this same Jesus, which is taken up from you into heaven, shall so come in like manner as ye have seen him go into heaven.
12 Then returned they unto Jerusalem from the mount called Olivet, which is from Jerusalem a sabbath day's journey.
KJV

Being limited as a man on the earth, did He have "omniscience?"

Mark 13:32
32 But of that day and that hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels which are in heaven, neither the Son, but the Father.
KJV

There is certainly a difference between Jesus' divine and human natures, but you seem to be conflating the two. When it comes to you Acts 1 passage, Jesus does not say that he has no knowledge of the times and seasons in question. He merely tells the apostles that it's not for them to know that which the Father will dispense in his own time. So is the risen Christ omnipresent? Absolutely!

Mat 28:19 Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,
Mat 28:20 teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, to the end of the age."

Mat 18:20 For where two or three are gathered in my name, there am I among them."

Joh 14:23 Jesus answered him, "If anyone loves me, he will keep my word, and my Father will love him, and we will come to him and make our home with him.

Now for your Mark passage. Speaking from his human nature, Christ would have had limited knowledge. No problem. However, your analysis is one-sided. Scripture also says that Jesus knew all things.

Joh 16:30 Now we know that you know all things and do not need anyone to question you; this is why we believe that you came from God."

Joh 21:17 He said to him the third time, "Simon, son of John, do you love me?" Peter was grieved because he said to him the third time, "Do you love me?" and he said to him, "Lord, you know everything; you know that I love you." Jesus said to him, "Feed my sheep.

While the Son is subordinate in role, (economic Trinity), he is equal in being and attributes, (ontological Trinity Php. 2:5-8). The NT makes this abundantly clear.

 

[Retrobyter]

Shalom, Madad21.

Wow retro thanks for pointing out all the places in the Bible where it refers to The Angel of The Lord as proof of your very thorough research, excellent work!!

I suppose you're right; they wouldn't say that these appearances are the pre-incarnate Christ. Actually you kind of get the feeling that nobody would have pieced that little gem of wizardry together until after Christ had been revealed in history post 1BC. but that's just crazy talk, right? I mean when had anything in the New Testament ever been revealed first in the Old?
Just look at this Judges account below; here we have this Angel of the LORD, revealing himself as a man speaking as God himself receiving worship and preforming Miracles. When did that ever happen in the New Testament ....*tisk*....Ol Jack is so silly. (I think its an age thing, dont tell him I said that) h34r:

But....as long as you went through and found all those passages, you should have it covered ;)

​

Judges 6:11-24 ​

11 The angel of the Lord came and sat down under the oak in Ophrah that belonged to Joash the Abiezrite, where his son Gideon was threshing wheat in a winepress to keep it from the Midianites. 12 When the angel of the Lord appeared to Gideon, he said, “The Lord is with you, mighty warrior.”
13 “Pardon me, my lord,” Gideon replied, “but if the Lord is with us, why has all this happened to us? Where are all his wonders that our ancestors told us about when they said, ‘Did not the Lord bring us up out of Egypt?’ But now the Lord has abandoned us and given us into the hand of Midian.”

Here it looks as though this angel has not been recognised as the Lord, but brings the message that the Lord is with Gideon which implies this angel is just a messenger of the Lord.

14 The Lord turned to him and said, “Go in the strength you have and save Israel out of Midian’s hand. Am I not sending you?”

Now you could be forgiven for saying that the first part of the above sentence referrers to "Adonai," but then you run into the obstacle of the last statement “Am I not sending you?” after Gideon's complaint that the Lord as in “YHWH” had abandoned them.
Surly this "Adonai" isnt speaking as God?

15 “Pardon me, my lord,” Gideon replied, “but how can I save Israel? My clan is the weakest in Manasseh, and I am the least in my family.”
16 The Lord answered, “I will be with you, and you will strike down all the Midianites, leaving none alive.”

Here again we run into the same problem this mere messenger once again takes the role of “YHWH” when he tells Gideon that he will be with him and he assures Gideon of his success.
This is a little reminiscent of many OT promises of God not the least of which (Deut 31:8)
“The LORD himself goes before you and will be with you; he will never leave you nor forsake you. Do not be afraid; do not be discouraged."

17 Gideon replied, “If now I have found favor in your eyes, give me a sign that it is really you talking to me. 18 Please do not go away until I come back and bring my offering and set it before you.”
And the Lord said, “I will wait until you return.”

