|
|
Post by Mpossoff on Mar 5, 2007 8:31:32 GMT -8
Wow Yitzchak!
Thanks!
Yitzchak in Hebrew is it He suffered pain and was tortured from everlasting from the beginning or ever the earth was?
In other words He was 'slain' before the foundation of the world?
Wow as in John the King/Prince not only was with G-d but is G-d.
Now let's not even have a discussion to try to figure this out, how He can be with G-d and be G-d.
I would say when we are able to dwell with Him and see His face maybe we'll know?
Maybe He'll tell us how to pronounce the Name only He knows? He had a name written that no one knew except Himself
Marc
|
|
|
|
Post by Chizuk Emunah on Mar 5, 2007 9:16:01 GMT -8
Well, I did suggest a new thread for it, but since the can has been opened, let's take a look at the worms shall we? First, I believe that this is very dangerous territory. To equate the Mashiach with an angel is a false interpretation of Scripture. One would have to seriously twist the Scriptures in order to come to that conjecture through looking at the texts. Now, that being said, let's proceed. Throughout the Tanakh what is the word that is used every time someone says that they have seen and spoken to G-d? The word is "malakh", angel. There is absolutely no indication that the manifestation seen by the Patriarchs and Matriarchs is anything other than an angel. What is the function of an angel? Well, there are many different angels, and each one has their own mission. In these cases the malakhim function as messengers of HaShem and nothing more. What about the Mashiach? Is it possible that he appeared to men before he was even born? I cannot say with 100% certainty yes or no. But I can say that there is no evidence whether in the  (Written or Oral), nor any of the Rabbinic works, nor in Kabbalah to suggest such a possibility. Now, did the talmidim somehow believe in this concept? I doubt it. I have yet to see any indication of such. I can say this much, the idea of a god appearing as an angel was very prevalent in Egyptian, Greek, and Roman mythology. Shalom, Natanel |
|
|
|
Post by Mpossoff on Mar 5, 2007 9:56:07 GMT -8
Hi Natanel and all,
Why can't there be instances as such?:
For me at least I can only derive from the context who the angel is.
In some instances the angel is speaking in 2nd person. From the context for me I know it's a messenger 'sent on Adonai's behalf', if you will.
In some instances from the context the Angel is speaking 'as if He is Adonai'. For example if you read the text it will say Angel of the L-rd. OK an 'angelic being'. BUT when you read the entire text for me there is no doubt that it's not an 'angelic being'.
In the instances that the Angel is speaking 'as if He is Adonai', the Angel makes divine promises, speaks as if He is G-d, accepts worship, credited with something like redemption.
Angelic messengers can't make divine promises, speaks as if He is G-d, accepts worship, credited with something like redemption.
Only Adonai can.
Aren't there many 'titles' for Adonai?
Then she called the name of the LORD who spoke to her, You-Are-the-God-Who-Sees; for she said, “Have I also here seen Him who sees me?
The above text first said it was an Angel of the LORD. But then after you read the entire text, for me at least the Angel isn't just a 'messenger' that it is G-d Himself.
Like I said in some instances not all.
Then the Angel of God spoke to me in a dream, saying, ‘Jacob.’ And I said, ‘Here I am.’ 12 And He said, ‘Lift your eyes now and see, all the rams which leap on the flocks are streaked, speckled, and gray-spotted; for I have seen all that Laban is doing to you. 13 I am the God of Bethel, where you anointed the pillar and where you made a vow to Me. Now arise, get out of this land, and return to the land of your family.’”
First Angel of G-d is used.
Then the Angel of G-d is 'referred' to I am the God of Bethel, where you anointed the pillar and where you made a vow to Me. Now arise, get out of this land, and return to the land of your family
For me in this instance there is no doubt that the Angel of G-d not just a 'typical messenger'.
Marc
|
|
Pioneer
Full Member
Shema and Shemar
Posts: 210
|
Post by Pioneer on Mar 5, 2007 10:43:21 GMT -8
If an angelic being is sent in His Shem, it is done! Amein amein
Has the full weigh and power of the Ruach HaKodesh behind it.
