It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The angel of the lord meant Jesus?

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 19 2006 @ 09:51 PM
link   
This is a carry over from another thread, available here


[original poster]
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.


Why can't it be a regular angel and jesus remain 'hidden' in the old testament or unrevealed or something?

Also, the trinity is made up of the Father Son and Holy Spirit. The jews seem to be aware of something like the Holy Spirit, "Shekinah" or some such, its something liek 'the immanent pressence of the lord' or something along those lines.

So why was it such a surprise that the messiah was the son of god and the "Kingdom of Israel" he was 'saving' was so different than what was expected?

Also, consider that the jews weren't completely averse to multiplying the divine court, they had, at times, a complex angelology, and made sacrifices to beings like Azazel (he's the one the scape-goat is sent to), and they were very keen on there being demons and the like. So why no perception of a son of god, who is not incarnate? I don't even recall there being a small heretical group of pre-christian jews expecting this. It seems odd, either way, no?




posted on Jun, 19 2006 @ 10:51 PM
link   
Well, that depends.

It's important to remember that Judaism today is different from what it was when the scriptures were written down. Judaism, just like every body of faithful believers, is constantly changing and growing over time.

Daniel and Ezekiel use the phrase "Son of Man" to talk about a prototypical human who is sort of a new Adam.

The New Testament portrays Christ as referring to himself by this title.

Medieval Jewish Mysticism came up with "Adam Kadmon" who is sort of the universal prototype that reconciles heaven and earth.

The Qumran scrolls were written by people who could see "two messiahs" in the text of Isaiah. The "suffering messiah" who is wounded for our transgressions, and a second "conquering messiah" who will judge the earth and rule with a rod of iron.

Dr. Aldolfo Roitman, the curator of Israel's Shrine of the Book (museum of the Dead Sea Scrolls) has suggested that John the Baptist may have come from this theological heritage. when he sends his followers to Jesus, to ask him:




Matthew 7:20

When the men were come unto him, they said, John Baptist hath sent us unto thee, saying, Art thou he that should come? or look we for another?



As I wrote elsewhere, there is not indefinite article in Greek ( an/other). The question is literally "are you the coming one, or look we for the other one?"

Roitman has suggested that John the Baptist expected two messiahs, and is portrayed as wondering whether Jesus will be the sufferer, or the coming judge.

The Christian answer, of course, is that he is both.

While I won't push too hard in saying that first century Jews had a Christian concept of messiah, it's important to remember that Christians use a lot of heavily "coded language" when talking about their theology. You can't expect Christian theological concepts to be described verbatim in the Hebrew Scriptures.



posted on Jun, 19 2006 @ 11:06 PM
link   
DBrant wrote:




It's quite obvious though that the angel of the Lord in the Old Testament is Jesus/God.


I spent a lot of time in the other thread trying to refute that proposition. I want to further my viewpoint here, in as amicable a tone as I can.

It isn't obvious to me. Basically, an angel (malakh/angelos) is an inferior, a henchman. The messenger is not the equal of the master, but is subservient. To say that Jesus is an angel flies in the face of the scriptural witness of the New Testament.

I already posted Hebrews 2:16, which states that Jesus "did not take on the nature of angels, but of the seed of Abraham. . . . ."

So, what is the nature of angels?

The scriptures portray angels as taking whatever form they want; invisible (as in Numbers 22), or coming down like a shooting star (Joshua 13), or winged, (Isaiah 6), or just ordinary-looking men(Genesis 10). So obviously, angels can take on pretty much any form they choose.

But the question is, what is the nature of angels.

I say that the nature of an angel is to serve as one of God's messengers, or an attendant, praising the Presence before the eternal throne.

Yet Hebrews 2:16 states that Jesus never took on the nature of angles, but only that of a particular human.

So, I cannot honestly believe that any "angel of the Lord" passage refers to Jesus.

This "christian midrash" is based on theology and scripture, rather than on grammar.

I gave the arguments from grammar in the old thread. Basically, the presence or absence of a direct article is the haphazard product of translation, and does not reflect the original languages. Judges 2:1-4 is the best grammatical example, where this "angel of the Lord" gets a "the in one place but not another, and yet is still the same angel.