This messenger or angel of the Lord has spoken as if he were the Lord God himself and Gideon has recognised this, but Gideon wants to make sure, but why?
If this were an angel before Gideon he would have likely fell to his face and been in fear as many are when angels appear (Luke 2:10). This tells us that the person who is speaking to Gideon has revealed himself in the form of a normal looking man, hence Gideon wants to know what he is saying is true, if He truly does speak as God. Gideon wants to bring an offering before this mere man who is an angel. this isnt something you did in the these times unless your offering came before God himself. This man assumes to speak as God so Gideon tests him, that if he is God then he will consume the offering! not only that but this mere angel in the form of a man assumes to accept this offering! Had the rules of Angel worship changed from the Genesis to Revelation? (Rev 22:9)

19 Gideon went inside, prepared a young goat, and from an ephah of flour he made bread without yeast. Putting the meat in a basket and its broth in a pot, he brought them out and offered them to him under the oak.
20 The angel of God said to him, “Take the meat and the unleavened bread, place them on this rock, and pour out the broth.” And Gideon did so.
21 Then the angel of the Lord touched the meat and the unleavened bread with the tip of the staff that was in his hand. Fire flared from the rock, consuming the meat and the bread. And the angel of the Lord disappeared. 22 When Gideon realized that it was the angel of the Lord, he exclaimed, “Alas, Sovereign Lord! I have seen the angel of the Lord face to face!” 23 But the Lord said to him, “Peace! Do not be afraid. You are not going to die.”

What do ya know the offering is spectacularly consumed, is this just a coincidence??
So now we know this man was not just a man as Gideon had tested because no man can preform miracles simply disappear, but what is more interesting is Gideons response. Why would Gideon be suddenly afraid that he would die if the Lord he had seen was merely 'Adoni'?,
(Deut 5:26)( Ex 3:6) these scriptures both before his time testify that only those who see YHWH himself will die, so why was Gideon so afraid?

24 So Gideon built an altar to the Lord there and called it The Lord Is Peace. To this day it stands in Ophrah of the Abiezrites.

So in the above account we have The Angel of the Lord appearing as a normal man and speaking as God and preforming miracles.
If it were “An” angel of the Lord it normally appears and scares everyone as is always reference in the NT (Luke 2:9-11) as an example, and they bring messages from the Lord. But this particular Angel who appears as a normal man speaks as the Lord in the first person and is feared by Gideon as the Lord God himself.
'


The only thing you are right about here is the translation of Psalm 110, unfortunately you have allowed this to inform (influence?) your theology concerning the deity of Christ as God the Son,

Psalm 110:1
1 The LORD says to my lord:
“Sit at my right hand
until I make your enemies
a footstool for your feet.”

Yes this is true as it is in the willful subordination from equality with God as God, God is One

Philippians 2:6 “Who, being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be used to his own advantage;”

Isaiah 9:6 For to us a child is born, to us a son is given, and the government will be on his shoulders. And he will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.

Matthew 1:23 “Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and they shall call his name Immanuel” (which means, God with us).

1 Timothy 2:5 For there is one God, and there is one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus

Galatians 3:19 Why, then, was the law given at all? It was added because of transgressions until the Seed to whom the promise referred had come. The law was given through angels and entrusted to a mediator. A mediator, however, implies more than one party; but God is one.
(do a study in to this scripture man its a real eye popper!)

Colossians 1:19 For in him all the fullness of God was pleased to dwell

Colossians 2:9 For in him the whole fullness of deity dwells bodily,


When you made your leap from Chronicles to Matthew you skipped one important detail regarding what many would observe as the major distinction between Solomon the son of David and the Messiah Son of God and the obstacle which you encounter.

Luke 1:35 The angel answered, "The Holy Spirit will come on you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you. So the holy one to be born will be called the Son of God.

In light of this I fail to see the deity in Solomon by way of an immaculate conception the "SAME WAY" as the Messiah was. In fact I would say that apart from Mary's womb (which is the blood line of David) and Gods promise to Abraham the difference is quite vast.

However if the distinction you are trying to make is Solomon as the foreshadowing of Messiah, then that parallel has been repeated since Noah, it in no way diminishes the divinity of Christ, that is unless you deny the virgin birth.

The above scriptures I had provided and so many more like it testify to Jesus the man being of the same "Substance" as the Father
John 14:10 "Do you not believe that I am in the Father and the Father is in me? The words that I say to you I do not speak on my own authority, but the Father who dwells in me does his works".


Now to your original point re translation of LORD and Lord I find no qualm as the subordination of the Son is always to the Father.

But as for your position about worship "Mights" do not cut the mustard and you are making an assumption based only on your own bias regarding Christ's divinity. wasnt it you who scorned another by saying;

As far as Christ's divinity goes as God in the flesh and in light of all I have shown you and no doubt more to come, nothing you have said in your OP has proven in any way what-so-ever apart from the regular baseless Arian style rhetoric that Jesus is not God of the same substance as God.


Peace !! :)

.

