tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post4920224146179986376..comments2024-03-10T10:40:32.319-07:00Comments on Pyromaniacs: Pop QuizPhil Johnsonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00649092052031518426noreply@blogger.comBlogger185125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-8849795040688586172012-05-26T13:05:22.374-07:002012-05-26T13:05:22.374-07:00Hi creature,
Thanks again for your response.
&qu...Hi creature,<br /><br />Thanks again for your response.<br /><br /><i>"Because life giver describes Christ's divinity (God) and the last Adam describes Christ's incarnation (man) e.g. God-man."</i><br /><br />But then which Jesus died? Wasn't it the man? Therefore, how in the world do you maintain your statement, "NO CREATURE could do what GOD Himself did on the cross." Even you don't believe that 'God' died on the cross!<br /><br /><i>"What is required for justice is deserved judgment in Hell...The wages of sin is death."</i><br /><br />Well, which is it? You're really saying two different things here (and only one was a quote from scripture)--death or life in hell. I agree with William Tyndale who once wrote, "In putting them in heaven, hell, and purgatory, [you] destroy the arguments wherewith Christ and Paul prove the resurrection."<br /><br />Throughout the Bible, life and death are held up as the reward for obedient and disobedient mankind, respectively. <i>Not</i> life in heaven and life in hell. Indeed you do undermine the entire point of a <i>resurrection</i> when you say that dead doesn't mean dead, it just means life somewhere else. So why a resurrection?<br /><br />"<i>When OT scripture cites "The Angel of the Lord" it is usually a theopany.</i>"<br /><br />This is exactly your problem though, you interpret whether any given scripture is or is not a 'theophany' <i>based</i> on your prior beliefs. In other words, one must already accept what you believe in order to accept your conclusions.<br /><br />Your case for the angel in Judges 13 actually being God himself <i>is no stronger</i> than the proof for Satan being God himself. <i>This</i> is the inconsistency, and it runs through all of these arguments that have been touted out for the purpose of proving that Jesus is God. One must simply ignore all the similar passages said of others. Why? The only semblance of an answer I seem to get is because you 'just know' it doesn't mean the same thing. I'm sorry, but I require a better answer than that.<br /><br /><i>"You use here the same reasoning you use in previous posts with the I AM, and, with all due respect TJ, I think it's specious reasoning."</i><br /><br />I really don't believe I have at all.<br /><br /><i>"You're wearing me out, TJ. I won't continue to engage you."</i><br /><br />I'm sorry to hear that, my purpose isn't to wear you out, but to challenge the assertions you make with scripture where I don't believe scripture supports them.<br /><br />Thank you for your kind closing words and be assured I pray them same for both you and myself.TJhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09026162065212920554noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-59304966176562073972012-05-25T03:19:57.814-07:002012-05-25T03:19:57.814-07:00TJ, your counter-argument re agency is wrong, beca...TJ, your counter-argument re agency is wrong, because you are disallowing the proposition which you can't deny - even with your text I think - that the NT clearly has the benefits of Christ's mediatorial agency at the hand of God superlative compared with those at the hand of God before it came into effect. That was part-and-parcel with the argument. The cross makes things better, doing "a new thing". The nature of the "shepherding" reflects that.<br /><br />Othniel, Ehud, whomever, were not even comparable to Jesus Christ in the function of their "agency" or role. No one was and is a saviour in the same sense.Nor did any man supplant Jehovah in performing their role. God was and is not saving people through anyone else in the same way and sense that He was and is in Christ.<br /><br />I'm sure you've heard plenty from other believers before about how Jesus Christ doing the will of His Father, voluntarily taking on full humanity, "humbling himself" regarding the exercise of all His divine prerogatives in His Deity, does not in the slightest mean He is less than fully God Himself. It just means He is not the same Person as the Father, and they relate to each other in the Godhead in such a way as rightly reflects that. And that was born out in Christ's incarnation, life, death, resurrection, in a way that derives from it.<br /><br />Creature's comment said it succinctly about the cross, so no need to mention that. You do indeed have a whole system that hangs on the assertion "Jesus is not God" - everything here seems to be a passive-aggressive apologetic for that. I find you - consciously or not - would have people politely chasing you chasing your tail, so it's fruitless when the ground of every grace from God for and in me and other believers is that Jesus is my Lord and my God and I am well-pleasing in the Father's sight by the blood of the God-man's cross, with a righteousness not my own, now my own.<br /><br />I know I said I'd meant my last comment..I think this will be it. I don't want to engage any further, there's nothing more I would say. :)Philhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14063611909779154899noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-23712642124223502982012-05-24T22:59:08.659-07:002012-05-24T22:59:08.659-07:00TJ = bold
creature = plain