Now, notice that I'm not naysaying the idea that there are thematic types of Christ in the old testament. We could talk about numbers 21 for hours. I'm just saying that the role of angel does an injustice to the fullness of Christ's glory, and is a mistaken (if earnest) eisegesis of our expectations into scripture.



posted on Jun, 20 2006 @ 11:47 AM
link   


Also, the trinity is made up of the Father Son and Holy Spirit. The jews seem to be aware of something like the Holy Spirit, "Shekinah" or some such, its something liek 'the immanent pressence of the lord' or something along those lines.


As I recall Shekinah was the Consort of the God, The Goddess. And the Mother
of a son and Daughter.



posted on Jun, 20 2006 @ 12:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by dr_strangecraft
The Qumran scrolls were written by people who could see "two messiahs" in the text of Isaiah. The "suffering messiah" who is wounded for our transgressions, and a second "conquering messiah" who will judge the earth and rule with a rod of iron.


Do you think this is related to the "Messiah ben Joseph" and "Messiah be David" idea, where there is one that is killed and then the one of David is the 'complete' messiah who redeems israel?


Roitman has suggested that John the Baptist expected two messiahs, and is portrayed as wondering whether Jesus will be the sufferer, or the coming judge.

Interesting, I have also heard some say that John the Baptist was the "Teacher of Righteousness" from the DSS and that he was supposed to be the Messiah.


stalkingwolf
As I recall Shekinah was the Consort of the God, The Goddess. And the Mother
of a son and Daughter.

I've heard Shekinah presented as such, or as possibly that the concept of a named entity along with god indicates a pre-monotheistic beleif in a male god and a female consort, BUT, I don't think that there is any goddess actually named Shekinah, no? Nor that Shekinah is actually presented as a consort to god no? Shekinah, from my small undersanding, is presented as the "pressence" of the (still monotheistic) hebrew God. I don't know if that sits well with it being a 'relict' of YWH's pre-monotheistic consort.

And, well hell, there's an Idol to Asherah in Solomon's Temple, along with a giant bronze serpent that the people burn incense to (iow, worship as an idol). THose seem like more likely relicts in the text than Shekinah, to me anyway.



posted on Jun, 20 2006 @ 09:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nygdan
The Qumran scrolls were written by people who could see "two messiahs" in the text of Isaiah. The "suffering messiah" who is wounded for our transgressions, and a second "conquering messiah" who will judge the earth and rule with a rod of iron.


Do you think this is related to the "Messiah ben Joseph" and "Messiah be David" idea, where there is one that is killed and then the one of David is the 'complete' messiah who redeems israel?



Quite possibly. The whole thing of the "suffering messiah" interpretation of Isaiah and the other prophets is a bit of a political football among academics; because modern scholars are uneasy discussing the topic.

The "party line" is that the Masoretic Text (Hebrew letters with vowel-points, dating from ~1000 AD) is the closest to the original text of the Old Testament. In that text, the suffering messiah is less prominent. However, the Septuagint, the Greek version of the OT (used by the early Christian church) matches the DSS for the OT prophets, and has language that fits in with the "suffering messiah" imagery.

The most profound example of this debate is psalm 22:16



NIV, following the KJV and septuagint & syriac versions:

Dogs have surrounded me;
a band of evil men has encircled me,
they have pierced [c] my hands and my feet.



versus the Masoretic Hebrew:



Dogs have surrounded me;
a band of evil men has encircled me,
like a lion are my hands and feet



Christians have concluded that the Masoretic text was altered away from the original text by Jewish scholars who didn't believe it pointed to the messiah. This passage, along with Zecharaiah 12:10, have been traditional Christian "proofs" of the pre-planned crucifixion of Jesus as the Messiah. So you can imagine that any variant readings have been a source of scholarly contention.

Most Bibles printed after the translation of the dead sea scrolls have accepted the Septuagint version, since it matches the DSS; as a conciliatory measure, they have replaced the word "pierced" with "cut through" or some other term that seems a bit less explicitly crucifixion-oriented. Of course one wonders, if it is the best translation, why alter it at all, regardless of what this or that group feels.

Incedentally, Christians who are unfamiliar with Psalm 22 ought to read it. The first verse is the one Jesus proclaims from the Cross in Matthew. Many Christians who haven't actually studied the Bible assume that Jesus is doubting on the cross. In truth, he is pointing to Psalm 22. Since there are 22 letters in the Hebrew alphabet, Hebrew readers naturally turn to it, for numerological reasons.



posted on Jun, 20 2006 @ 10:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by stalkingwolf



Also, the trinity is made up of the Father Son and Holy Spirit. The jews seem to be aware of something like the Holy Spirit, "Shekinah" or some such, its something liek 'the immanent pressence of the lord' or something along those lines.


