Old Testament Christophany?

  • 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.

oldhermit

Senior Member
Jul 28, 2012
9,145
617
113
70
Alabama
#61
That is why I use the Hebrew Malek Yahweh.

Jesus was NEVER an angel...to state 'angel' is to border on heresy such as Jehovah Witnesses, do...be careful, brother...
This has nothing to do with diminishing God. All the term angel does is define a particular function of God. Jesus has always performed that function. He is always seen as the one who brings the mind of God into contact with the mind of man.

This has nothing to do with defining Christ as simply an angelic being. This is what the JW's do and it completely misses the point.
 
Nov 19, 2012
5,484
27
0
#62
This has nothing to do with diminishing God. All the term angel does is define a particular function of God. Jesus has always performed that function. He is always seen as the one who brings the mind of God into contact with the mind of man.

This has nothing to do with defining Christ as simply an angelic being. This is what the JW's do and it completely misses the point.
To render Malek as 'angel' when it refers to The Son, is simply sloppy translation.

We can see what happened to JW's...
 

oldhermit

Senior Member
Jul 28, 2012
9,145
617
113
70
Alabama
#63
To render Malek as 'angel' when it refers to The Son, is simply sloppy translation.

We can see what happened to JW's...
I am not attempting to translate the word angel as Son. This is not possible. I am talking about a specific area of divine functionality. This has absolutely no comparison to Whatchtower theology. If you are seeing a connection between the JW's and what I am saying, you either do not understand Watchtower theology or you do not understand what I am saying.
 
Nov 19, 2012
5,484
27
0
#64
I am not attempting to translate the word angel as Son. This is not possible. I am talking about a specific area of divine functionality. This has absolutely no comparison to Whatchtower theology. If you are seeing a connection between the JW's and what I am saying, you either do not understand Watchtower theology or you do not understand what I am saying.
What you are doing is translating 'Malek' as 'angel' when it applied to The Son.

This is what confuses people....and makes JW's...
 
R

reject-tech

Guest
#65
From my understanding of scripture, Jesus humbled Himself into the form of a man only once, but also permanently: when He was born to Mary.
I believe the OT heroes had a good start and were aspiring to become "Christ", and that the man Jesus was the first to ace it.
And that others did it afterward and will again in the last days.

I think He was the first to become Christ, and the only one to do it without a full previous example.
Moses almost pulled it off, but did not sanctify "God-in-man" before the children when he hit the rock an extra time.
 

oldhermit

Senior Member
Jul 28, 2012
9,145
617
113
70
Alabama
#66
What you are doing is translating 'Malek' as 'angel' when it applied to The Son.

This is what confuses people....and makes JW's...
That is because the word מַלְאָך means angel or messenger. I did not make up the definition of the word. This is the way it is always translated in the O.T.

It is clear that you do not understand the difference between what I am saying and the heretical theology of the Watchtower Society. They attempt to reduce Jesus to nothing more that an angelic created being. This is not at all what I am suggesting. Let me explain what I am trying to get you to see.


Theophonic experiences in scripture assume many forms, yet all seem to have a singular function. Their function is always to communicate the will of God to man. They provide man with a point of reference that man can comprehend. In so doing, God is demonstrating compassion for the limitations of the human mind to understand things that are beyond his ability to comprehend. In some theophonic experiences, God will accommodate only man’s sense of hearing. One only heard the voice of God. God speaking to Noah in Genesis 6 is just such an example. Another is Genesis 12 where God spoke to Abraham. Sometimes, these theophanies would be accompanied by some type of material phenomenon such as fire, wind, or earthquake as in the cases of Moses in Exodus 3, the nation of Israel in Exodus 13 and Elijah in 1Kings 19. Each of these accompanying natural phenomena would appeal to a broader range of physical senses as God sometimes chose to speak in these things. Still, at other times, God chose to assume an anthropomorphic form as in Genesis 18 when he appeared to Abraham in the company of two angels, all in human form.For further reference, one might examine these examples of anthropomorphic theophanies. What appears in each of these is the repeated phrase “The Angel of Jehovah” 22:15-18; 31:11-13; 48:15-16, Joshua 5:13-15, Judges 6:11-24, and Judges 13:15-23.

