Jesus, before becoming a man
- Thread starter Goldwing
- Start date
-
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.
There is no first and second creation. What we are dealing with is earth ages. The first has passed, we are in the second, and the third is to come.
A lengthened account of the discussion of these questions would be without profit.
“ But, if JOB was the son of ISSACHAR (Gen 46:13), then we have a clue that may help us to a decision of both.
It is better to keep within the Bible itself for the settlement of its problems; and to treat the whole Book as the context of all its parts.
There is no reason why Job should not be the son of ISSACHAR, and no better evidence is forthcoming for a different view.
The three friends of Job were descendants of ESAU; they would therefore be contemporaries.
ELIPHAZ of TEMAN, in Idumea, was a son of ESAU, and had a son called TEMAN, from whom his country took its name (Gen 36:10-11). It was noted for its “wise men” (Jer 49:7); and is mentioned with EDOM (Amos 1:11-12). Compare (Jer 25:23) where both are connected with BUZ, the brother of UZ (Gen 22:21).
BILDAD the Shuhite. SHUAH was the sixth son of ABRAHAM by KETURAH (Gen 25:2); and is mentioned in connection with ESAU, EDOM, and TEMAN (Jer 49:8).
ZOPHAR the Naarnathite. NAAMAH (now Na’aneh, six miles south of Lod, in the lowlands of Judah).
If Job was the son of ISSACHAR (Gen 46:13), he would have gone down to Egypt with his father.
ISSACHAR was forty at “the going down to Egypt “. (See Appendix 50, III, p. 52 Companion Bible).
If JOB was the third son (Gen 46:13), he would have been about twenty at that time (1706 BC).
We are told that he lived 140 years after his “double” blessing (Job 42:10). If that “double” blessing included length of years, then his age would have been 70 + 140 = 210 (i.e. three seventies of years). His lifetime would be from 1726-1516 BC.
According to this, he was born the year after JOSEPH was sold, and died 119 years after the death of JOSEPH (in 1635 BC). When JOSEPH died, Job was ninety-one. If his "double" blessing did include length of years, then his affliction took place twenty-one years previously, when he was seventy. His removal from EGYPT to UZ must therefore have taken place earlier still.
When Job died (1516 BC) Moses was fifty-five, and had been in MIDIAN fifteen years (twenty-five years before the Exodus).
This would account for Job being a worshipper of the God of ABRAHAM, and explains how Moses could have been the author of the book, and perhaps an eye- and ear-witness of the events it records in Midian. If so, the time has come (as Dr. Stier foretold and hoped*) when this book would be regarded as “the Porch of the Sanctuary”; and when this “fundamental wisdom of original revelation will cease to be ascribed, as it now is by some of the best, to a later poet in Israel. “
*The Words of the Lord Jesus. Vol. iv, p. 406.
A lengthened account of the discussion of these questions would be without profit.
“ But, if JOB was the son of ISSACHAR (Gen 46:13), then we have a clue that may help us to a decision of both.
It is better to keep within the Bible itself for the settlement of its problems; and to treat the whole Book as the context of all its parts.
There is no reason why Job should not be the son of ISSACHAR, and no better evidence is forthcoming for a different view.
The three friends of Job were descendants of ESAU; they would therefore be contemporaries.
ELIPHAZ of TEMAN, in Idumea, was a son of ESAU, and had a son called TEMAN, from whom his country took its name (Gen 36:10-11). It was noted for its “wise men” (Jer 49:7); and is mentioned with EDOM (Amos 1:11-12). Compare (Jer 25:23) where both are connected with BUZ, the brother of UZ (Gen 22:21).
BILDAD the Shuhite. SHUAH was the sixth son of ABRAHAM by KETURAH (Gen 25:2); and is mentioned in connection with ESAU, EDOM, and TEMAN (Jer 49:8).
ZOPHAR the Naarnathite. NAAMAH (now Na’aneh, six miles south of Lod, in the lowlands of Judah).