John 14:13 Whatever you ask in my name, I will do it, that the Father may be glorified in the Son;
John 14:14 if you ask anything in my name, I will do it.
Shalom
|
|
|
|
Post by Yitzchak on Mar 5, 2007 11:09:51 GMT -8
One could interpret it this way. Keep in mind that we use Pardes when we study scripture. This would certainly fall into the category of Remez, and is supported by the underlying Hebrew translation of the words.
The traditional Hebrew translation on face value is how it reads.
Shalom,
Yitzchak
|
|
|
|
Post by Nachshon on Mar 5, 2007 13:28:08 GMT -8
Why was it named P'niy 'El?
|
|
|
|
Post by Yitzchak on Mar 5, 2007 14:48:10 GMT -8
Why was it named P'niy 'El? Because he saw HaShem, panim el panim  Shalom, Yitzchak |
|
|
|
Post by Chizuk Emunah on Mar 6, 2007 18:13:09 GMT -8
Pioneer hit the nail on the head. What we see in Scripture, is that HaShem will send an angel in his name, with his authority. Remember, the says that it is impossible for man to see Ein Sof and live! Interestingly enough, that is why Kabbalah teaches that only the soul apart from the body is able to be in his presence. Shalom, Natanel |
|
|
|
Post by Yitzchak on Mar 6, 2007 20:22:15 GMT -8
Pioneer hit the nail on the head. What we see in Scripture, is that HaShem will send an angel in his name, with his authority. Remember, the says that it is impossible for man to see Ein Sof and live! Interestingly enough, that is why Kabbalah teaches that only the soul apart from the body is able to be in his presence. Shalom, Natanel Actually the does not say that, as Ein Sof is a Kabbalistic concept from Zohar, and is not spoken of in . Zohar is not accepted as authoritative in observant Messianic Judaism. How do you explain the scriptures that clearly state "We or I have seen G-d, and lived." Shalom, Yitzchak |
|
|
|
Post by Mpossoff on Mar 7, 2007 0:37:41 GMT -8
Hi Yitzchak and all, How do you explain John 1? IN THE beginning [before all time] was the Word , and the Word was with God, and the Word was God Himself.And the Word became flesh. Question: When did the Word become flesh? Just in John 1 or IN THE beginning[before all time]? Again one can only derive from the context whether one is speaking of a human being, or an angelic being, or a Divine emanation of some kind. As Yitzchak said How do you explain the scriptures that clearly state We or I have seen G-d, and lived.Why is it so impossible? With G-d isn't anything possible? Marc Pioneer hit the nail on the head. What we see in Scripture, is that HaShem will send an angel in his name, with his authority. Remember, the says that it is impossible for man to see Ein Sof and live! Interestingly enough, that is why Kabbalah teaches that only the soul apart from the body is able to be in his presence. Shalom, Natanel Actually the does not say that, as Ein Sof is a Kabbalistic concept from Zohar, and is not spoken of in . Zohar is not accepted as authoritative in observant Messianic Judaism. How do you explain the scriptures that clearly state "We or I have seen G-d, and lived." Shalom, Yitzchak |
|
|
|
Post by Mpossoff on Mar 7, 2007 2:24:12 GMT -8
Hi Natanel yes I believe it's dangerous to equate Messiah with an angel.
In my previous posts my intention wasn't to equate Messiah with an angel.
In other words my intention isn't to equate Messiah with an 'angelic being' as you descibed what the function of an angel is.
That in my opinion it is very dangerous to say that Messiah is equal to 'an angelic being'.
You said
This might be the issue here. Are you saying that Mashiach isn't what is spoken of in John 1 and Proverbs 8? And Mashiach and the Word are not 'one in the same'?
Just because the text says Angel of the L-rd does it necessarily mean an 'angelic being'?
It's my opinion that the translators understand. That using a capitol is sort of like a circumlocution.
I have been told that the Massorete's understood this signifigance as well.
And Manoah said to his wife, “We shall surely die, because we have seen G-d!”