As I recall Shekinah was the Consort of the God, The Goddess. And the Mother
of a son and Daughter.


Shekhinah is the Hebrew word for glory.

In the ancient/neoplatonic mind, and in lyric poetry, a word is an archetype of attributes.

You see this in the book of Proverbs, where there is an "ode to wisdom," where wisdom is portrayed as a beautiful maiden; young men admire her, but they chase after the whores of the street who are an easy lay. Only a few men enjoy the embrace of wisdom, because only a few have what it takes to earn her devotion.

Later Jewish scholarship played upon this and several other passages. For instance, the phrase "the glory of the LORD has departed from Israel," was portrayed in the Talmud, as a virgin who has departed the land, leaving Israel with its harlots (false gods).

Some neopagans have tried to connect Schekhinah with the Asherah, whom the Moabites and northern tribes tried to set up as a female consort/co-goddes with the LORD (at least this is the history given by the prophets.) Each king in the divided kingdom is judged by whether or not he stamped out the worship of Asherah.

Asherah means "straight," and may have been a tribal idol of the tribe of Asher. Not much has been found in the archaeological record. Most art from the divided kingdom that has a "consort" for the Lord sets up some local deity, rather than either shekhinah OR Asherah.

The cult of YHVH was so insistent that the GOD not be portrayed by an idol, that it was hard to add a goddess consort alongside of an invisible God. This made it relatiely easy for reformers to point out that the goddess figure had no place in judaism, since Ishtar or Asherah were represented by some object. Shekhinah never seems to have been deified or worshiped, as far as I know.

Shekhinah, glory, as an angelic prototype was embellished in Kabbalistic works in the middle ages into a kind of gnostic aeon, or intermediary, of the celestial court. So, when speaking of Shekhinah as a personality, it is important to fix the context within the 3500 years of the stream of Jewish faith.



posted on Jun, 21 2006 @ 04:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nygdan
This is a carry over from another thread, available here


[original poster]
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.


Why can't it be a regular angel and jesus remain 'hidden' in the old testament or unrevealed or something?

Also, the trinity is made up of the Father Son and Holy Spirit. The jews seem to be aware of something like the Holy Spirit, "Shekinah" or some such, its something liek 'the immanent pressence of the lord' or something along those lines.

So why was it such a surprise that the messiah was the son of god and the "Kingdom of Israel" he was 'saving' was so different than what was expected?

Also, consider that the jews weren't completely averse to multiplying the divine court, they had, at times, a complex angelology, and made sacrifices to beings like Azazel (he's the one the scape-goat is sent to), and they were very keen on there being demons and the like. So why no perception of a son of god, who is not incarnate? I don't even recall there being a small heretical group of pre-christian jews expecting this. It seems odd, either way, no?



The angel of the Lord most likley meant a being of his Creation, other then himself. You have to go back to the Greek and look at the words that were used for any member of the 3-part God head. None of these match anything other then what was common for ANGEL, or angelic being. The Jews were aware in a three part God becuase they believed/still believe in the Old Testament. Where God revealed himeself. However the Holy Spirit that now resides in all who have excepted Jesus Christ as their personal Lord and Savior was not avalible until IT came down upon the 120 in the upper room. (after jesus return to heaven)

The reason why the jews do not believe in the New Testament, is becuase they do not believe that the man Jesus Christ who was crucified in Rome around 33 a.d. was the promised Messiah. They missed him becuase Jesus did not come like they thought he would, they thought he would have a physical kingdom with army's etc. They were looking for a leader by the sword/ conventional kings, not a king of the new earth/ heaven. That should also answer your last paragraph... if you still have more questions about the Jews shortly after the time of Christ read i]Josephus.



posted on Jun, 21 2006 @ 06:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by Scyman

You have to go back to the Greek and look at the words that were used for any member of the 3-part God head.

The Jews were aware in a three part God becuase they believed/still believe in the Old Testament.



Quite the opposite.

Nowhere in the Hebrew Scriptures (Christian "Old Testament") is there anything about a 3-part God head. Chapter and verse please, if you say otherwise.

The Jews were/are NOT 'aware in' a 3 part God. Many refuse to convert, not because Jesus wasn't the messiah, but because they think the doctrine of Trinity embraced by many Christians is a violation of Exodus 20:1-3 and Deuteronomy 6:4

"Hear O Isreal, the LORD your God, the LORD is ONE."