In each of these examples where the phrase “
The Angel of Jehovah” is used, it is God who is represented as the messenger of Jehovah. The phrase “The Angel of Jehovah” is only used to describe the spokesman of deity. This term is never applied to anyone else in scripture. He is always functioning as the spokesman of the divine triad. In each case, this is deity appearing in some form, sometimes even in human form. In every example, those to whom The Angel of Jehovah appeared always understood, at some point, that he was God and they honored him as such. The Angel of Jehovah always assumed divine authority in each of these Old Testament exemplars. He is always seen serving as the agent of communication, hence the term “The Angel of Jehovah.” He is angelic in function, not in nature. In nature, he is God. In function, he is the messenger in the triadic unity.
 
Nov 19, 2012
5,484
27
0
#67
That is because the word מַלְאָך means angel or messenger. I did not make up the definition of the word. This is the way it is always translated in the O.T.

It is clear that you do not understand the difference between what I am saying and the heretical theology of the Watchtower Society. They attempt to reduce Jesus to nothing more that an angelic created being. This is not at all what I am suggesting. Let me explain what I am trying to get you to see.


Theophonic experiences in scripture assume many forms, yet all seem to have a singular function. Their function is always to communicate the will of God to man. They provide man with a point of reference that man can comprehend. In so doing, God is demonstrating compassion for the limitations of the human mind to understand things that are beyond his ability to comprehend. In some theophonic experiences, God will accommodate only man’s sense of hearing. One only heard the voice of God. God speaking to Noah in Genesis 6 is just such an example. Another is Genesis 12 where God spoke to Abraham. Sometimes, these theophanies would be accompanied by some type of material phenomenon such as fire, wind, or earthquake as in the cases of Moses in Exodus 3, the nation of Israel in Exodus 13 and Elijah in 1Kings 19. Each of these accompanying natural phenomena would appeal to a broader range of physical senses as God sometimes chose to speak in these things. Still, at other times, God chose to assume an anthropomorphic form as in Genesis 18 when he appeared to Abraham in the company of two angels, all in human form.For further reference, one might examine these examples of anthropomorphic theophanies. What appears in each of these is the repeated phrase “The Angel of Jehovah” 22:15-18; 31:11-13; 48:15-16, Joshua 5:13-15, Judges 6:11-24, and Judges 13:15-23.

In each of these examples where the phrase “
The Angel of Jehovah” is used, it is God who is represented as the messenger of Jehovah. The phrase “The Angel of Jehovah” is only used to describe the spokesman of deity. This term is never applied to anyone else in scripture. He is always functioning as the spokesman of the divine triad. In each case, this is deity appearing in some form, sometimes even in human form. In every example, those to whom The Angel of Jehovah appeared always understood, at some point, that he was God and they honored him as such. The Angel of Jehovah always assumed divine authority in each of these Old Testament exemplars. He is always seen serving as the agent of communication, hence the term “The Angel of Jehovah.” He is angelic in function, not in nature. In nature, he is God. In function, he is the messenger in the triadic unity.

If your intent is 'Messenger' than just say 'Messenger'...do not say 'angel'....as that implies a created entity.

The last book of the OT is called Malachi and literally means 'Messenger'....you never see it translated as 'Angel'.

Further...why not use Yahweh instead of 'Jehovah'...?

You are playing into the JW's hands...

Stop it.

Now.
 

oldhermit

Senior Member
Jul 28, 2012
9,145
617
113
70
Alabama
#68
If your intent is 'Messenger' than just say 'Messenger'...do not say 'angel'....as that implies a created entity.

The last book of the OT is called Malachi and literally means 'Messenger'....you never see it translated as 'Angel'.