"Thanks for gett...TJ = bold <br />creature = plain<br /><br /><b>"Thanks for getting back to me."</b><br /><br />You're welcome. <br /><br /><b>"NO CREATURE could do what GOD Himself did on the cross."<br /><br />Then why is Jesus, in the very context of his role of one that 'imparts life', described as "the last Adam"? (1 Corinthians 15:45)</b><br /><br />Because life giver describes Christ's divinity (God) and the last Adam describes Christ's incarnation (man) e.g. God-man.<br /><br /><br /><b>What was required for justice was the equal of what was lost, like-for-like.</b><br /><br />What is required for justice is deserved judgment in Hell.<br />What is given in mercy is undeserved divine propitiation on the cross.<br /><br /><b>Adam was given and then lost perfect human life. Jesus gave it back to us. It was only the sacrifice of a perfect man, 'the last Adam', that could cover the sin of a perfect man, 'the first Adam'. Do you not see the justice in that?</b><br /><br />We sin against God.<br /><br />The only justice for sin is God's judgment which is Hell for ALL sinners. <br /><br />The wages of sin is death and none is righteous; no not one. <br /><br />The only mercy that CAN be granted in place of our deserved damnation is the divine payment on the cross: Divine payment for divine mercy.<br /><br />That is, that God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself, not imputing their trespasses to them, and has committed to us the word of reconciliation.<br />2 Cr 5:19 [NKJV]<br /><br /><b>And again, could you please give at least some kind of response as to your explanation of 2 Samuel 24:1 and 1 Chronicles 21:1? Even if you have no answer for it, I'd respect your honesty. Thanks.</b><br /><br />My honest answer:<br /><br />When OT scripture cites "The Angel of the Lord" it is usually a theopany. <br /><br />But when the Lord uses an angel like the fallen angel Satan in your examples or Gabriel or a host of angels ... in those cases, they are angels the Lord uses, yes, but not referred to as "The Angel of the Lord" and by context, have coherently different meaning.<br /><br />Therefore I reject your effort to make a case for me being contradictory or inconsistent.<br /><br />You use here the same reasoning you use in previous posts with the I AM, and, with all due respect TJ, I think it's specious reasoning.<br /> <br />While I believe your doctrinal assertions are sincere, I find your efforts to root out inconsistency wanting.<br /><br />You're wearing me out, TJ. I won't continue to engage you. <br /><br /><b>All the exclamation marks in the world still doesn't explain to me why a God-man needed to die for us.</b><br /><br /><br />The exclamation marked remarks are an expression of spirit; to strike a resonant chord . . . not to supplant logic.<br /><br />And I stand by my logical assertions.<br /><br />I fully concede I've made no argument that you find convincing, persuasive, or compelling. <br /><br />May you take this parting paraphrase of Col 1:9-10 in the spirit of grace & truth:<br /><br />[i pray to Jehovah] asking that TJ may be filled with the knowledge of His will in all spiritual wisdom and understanding, so as to walk in a manner worthy of the Lord, fully pleasing to Him, bearing fruit in every good work and increasing in the knowledge of God.creaturehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15106242424467529225noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-69787063088579967532012-05-24T15:24:30.522-07:002012-05-24T15:24:30.522-07:00Hi 'creature',
Thanks for getting back to...Hi 'creature',<br /><br />Thanks for getting back to me.<br /><br /><i>"NO CREATURE could do what GOD Himself did on the cross."</i><br /><br />Then why is Jesus, in the very context of his role of one that 'imparts life', described as "the last Adam"? (1 Corinthians 15:45) All the exclamation marks in the world still doesn't <i>explain</i> to me why a God-man needed to die for us.<br /><br />What was required for <i>justice</i> was the equal of what was lost, like-for-like. Adam was given and then lost perfect human life. Jesus gave it back to us. It was only the sacrifice of a <i>perfect man</i>, 'the last Adam', that could cover the sin of a perfect man, 'the first Adam'. Do you not see the justice in that?<br /><br />And <i>again</i>, could you please give at least some kind of response as to your explanation of 2 Samuel 24:1 and 1 Chronicles 21:1? Even if you have no answer for it, I'd respect your honesty. Thanks.TJhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09026162065212920554noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-54320831295721257762012-05-24T15:12:24.021-07:002012-05-24T15:12:24.021-07:00Phil,
In that lengthy response, wherein you even ...Phil,<br /><br />In that lengthy response, wherein you even typed out 'eye roll', you <i>still</i> refused to respond to my counterexample. Why is that? It almost makes me think you have no answer to it.<br /><br />Your basic reasoning is that Jehovah is the Shepherd, and Jesus is the Shepherd, therefore Jesus is Jehovah. Yet still you ignore that Jesus explicitly states that he <i>only</i> does the will of his Father, not his own, <i>and</i> that the Bible, as clearly as it can, spells out that Jehovah is the <i>only</i> savior (Isaiah 43:11), yet elsewhere shows that he performs this saving work <i>through the agency of others</i>, both Othniel and Ehud being given the title "savior". (Judges 3:9, 15, ASV)<br /><br />Judge me all that you feel you need to, but this <i>still</i> reveals the inconsistency and weakness in the argument you're trying to make.<br /><br />Thanks again for your response.TJhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09026162065212920554noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-86514034767502451352012-05-24T08:53:03.425-07:002012-05-24T08:53:03.425-07:00TJ, you said:
So why would 'God Himself' ...TJ, you said:<br /><br />So why would 'God Himself' have to die for man? <br /><br />TJ, you've hit the nails square on the cross! <br /><br />That is the CRUX of the cross.<br /><br />He WOULDN'T have to. He DIDN'T have to.<br /><br />You ask: <br /><br />Do you really think we're of equal worth as God? <br /><br /><br />I DO NOT think we're of equal worth as God.<br /><br />God did NOT have to die for man.<br /><br />It's because we DON'T merit what He did NOT have to do . . . that we fall before Him in worship!<br /><br />NO CREATURE could do what GOD Himself did on the cross.<br /><br />The wages of sin is death and stealing a paper clip from the office is all it takes to earn those wages.<br /><br />It was His carnality that "brought it down" to the corporeal realm in which we exist; where we think and perceive.<br /><br />Such Light!<br /><br />But it is solely Christ's DEITY that is the "legal tender" for His ransom payment for divine justice. <br /><br />Tetelestai!<br /><br />And it is solely the DIVINE agape LOVE of GOD; that amazing grace that NO CREATURE could give . . . that He gave at Calvary.<br /><br />Such Love! Such Light! Such Mercy! <br /><br />My cup runneth over! My Rock! My Redeemer!<br /><br />Amen.creaturehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15106242424467529225noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-45907405956227904362012-05-24T05:43:45.408-07:002012-05-24T05:43:45.408-07:00This comment has been removed by the author.creaturehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15106242424467529225noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-16475706463189423622012-05-24T05:41:24.620-07:002012-05-24T05:41:24.620-07:00This comment has been removed by the author.creaturehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15106242424467529225noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-41629043274685686352012-05-24T03:36:42.243-07:002012-05-24T03:36:42.243-07:00He must have the administration of universal Provi...He must have the administration of universal Providence over all the nations, families, and persons upon earth, or He could not effectually manage for those who put their trust in Him, in that immense variety of cases and circumstances in which they are found. Reason, as well as Scripture, may convince us, that He who gathereth the outcasts of Israel, who healeth the broken in heart, who upholdeth all that fall, raiseth up all that are bowed down, and upon whom the eyes of all wait for their support, can be no other than He who telleth the number of the stars, and calleth them all by their names, who is great in power, and whose understanding is infinite. To this purpose likewise the prophet Isaiah describes this mighty Shepherd, chap. 40: 9-17, both as to His person and office.<br /><br />But is not this indeed the great mystery of godliness? How just is the apostle's observation, that no man can say Jesus Christ is Lord, but by the Holy Ghost! How astonishing the thought, that the Maker of Heaven and earth, the Holy One of Israel, before whose presence the earth shook, the Heavens dropped, when He displayed a faint emblem of His majesty upon Sinai, should afterwards appear in the form of a servant, and hang upon a cross, the sport and scorn of wicked men! I cannot wonder that to the wise men of the world this appears absurd, unreasonable, and impossible; yet to right reason, to reason enlightened and sanctified, however amazing the proposition be, yet it appears true and necessary, upon a supposition, that a holy God is pleased to pardon sinners in a way suited to display the awful glories of His justice.<br /><br />The same arguments which prove the blood of bulls and goats insufficient to take away sin, will conclude against the utmost doings or sufferings of men or angels. The Redeemer of sinners must be mighty; ..He must have a personal dignity to stamp such a value upon His undertakings, as that thereby God may appear just, as well as merciful, in justifying the ungodly for His sake; and He must be all-sufficient to bless and almighty to protect those who come unto Him for safety and life.<br /><br />Such a one is our Shepherd..."Philhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14063611909779154899noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-3247417142418417232012-05-24T03:36:09.574-07:002012-05-24T03:36:09.574-07:00"...The Socinians and others, in their unhapp..."...The Socinians and others, in their unhappy laboured attempts to darken the principal glory and foundation-comfort of the Gospel, employ their critical sophistry against those texts which expressly and doctrinally declare the Redeemer's character; and affect to triumph, if in any manuscript or ancient version they can find a variation from the received copies which seems to favour their cause.<br /><br />But we may venture to wave the authority of every disputed or disputable text, and maintain the truth against their cavils, from the current language and tenor of the whole Scripture. David's words in Psa. 23, are alone a decisive proof that Jesus is Jehovah, if they will but allow two things, which I think they cannot deny : 1. That our Saviour assumes to Himself the character of the Shepherd of his people ; and, 2. That He did not come into the world to abridge those advantages which the servants of God enjoyed before His incarnation.