Abraham: What's the moral?

Originally posted by dbrandt
The Bible is an amazing book. The entire Bible points man to Jesus Christ. Without Jesus we are lost.

I find the people who read it more amazing, particularly how they are able to twist the words into so much origami to make it say what they want it to say.

As for Jesus, I think you're transubstantiating him a little too much when you make him an angel. Angels are obviously separate entities than either men or the things that make up God.

What about the accounts where there are two angels (angels often seem to travel in pairs)? Was he both angels, then?

Use a little common sense.

Originally posted by Enkidu

As for Jesus, I think you're transubstantiating him a little too much when you make him an angel. Angels are obviously separate entities than either men or the things that make up God.


Use a little common sense.

Well, that's where common sense causes you to read things into the text that aren't there.


The word usually translated as "angel" is "Malak" in the Hebrew text; in the Greek portions of scripture, it's "angelos."

Both of those words commonly mean "messenger/news-bringer."

The same word is used, for instance in 2 Samuel 5:11, where "messengers" of the king of Tyre come to David, making arrangements to build a palace for David.

So, at least some of the time, the "angels" are supernatural only because they are particular messengers of the Deity.

The term for "good news" in Greek is "euangelion" Which is the root for the English word "evangelism."

Believers are making choices (or going with choices made by translators) about which messengers are spirit beings, and which are not.

The whole business about "Yaldaboath" isn't IN the text any more than reading "angel of the Lord" as a prehistoric Jesus is. Yaldaboath was a literary creation of the Gnostics who wanted to divorce the message of Jesus from the Jewish religion. Marcion may have originated the term. Theologically, it's a way of saying "anything I don't like in the text cannot be from God. It must be some narrow-minded bigot-deity, if I don't approve of the words." Emotionally convenient, but not exactly calling people to step outside themselves.

.

Originally posted by Enkidu

What about the accounts where there are two angels (angels often seem to travel in pairs)? Was he both angels, then?

Use a little common sense.

Obviously God also made angels who are seperate creations and who are not God. Also I don't know if you missed this. But it refers to a preincarnate Christ when it says "the angel of the Lord". Key word "the". Other times it says an angel of the Lord, then it isd not speaking of Christ.

Originally posted by dbrandt

But it refers to a preincarnate Christ when it says "the angel of the Lord". Key word "the". Other times it says an angel of the Lord, then it isd not speaking of Christ.

Not so fast.

Neither Greek nor Hebrew had the indefinite article.

In other words. There is no Greek or Hebrew word for "a." Both languages possess a definite article. Hebrew uses "Ha," While Greek has "Ho." Neither of them has "a." It is merely written INTO YOUR ENGLISH BIBLE for ease of reading.

Other languages are NOT mrerely a code for English. There are plenty of passages in both Hebrew and Greek where there is no direct, grammatically correct translation possible.

A Telling Example:

Numbers 22:22-24

22 And God’s anger was kindled because he went: and the angel of the LORD stood in the way for an adversary against him. Now he was riding upon his ass, and his two servants were with him. 23 And the ass saw the angel of the LORD standing in the way, and his sword drawn in his hand: and the ass turned aside out of the way, and went into the field: and Balaam smote the ass, to turn her into the way. 24 But the angel of the LORD stood in a path of the vineyards, a wall being on this side, and a wall on that side.

emphasis added by dr_strangecraft

You'd better throw out your Bible, because it is inserting "the" when the original text doesn't have it, thus misleading you into thinking some angel is Jesus.

A better example is Judges 2:1-4

1 And an angel of the LORD came up from Gilgal to Bochim, and said, I made you to go up out of Egypt, and have brought you unto the land which I sware unto your fathers; and I said, I will never break my covenant with you. 2 And ye shall make no league with the inhabitants of this land; ye shall throw down their altars: but ye have not obeyed my voice: why have ye done this? 3 Wherefore I also said, I will not drive them out from before you; but they shall be as thorns in your sides, and their gods shall be a snare unto you. 4 And it came to pass, when the angel of the LORD spake these words unto all the children of Israel, that the people lifted up their voice, and wept.

emphasis added by strangecraft

You can even see this one in English.

Verse one has "an angel." So that's NOT Jesus, right?

But in verse 4, it's "the angel of the LORD," which IS Jesus, according to you.

Yet a person armed with reason can see that the angel in verse for is functionally the same angel in verse one, and that verse 4 in fact doesn't give any new behavior to the SAME angel in verse one. But you are positing that one of the "two" must be Jesus.


But lets move on.

Matthew 2:13

And when they were departed, behold, the angel of the Lord appeareth to Joseph in a dream, saying, Arise, and take the young child and his mother, and flee into Egypt,

So. Is this angel in the dream JESUS???? When Jesus is lying there in the manger, he is no longe the "pre-carnate Christ." He's already born. So does his soul leave the baby's body to appear in his step-dad's dream?

Actuall, it's "an angel" in the Greek, since there's no definite article. But if you accept the Greek over your english translation (like I do), then you're going to have to learn some Greek before you go playing hide-and-seek with a "secret Jesus" in scripture. Well let that one slide for now.


Acts 5:18-19

18 And laid their hands on the apostles, and put them in the common prison. 19 But the angel of the Lord by night opened the prison doors, and brought them forth, and said,

Now, "the apostles" include Peter. and you're arguing that THE RISEN CHRIST leads them out of Jail, and Peter doesn't recognize him? How can this be? Peter is one of those who recognize the risen Christ when he appeared in the upper room. If Peter didn't know it was Jesus, how come the author of Acts (Luke, presumeably), knows it to be Jesus? And if it IS Jesus, why didn't he just say so? And how come a non-apostle like luke supposedly would know more about the Christ-nature than Peter himself, upon whom the church is said to be founded???

The same with the Apostle Philip getting orders from "the angel of the LORD" in Acts 8:26

Honestly, as a fellow Christian, I just found scripture that directly refutes the doctrine you espouse:

Hebrews 2:16

For verily he took not on him the nature of angels; but he took on him the seed of Abraham.

.

[edit on 19-6-2006 by dr_strangecraft]

Originally posted by dr_strangecraft
But lets move on.

Matthew 2:13


So. Is this angel in the dream JESUS???? When Jesus is lying there in the manger, he is no longe the "pre-carnate Christ." He's already born. So does his soul leave the baby's body to appear in his step-dad's dream?

For verily he took not on him the nature of angels; but he took on him the seed of Abraham.

.

Good question about the New Testament "the angel of the Lord" ones. I'll need to incestigate that one. It's quite obvious though that the angel of the Lord in the Old Testament is Jesus/God.

I am in no way saying Jesus took the form of an angel. I'm saying the wording "the angel of the Lord" is referring to Christ.

Whoa, I just made a way off topic post, I think we should try to stick to how the topic relates to Abraham and the message therein. Maybe we can continue the angel of the lord, as its own subject, here?


Either way. I don't think that the main intent of the story is to 'prefigure' jesus, even if it infact does do that.

[edit on 19-6-2006 by Nygdan]

[edit on 19-6-2006 by Nygdan]