But his wife said to him, “If the LORD had desired to kill us, He would not have accepted a burnt offering and a grain offering from our hands, nor would He have shown us all these things, nor would He have told us such things as these at this time.”
Who accepted the offering? Can 'angelic beings' accept offerings?
Would it be 'blasphemy'(might not be the correct word) to make an offering to an 'angelic being'?
Marc
|
|
|
|
Post by Mark on Mar 7, 2007 5:08:11 GMT -8
It is also inportant to recognize the limited scope of our vocabulary. What would we call Him? God in the flesh? Within the scope of vanacular understandings, this would seem an oxymoron: flesh denotes vulnerability. We have our "hollywood" understanding of angel that must fit within a certain theological framework. The truth is that all mention of angels in the text is peripheral at best. To say, "I know what an angel is therefore it cannot reference a manifestation of God," isn't completely responsible. The truth is, we don't have a clue what an angel is or isn't, looks like or behaves. It is a term given to an order of an existence which we possess very, very little knowledge.
An angel, true to the definition, is simply "dispatch." Did Adonai put the universe on auto-pilot while He spoke with Manoah and his wife? I should hope not; though we we are sure that He was present in the burning bush. So, He could have "dispatched" Himself, as it were, in such a way as to tell the story and remain true to Himself. Our language is confined by the finite nature of our understanding and will reflect that every time we come face to face with the infinite character of God.
|
|
|
|
Post by Mpossoff on Mar 7, 2007 5:35:44 GMT -8
Very good points Mark. Instead of 'relying' so to speak on other resources and I'll speak for myself, I believe I should let scripture 'speak for itself'. My infinite mind says to me that it's impossible for an infinite G-d to appear. Then I hear from other sources that it's also impossible. But what 'cuts that down' is scripture. My mind tells me it's impossible but scripture says it happened. An example not directly related but hopefully it will get my point across: 'Did you drive your car to Shul today?' Does scripture actually say it's OK or not OK to drive to Shul? I can't find anything in scripture that says that it's OK or not OK to drive to Shul. Yes I might be able to rely on other sources that will 'interpret' for me if it's OK or not OK to drive a car to Shul. But are those sources always correct? My default if you will is what does scripture say? Marc It is also inportant to recognize the limited scope of our vocabulary. What would we call Him? God in the flesh? Within the scope of vanacular understandings, this would seem an oxymoron: flesh denotes vulnerability. We have our "hollywood" understanding of angel that must fit within a certain theological framework. The truth is that all mention of angels in the text is peripheral at best. To say, "I know what an angel is therefore it cannot reference a manifestation of God," isn't completely responsible. The truth is, we don't have a clue what an angel is or isn't, looks like or behaves. It is a term given to an order of an existence which we possess very, very little knowledge. An angel, true to the definition, is simply "dispatch." Did Adonai put the universe on auto-pilot while He spoke with Manoah and his wife? I should hope not; though we we are sure that He was present in the burning bush. So, He could have "dispatched" Himself, as it were, in such a way as to tell the story and remain true to Himself. Our language is confined by the finite nature of our understanding and will reflect that every time we come face to face with the infinite character of God. |
|
Pioneer
Full Member
Shema and Shemar
Posts: 210
|
Post by Pioneer on Mar 7, 2007 10:22:23 GMT -8
In the beginning the "Word" is not refered as being "Anointed." But the "Word" out of the so called "Mouth of God" by the so called "Mind of God"/ brought everything into being out of nothing. When the "Word of the Lord" is mentioned in it is as the "Mind of God" or "Wisdom" imparted to man. Please help me find the "Anointed", other than a rock, before Sanai! I am sure we can be forgiven being children of the "Twentieth Century" for being taught a "man god" as God in the flesh. Yeshua says quoting scripture"The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he hath anointed me" then he says "This day is this scripture fulfilled in your ears." Here is Yeshua as "Mashiach"! Then Mary anoints him later. Today one can say Numbers 15:31"Because he has despised the word of the LORD, and has broken his commandment, that person shall be utterly cut off; his iniquity shall be upon him." "Because he despised Jesus and has broken his commandment." Yet there was no Jesus before the NT was written in Greek. So was it the Mashiach that created the Heavens and the Earth? NO! It was the voice of God speaking his mind. Inspired by the Ruach HaKodesh, Yochanan, says this sent one was the voice/word of God that spoke the universe into existance. Those who have a "Twentieth Century" mindset will gag on this, but if the "Mindset" is of Hebrew origin or the Ruach HaKodesh brings to your remembrance the Chokmah of as spoken by the living /Yeshua it will find a place in that heart. Shalom |
|
|
|
Post by Mpossoff on Mar 7, 2007 13:13:52 GMT -8
Pioneer, Doesn't scripture say something else? Let's go to scripture to see what it says. Scripture says The Word ; Was in the beginning ,With G-d ,Was G-d, All things made by ‘Him’, Became flesh and dwelt among us, Only begotten Again what does Proverbs 8:22-36 say? 22 “ The LORD possessed me at the beginning of His way,
Before His works of old.