The terms "triune" and "trinity" never occur in scripture. They were invented by St. Jerome to describe what he saw as three earthly manifestations of the Divine presence.

(St. Jerome was pretty creative; he also made up a term that is the basis for modern psychology: "personality." He used it to describe how the three personalities of the trinity are not seperate beings, but are one God with three manifestations in this realm. As antithetical as some psychologists are to faith, they have certainly borrowed Jerome's term!)

.



posted on Jun, 21 2006 @ 09:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by dr_strangecraft

Nowhere in the Hebrew Scriptures (Christian "Old Testament") is there anything about a 3-part God head. Chapter and verse please, if you say otherwise.





It's throughout the Bible. A couple of examples.

Genesis 1:1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
[2] And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.

and Genesis 1:[26] And God said, Let us make man in our image,



posted on Jun, 22 2006 @ 07:37 AM
link   
"The Spirit of God" moving on the face of the waters is "ruach ha-elohim." It can equally be translated "Divine wind." The fact that God's spirit, breath, or life-force, is portrayed in no way implies that God has 3 parts. Or 72 parts, or anything else. It implies that God is a spiritual being, but I had already figured that out, thanks.

"Us" does not necesarilly mean "three part godhead."

For all you know, he was talking to the angels, the members of his heavenly court.


You are READING SOMETHING IN to the text. Maybe you are justified for doing this, but it is NOT IN THE TEXT ITSELF.

Again, there is no hebrew term "three part" referring to the Deity in the old testament.

Trinity is an exclusively Christian concept. There are some New Testament texts that certainly point toward that concept. But TRINITY is a theological concept that is never explicity mentioned in scripture.

Do I think it's unwarranted? No. But we need to be care not to read things into the text that aren't actually there.

This is sort of like the apple in the garden of Eden. . . .

[edit on 22-6-2006 by dr_strangecraft]



posted on Jun, 22 2006 @ 01:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by dr_strangecraft

Originally posted by Nygdan
Do you think this is related to the "Messiah ben Joseph" and "Messiah be David" idea, where there is one that is killed and then the one of David is the 'complete' messiah who redeems israel?



Quite possibly. The whole thing of the "suffering messiah" interpretation of Isaiah and the other prophets is a bit of a political football among academics; because modern scholars are uneasy discussing the topic.


It is, actually--two messiahs (anointed of God) not two visits by the same person (of Jesus) but one represents the High Priest Yehoshua (from the 3rd chapter Zechariah) who is cleaned up and approved to serve--then in that same chapter is mentioned the Branch....

The Branch is not Jesus--He is the root, mentioned in the 4th Gospel.

The branch is referring to the Davidic branch and the Lion of Judah--this is the Messiah that ushers in the time of peace and unity over all the Earth--this one the Jews still wait on and they do not see the Root for what He is.

God promised David an heir upon the throne of Israel. That throne is on Earth--the Throne above is already filled but the one on Earth is waiting.

In Haggai we find that Yehoshua and Zerubabbel rebuild God's Holy Temple. This did not happen, men cannot built this temple.

These two are the anointed that stand on either side of the throne of the LORD of all the earth (Zechariah)

Zerah means 'east' and 'brightness' and Babel is actually 'babylon.' Yehoshuah is the 'quickened' form of Yeshua--the extra 'ho' in the middle is the 'spirit of God' that God adds to the name of those He sends and approves and blesses with His promised seed....

Abram to Abraham and Sarai to Sarah (which means princess).

In Revelation we have mention of the 'spirit and the bride' inviting all to the feast...
these two together are the 'root and offspring of David, the bright and morning star,'
star representing 'prince.'

The 'bride' is not the church as so many christians vehemently declare--and the church is a substituted word for 'assembly.' No one can take away God's promises that He gave to another and claim them as their own.

The 'bride' is actually the second Messiah sent--the completion and balanced pair together comprise the world's salvation and the eternal linking that will fulfill Hermes declaration of 'as above so below' and the prayer of 'Thy kingdom come, thy will be done, in Heaven as it is below.'

These are also referred to as the early and latter rain!



posted on Jun, 22 2006 @ 02:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by queenannie38
Yehoshuah is the 'quickened' form of Yeshua--the extra 'ho' in the middle is the 'spirit of God' that God adds to the name of those He sends and approves and blesses with His promised seed....