<br /><br />Upon these premises, which cannot be gainsayed without setting aside the whole New Testament, the conclusion is undeniable; for if Jehovah was David's Shepherd, unless Jesus be Jehovah, we who live under the Gospel have an unspeakable disadvantage in being intrusted to the care of one who, according to the Socinians, is a mere man; and upon the Arian scheme, is at the most a creature, and infinitely short of possessing those perfections which David contemplated in his Shepherd. He had a Shepherd whose wisdom and power were infinite, and might therefore warrantably conclude he should not want, and need not fear. And we also may conclude the same, if our Shepherd be the Lord or Jehovah, but not otherwise.<br /><br />Besides, the very nature of the Shepherd's office respecting the state of such frail creatures as we are, requires those attributes for the due discharge of it which are incommunicably divine. He must intimately know every individual of the flock. His eye must be upon them every one, and His ear open to their prayers, and His arm stretched out for their relief, in all places, and in all ages. Every thought of every heart must be open to His view, and His wisdom must penetrate, and His arm control and overrule all the hidden and complicated machinations of the powers of darkness..Philhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14063611909779154899noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-31010977869549363692012-05-24T03:34:54.333-07:002012-05-24T03:34:54.333-07:00TJ, you cut and chop statements that belong togeth...TJ, you cut and chop statements that belong together and follow a flow of thought and then restate your rejection of each bit. All to argue you are shepherded by a jesus who has less of the attributes than David's Jehovah,as a mere agent. Look, David was a king. David ate of the shewbread in the temple it was not lawful for man to eat. However the prophets such as Nathan spoke to him on God's behalf,whatever their subordinate role and title, David was shepherded by Jehovah Himself. David knew that, Ps23..The same of all of God's people. (Noting "they were not all Israel who were of Israel"). Now, when the OT believers looked forward to a day when a Messiah would come and bring the blessing of Abraham in a gospel dispensation that they did not yet even get clearly..how can that possibly mean that David would have ended up with a Shepherd less than Jehovah? *rolls eyes. He already had Jehovah. What He didn't have was new covenant sonship a la Gal 4 and Heb 10 with a new covenant spirit of adoption, Rom 8. Even though in some ways David was a forecast of it, as per the shewbread issue. He could not cry "Abba, Father! in the way He would, he did not have the gospel intimacy with God and new covenant inheritance entered in upon that meant He was shepherded by a Christ he was in union with as His very life, Who was equally God and equally with His attributes in His own Person. With a new covenant spirit.<br /><br />God Himself did not die - God cannot die..but God had to take on human flesh - the second Person of the Trinity - for one because only in this case could a man be born not imputed Adam's guilt, not inheriting his sin condition, not sinning during his life, qualifying His death to be efficacious for atonement from guilt, and deliverance from the curse and law unto life. Adam was innocent before the fall, not "knowing" good or evil. In Christ,the second and last representative, those who receive the abundance of grace the gift of righteousness that the resurrection receipted to those who are His are in union with Him. They have more than Adam lost...and the fullness of it ahead.<br /><br />I will leave replying to the other things you keep bringing up, because you won't be able to understand while you still have a veil over your eyes because your jesus can't help you and the Spirit (the other Person Who is fully God and points to the real Christ) does nothing but point away from the claim.<br /><br />I've noticed you even wrench the responder's comments out of context and import your meanings to them..so I'm seeing that this is fruitless waste of time that may on some level gratify you but not to any good end.<br /><br />I expect some others appreciated the John Newton thing, (even if you wouldn't be instructed by it in your unhappy rejection of God) so I am happy about that. Here is the excerpt of a letter he wrote Nov 5th 1774 from which I got that argument several years ago; entitled "Jesus is Jehovah". And with this, I will leave it and won't be replying again;Philhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14063611909779154899noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-33699672246101931252012-05-23T15:10:00.596-07:002012-05-23T15:10:00.596-07:00Hello 'creature',
Thanks for your careful...Hello 'creature',<br /><br />Thanks for your carefully crafted reply. I fully understand that you believe that there are only select places where God is called an angel. But what of my question?<br /><br />You decided that "the angel of the Lord" in Judges 13 must be God himself because he is called God by Manoah. So how is it that you can turn around and (presumably) not reach the same conclusion about Satan?<br /><br />"Again the anger of the Lord was kindled against Israel, and he incited David against them, saying, 'Go, number Israel and Judah.'" (2 Samuel 24:1)<br /><br />"Then Satan stood against Israel and incited David to number Israel." (1 Chronicles 21:1)<br /><br />I think there's an answer that clearly and easily explains <i>both</i> of these examples, Satan and the angel of the Lord. Thanks!TJhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09026162065212920554noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-78542292151438585022012-05-23T15:00:24.156-07:002012-05-23T15:00:24.156-07:00Hi Phil,
Thanks for your response.