If Job was the son of ISSACHAR (Gen 46:13), he would have gone down to Egypt with his father.
ISSACHAR was forty at “the going down to Egypt “. (See Appendix 50, III, p. 52 Companion Bible).
If JOB was the third son (Gen 46:13), he would have been about twenty at that time (1706 BC).
We are told that he lived 140 years after his “double” blessing (Job 42:10). If that “double” blessing included length of years, then his age would have been 70 + 140 = 210 (i.e. three seventies of years). His lifetime would be from 1726-1516 BC.
According to this, he was born the year after JOSEPH was sold, and died 119 years after the death of JOSEPH (in 1635 BC). When JOSEPH died, Job was ninety-one. If his "double" blessing did include length of years, then his affliction took place twenty-one years previously, when he was seventy. His removal from EGYPT to UZ must therefore have taken place earlier still.
When Job died (1516 BC) Moses was fifty-five, and had been in MIDIAN fifteen years (twenty-five years before the Exodus).
This would account for Job being a worshipper of the God of ABRAHAM, and explains how Moses could have been the author of the book, and perhaps an eye- and ear-witness of the events it records in Midian. If so, the time has come (as Dr. Stier foretold and hoped*) when this book would be regarded as “the Porch of the Sanctuary”; and when this “fundamental wisdom of original revelation will cease to be ascribed, as it now is by some of the best, to a later poet in Israel. “
*The Words of the Lord Jesus. Vol. iv, p. 406.
I want to say I appreciate you not talking to crazy to me, and while I can tell you have studied hard, you should not talk down to people like you do.
Problem 1 - You are citing non inspired documents and people, your quotes of "2 Enoch, In Jubilee, Barnabas 6:12, Irenaeus, Against Heresies, Tertullian, Against Marcion" have no nearing for the meaning of the certified Hebrew text written by men who hav confirmed their words as being true prophets of YHWH. FOr history ok, some value, for Hebrew text understanding...no value.
Problem 2 - You are going on and on for no reason, look at the post you replied to with all that superfluous pompousness: I said "The "sons of Elohim" were there according to the Word, there we many beings there, not all of them were YHWH." That is true yet you go on and on.
Problem 3 You should be nicer and more respectful to others, if you believe you really know the truth and you believe the Mighty Creator exists, I would say be nicer to people, don't talk down to them, you are not in charge, you are not above anyone, I hope you can take these words with a bit of humbleness.
Problem 1 - You are citing non inspired documents and people, your quotes of "2 Enoch, In Jubilee, Barnabas 6:12, Irenaeus, Against Heresies, Tertullian, Against Marcion" have no nearing for the meaning of the certified Hebrew text written by men who hav confirmed their words as being true prophets of YHWH. FOr history ok, some value, for Hebrew text understanding...no value.
Problem 2 - You are going on and on for no reason, look at the post you replied to with all that superfluous pompousness: I said "The "sons of Elohim" were there according to the Word, there we many beings there, not all of them were YHWH." That is true yet you go on and on.
Problem 3 You should be nicer and more respectful to others, if you believe you really know the truth and you believe the Mighty Creator exists, I would say be nicer to people, don't talk down to them, you are not in charge, you are not above anyone, I hope you can take these words with a bit of humbleness.
Still working out a few bugs… Looks like I might need to utilize a laptop rather than a IPhone… Some of the most profound things in life are simple. You mentioned being nice
to people. I could present manuscript from
PAPIAS: (about A. D. 100)
JUSTIN MARTYR: (A.D. 151) quotes v. 20 (Apol. I. c. 45).
IRENAEUS: (A. D. 180) quotes and remarks on v. 19 (Adv. Hoer. lib. iii. c. x.).
HIPPOLYTUS: (A. D. 190 - 227)
VINCENTIUS:
The ACTA PILATI: (2nd century) quotes vv. 15, 16, 17, 18 (Tischendorf's ed., 1853, pp. 243, 351).