Abram to Abraham and Sarai to Sarah (which means princess).



'ho' is the spirit of God????

So, Moshe (moses) and A'aron didn't have it.

Neither did David, apparently . . . .

Hmm. I don't know where you're getting this. "Ha" is a distinct sound from "ho" in Hebrew. "Abram" means "great father;" "Ab-raham means "father of many." I don't just know that from studying hebrew, the Bible told me so (Genesis 17:4).

As for the bride being a single person, and not a group---'splain me this:



Revelation 21:2

I saw the Holy City, the new Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God, prepared as a bride beautifully dressed for her husband.



So if the bride isn't a group of people, how come a whole city (New Jerusalem) is referred to as a bride?

or this:



Jeremiah 2:2

"Go and proclaim in the hearing of Jerusalem: " 'I remember the devotion of your youth, how as a bride you loved me and followed me through the desert, through a land not sown.



Again, a whole people (Jerusalem) compared to a bride.

Other examles where israel is compared to a bride (or adulterous wife) include:

Jeremiah 3:1
Ezekiel 16:32
Hosea 1:2
Hosea 3:1

So if the christians have erred through the centuries in thinking that the bride was the church, it's hardly surprising. On the other hand, you've got to exclude all the imagery I posted in order to argue that there are two messiahs and one is female, and the bride refers to a single person. Where's the scriptural types for that?

Not sure where you're getting your stuff.


.



posted on Jun, 22 2006 @ 03:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by queenannie38
In Revelation we have mention of the 'spirit and the bride' inviting all to the feast... these two together are the 'root and offspring of David, the bright and morning star,' star representing 'prince.'

Interesting points. To clarify, so you are saying that John of the Apocalypse understood the above to be as such? I'm just curious because, from the usual understanding, he was writting to a group of churches/communities in Turkey, rather than giving an esoteric exposition??



posted on Jun, 22 2006 @ 03:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by dr_strangecraft
'ho' is the spirit of God????

Well, actually it is 'he' which is the 5th letter of the Hebrew alphabet. These are not just letters, but are 22 symbols of a very ancient meaning that give a depth and meaning to the Hebrew language (not masoretic but plain old hebrew without vowel marks). Basically pictograms much like the chinese written language. They haven't changed from the oldest known form of the linguistic root, which is (off the top of my head) canannite-phoenician? I could be wrong, but I'm just referring to the oldest semitic root, whatever that is. A font can be found at www.ancienthebrew.org...
If you'd like, I could send you the meanings for all 22 letters, privately. It is very enlightening and has proven to be consistent and reliable when applied to all scripture--even just according to Strong's cross-reference of the KJV~!

It may even be some sort of Kabbalah study--my mother in law gave them to me and she has studied Hebrew for years--I don't know where she got them but they were literally a 'God-send.'

So, Moshe (moses) and A'aron didn't have it.

Neither did David, apparently . . . .

Yes, all of these had it....there are 'types' of both the bride and the bridegroom all through the OT and basically that's all it's about. It isn't apparent and its a much deeper level than most dig to, and even with digging it must be revealed through the spirit.

David knew and that's what Psalms is about--not him but the two messiahs who will be one and reign over the New Jerusalem, build the temple, and bring all God has promised, literally and in full, to the world.


Hmm. I don't know where you're getting this. "Ha" is a distinct sound from "ho" in Hebrew. "Abram" means "great father;" "Ab-raham means "father of many." I don't just know that from studying hebrew, the Bible told me so (Genesis 17:4).

Well, the bible says many things to all of us, and none of them are wrong and they all will come together, but one layer is not the whole cake. If you know what I mean.

More like an onion--each layer is deeper and the layers behind the reader become transparent--from the heat of the spirit (like cooking that onion) which is the only trustworthy translator/interpretor/teacher of the Word.


Revelation 21:2
I saw the Holy City, the new Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God, prepared as a bride beautifully dressed for her husband.

Prepared 'as' a bride. Not is the bride. Notice the wording here:

I Jesus have sent mine angel to testify unto you these things in the churches. I am the root and the offspring of David, and the bright and morning star. And the Spirit and the bride say, Come. And let him that heareth say, Come. And let him that is athirst come. And whosoever will, let him take the water of life freely.
(Revelation 22:16-17 KJV)

It is not the city speaking, but the spirit and the bride--the hosts of the feast!

