Posted on 01/25/2015 1:52:55 PM PST by NYer
if you have seen Me, you have seen the Father....
Your objection is that this occurrence is just another angel when He speaks as God in His own right. Other angels recorded in scripture don't. You say it isn't an occurrence of a theophany or Christophany. 'The angel of the Lord' reference doesn't occur in the NT.
Second, you are simply wrong about humans not being called angels in the Bible -- the Greek word ἄγγελος is simply the word for messenger, and is applied to John the Baptist in Mark's and Matthew's Gospels, in Luke's Gospel to the men John the Baptist sent to inquire of Jesus whether he were the Christ, in the Universal Epistle of James to the Israelite spies whom Rahab aided, and, despite protestants objecting to this out of historical ignorance, to the bishops of the Churches of Asia Minor to whom St. John the Theologian addressed his Apocalypse.
The custom of referring to the bishop of a church as the "angel" of the church is very ancient, but is preserved to this day in the title of "The Angel of Haran" applied to the Orthodox bishop of the Diocese of Bosra-Haran in Syria.
You guys ALL must be catholic. Don’t you get it? There’s nothing I can say to you!
Not a Catholic.
You guys ALL must be catholic. Don’t you get it? There’s nothing I can say to you! 64 posted on 1/25/2015, 8:52:06 PM by WXRGina (The Founding Fathers would be shooting by now.)
Apparently she reads your stuff closely.
Not sure what you are getting at here, but that evidences that the Father has never been seen directly by any living man. Jesus correctly, perfectly, fully expresses the Father, but has appeared to man directly...thus, the Angel of the Lord, when He is Yahweh, must be the Son of God, pre-incarnate. Agreed?
Sorry, never heard of him.
And, sorry, I assumed you were a catholic on this catholic thread. I'm not catholic either, and I shouldn't have commented "No" here to begin with. It's always a massive waste of time to get involved in "discussions" on catholic threads.
Maybe he remained hooded...
A "drive-by" blogger???
Perhaps you could tell me what I ought to pray about when posting a direct abstract from a reference work that will make it clearer or more appropriate.
The object here was to show that the Bible selection was probably not a reference to a Christophany, a visible image of the person of Christ, since it was about Jesus asking that the messages be written to the angel of the particular church, which would not be a message to Himself, would it?
Respectfully --
It’s a mystery! :-)
If that were true, then the Holy Spirit would lead all christians to the same understanding. Can there be more than one interpretation of the Bible? No. The word "truth" is used several times in the New Testament. However, the plural version of the word "truth" never appears in Scripture. Therefore, there can only be one Truth. So how can there be over 20,000 non-Catholic Christian denominations all claiming to have the "Truth"
For that matter, aren't ALL non-Catholic Christians as individuals claiming "infallibility" when it comes to interpreting the Bible? Catholics only believe in the infallibility of the Papacy as an office. Which is more believable - one office holding infallibility or 400 million non-Catholic Christians who can't agree on the interpretation of Scripture all claiming "infallibility?" When it comes to interpreting Scripture, individual non-Catholic Christians claim the same infallibility as the Papacy. If one were to put two persons of the "same" non-Catholic Christian denomination (i.e., two Presybterians, two Lutherans, two Baptists, etc.) in separate rooms with a Bible and a notepad and ask them to write down their "interpretation" of the Bible, passage for passage, shouldn't they then produce the exact same interpretation? If guided by the Holy Spirit as Scripture states, the answer should be "Yes." But would that really happen? History has shown that the answer is "No." Now, in the case of Catholics, the Church which Christ founded and is with forever (Matthew 28:20) interprets the Bible, as guided by the Holy Spirit, (Mark 13:11) for the "sheep" (the faithful). The Church (not individuals) interpret Scripture. In Catholicism, Scripture is there for meditation, prayer and inspiration, not for individual interpretation to formulate doctrine or dogma.
I see. So God isn’t able to communicate with those who believe in Him through faith in Christ? Such is your position.
I don’t believe God had a senior moment when He formed us and forgot how to communicate with each and every believer.
More blasphemous is the position that the only avenue to God is through the RCC, instead of through faith in Christ.
If by “catholic” you mean in communion with the Pope of Rome, I am nothing of the sort. I’m afraid you are the one who doesn’t get it. You can’t pick up an English translation of the Bible and assume reading it at face value as if it were written by and for modern post-”Englightnment” men, and expect to get it right.
There are reasons to attend to what the Fathers of the Church thought the Scriptures meant: first, they, as much as you and I, were Christians to whom Christ’s promise that the Spirit would lead them into all truth applies, part of the Church against whom He promised the gates of hell should not prevail; second, some of them knew personally the Holy Apostles and Evangelists; and third, they lived in the same culture in which the New Testament was written, and (in the case of the Greek Fathers) were native speakers of the language in which it was written. This is not the case for you and me, so a little deference to their views on the meaning of Scripture is warranted.
That was a very informative post, and I just wanted to thank you for it. I had no idea about the “Angel of Haran.” Thanks again, it definitely does shed some light on the subject being discussed.
Nope...The one referred to is THE angel of the Lord...
According to you, God is not a very good communicator. He sends mixed messages. God is Truth. There can be only one Truth ... not many different ones.
More blasphemous is the position that the only avenue to God is through the RCC, instead of through faith in Christ.
It is precisely through faith in Christ that the Catholic Church has guided believers to the Truth.
I’m sorry, but I disagree. God’s Word is clear on this—and the Lord is plenty big enough to see to His Word—that for those of us who are saved through Christ, it is the Holy Spirit abiding in us Who teaches us the meaning of his revelation to man—and “all things”—as noted in 1 John 2:26-27. Further, I hold catholicism in terrible regard as a false gospel, which is no Gospel at all, and thus I have no confidence in the opinions of the so-called “church fathers” (Galatians 1:6-12). This is NOT to start a useless argument with catholics, which is a horrid waste of time. It is simply a statement in response to your comments to me. Thanks!
As a broken record here, I repeat: You CAN over-think these things. An angel of the Lord = the angel of the Lord for the purposes of what I was saying: it's an angel.
And the bottom line, as I noted earlier on this thread, this is a pointless debate. We WILL NOT KNOW the full meaning of everything until after the Lord returns. Wasting time arguing semantics or silly what-ifs of things we cannot know at this time is just that: a waste of time.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.