The APOSTOLICAL CONSTITUTIONS: (3rd or 4th centuries)
EUSEBIUS:
APHRAARTES:
AMBROSE:
CHRYSOSTOM:
JEROME:
AUGUSTINE: .
NESTORIUS:
CYRIL of ALEXANDRIA:
VICTOR of ANTIOCH:
- So on and so on… None of this matters if I can’t be kind to people.
to people. I could present manuscript from
PAPIAS: (about A. D. 100)
JUSTIN MARTYR: (A.D. 151) quotes v. 20 (Apol. I. c. 45).
IRENAEUS: (A. D. 180) quotes and remarks on v. 19 (Adv. Hoer. lib. iii. c. x.).
HIPPOLYTUS: (A. D. 190 - 227)
VINCENTIUS:
The ACTA PILATI: (2nd century) quotes vv. 15, 16, 17, 18 (Tischendorf's ed., 1853, pp. 243, 351).
The APOSTOLICAL CONSTITUTIONS: (3rd or 4th centuries)
EUSEBIUS:
APHRAARTES:
AMBROSE:
CHRYSOSTOM:
JEROME:
AUGUSTINE: .
NESTORIUS:
CYRIL of ALEXANDRIA:
VICTOR of ANTIOCH:
- So on and so on… None of this matters if I can’t be kind to people.
Being rude does not make things untrue, but Yahshua said all are brothers, none are above others, and talking down to people is not the right way to share truth if someone beleives they have it. Also you doing all this on an Iphone? wow, becareful smart phones give off up to 28 times the safe levels of EMF to be exposed to long term, I have EMF readers and have tested myself, just saying.
Why do you read into my words what are not present? You think I'm talking down to you. I am not. I'm as cool, calm, and collected, and saying this with a straight face. I may be a bit witty sometimes, but that doesn't mean I am talking down to you.
At no point in this thread did I insult anyone. There is only one person that I did perhaps "insult" (in an entirely different thread), but it wasn't much of an "insult," as much as it were as stating a matter of fact. In that scenario, the individual entered into a discussion, making accusations, pointing fingers, and so there was the need to humble them. So that's what I did. You don't see them making those same accusations anymore, do you?
I cite non-inspired sources, because everyone else here is doing the exact same thing in an attempt to prove their point. Why be inconsistent about it? I'm simply pointing out they are reading the data wrong. How many times has "the Assumption of Moses" been mentioned in an attempt to prove Jesus is Michael? I mean, it is after all mentioned in the source: Jude. An inspired source mentioning a non-inspired source. Is Jude wrong for doing so? Absolutely not. He (like Paul), cites uninspired sources to prove the point that are intending to make.
You can't just throw historical data out because you don't like it. I cite these sources, because it shows a consistent theme throughout a specific time frame. It points to what Jews and Christians from their given time periods believed. That doesn't mean my view is right. But I do believe that the view that I have articulated handles the data the most faithfully and the most accurately, and considers all the data (in harmony with one another), not just some of the data.
At no point in this thread did I insult anyone. There is only one person that I did perhaps "insult" (in an entirely different thread), but it wasn't much of an "insult," as much as it were as stating a matter of fact. In that scenario, the individual entered into a discussion, making accusations, pointing fingers, and so there was the need to humble them. So that's what I did. You don't see them making those same accusations anymore, do you?
I cite non-inspired sources, because everyone else here is doing the exact same thing in an attempt to prove their point. Why be inconsistent about it? I'm simply pointing out they are reading the data wrong. How many times has "the Assumption of Moses" been mentioned in an attempt to prove Jesus is Michael? I mean, it is after all mentioned in the source: Jude. An inspired source mentioning a non-inspired source. Is Jude wrong for doing so? Absolutely not. He (like Paul), cites uninspired sources to prove the point that are intending to make.