Let's look closer at this passage in Judges (Shoftiym). I'm going to put God's words in purple to have it stand out. The words of the prophet will be in black. The words of the messenger will be in blue, and the rest of the passage will be in green. I'll even bold-face the words of Gideon:

Judges 6:7-24
7 And it came to pass, when the children of Israel cried unto the LORD because of the Midianites,
8 That the LORD sent a prophet unto the children of Israel, which said unto them, Thus saith the LORD God of Israel, I brought you up from Egypt, and brought you forth out of the house of bondage;
9 And I delivered you out of the hand of the Egyptians, and out of the hand of all that oppressed you, and drave them out from before you, and gave you their land;
10 And I said unto you, I am the LORD your God; fear not the gods of the Amorites, in whose land ye dwell: but ye have not obeyed my voice.
11 And there came an angel of the LORD and sat under an oak which was in Ophrah, that pertained unto Joash the Abi-ezrite: and his son Gideon threshed wheat by the winepress, to hide it from the Midianites.
12 And the angel of the LORD appeared unto him, and said unto him, The LORD is with thee, thou mighty man of valour.
13 And Gideon said unto him, Oh my Lord, if the LORD be with us, why then is all this befallen us? and where be all his miracles which our fathers told us of, saying, Did not the LORD bring us up from Egypt? but now the LORD hath forsaken us, and delivered us into the hands of the Midianites.
14 And the LORD looked upon him, and said, Go in this thy might, and thou shalt save Israel from the hand of the Midianites: have not I sent thee?
15 And he said unto him, Oh my Lord, wherewith shall I save Israel? behold, my family is poor in Manasseh, and I am the least in my father's house.
16 And the LORD said unto him, Surely I will be with thee, and thou shalt smite the Midianites as one man.
17 And he said unto him, If now I have found grace in thy sight, then shew me a sign that thou talkest with me.
18 Depart not hence, I pray thee, until I come unto thee, and bring forth my present, and set it before thee. And he said, I will tarry until thou come again.
19 And Gideon went in, and made ready a kid, and unleavened cakes of an ephah of flour: the flesh he put in a basket, and he put the broth in a pot, and brought it out unto him under the oak, and presented it.
20 And the angel of God said unto him, Take the flesh and the unleavened cakes, and lay them upon this rock, and pour out the broth. And he did so.
21 Then the angel of the LORD put forth the end of the staff that was in his hand, and touched the flesh and the unleavened cakes; and there rose up fire out of the rock, and consumed the flesh and the unleavened cakes. Then the angel of the LORD departed out of his sight.
22 And when Gideon perceived that he was an angel of the LORD Gideon said, Alas, O Lord God! for because I have seen an angel of the LORD face to face.
23 And the LORD said unto him, Peace be unto thee; fear not: thou shalt not die.
24 Then Gideon built an altar there unto the LORD, and called it JEHOVAH-shalom: unto this day it is yet in Ophrah of the Abi-ezrites.
KJV

Can you hear what's going on in this passage? This is a MESSENGER from the God whose name is YHWH (translated as "the LORD" and "JEHOVAH" in the KJV)! The fact that the messenger is speaking ON BEHALF of YHWH does NOT mean that he IS YHWH! When YHWH is talking to Gideon in verse 23, the messenger is ALREADY GONE!

Don't you remember what the author of Hebrews taught?

Hebrews 1:7
7 And of the angels he saith, Who maketh his angels (Greek: aggeloi = messengers) spirits, and his ministers (Greek: leitourgous = public servants) a flame of fire.
KJV

Notice that this "angel of YHWH" did NOT EAT the presented food; he CONSUMED it in a flame of fire! Then, he walked away out of eyesight!

Now, with regard to the rest of the verses you've quoted, please pay attention: I am NOT saying that He is NOT the Son of God, and I acknowledge that Yeshua` was the Word, both with God and one with God, before the incarnation. However, since the incarnation, He has a specific role in God's plan, and He is FOREVER united with His body. That body is both PHYSICAL, INCORRUPTIBLE, and IMMORTAL! (It also glows in the presence of His Father, much as Moses' body did.)

My point in all of this is NOT to dredge up the Arian controversy. (Although, I HATE how the RCC "won" that controversy. They just gathered up anyone who disagreed with them about the Trinity and OFFED THEM as heretics! Then, they said to themselves, "There! That settles that!" Really?!) My point is to show that Yeshua` HAS a future purpose of reigning upon this earth, both in the Millennium and forever! His reign will be ON THIS EARTH, and it will be precisely realized as prophesied.

If it puts some salve on the wound, just know this: I was raised a Trinitarian, and I still have those tendencies; however, I've also had to face the ontological short-comings of a "God-man" with a body that must now be limited in some respects BECAUSE of His body! To use an analogy, let's look at the top of a Christmas tree: The star is God the Father. The straight branch, higher than all the rest of the branches upon which sits the star, is the Messiah, Yeshua` (Jesus the Christ). When you look up from the lower branches of the Christmas tree, you will see the top of the tree as being one and being where the star sits. So, it really doesn't matter that I see them as separate; they are STILL both above the rest of us and they are STILL connected as one! If you want to call them one God, you will not be offending me. Even if I see them as two in the sense that One of Them has a body that limits Him while the Other does not, They are STILL both above us and Yeshua` has been given the authority that is above all other authorities and all judgment is committed to Him! I may not call Him, "God the Son," but He CERTAINLY IS the Son of God!

Shalom, Nomad.

