Is the Angel of the Lord the preincarnate Christ?
- Thread starter Mark_L
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
Two things:
1) Jesus notes that God can raise the seed of Abraham from stones. His bloodline could be established in the creation of His body. This human body could have been present from the moment of creation.
2) In the book of Job, it states that Job was created by God but also that Job was born. Natural birth could be a method for creation.
Jesus is described as the Word of God. There are OT references to the word of God. It is possible that time isn't linear. This type of weaving pattern of time would mean that future events in prophecies have already happened, and that the way we experience true time is in patchwork and not necessarily based on the true chronology of time. Many mysteries.
.
There's quite a bit more to human life than just a body.
When Adam was constructed, his body remained a corpse until such a time
as God breathed into his nostrils the breath of life and he became a living
soul-- not just breath like artificial respiration, rather: the breath of life; and
in Adam's case it was human life as opposed to bug life, bird life, beast life,
and aqua life.
_
There's quite a bit more to human life than just a body.
When Adam was constructed, his body remained a corpse until such a time
as God breathed into his nostrils the breath of life and he became a living
soul-- not just breath like artificial respiration, rather: the breath of life; and
in Adam's case it was human life as opposed to bug life, bird life, beast life,
and aqua life.
_
Before I explain what is going on here regarding the genealogy of Jesus Christ I have a question for you? Why does Matthew's genealogy begin with Abraham and moves down to Jesus? Yet Luke begins with Jesus and moves through Abraham to Adam? Can you please explain this? Hint! God is not biology so who is Jesus' Father?
IN GOD THE SON,
bluto
.
Luke's genealogy is often appropriated to establish Jesus' biological
association with David, and subsequently Adam, but I don't recommend that
route because the language and grammar of Luke 3:23 is much too
controversial.
Along with the language and grammar controversy; there's a serious
question about the listings of Shealtiel and Zerubbabel. In Matthew's
genealogy, the two men are linked to David via Solomon. In Luke's
genealogy, they're linked to David via Solomon's brother Nathan.
Their respective descendants are different too. Zerubbabel's son is listed as
Abihud in Matthew's genealogy, whereas his son is listed as Rhesa in Luke's.
Unfortunately, thus far there exists no consensus among the experts how
best to resolve the confusion caused by the presence of Shealtiel and
Zerubbabel in both genealogies. Were we scientific in our thinking; we'd
have to consider the data compromised.
NOTE: It's been suggested that Shealtiel and Zerubbabel are common names
so we shouldn't be surprised to find them listed in both genealogies.
However, they are listed as father and son in both genealogies, which I
cannot expect critical thinkers to accept as merely coincidence.
_
Luke's genealogy is often appropriated to establish Jesus' biological
association with David, and subsequently Adam, but I don't recommend that
route because the language and grammar of Luke 3:23 is much too
controversial.
Along with the language and grammar controversy; there's a serious
question about the listings of Shealtiel and Zerubbabel. In Matthew's
genealogy, the two men are linked to David via Solomon. In Luke's
genealogy, they're linked to David via Solomon's brother Nathan.
Their respective descendants are different too. Zerubbabel's son is listed as
Abihud in Matthew's genealogy, whereas his son is listed as Rhesa in Luke's.
Unfortunately, thus far there exists no consensus among the experts how
best to resolve the confusion caused by the presence of Shealtiel and
Zerubbabel in both genealogies. Were we scientific in our thinking; we'd
have to consider the data compromised.
NOTE: It's been suggested that Shealtiel and Zerubbabel are common names
so we shouldn't be surprised to find them listed in both genealogies.
However, they are listed as father and son in both genealogies, which I
cannot expect critical thinkers to accept as merely coincidence.
_
Yes, I'm well aware that Luke also traces Christs genealogy back to Adam. In my question to you I pointed that out. Like I stated God is not biology and Joseph is the step father of Jesus. His real Father is God. Why do you think that Jesus referred to Himself on numerous occasions as the "Son of God" and as the "Son of Man?"
He's the Son of God on His Fathers side which is deity. He's the Son of Man on His mother's side which is human being. Also, Jesus was accused of blasphemy for claiming God the Father was His own Father making Himself equal with God. (John 5:17,18.) At John 10:33 the Jews again accused Jesus of blasphemy for making Hinmself out God when Jesus stated at John 10:30, "I and My Father, we are one."
Jesus quotes Psalm 82:6 to the Jews and at vs 36 He says, "do you say of Him whom the Father sanctified and sent into the world. You are blaspheming because I said, "I am the Son God?" And at the trial of Jesus at Matthew 26:63 the high priest Caiaphas ask Jesus to swear as to His identity . "I adjure You by the living God that You tell us whether You are the Christ, the Son of God."
At Luke 22:70 Jesus says, "Yes, I am." The high priest Caiaphas is asking the one person of Jesus Christ two questions. (1) are you the Christ/Messiah and (2) are you the Son of God. Now think for a second? Why would the high priest ask Jesus and accuse Him of blasphemy if He was the Son of God when the Jews themselves also believe their the sons of God as well?