"Jesus c...Hi Phil,<br /><br />Thanks for your response.<br /><br /><i>"Jesus can assume the title and role that Jehovah did, logically-speaking, is if He is not just doing His father's will as a mere 'agent', but is doing it as God Himself."</i><br /><br />That has been proven false already and you have been provided counterexamples of others assuming the title and roles of Jehovah, which you have ignored completely. Your logic is flawed because it would make, among others, the Israelite judge Othniel 'God Himself'. (Isaiah 43:11; Judges 3:9, ASV) Ignoring valid counterexamples does not make them go away.<br /><br /><i>"Unless...the cross takes God's people from being shepherded by God Himself to one less than God Himself."</i><br /><br />Again you're failing to understand the concept of <i>agency</i>. If Jehovah God <i>sent</i> his Son to pay the redeeming sacrifice and to lead his people back to a good relationship with himself, that means that God is the <i>source</i> of everything Jesus has done/will do. God continues to shepherd his people <i>through</i> the leadership of his Son, whom he appointed.<br /><br />This is common sense stuff that's used even in modern everyday language. For example, if the news reports something like, "The President invaded country X today...", would you be here demanding that that means the President <i>himself</i> went charging behind enemy lines? Or would you be a little more reasonable, and understand that that probably means he <i>sent</i> others under his authority with those orders?<br /><br />Furthermore, God's justice demands 'an eye for an eye'. So why would 'God Himself' have to die for man? Do you really think we're of equal worth as God? Think about this. When God created Adam, he made him sinless--perfect--with the prospect of living forever if he chose to remain obedient. Adam lost that prospect for both himself and us. So how could we get it back, with God's principle of justice in mind?<br /><br />Paul answers, "For as by the one man's disobedience the many were made sinners, so by the one man's obedience the many will be made righteous." (Romans 5:19) He also says that Adam "was a type of the one who was to come." (Romans 5:14) Elsewhere he calls Jesus "the last Adam." (1 Corinthians 15:45) Therefore, since Adam lost perfect human life for us, only Adam's equal, <i>another perfect man</i>, could give it back to us by sacrificing it in our behalf.<br /><br /><i>"On 'the angel of the LORD', I agree [it was] pre-incarnate appearances of Christ."</i><br /><br />Hopefully in the future then you'll speak up when others deride Jesus ever being described as an angel, as some have done above.<br /><br /><i>"I would add..any designation that was given to mere human agents never elicited worship of a creature by Jehovah's design, ever."</i><br /><br />Really? I guess this either means you don't believe Jesus is Jehovah God or...he's lying when he told anointed Christians:<br /><br />"Behold, I will make them of the synagogue of Satan, which say they are Jews, and are not, but do lie; behold, I will make them to come and worship before thy feet." (Revelation 3:9, KJV)<br /><br />You have to recognize how your bias is affecting your reading of scripture and blinding you to these counterexamples, otherwise you will keep making such mistakes.<br /><br />Again, thank you for the discussion and the opportunity to reply.TJhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09026162065212920554noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-3649876067283442012-05-23T06:25:05.658-07:002012-05-23T06:25:05.658-07:00TJ, after I responded to your assertion that Judge...TJ, after I responded to your assertion that Judges 13 would be ignored, you responded with:<br /><br />So just to be clear, you are arguing that Jesus Christ is "the angel of the Lord"?<br /><br />To which I carefully chose my reply: <br /><br />I am arguing that OT citations of "the angel of the Lord" are appearances of GOD (theophanies) that in the cases I cited with Judges 13 and Dr. S.Lewis Johnson's remarks, reveal God as the coming Christ; the Eternal Son, the DIVINE 2nd person of the trinity.<br /><br />and you again said that I was:<br /><br />arguing that Jesus Christ is "the angel of the Lord'"<br /><br />and then, in a post addressed to Phil you said:<br /><br />Do you agree with creature then that Jesus is "the angel of the Lord"? <br /><br />The Holman Bible Dictionary enumerates 5 forms of THEOPHANY, and their 3rd definition better expresses my "tying Jesus with an angelic identity" than arguing that Jesus is "the angel of the Lord":<br /><br />3. By the “Angel of the Lord” This is the most usual form of theophany, called the “Angel of the Lord” or “Angel of God.” Observe it is not an “Angel of God,” which could include any of the angelic hosts created by God. The “Angel of the Lord” is identified in the accounts with Yahweh Himself. He appears only occasionally in human form. The encounter of the Angel of the Lord with Hagar is of significance in this connection (Genesis 16:7-13). See Angels.<br />http://www.studylight.org/dic/hbd/view.cgi?number=T6209<br /><br /><br />So, TJ, I do not make a blanket argument that:<br /><br />Jesus is "the angel of the Lord'"<br /><br />I am arguing that the Judges 13 "Angel of the Lord" (or "Angel of God") is Holman's case 3 of THEOPHANY and not an “Angel of God” which could include any of the angelic hosts created by God.