There is certainly a difference between Jesus' divine and human natures, but you seem to be conflating the two. When it comes to you Acts 1 passage, Jesus does not say that he has no knowledge of the times and seasons in question. He merely tells the apostles that it's not for them to know that which the Father will dispense in his own time. So is the risen Christ omnipresent? Absolutely!

Mat 28:19 Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,
Mat 28:20 teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, to the end of the age."

Mat 18:20 For where two or three are gathered in my name, there am I among them."

Joh 14:23 Jesus answered him, "If anyone loves me, he will keep my word, and my Father will love him, and we will come to him and make our home with him.

Now for your Mark passage. Speaking from his human nature, Christ would have had limited knowledge. No problem. However, your analysis is one-sided. Scripture also says that Jesus knew all things.

Joh 16:30 Now we know that you know all things and do not need anyone to question you; this is why we believe that you came from God."

Joh 21:17 He said to him the third time, "Simon, son of John, do you love me?" Peter was grieved because he said to him the third time, "Do you love me?" and he said to him, "Lord, you know everything; you know that I love you." Jesus said to him, "Feed my sheep.

While the Son is subordinate in role, (economic Trinity), he is equal in being and attributes, (ontological Trinity Php. 2:5-8). The NT makes this abundantly clear.

If the risen Messiah (Christ) is "omnipresent" then wouldn't His body be everywhere, too? Where is it? How can it be everywhere? Wouldn't it fill the known universe with matter - the matter of His body? This is the kind of nonsense that leads to someone suggesting that His body is in another dimension of reality or that His body is "spiritual" as something other than physical; however, that is NOT what "spiritual" means!

Okay, let's put this to the ultimate test: Do we believe that Yeshua` is coming again to rule the world, OR do we believe that Yeshua` is already here in some sense, doesn't need to come again, and is already ruling the world "spiritually?" If you believe the first of the two, then you can be a premillennialist/futurist. If you believe the second, you will probably be an amillennialist and possibly a preterist. If you believe (somehow) in both, how does one differentiate between the "spiritual," "present," "invisible" reign and the "physical," "future," "visible" reign?

THIS is the real dilemma! Where does one end and the other begin? OR does one believe totally in the one or totally in the other? If we picture this as points on a number line representing time, are we to the left (the present) or to the right (the future) or somewhere in the middle?

How does one reconcile Matthew 28:19-20 and Matthew 18:20, for instance, with John 14:1-3, Acts 1:9-11, and Luke 19:15?

And, as far as John 16:30 and John 21:17 are concerned, how can you be certain that it is a generic, all-inclusive knowledge being discussed or an all-inclusive-of-the-subject-being-discussed knowledge, as so often happens in the Greek language?

And, I'll just tell you this: I am NOT open to allegorical interpretations of Scripture nor to figurative explanations of prophecy! The prophecies about the Messiah's first coming were fulfilled literally, physically, and completely. Why wouldn't the prophecies about the second coming be just so fulfilled?

 

[Madad21]

Sorry Retro I just saw this now, mate thanks for taking the time, I may be a bit illusive over the next couple days but I will be back to answer. thanks again. :)

 

[shturt678]

Judges 6:11-24 The appearance of the "Angel fo the Lord." "The Angel of the Lord," ie, Jehovah, in a visible self-revelation in human form of course, viz., v.22:

In this miricle Gideon received the desired sign, that the Person who had appeared to him was God. But the miracle filled his soul with fear, so that he made an exclamation fast forwarding to vs. 23, 24. These words weren't spoken by the angel as he vanished away, but were addressed by God to Gideon, after the disappearance of the angel, by an inward voice, astounding! I've always agaped this area. The ol' Jehovah-shalom, "the Lord of peace."

My point: The theophany here described resembles so far the appearance of the "Angel of the Lord" (the Godman Pre-incarnate Jesus loosely speaking) to Abram in the grove at Mamre.

Old Jack's opinion

 

[Nomad]

If the risen Messiah (Christ) is "omnipresent" then wouldn't His body be everywhere, too? Where is it? How can it be everywhere?

Jesus' human body would be limited spatially like any other human body. (Lutherans and Catholics believe in some form of the "ubiquity" of Christ's flesh and would reject this statement, but you can take that up with them.) However, his divine nature is not limited or restricted by his humanity. Jesus' divine and human natures were united but not mixed, (hypostatic union). Had they been mixed, Jesus would not have been truly human. That would have disqualified him as our savior.

THIS is the real dilemma! Where does one end and the other begin? OR does one believe totally in the one or totally in the other? If we picture this as points on a number line representing time, are we to the left (the present) or to the right (the future) or somewhere in the middle?

I have no idea what you're asking here.

How does one reconcile Matthew 28:19-20 and Matthew 18:20, for instance, with John 14:1-3, Acts 1:9-11, and Luke 19:15?

Again, Jesus had two natures which were united but not mixed. Those who deny this are the ones in trouble here. For them, your passages are irreconcilable and contradictory.

And, as far as John 16:30 and John 21:17 are concerned, how can you be certain that it is a generic, all-inclusive knowledge being discussed or an all-inclusive-of-the-subject-being-discussed knowledge, as so often happens in the Greek language?