Further...why not use Yahweh instead of 'Jehovah'...?

You are playing into the JW's hands...

Stop it.

Now.

The word Jehovah is a perfectly acceptable word. I will not allow their abuse and mishandling of the word to deprive me of its use. Do not worry about me "playing into their hands." For many years mine was a despised name among those of the Watchtower Society. I spent many years trying to pull people out of that organization. I am quite well versed in their theology, eschatology, epistemology, and their soteriology. Believe me. They and I have absolutely nothing in common .
 

oldhermit

Senior Member
Jul 28, 2012
9,145
617
113
70
Alabama
#69
I was wrong.
There is no other explanation for the Angel of the Lord/burning bush/pillar of fire, other than the 2nd person in the Trinity, who is Christ. The Father has never been seen, and yet OT figures have claim to see God. Therefore, when a part of God was made manifest in the OT, it was not the Father, but instead pre-incarnate Christ.
To clarify what my question was originally: I was not questioning whether Christ existed before the Incarnation (John 1:1 is clear), but whether He manifested Himself physically on earth before the Incarnation. My previous assumption is actually very common, and attention should be applied to this issue.

Although scripture is indirect concerning this issue, it has been made clear that Christ is and always was the physical and communicative representation of God, and therefore was manifest in every appearance of God in the OT.
Thank you oldhermit for taking the time to show me these things.
You are getting closer but, the fact that "no man has seen God at any time" has nothing to do with the seeing with the eye but the perceiving of the mind.
 

oldhermit

Senior Member
Jul 28, 2012
9,145
617
113
70
Alabama
#70
I am still wondering if the "shekina glory of God"(Pillar of Fire, Burning Bush, Star of Bethlehem, the Glory in the Holy of Holies) is the 3rd person in the Trinity instead of the 2nd.
Evidence for this is the Star above the place where Jesus was in Bethlehem, as Logos was already incarnate.
Also, the Holy Spirit does take the form of a dove and tongues of fire. The latter is what reminds me of the burning bush and pillar of fire.

Any thoughts regarding the manifestation of the 3rd person in the OT?
I am not saying that it could not be the Holy Spirit but, in scripture we never see the Holy Spirit operating in this function. The Second Position of the triadic unity however is ALWAYS seen functioning in this capacity. He is always the communication agent between God and man.

The Holy Spirit in the form of the Dove exemplifies how we always see the role of the Holy Spirit in scripture. He always serves as the linking agent that connects the material world to the eternal world. Jesus, while in the flesh represented the world of man, The Father speaking from heaven represents the unseen world of God and the Holy Spirit is the one who descends from heaven to the Son thus linking the two worlds.
 
Nov 19, 2012
5,484
27
0
#71
The word Jehovah is a perfectly acceptable word. I will not allow their abuse and mishandling of the word to deprive me of its use. Do not worry about me "playing into their hands." For many years mine was a despised name among those of the Watchtower Society. I spent many years trying to pull people out of that organization. I am quite well versed in their theology, eschatology, epistemology, and their soteriology. Believe me. They and I have absolutely nothing in common .
You are both using the same terms but imputing different meanings into those terms.

When you say 'angel' when referring to The Son....you really mean 'Messenger'...

When JW's say 'angel' when referring to The Son....they really mean exactly that...a created entity!

Your confusion continues to propagate.

Just say what you mean.

If you continue to refer to The Son as an 'angel'...but you really mean
'Messenger'...well, that's simply sloppy confusion on your part.

You are propagating ignorance...
 

oldhermit

Senior Member
Jul 28, 2012
9,145
617
113
70
Alabama
#72
You are both using the same terms but imputing different meanings into those terms.

When you say 'angel' when referring to The Son....you really mean 'Messenger'...

When JW's say 'angel' when referring to The Son....they really mean exactly that...a created entity!

Your confusion continues to propagate.

Just say what you mean.

If you continue to refer to The Son as an 'angel'...but you really mean
'Messenger'...well, that's simply sloppy confusion on your part.