<br /><br />Gabriel is an AGENT whereas "Angel of the Lord" in Judges 13 is a preincarnate appearance of Christ.creaturehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15106242424467529225noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-78605298098419343812012-05-23T05:31:42.262-07:002012-05-23T05:31:42.262-07:00I would add..any designation that was given to mer...I would add..any designation that was given to mere human agents never elicited worship of a creature by Jehovah's design, ever. It drove away from that in general. They (the good ones) pointed to God as per redemption history and their function. Jesus pointed to His Father by pointing to Himself. (And as a person unique in His own right, as well..not a mode of God). And the Father actively desired/desires His Son's worship, and gives it through His Son graciously bestowing sinners-turned His bride with all spiritual blessings in Him.Philhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14063611909779154899noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-52959261510758383762012-05-23T05:21:37.214-07:002012-05-23T05:21:37.214-07:00TJ, your words condemn you, not me..On the logic f...TJ, your words condemn you, not me..On the logic front (which is not the basic spiritual issue) it's not just title equivalence..the only way Jesus can assume the title and role that Jehovah did, logically-speaking, is if He is not just doing His father's will as a mere "agent", but is doing it as God Himself.(Unless Jesus is mad or bad, or the cross takes God's people from being shepherded by God Himself to one less than God Himself, that being God's purpose to lessen the benefits available to the people of God by the cross and will of God [making out Jehovah to be mad or bad])..On "the angel of the LORD", I agree with Creature's last comment - pre-incarnate appearances of Christ, the Divine Second Person of the Trinity...With that, I think I will take my leave of this meta...I'd just pray you come to a realization of God's love for you in God the Son in His salvation.Philhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14063611909779154899noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-15604427211858419262012-05-23T04:16:25.108-07:002012-05-23T04:16:25.108-07:00Phil,
Please demonstrate why my "logic is po...Phil,<br /><br />Please demonstrate <i>why</i> my "logic is poor" and <i>why</i> I'm "blowing air". I'm using same defense Jesus used, the "It is written" method, to demonstrate the flaws in your reasoning and it seems all you can do in return is get upset and condemn me. You claim the scriptures are on your side...so use them.<br /><br />Do you agree with creature then that Jesus is "the angel of the Lord"? Or how do you understand Judges 13:21-22?TJhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09026162065212920554noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-1335885988245767552012-05-23T04:06:54.101-07:002012-05-23T04:06:54.101-07:00TJ - I'm surprised (in a manner of speaking) f...TJ - I'm surprised (in a manner of speaking) for someone who prides himself on his logic and thinks God is pleased with him for his apologetic for his "revelation" that "Jesus is not God", that you can;t see that that argument as originally stated is more than "matching tiles". Your logic is poor, and you cover it up with a lot of rubbish...and you reveal a self-righteous heart in the process. Don't you know that the only righteousness with which you become accepted/acceptable to God is the imputed righteousness of Christ, which you reject, because you reject Christ as the God-man. <br /><br />Quit blowing air, dressing yourself up as righteous, and enter into God's rest in repentance..where there is much more than faffing around playing silly games with words and trying to look holy dead in sin..but life and life more abundantly. To live is Christ, to die is gain for those in the God-man.Philhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14063611909779154899noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-43282641767987519552012-05-22T22:38:13.490-07:002012-05-22T22:38:13.490-07:00Thanks again creature for your response. This is n...Thanks again creature for your response. This is not the first time I've heard your argument, but I'm guessing many here haven't heard someone subscribing to the Westminster Confession arguing that Jesus is "the angel of the Lord" (and God). Even within the comments here Jehovah's Witnesses are criticized for tying Jesus with an angelic identity.<br /><br />Still, as you've pointed out, unlike us you understand "the angel of the Lord" to actually be God himself. I'm wondering then how you understand parallel passages referring to the same event like the following:<br /><br />"Again the anger of the Lord was kindled against Israel, and he incited David against them, saying, 'Go, number Israel and Judah.'" (2 Samuel 24:1)<br /><br />"Then Satan stood against Israel and incited David to number Israel." (1 Chronicles 21:1)<br /><br />Using the same reasoning you use to identify "the angel of the Lord" with God, wouldn't one have to identify Satan with God here? If not, how is it different?TJhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09026162065212920554noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-31779100784543168582012-05-22T21:53:14.434-07:002012-05-22T21:53:14.434-07:00TJ says:
So just to be clear, you are arguing tha...TJ says:<br /><br />So just to be clear, you are arguing that Jesus Christ is "the angel of the Lord"?<br /> <br />creature responds:<br /><br />Just to be clear, TJ, I am arguing that OT citations of "the angel of the Lord" are appearances of GOD (theophanies) that in the cases I cited with Judges 13 and Dr. S.Lewis Johnson's remarks, reveal God as the coming Christ; the Eternal Son, the DIVINE 2nd person of the trinity.<br /><br />I am Westminster Confessions reformed and I am not probably aware that most here would vehemently disagree with what I'm saying. If they DO, it's only because I've expressed myself poorly. <br /><br />One of my favorite sermons on the earliest OT appearances of Christ is by one of this blogs' 3 moderators; DJP's Messiah in Genesis,: http://keeponwalking.org.uk/1237/creaturehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15106242424467529225noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-87481881903411371542012-05-22T20:32:59.811-07:002012-05-22T20:32:59.811-07:00Thanks for your response, creature.