I see nothing in the context of either passage that would limit or qualify "all."

And, I'll just tell you this: I am NOT open to allegorical interpretations of Scripture nor to figurative explanations of prophecy! The prophecies about the Messiah's first coming were fulfilled literally, physically, and completely. Why wouldn't the prophecies about the second coming be just so fulfilled?

I believe in a literal, physical second coming was well. Christ will return in bodily form in the same manner in which he was taken up.

Act 1:11 and said, "Men of Galilee, why do you stand looking into heaven? This Jesus, who was taken up from you into heaven, will come in the same way as you saw him go into heaven."

 

[Retrobyter]

Shalom, Jack.

Judges 6:11-24 The appearance of the "Angel fo the Lord." "The Angel of the Lord," ie, Jehovah, in a visible self-revelation in human form of course, viz., v.22:

In this miricle Gideon received the desired sign, that the Person who had appeared to him was God. But the miracle filled his soul with fear, so that he made an exclamation fast forwarding to vs. 23, 24. These words weren't spoken by the angel as he vanished away, but were addressed by God to Gideon, after the disappearance of the angel, by an inward voice, astounding! I've always agaped this area. The ol' Jehovah-shalom, "the Lord of peace."

My point: The theophany here described resembles so far the appearance of the "Angel of the Lord" (the Godman Pre-incarnate Jesus loosely speaking) to Abram in the grove at Mamre.

Old Jack's opinion

Sorry, bro', but you're missing the point: Gideon does NOT equate YHWH with the Angel of YHWH. Two separate Beings here! YHWH who talks with Gideon is NOT THE SAME BEING as the "Messenger of YHWH!" He did not say that the being he saw was anything other than a "MESSENGER of YHWH!'

21 Then the angel of the LORD (Hebrew: mal'akh YHWH = a messenger of YHWH) put forth the end of the staff that was in his hand, and touched the flesh and the unleavened cakes; and there rose up fire out of the rock, and consumed the flesh and the unleavened cakes. Then the angel of the LORD (Hebrew: mal'akh YHWH) departed out of his sight.
22 And when Gideon perceived that he was an angel of the LORD (Hebrew: mal'akh YHWH), Gideon said, Alas, O Lord God (Hebrew: Adonay Elohiym)! for because I have seen an angel of the LORD (Hebrew: mal'akh YHWH) face to face.
23 And the LORD (Hebrew: YHWH) said unto him, Peace be unto thee; fear not: thou shalt not die.
KJV

Pay close attention to the details! Some call this a "theophany" - an appearance of God - but others who see this as a pre-incarnate appearance of the Messiah call it a "Christophany" - an appearance of Christ. There is no biblical justification for either term. Both are misleading and beg the question for this discussion. (It's like saying, "This is a pre-incarnate appearance of Christ because this is a pre-incarnate "Christophany" [ which means "appearance of Christ" in another language].)

 

[shturt678]

Jesus' human body would be limited spatially like any other human body. (Lutherans and Catholics believe in some form of the "ubiquity" of Christ's flesh and would reject this statement, but you can take that up with them.) However, his divine nature is not limited or restricted by his humanity. Jesus' divine and human natures were united but not mixed, (hypostatic union). Had they been mixed, Jesus would not have been truly human. That would have disqualified him as our savior.


I have no idea what you're asking here.


Again, Jesus had two natures which were united but not mixed. Those who deny this are the ones in trouble here. For them, your passages are irreconcilable and contradictory.


I see nothing in the context of either passage that would limit or qualify "all."


I believe in a literal, physical second coming was well. Christ will return in bodily form in the same manner in which he was taken up.

Act 1:11 and said, "Men of Galilee, why do you stand looking into heaven? This Jesus, who was taken up from you into heaven, will come in the same way as you saw him go into heaven."

Thank you for caring again!

Not a hyopostatic union, but a realiter union as in united at Jesus' conception, ie, Jesus' certain ubiquity was communicato idiomaticum of course.

Old Jack's opinion

btw I don't believe as the modern Lutherans take on the Lord's Supper (Luther's Sacramental union), but believe in "Consubstantiation" at the Lord's Supper.

Shalom, Jack.


Sorry, bro', but you're missing the point: Gideon does NOT equate YHWH with the Angel of YHWH. Two separate Beings here! YHWH who talks with Gideon is NOT THE SAME BEING as the "Messenger of YHWH!" He did not say that the being he saw was anything other than a "MESSENGER of YHWH!'