23 I have been established from everlasting,
From the beginning, before there was ever an earth.
24 When there were no depths I was brought forth,
When there were no fountains abounding with water.
25 Before the mountains were settled,
Before the hills, I was brought forth;
26 While as yet He had not made the earth or the fields,
Or the primal dust of the world.
27 When He prepared the heavens, I was there,
When He drew a circle on the face of the deep,
28 When He established the clouds above,
When He strengthened the fountains of the deep,
29 When He assigned to the sea its limit,
So that the waters would not transgress His command,
When He marked out the foundations of the earth,
30 Then I was beside Him as a master craftsman;
And I was daily His delight,
Rejoicing always before Him,
31 Rejoicing in His inhabited world,
And my delight was with the sons of men.
32 “ Now therefore, listen to me, my children,
For blessed are those who keep my ways.
33 Hear instruction and be wise,
And do not disdain it.
34 Blessed is the man who listens to me,
Watching daily at my gates,
Waiting at the posts of my doors.
35 For whoever finds me finds life,
And obtains favor from the LORD;
36 But he who sins against me wrongs his own soul;
All those who hate me love death.”Pioneer let me ask: Who is it that has been established from everlasting, From the beginning, before there was ever an earth?(Verse 23) Who was there when He prepared the heavens and everything else?(verse 27) Who was beside Him as a master craftsman?(verse 30) Did Yochanan say that this sent one was the voice/word of G-d? 1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was in the beginning with God. 3 All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was madeThe Word was with G-d and is G-d. And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth.The Word that was with G-d and is G-d became flesh. Definately 'jives' with Proverbs 8. Marc In the beginning the "Word" is not refered as being "Anointed." But the "Word" out of the so called "Mouth of God" by the so called "Mind of God"/ brought everything into being out of nothing. When the "Word of the Lord" is mentioned in it is as the "Mind of God" or "Wisdom" imparted to man. Please help me find the "Anointed", other than a rock, before Sanai! I am sure we can be forgiven being children of the "Twentieth Century" for being taught a "man god" as God in the flesh. Yeshua says quoting scripture"The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he hath anointed me" then he says "This day is this scripture fulfilled in your ears." Here is Yeshua as "Mashiach"! Then Mary anoints him later. Today one can say Numbers 15:31"Because he has despised the word of the LORD, and has broken his commandment, that person shall be utterly cut off; his iniquity shall be upon him." "Because he despised Jesus and has broken his commandment." Yet there was no Jesus before the NT was written in Greek. So was it the Mashiach that created the Heavens and the Earth? NO! It was the voice of God speaking his mind. Inspired by the Ruach HaKodesh, Yochanan, says this sent one was the voice/word of God that spoke the universe into existance. Those who have a "Twentieth Century" mindset will gag on this, but if the "Mindset" is of Hebrew origin or the Ruach HaKodesh brings to your remembrance the Chokmah of as spoken by the living /Yeshua it will find a place in that heart. Shalom |
|
(Written or Oral), nor any of the Rabbinic works, nor in Kabbalah to suggest such a possibility. Now, did the talmidim somehow believe in this concept? I doubt it. I have yet to see any indication of such.