So just to be...Thanks for your response, creature.<br /><br />So just to be clear, you are arguing that Jesus Christ is "the angel of the Lord"? What denomination are you? As you are probably aware, most here would vehemently disagree with you. Thanks!TJhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09026162065212920554noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-90468071269471093322012-05-22T20:18:44.202-07:002012-05-22T20:18:44.202-07:00TJ' quote start:
Now if you're being hone...TJ' quote start:<br /><br />Now if you're being honest with yourself, you know as well as I do if it was "Jesus" there instead of "the angel of the Lord", this verse would be thrown at me over and over again and I'd be condemned for not believing that it literally teaches that Jesus is God himself. But instead it's ignored, because no one here already believes that "the angel of the Lord" is really God, so you interpret it to agree with what you already believe. There are all kinds of passages like this throughout the Bible!<br /><br />end TJ's quote<br /><br /><br />"the angel of the Lord" as it appears in Judges 13 would not be ignored because many here already believe that "the angel of the Lord" IS really God. A theophany; or Christophany.<br /><br />This source addresses your example in some detail:<br /><br />Another pair of Scriptures further identifies the Angel of the LORD as the Messiah. Recorded in Judges 13 is the story of Samson's parents being notified of his impending birth by the Angel of the LORD. Manoah, Samson's father, did not realize that the one who foretold the birth of his son was the Angel (Judges 13:16). He asked the Angel of the LORD what his name was, so that they might honor him when his prophecy came true. The Angel's answer is very revealing, if understood correctly:<br /><br /><br />"And the Angel of Jehovah said to him, Why do you ask this about My name? Yea, it is Wonderful."<br />Judges 13:18<br /><br /><br />The Angel of YHVH answered Manoah by saying that his name was "Wonderful." When we compare the Angel's answer to the prophecy of the coming Messiah recorded in Isaiah 9:6, the similarities are striking:<br /><br />"For unto us a Child is born, unto us a Son is given; and the government will be upon His shoulder. And His name will be called Wonderful, Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace. "<br />ISAIAH 9:6<br /><br />http://www.herealittletherealittle.net/index.cfm?page_name=Christ-Old-Testament<br /><br />There are all kinds of passages like this throughout the Bible. Says Dr. S. Lewis Johnson, Jr.:<br /><br />Why did such things take place? Well they took place in order to prepare the nation for the fact of the incarnation of the second person of the Trinity. And so we have the Lord Jesus Christ appearing to Abraham. We have the Lord Jesus Christ appearing to Jacob when he wrestled with that divine being at Jabbok. We have the Lord appearing to Moses. We have the Lord appearing to Daniel. We have the Lord appearing to Gideon. We have the Lord appearing to Samuel’s parents. We have many theophanies in the Old Testament which were anticipations of the coming of the Lord Jesus Christ in Bethlehem.<br /><br />http://sljinstitute.net/sermons/new%20testament/gospels/johnpages/john2.htmlcreaturehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15106242424467529225noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-20090691480217123862012-05-22T19:03:47.628-07:002012-05-22T19:03:47.628-07:00I apologize, I just noticed that second post was n...I apologize, I just noticed that second post was not authored by Bill. So in my above post, from the quote <i>"How can you WORSHIP a CREATURE?"</i> on, that's addressed to 'creature'. Thanks!TJhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09026162065212920554noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-12319761481514499752012-05-22T18:36:08.137-07:002012-05-22T18:36:08.137-07:00Hi Bill,
"According to Merriam Webster a her...Hi Bill,<br /><br /><i>"According to Merriam Webster a heretic is a dissenter from established religious dogma."</i><br /><br />And yet...Jesus Christ and the apostle Paul certainly dissented from "established religious dogma". Or is the dictionary defense only applicable when you say it is?<br /><br /><i>"The English translation of the Greek “arche” does not mean Christ is the first created person, rather that Christ is the source of the creation."</i><br /><br />This is the response I expected. You pointed me to several commentaries, but I prefer to stick with the Bible itself. Let scripture interpret scripture. When we do that, we find that that Greek word, "arche" <i>never</i> means "origin" or "source" <i>anywhere</i> else it's used in scripture. Yes, you are actually asking me to adopt a <i>special definition</i> for this word in this <i>one instance</i>, seemingly only because it applies to Jesus Christ. Is this <i>not</i> bias?