21 Then the angel of the LORD (Hebrew: mal'akh YHWH = a messenger of YHWH) put forth the end of the staff that was in his hand, and touched the flesh and the unleavened cakes; and there rose up fire out of the rock, and consumed the flesh and the unleavened cakes. Then the angel of the LORD (Hebrew: mal'akh YHWH) departed out of his sight.
22 And when Gideon perceived that he was an angel of the LORD (Hebrew: mal'akh YHWH), Gideon said, Alas, O Lord God (Hebrew: Adonay Elohiym)! for because I have seen an angel of the LORD (Hebrew: mal'akh YHWH) face to face.
23 And the LORD (Hebrew: YHWH) said unto him, Peace be unto thee; fear not: thou shalt not die.
KJV

Pay close attention to the details! Some call this a "theophany" - an appearance of God - but others who see this as a pre-incarnate appearance of the Messiah call it a "Christophany" - an appearance of Christ. There is no biblical justification for either term. Both are misleading and beg the question for this discussion. (It's like saying, "This is a pre-incarnate appearance of Christ because this is a pre-incarnate "Christophany" [ which means "appearance of Christ" in another language].)

Thank you for your response and paying attention to the details, ie, the devil is in the details, correct? Let's reveal this mystery together...teamwork!

Let's look at the details construing Judg.6:11-24 with Judg.2:1-5: The Angel of the Lord at Bochin. The "Angel of Jehovah" is not a prophet, or some other earthly messenger of Jehovah, either Phinehas or Joshua, as the Targums, the Rabbins, Bertheau, and others assume, but the Angel of the Lord who is of one essence with God.

In the simple historical narrative a prophet is never called Maleach Jehovah. The prophets are always called either NBIA or AISH, as in Judg.6:8, or else "man of God," as in IKi.12:22, 13:1, etc.; Hag.1:13 and Mal.3:1 cannot be adduced as proofs to the contrary, because in both these passages the purely appellative meaning fo the word Maleach is established beyond all question by the context itself. Moreover, no prophet ever identifies himself so entirely with God as the Angel of Jehovah does here.

Old Jack that agapes those details with you

 

[Nomad]

btw I don't believe as the modern Lutherans take on the Lord's Supper (Luther's Sacramental union), but believe in "Consubstantiation" at the Lord's Supper.

Hello Jack,

Interesting. I'm familiar with consubstantiation, but not Luther's Sacramental Union. I listen to the radio program Issues Etc. almost every day. I've never heard them speak of this. Can I find an explanation of LSU in the Book of Concord? Just as a side note, does your church belong to the Missouri Synod or some other?

 

[shturt678]

Hello Jack,

Interesting. I'm familiar with consubstantiation, but not Luther's Sacramental Union. I listen to the radio program Issues Etc. almost every day. I've never heard them speak of this. Can I find an explanation of LSU in the Book of Concord? Just as a side note, does your church belong to the Missouri Synod or some other?

Thank you for your response again!

It's been decades, however I do recall that this is one of the issues at Seminary (ELCA) where I almost lost my G.I. Bill along with others that quit school...I didn't quit as was determined to come away with the ancient languages which I barely did...thank you Jesus! I also remember this is one of many areas, ie, "coinsubstantiation," where Luther and the post-1930 modern Lutherans, misunderstood (unio sacramentalis...manducatio indignorum...In the Book of Concord...Formula of Concord when I was in school...1536) They view this more in the Philosophical sense till today, where us non-modern Lutheans have also the "Real Presence," I guess we lean toward the RT view sort of, ie, the bread is representative food used in metaphor being the symbol of spiritual & supernatural food (Symbol of giving & taking a higher food) - not united.

We're the antithesis of post 1930 ELCA Lutherans of today, ironically identify with the LC-MS camp where I regularly get together with them in Hawaii. Waaaay apart from the WELS camp.

Thank you again my new sparring partner,

Old Jack

 

[Madad21]

Shalom, Madad21.



Let's look closer at this passage in Judges (Shoftiym). I'm going to put God's words in purple to have it stand out. The words of the prophet will be in black. The words of the messenger will be in blue, and the rest of the passage will be in green. I'll even bold-face the words of Gideon:

Judges 6:7-24
7 And it came to pass, when the children of Israel cried unto the LORD because of the Midianites,
8 That the LORD sent a prophet unto the children of Israel, which said unto them, Thus saith the LORD God of Israel, I brought you up from Egypt, and brought you forth out of the house of bondage;
9 And I delivered you out of the hand of the Egyptians, and out of the hand of all that oppressed you, and drave them out from before you, and gave you their land;
10 And I said unto you, I am the LORD your God; fear not the gods of the Amorites, in whose land ye dwell: but ye have not obeyed my voice.
11 And there came an angel of the LORD and sat under an oak which was in Ophrah, that pertained unto Joash the Abi-ezrite: and his son Gideon threshed wheat by the winepress, to hide it from the Midianites.
12 And the angel of the LORD appeared unto him, and said unto him, The LORD is with thee, thou mighty man of valour.
13 And Gideon said unto him, Oh my Lord, if the LORD be with us, why then is all this befallen us? and where be all his miracles which our fathers told us of, saying, Did not the LORD bring us up from Egypt? but now the LORD hath forsaken us, and delivered us into the hands of the Midianites.
14 And the LORD looked upon him, and said, Go in this thy might, and thou shalt save Israel from the hand of the Midianites: have not I sent thee?
15 And he said unto him, Oh my Lord, wherewith shall I save Israel? behold, my family is poor in Manasseh, and I am the least in my father's house.
16 And the LORD said unto him, Surely I will be with thee, and thou shalt smite the Midianites as one man.
17 And he said unto him, If now I have found grace in thy sight, then shew me a sign that thou talkest with me.
18 Depart not hence, I pray thee, until I come unto thee, and bring forth my present, and set it before thee. And he said, I will tarry until thou come again.
19 And Gideon went in, and made ready a kid, and unleavened cakes of an ephah of flour: the flesh he put in a basket, and he put the broth in a pot, and brought it out unto him under the oak, and presented it.
20 And the angel of God said unto him, Take the flesh and the unleavened cakes, and lay them upon this rock, and pour out the broth. And he did so.
21 Then the angel of the LORD put forth the end of the staff that was in his hand, and touched the flesh and the unleavened cakes; and there rose up fire out of the rock, and consumed the flesh and the unleavened cakes. Then the angel of the LORD departed out of his sight.
22 And when Gideon perceived that he was an angel of the LORD Gideon said, Alas, O Lord God! for because I have seen an angel of the LORD face to face.
23 And the LORD said unto him, Peace be unto thee; fear not: thou shalt not die.
24 Then Gideon built an altar there unto the LORD, and called it JEHOVAH-shalom: unto this day it is yet in Ophrah of the Abi-ezrites.
KJV

Can you hear what's going on in this passage? This is a MESSENGER from the God whose name is YHWH (translated as "the LORD" and "JEHOVAH" in the KJV)! The fact that the messenger is speaking ON BEHALF of YHWH does NOT mean that he IS YHWH! When YHWH is talking to Gideon in verse 23, the messenger is ALREADY GONE!

Don't you remember what the author of Hebrews taught?

Hebrews 1:7
7 And of the angels he saith, Who maketh his angels (Greek: aggeloi = messengers) spirits, and his ministers (Greek: leitourgous = public servants) a flame of fire.
KJV

Notice that this "angel of YHWH" did NOT EAT the presented food; he CONSUMED it in a flame of fire! Then, he walked away out of eyesight!

Now, with regard to the rest of the verses you've quoted, please pay attention: I am NOT saying that He is NOT the Son of God, and I acknowledge that Yeshua` was the Word, both with God and one with God, before the incarnation. However, since the incarnation, He has a specific role in God's plan, and He is FOREVER united with His body. That body is both PHYSICAL, INCORRUPTIBLE, and IMMORTAL! (It also glows in the presence of His Father, much as Moses' body did.)

My point in all of this is NOT to dredge up the Arian controversy. (Although, I HATE how the RCC "won" that controversy. They just gathered up anyone who disagreed with them about the Trinity and OFFED THEM as heretics! Then, they said to themselves, "There! That settles that!" Really?!) My point is to show that Yeshua` HAS a future purpose of reigning upon this earth, both in the Millennium and forever! His reign will be ON THIS EARTH, and it will be precisely realized as prophesied.

If it puts some salve on the wound, just know this: I was raised a Trinitarian, and I still have those tendencies; however, I've also had to face the ontological short-comings of a "God-man" with a body that must now be limited in some respects BECAUSE of His body! To use an analogy, let's look at the top of a Christmas tree: The star is God the Father. The straight branch, higher than all the rest of the branches upon which sits the star, is the Messiah, Yeshua` (Jesus the Christ). When you look up from the lower branches of the Christmas tree, you will see the top of the tree as being one and being where the star sits. So, it really doesn't matter that I see them as separate; they are STILL both above the rest of us and they are STILL connected as one! If you want to call them one God, you will not be offending me. Even if I see them as two in the sense that One of Them has a body that limits Him while the Other does not, They are STILL both above us and Yeshua` has been given the authority that is above all other authorities and all judgment is committed to Him! I may not call Him, "God the Son," but He CERTAINLY IS the Son of God!

Hi Retro,

before I get into this I want to ask you, whats the difference between "The angel of the Lord" and "An Angel of the Lord"
Thanks man :)

 

[Retrobyter]

Shabbat shalom, Madad21.

Hi Retro,

before I get into this I want to ask you, whats the difference between "The angel of the Lord" and "An Angel of the Lord"
Thanks man :)

The simple answer is that the first word is "The" in the first phrase and "An" in the second phrase, and the first "angel" is not capitalized like the second "Angel." In English, there might be a difference; however, in Hebrew, THERE IS NO DIFFERENCE! Why? Simply because the phrase with the definite article DOES NOT EXIST in the Scriptures! There is NO "The angel of the Lord."

Secondly, the Hebrew language has NO capital letters! That's an English and Greek thing!

Third, the word for "angel" is the Hebrew word "Mal'akh" which simply means "MESSENGER," whether supernatural or human!

Fourth and most importantly, the word "Lord" should be in all caps as "LORD!" This is because it is NOT a translation of the word "Adonay" or "Adoniy"; it's a translation of the NAME "YHWH!"