You can't just throw historical data out because you don't like it. I cite these sources, because it shows a consistent theme throughout a specific time frame. It points to what Jews and Christians from their given time periods believed. That doesn't mean my view is right. But I do believe that the view that I have articulated handles the data the most faithfully and the most accurately, and considers all the data (in harmony with one another), not just some of the data.
I said others, you seemed ok with me honestly, but you come off as snooty, but text cant convey tone, I have not read all your posts and interactions.
I think the first 36 chapters of 1 Enoch are valid as they are from a single scroll the reast are from 4 others, the 1st scroll does not contradict certified Scripture/prophets of YHWH. The rest of 1 Enoch and 2 and 3 are contradictory and I dont beleive or use them, the Hebrews very carefully kept the words and still there are alternate readings, but some of those sources are to me of no relevance.
On the historical info, its good for history and understaninfg the time, but not for doctrine, the doctrine has to match Scripture. If say up until the year 300ad there was groups who kept the true Scripture then its good for doctrine, if say they get killed off and things change I cant take it for doctrine when it does not match the word.
Finally all I said was "the sons of Elohim" where there during the setting of the foundation of Eretz.
In any case be well
I think the first 36 chapters of 1 Enoch are valid as they are from a single scroll the reast are from 4 others, the 1st scroll does not contradict certified Scripture/prophets of YHWH. The rest of 1 Enoch and 2 and 3 are contradictory and I dont beleive or use them, the Hebrews very carefully kept the words and still there are alternate readings, but some of those sources are to me of no relevance.
On the historical info, its good for history and understaninfg the time, but not for doctrine, the doctrine has to match Scripture. If say up until the year 300ad there was groups who kept the true Scripture then its good for doctrine, if say they get killed off and things change I cant take it for doctrine when it does not match the word.
Finally all I said was "the sons of Elohim" where there during the setting of the foundation of Eretz.
In any case be well
Here is what I know about the Second Person of God before he joined humanity:
Joh 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
Joh 1:2 He was in the beginning with God.
Joh 1:3 All things were made through him, and without him was not any thing made that was made.
It's very clear that the first Person of God made the universe and humans through the second Person with the Spirit's power (he was hovering over the waters in Genesis 1). Obviously, the 3-in-1 God guides the universe and has his plan for humanity as well. He is the God of creation, salvation, and sanctification.
Joh 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
Joh 1:2 He was in the beginning with God.
Joh 1:3 All things were made through him, and without him was not any thing made that was made.
It's very clear that the first Person of God made the universe and humans through the second Person with the Spirit's power (he was hovering over the waters in Genesis 1). Obviously, the 3-in-1 God guides the universe and has his plan for humanity as well. He is the God of creation, salvation, and sanctification.
-
1
-
1
- Show all
Now to get back to you Goldwing. The moment you said the following:
"We also know that, “Jesus came to His own, (in human form), and His own knew Him not.” It is quite conceivable this same issue involving, The Angel of the Lord/Michael (in angelic form) is why Lucifer and one third of the Angels were cast out of Heaven, because they refused to worship the Angel of the Lord/Michael since He appeared to be an angel, and not God. In both of these instances, The Angel of the Lord/Micheal humbled Himself beyond the reasoning of much of His creation. I say much because, one third of the angels and most of mankind do not understand.,that Micheal is Jesus preincarnate."
You are advocating another Jesus. 1 Corinthians 11:4, "For if one comes and preaches another Jesus whom we have not preached, or you receive a different spirit which you have not received, or a different gospel which you have not accepted, you bear this beautifully, or "you might go along with it."
How so you ask? It's when you attach "The Angel of the Lord/Michael" as Jesus being Michael who is an actual angel by nature. Why is it necessary in your theology for the eternal God Jesus Christ to be or is Michael the arc angel? I know you mentioned "titles" or "names/offices which means to you Jesus is playing the role of an angel when I can say without reservation it is not necessary.