I found the following article on this subject and some of it is "sort of speculation" and some of it makes sense. I prefer the following view because it does make sense. Lesson 14: The Genealogy of Jesus (Luke 3:23-38) | Bible.org
"A further support for this view is that it fits Luke’s purpose. Since he was writing for a largely Gentile audience, Luke wanted to trace Jesus’ physical descent (which had to be through Mary), showing that He was not only the son of David, but also son of Abraham (through whose descendants God promised to bless the nations), and son of Adam (which relates Jesus to the entire human race). Matthew, on the other hand, writing for primarily a Jewish readership, wanted to authenticate Jesus as the legal heir of the throne of David through Solomon, who was Joseph’s ancestor. Since Jesus was Joseph’s adopted son, Matthew traces the legal right to the throne through him."
IN GOD THE SON,
bluto
He's the Son of God on His Fathers side which is deity. He's the Son of Man on His mother's side which is human being. Also, Jesus was accused of blasphemy for claiming God the Father was His own Father making Himself equal with God. (John 5:17,18.) At John 10:33 the Jews again accused Jesus of blasphemy for making Hinmself out God when Jesus stated at John 10:30, "I and My Father, we are one."
Jesus quotes Psalm 82:6 to the Jews and at vs 36 He says, "do you say of Him whom the Father sanctified and sent into the world. You are blaspheming because I said, "I am the Son God?" And at the trial of Jesus at Matthew 26:63 the high priest Caiaphas ask Jesus to swear as to His identity . "I adjure You by the living God that You tell us whether You are the Christ, the Son of God."
At Luke 22:70 Jesus says, "Yes, I am." The high priest Caiaphas is asking the one person of Jesus Christ two questions. (1) are you the Christ/Messiah and (2) are you the Son of God. Now think for a second? Why would the high priest ask Jesus and accuse Him of blasphemy if He was the Son of God when the Jews themselves also believe their the sons of God as well?
I found the following article on this subject and some of it is "sort of speculation" and some of it makes sense. I prefer the following view because it does make sense. Lesson 14: The Genealogy of Jesus (Luke 3:23-38) | Bible.org
"A further support for this view is that it fits Luke’s purpose. Since he was writing for a largely Gentile audience, Luke wanted to trace Jesus’ physical descent (which had to be through Mary), showing that He was not only the son of David, but also son of Abraham (through whose descendants God promised to bless the nations), and son of Adam (which relates Jesus to the entire human race). Matthew, on the other hand, writing for primarily a Jewish readership, wanted to authenticate Jesus as the legal heir of the throne of David through Solomon, who was Joseph’s ancestor. Since Jesus was Joseph’s adopted son, Matthew traces the legal right to the throne through him."
IN GOD THE SON,
bluto
.
Critics sometimes object that women alone can't produce a male child
because their seed lacks the Y chromosome. But if God could construct an
entire woman from a sample of human tissue taken from a man's body, then
I don't see why He can't do the very same thing in reverse; i.e. construct a
teensy little Y chromosome from a sample of human tissue taken from a
woman's body.
It was very important that God not provide the Y chromosome by creating it
from dirt or ex nihilo because then Jesus wouldn't be 100% biologically
related to David, and consequently not be 100% biologically related to
Adam, viz: in order to be fully Man, everything that went into constructing
Jesus' body had to be fully human.
_
Critics sometimes object that women alone can't produce a male child
because their seed lacks the Y chromosome. But if God could construct an
entire woman from a sample of human tissue taken from a man's body, then
I don't see why He can't do the very same thing in reverse; i.e. construct a
teensy little Y chromosome from a sample of human tissue taken from a
woman's body.
It was very important that God not provide the Y chromosome by creating it
from dirt or ex nihilo because then Jesus wouldn't be 100% biologically
related to David, and consequently not be 100% biologically related to
Adam, viz: in order to be fully Man, everything that went into constructing
Jesus' body had to be fully human.
_
there's quite a bit more to Jesus, Who is The Life, than the body which was prepared for Him
.
The kind of life about which you speak isn't human life, rather; it's divine
life.
• John 5:26 . . For just as the Father has life in Himself, even so He gave to
the Son also to have life in himself.
POSIT: If Jesus had divine life instead of human life, then he wasn't fully
Man, i.e. only partially Man.
RESPONSE: Jesus had both kinds of life, i.e. life from Adam and life from God;
thus it can be honestly said that Jesus was fully Man and fully God.
POSIT: That's impossible. Nobody can be fully human and fully divine simultaneously.
RESPONSE: Faith is believin' somthin' that ain't so. (Mark Twain)
_
The kind of life about which you speak isn't human life, rather; it's divine
life.
• John 5:26 . . For just as the Father has life in Himself, even so He gave to
the Son also to have life in himself.
POSIT: If Jesus had divine life instead of human life, then he wasn't fully
Man, i.e. only partially Man.
RESPONSE: Jesus had both kinds of life, i.e. life from Adam and life from God;
thus it can be honestly said that Jesus was fully Man and fully God.
POSIT: That's impossible. Nobody can be fully human and fully divine simultaneously.
RESPONSE: Faith is believin' somthin' that ain't so. (Mark Twain)
_
It's a question of exegesis. What I am presenting is the fact that 1) genetic inheritance can be bestowed by God and 2) God may create something through natural processes (including natural conception and birth).
Questioning Jesus' geneology doesn't make sense when we consider point 1).