So, what do you think YOU'RE seeing?

 

[shturt678]

Thank you again folks for caring!

Malakh Yahweh - Malakh Elohim A kind of pre-incarnation of the Godman Messiah - using the term "pre-incarnation" would rightfully be open to criticism if pressed too closely. Four points to support this proposal. 1) The O.T. angel identifies Himself with Yahweh many times. 2) those to whom He makes His presence known recognize Him as divine, God. 3) The Biblical writers call Him Yahweh. 4) The doctrine here implied of a plurality of persons in the Godehad is in complete accordance with earlier foreshadowing, eg, Gen.16:7-12 The first appearance of the Angel of the Lord to Hagar - God!

Old Jack

 

[Madad21]

Thank you again folks for caring!

Malakh Yahweh - Malakh Elohim A kind of pre-incarnation of the Godman Messiah - using the term "pre-incarnation" would rightfully be open to criticism if pressed too closely. Four points to support this proposal. 1) The O.T. angel identifies Himself with Yahweh many times. 2) those to whom He makes His presence known recognize Him as divine, God. 3) The Biblical writers call Him Yahweh. 4) The doctrine here implied of a plurality of persons in the Godehad is in complete accordance with earlier foreshadowing, eg, Gen.16:7-12 The first appearance of the Angel of the Lord to Hagar - God!

Old Jack

I agree with this,
I didnt want to go through it all again it just seems pointless to keep flogging away at it. this is a correct summery of my sentiment without having to get in to the rigors of word play between the Hebrew and Greek or English. Context will always win out over the persnickety details of exact word translations throwing context to the wind in order to win some cheap victory over common sense contextual understanding.

 

[shturt678]

I agree with this,
I didnt want to go through it all again it just seems pointless to keep flogging away at it. this is a correct summery of my sentiment without having to get in to the rigors of word play between the Hebrew and Greek or English. Context will always win out over the persnickety details of exact word translations throwing context to the wind in order to win some cheap victory over common sense contextual understanding.

Just have to get RANDOR's approval then to the forever bank.

Old Jack

btw had some Hawaiian Mouflon Sheep ribeye on the coals 40 or so years ago....going to make it a point to have another taster.

 

[Retrobyter]

Shalom, Jack and Madad21.

Two sayings come to mind:

First, "A man convinced against his will is of the same opinion still," and
second, "If you don't want to do something, one excuse is as good as another."

Oh, and I just thought of another one:

Albert Einstein: "If the facts don't fit the theory, change the facts. .... Don't confuse me with facts, my mind's already made up!"

 

[shturt678]

Shalom, Jack and Madad21.

Two sayings come to mind:

First, "A man convinced against his will is of the same opinion still," and
second, "If you don't want to do something, one excuse is as good as another."

Oh, and I just thought of another one:

Albert Einstein: "If the facts don't fit the theory, change the facts. .... Don't confuse me with facts, my mind's already made up!"

Thank you again for your response!

Have you had a chance to look at ICor.1:27 recently?

Old IICor.4:7, Jack

 

[Retrobyter]

Shalom, Jack.

Thank you again for your response!

Have you had a chance to look at ICor.1:27 recently?

Old IICor.4:7, Jack

Fooey! That doesn't give one permission to be STUPID about God's Word! Context is good PROVIDED that one has a good understanding and definition of the words that are used within that context! Otherwise, one doesn't have the resources necessary to make a valid conclusion or system of conclusions from that context!

What was Smoh (Solomon) known for if not for his wisdom GIVEN BY GOD? What was Dani'el (Daniel) known for if not for his perception and intelligence, again, GIVEN BY GOD?

If there's one think that really irks me about people's take on "Heaven" it's that they think we will "instantly know all that we are supposed to know" and everything will be hunky-dory forever from then on! What did God give us brains for if not to USE THEM?! Who promised us EVER "infinite knowledge?" That's just DUMB! So we have to take a few years to learn what we need to know? So what? Do we have so little patience as to think that we have to be given "INSTANT KNOWLEDGE?!" Again, that is NEVER promised in Scripture to ANYONE! That's another good reason for a future Millennium: It may take some people A THOUSAND YEARS to get over their prejudices and learn God's truth instead of what they've been traditionally taught!

No, someone who claims to be a "Christian" doesn't have ANY RIGHT to hide behind something like 1 Cor. 1:27!

 

[shturt678]

Thank you for your response sir!

I was just winging it, and didn't know ICor.1:27 had such a hornet sting to it. Now will go and see the interpretation..sorry 'bout that one. Maybe your right ergo let's pick a few passages eyeballing together, eg, off the top as I like the new covenant, ICor.10:4 acceptable?

Our Lord Godman Christ was the spiritual Rock that never allowed Israel to perish (1st H2O miracle at Exod.17:1-7), correct?

Next Exod.3:2-6 where He (Godman Jesus) appeared to Moses in the burning bush, correct?

Old Jack eyeballing ICor.1:27 to see what it actually says?