<br /><br />The BDAG lexicon (3rd edition), the standard Greek lexicon for the Greek New Testament, admits of this word's usage at Revelation 3:14, "the [meaning] <i>beginning</i>=first created is linguistically prob[able]." This was actually upgraded from the lexicon's second edition which would only admit that that meaning was "linguistically poss[ible]." Perhaps there actually is good reason to believe that it means "Christ is the first created person." You see, it's not that I don't want to believe your evidence, it's just that it's extremely weak evidence.<br /><br />Furthermore, the standard Greek New Testament text, the UBS4, cites as a reference for this verse Proverbs 8:22, where God is said to create 'Wisdom' as the beginning of his works, "the first of his acts of old", and then as the passage continues God proceeds to create everything else with 'Wisdom' as his "master workman" (vs. 30; compare 1 Corinthians 1:24). Aside from Revelation 3:14 being an allusion to this passage, it was also explicitly accepted by virtually all the early Church Fathers as being Messianic. The Catholic <i>New Jerusalem Bible</i> admits in its footnote to Proverbs 8:22:<br /><br />"Wisdom's creation by God was on a different plane to all his other works. Wisdom almost seems to be a distinct personality, sharing in God's activity, and his agent in the world. The concept given here will be used in the NT to express Christ's relationship to his Father."<br /><br />That's <i>Catholics</i>, not "heretics", saying this, and I couldn't agree with it more. I guess it's a good thing they have their Sacred Tradition to fall back upon, and not just what scripture teaches.<br /><br /><i>"How can you WORSHIP a CREATURE?"</i><br /><br />You're arguing with scripture yet again:<br /><br />"And all the congregation blessed the Lord God of their fathers, and bowed down their heads, and worshipped the Lord, and the king." (1 Chronicles 29:20, KJV)<br /><br />So though the Bible shows that God found favor in the Israelites worshipping both himself and his appointed human king, you would argue with them, screaming, "How can you WORSHIP a CREATURE?" The scriptural concept you continue to miss (or purposefully ignore) is that the manner in which you treat one's appointed representative reflects how you treat that one himself. This concept is literally all throughout the Bible.<br /><br />So when the Israelites complained against Moses and Aaron, the leaders God appointed over them, God said that they were complaining against <i>him</i>. (Numbers 14:2, 26-27) Yet again, no one here believes that Moses and Aaron are really God himself, so this is passed over. But put the Holy Spirit in the same situation (Acts 5:3-4) and suddenly it's one of the foremost proof texts in favor of the Trinity! This is inconsistent and weak exegesis; this is reading one's beliefs <i>into</i> the Bible.TJhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09026162065212920554noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-81012033894479180322012-05-22T17:40:37.707-07:002012-05-22T17:40:37.707-07:00Phil,
I'm "driven by [my] denial for [my...Phil,<br /><br />I'm "driven by [my] denial for [my] logic"? I'm sorry but every argument that's been touted out here to prove Jesus is God himself <i>does not</i> hold up when compared to scripture. One <i>must</i> always start with the belief that the Bible teaches it, and then read and interpret similar passages pertaining to Jesus and other representatives of God <i>in light of that predisposed belief</i>.<br /><br />You seem to want me to believe that Jesus is God because Jesus is described as a shepherd and Jehovah God is described as a shepherd. But you disregard all the passages that say Jehovah God <i>sent</i> Jesus <i>to carry out his will</i>. Furthermore, you disregard all the passages where Jehovah God uses other of his servants to carry out his will and those servants, those representatives, also take on titles attributed to God.<br /><br /><i>Honesty</i>, Phil, honesty in understanding the beliefs you bring to the Bible and honesty in evaluating what the Bible <i>actually</i> says. Take the following passage:<br /><br />"The angel of the Lord appeared no more to Manoah and to his wife. Then <b>Manoah knew that he was the angel of the Lord</b>. And Manoah said to his wife, 'We shall surely die, for <b>we have seen God</b>.'" (Judges 13:21-22)<br /><br />Now if you're being honest with yourself, you know as well as I do if it was "Jesus" there instead of "the angel of the Lord", this verse would be thrown at me over and over again and I'd be condemned for not believing that it literally teaches that Jesus is God himself. But instead it's ignored, because no one here already believes that "the angel of the Lord" is <i>really</i> God, so you interpret it to agree with what you already believe. There are all kinds of passages like this throughout the Bible!<br /><br />Ignoring these inconsistencies and threatening others for pointing them out doesn't please God. He appreciates those that search and dig for the truth <i>wherever</i> it is found, the same truth that he promised would never be the easy way and would never be popular. In Satan's world, the truth will never be orthodox.<br /><br />Thanks for the discussion.TJhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09026162065212920554noreply@blogger.com