You are propagating ignorance...
LOL. Bowman, it is not a propagation of ignorance to use the language that scripture uses. Scripture uses the word angel and rightly so. This is what the word מַלְאָך means. I have never had a problem with anyone understanding this until now. But, if this creates a problem with you then for you I will use the word messenger since the meaning is the same. Never allow someone else's abuse of a biblical term rob you of the use of biblical terms. Learn rather to use that as an opportunity to teach someone.
 
Nov 19, 2012
5,484
27
0
#73
LOL. Bowman, it is not a propagation of ignorance to use the language that scripture uses. Scripture uses the word angel and rightly so. This is what the word מַלְאָך means. I have never had a problem with anyone understanding this until now. But, if this creates a problem with you then for you I will use the word messenger since the meaning is the same. Never allow someone else's abuse of a biblical term rob you of the use of biblical terms. Learn rather to use that as an opportunity to teach someone.
You already acknowledged that Malek can mean either 'angel' or 'messenger.'

If you really mean 'messenger' then just say it!

You can do it...
 

oldhermit

Senior Member
Jul 28, 2012
9,145
617
113
70
Alabama
#74
You already acknowledged that Malek can mean either 'angel' or 'messenger.'

If you really mean 'messenger' that just say it!

You can do it...
LOL. OK Bowman, for you I will use the word messenger if that helps you to understand the concept better.
 
Nov 19, 2012
5,484
27
0
#75
LOL. OK Bowman, for you I will use the word messenger if that helps you to understand the concept better.
This would be for the benefit of others, not myself...

I have always used the Hebrew 'Malek Yahweh' - as that is what is in scripture.
 

oldhermit

Senior Member
Jul 28, 2012
9,145
617
113
70
Alabama
#76
This would be for the benefit of others, not myself...

I have always used the Hebrew 'Malek Yahweh' - as that is what is in scripture.
It is if you read Hebrew. I do not have occasion to teach many people who read Hebrew. I teach people who read and think in English.
 
Nov 19, 2012
5,484
27
0
#77
Study up...

It is if you read Hebrew. I do not have occasion to teach many people who read Hebrew. I teach people who read and think in English.
'Malek Yahweh' is Latin transliteration of the Hebrew, brother!

Come on...

You have no issue with calling that last book of the OT, 'Malachi'.....that would be the Hebrew that you don't want to think about....
 

oldhermit

Senior Member
Jul 28, 2012
9,145
617
113
70
Alabama
#78
Re: Study up...

'Malek Yahweh' is Latin transliteration of the Hebrew, brother!

Come on...

You have no issue with calling that last book of the OT, 'Malachi'.....that would be the Hebrew that you don't want to think about....
I do not read Latin either. I do however, have a fair grasp of Greek. But, it really does not matter whether I choose to use the word Malek or angel. When I am teaching someone, what they see when they open their Bible is the word angel. It is much easier to simply show them how scripture is using that them than it is to introduce the word Malek for which they have no understanding. All this does is add an unfamiliar word into the mix that requires even further explanation. The easiest way is to simply help them understand how scripture uses the word angel. I find most people to be reasonably intelligent and it never seems to be a complicated issue to get people to understand.
 
Nov 19, 2012
5,484
27
0
#79
Re: Study up...

I do not read Latin either. I do however, have a fair grasp of Greek. But, it really does not matter whether I choose to use the word Malek or angel. When I am teaching someone, what they see when they open their Bible is the word angel. It is much easier to simply show them how scripture is using that them than it is to introduce the word Malek for which they have no understanding. All this does is add an unfamiliar word into the mix that requires even further explanation. The easiest way is to simply help them understand how scripture uses the word angel. I find most people to be reasonably intelligent and it never seems to be a complicated issue to get people to understand.
If you are teaching, then teach it right, or don't teach it at all...
 
L

LT

Guest
#80
guys... don't argue over words. get to the meat of it, not this superficial bickering. I want to hear more!