The root and the offspring. Both together are the bright and morning star.
But Jesus never said He was the branch or even that he would be. He is the root.
Paul talks a lot about the idea of branches, and also the branch is found in scripture as the 'vine.'

God speaks of His servant, the Branch.



So if the bride isn't a group of people, how come a whole city (New Jerusalem) is referred to as a bride?
Compared to as a bride. The idea that the bride is a body or nation is somewhat correct--but what nation ever ruled over itself without any designated government of any sort and also served God and His will? Not even the monarchs of european history, who claimed to be ordained by God
were able to administer for the good of the people. Human beings cannot overcome the one thing that makes every human government eventually fall--the corruption of power that comes to all but the most humble. And the truly humble and wise soul never seeks a position of power. It has never happened, except in just one case, that is only testified as history according to the bible--the Jews across the waters hold fast to this one prime example. which is King David--as dearly as they hold fast to the leadership of Moses and the core of their law rests on God's law (although the Talmud and Mishna are not from God but from men...they still have the core of the law given at Sinai)

The bible gives an additional warning about kings and man-made monarchies. Nebuchadnezzar and King Solomon--their lesson is that even the wisest or most successful builder of men's kingdoms will even fail as a theocracy. Two different tales, but both display one aspect of the problem of a human who is led by God.

Only a true Son of God would obey God--and only after quite a bit of chastening and that ever present rod of correction!



Jeremiah 2:2
"Go and proclaim in the hearing of Jerusalem: " 'I remember the devotion of your youth, how as a bride you loved me and followed me through the desert, through a land not sown.

Metaphor, notice the 'as.' The metaphor of bride doesn't hold up, as we can see from the diversified ideas these days about who is the true bride. It doesn't remain consistent without contradiction so that means that we're missing something somewhere. In Christ there is no division, remember? The breach of Tamar is what will be healed with the second coming of God's anointed.


Other examles where israel is compared to a bride (or adulterous wife) include:

Jeremiah 3:1
Ezekiel 16:32
Hosea 1:2
Hosea 3:1


Just to name a few! And then there is also the whore of Babylon and even the 'virgin daughter of babylon,' the 'virgin daugher of Zion,' and the 'daughter of Jerusalem'.

Remember, in the OT God married two--Israel and her sister Judah. These were the people and nation of the children of Israel--but both dealt treacherously with Him.
God the Father and His two whoring wives--one was the first and the second was her sister. Much like Rachel and Leah...but remember Jacob loved the one more that he married after the first one. The elder always serves the younger, in the bible.

This verse is a much better example of the bride which is prepared for the Son who is
the bridegroom and King at the right side of the throne in heaven:


What thing shall I take to witness for thee? what thing shall I liken to thee, O daughter of Jerusalem? what shall I equal to thee, that I may comfort thee, O virgin daughter of Zion? for thy breach is great like the sea: who can heal thee? Thy prophets have seen vain and foolish things for thee: and they have not discovered thine iniquity, to turn away thy captivity; but have seen for thee false burdens and causes of banishment.
(Lamentations 2:13-14 KJV)



So if the christians have erred through the centuries in thinking that the bride was the church, it's hardly surprising. On the other hand, you've got to exclude all the imagery I posted in order to argue that there are two messiahs and one is female, and the bride refers to a single person.

No need to exclude the imagery--only it should be placed in it's proper perspective. Which is the old covenant which was but a shadow of the new. The new testament was declared and authorized--and is basically the will of the Father (the owner of the estate) which will be given in full when the inheritance is fully and officially handed down. But it hasn't been yet, because nothing is at all like it God promised it would be.

(cont.)



posted on Jun, 22 2006 @ 08:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by queenannie38

Well, actually it is 'he' which is the 5th letter of the Hebrew alphabet. These are not just letters, but are 22 symbols of a very ancient meaning that give a depth and meaning to the Hebrew language (not masoretic but plain old hebrew without vowel marks). Basically pictograms much like the chinese written language. They haven't changed from the oldest known form of the linguistic root, which is (off the top of my head) canannite-phoenician? I could be wrong, but I'm just referring to the oldest semitic root, whatever that is. A font can be found at www.ancienthebrew.org...
If you'd like, I could send you the meanings for all 22 letters, privately. It is very enlightening and has proven to be consistent and reliable when applied to all scripture--even just according to Strong's cross-reference of the KJV~!
.


Thanks, but I've already got that stuff down. "Proto-Sinatic" is the term your looking for, but phoenecian is close enough.

And no, the letter 'he' doesn't necesarrily point to the presence of the spirit of the Lord. For instance, the Hebrew word "chazqah," violence, has a "he" in it, so does
"mahah" to deny or refuse. The Spirit I know is not inherently involved in either violence OR refusing requests.

I just can't agree with you about the "second messiah as bride" topic. There's a plethora of language comparing Israel, and the ingrafted church, to the bride. There is no language where the messiah has female gender, or has/is a bride. I think you can only arrive at that conclusion by torturing the text.

My views aren't going to change; I'm prepared to accept that yours aren't, either.

That said, it's better to be interested, and be mistaken here or there, than to decide it's all irrelevant, as do so many in the world who live as if there were no tomorrow.

.



posted on Jun, 23 2006 @ 05:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by dr_strangecraft
And no, the letter 'he' doesn't necesarrily point to the presence of the spirit of the Lord. For instance, the Hebrew word "chazqah," violence, has a "he" in it, so does
"mahah" to deny or refuse. The Spirit I know is not inherently involved in either violence OR refusing requests.

I'm sorry I wasn't careful in my explanation about this to you. The pictogram meanings that I apply are not the same as the traditional Hebrew is given to, according to the sephirot etc... It is not our human application of the language, but is more akin to the archetypical/symbolic language that the Spirit speaks to our minds with--ideas instead of phonetics is maybe what I should say.

It's hard to explain.

Also, it is not according to the transliterated Hebrew, but the actual Hebrew characters used originally. There isn't any 'he' in chazqah, true (assuming you are using the same word that's translated violence in Genesis 6:11)--because it is literally just spelled like so:

chet (new beginning, new life)
mem (non final so it is revelation revealed)
samech (divine provision)

Think about when God speaks of a 'woman in travail.' Travail is certainly a form of violence, especially from a woman's point of view...yet in the end it is new life revealed and is God's provision that family lines are carried on.


I just can't agree with you about the "second messiah as bride" topic.

Well, I certainly wasn't expecting to persuade you against your current conclusions, anyway--just offering food for thought.


There's a plethora of language comparing Israel, and the ingrafted church, to the bride. There is no language where the messiah has female gender, or has/is a bride

But pronoun gender assignment is according to context in Hebrew, isn't it?
With 'he' being the default choice of tradition, it seems.


I think you can only arrive at that conclusion by torturing the text.

Actually, I have to defend myself on that charge. It seems to me quite the opposite. If I take one verse and parse out each Hebrew word without the English fill injected in order to make it flow in our language, I often find that the translators tortured the text more often than not. And if it is a version that has come from the XXII, then there is the additional problem of two passes from Hebrew to English. There's a lot of unintentional spin put on the meanings in doing that. I'm often surprised at how many accepted interpretations are flawed when I scrutinize the text, and it often changes my understanding quite a bit overall--and it's far more consistent and complete than when I relied just on the habitual ideas of christianity.

A lot of the christian understandings of the OT are quite different than what the Jewish scholars understand--and they've had the additional help of being the true 'owners' of these scriptures and so there are subtleties of which the rest of us have no idea. We can't take God away from the people He chose to know and bless--no matter what we might think is good reason, it is a detrimental thing, for faith in general, to ever assume God will change His mind and not deal honestly with us. Chastising is not the same as removing a blessing but that is how it often perceived--that God withdrew promises made to the children of Israel. That's likely a costly mistake on which to base our relationship with Him.

They don't see their nation as a bride who is going to marry the Kingly Messiah when he arrives--but there is tradition that if he arrives in the fall--at Rosh Hashanah--his first order of business will be his own wedding. Perhaps they see it as a mortal man marrying the Shekinah--but that's a rather unusual idea, and I've never heard it. Their King David will be a human who will later somehow become immortal--but they do not think that it will be Ha shem at any time, either--mortal or immortal.

I've never come across any indication of who they think this mysterious bride will be, either--they don't seem to define so tightly their expectations as we tend toward and they certainly don't see that God would send them a double in advance for the purpose of tricking them.


That said, it's better to be interested, and be mistaken here or there, than to decide it's all irrelevant, as do so many in the world who live as if there were no tomorrow..

That's a noble sentiment and one I agree with. Like I said, my goal isn't to win you over to my way of thinking at all. I just like gaining and sharing understanding.



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join