What you are doing in reality is comparing rolls or offices to an "ontological" being, that is the person of Jesus Christ. That's an invalid comparison. Nature or substance is the totality of powers and qualities which constitute a being. The nature of Jesus Christ is "deity," and His nature of "deity" separates Him from all that is not "deity." Our human nature separates us from all that is not human in nature.
Angels are "spirits" or spiritual beings/ministering spirits created by God to serve His purpose. They cannot go around and "multiply' someone's descendants like the real angel of the Lord/Jeus Christ did at Genesis 16:10 to Hagar. And what did Hagar say at Genesis 16;13? "The she called the name OF THE LORD who spoke to her, "Thou art a God who sees," for she said, "Have I even remained alive after seeing HIM?"
Angels cannot at Genesis 17:1-3, claim to be God Almighty and make covenants with people like He did with Abraham here at vs2. "And I will establish My covenant between Me and you, And I will multiply you exceedingly. Vs3, And Abram fell on his face, AND GOD TALKED WITH him saying." At Genesis 18:1 it clearly says, "the Lord appeared to him/Abram etc. Yes, the Lord appeared to him in the person of the angel of the Lord, and two actual angels appeared with the preincarnate Jesus Christ.
Lastly, and I know you don't like hearing it but angels cannot swear oaths like the real angel of the Lord did at Genesis 22. I'm not going to go through it again but those are the facts. I have one last note of wisdom on this subject and I'm pretty sure your not aware that there is a difference between the little word, "an/a" and the little word, "the."
The chief grammatical function of "an" (or a) is to connote a thing NOT previously noted or recognized. While "the" connotes a thing PREVIOUSLY noted or recognized. The first appearance of the angel of the Lord as the angel of the Lord is at Genesis 16:7. So, when we see "the" angel of the Lord at other places we know who it is mainly by his actions. Genesis 22 is just one example. Also at Genesis 31:11, "Then the angel of the Lord said to me in a dream etc.
As far as the word, "an/a" you have in the New Testament at Acts 12:3-19 where Peter is in prison and at vs7, "And behold, "AN" angel of the Lord suddenly appeared and Peter left the prison. No name is given of this angel. One more! At Acts 7 is where Stephen is reading the riot act to the Jews. Acts 7:30 states, "And after forty years had passed, AN angel appeared to Him/Moses in the wilderness of Mount Sinai, in the flame of a burning bush."
Now, I know the word, "an" angel appeared to Moses at vs30. But at vs38 Stephen clarifies who this angel was when he says, "This is the one who was in the congregation in the wilderness together with THE angel who was speaking to him on Mount Sinai." This event took place at Exodus 3 and it was God speaking in the person of the angel of the Lord. So Goldwing, you really need to rethink your position because it is based on a huge misunderstanding regarding the true identity of the angel of the Lord.
IN GOD THE SON,
bluto
"We also know that, “Jesus came to His own, (in human form), and His own knew Him not.” It is quite conceivable this same issue involving, The Angel of the Lord/Michael (in angelic form) is why Lucifer and one third of the Angels were cast out of Heaven, because they refused to worship the Angel of the Lord/Michael since He appeared to be an angel, and not God. In both of these instances, The Angel of the Lord/Micheal humbled Himself beyond the reasoning of much of His creation. I say much because, one third of the angels and most of mankind do not understand.,that Micheal is Jesus preincarnate."
You are advocating another Jesus. 1 Corinthians 11:4, "For if one comes and preaches another Jesus whom we have not preached, or you receive a different spirit which you have not received, or a different gospel which you have not accepted, you bear this beautifully, or "you might go along with it."
How so you ask? It's when you attach "The Angel of the Lord/Michael" as Jesus being Michael who is an actual angel by nature. Why is it necessary in your theology for the eternal God Jesus Christ to be or is Michael the arc angel? I know you mentioned "titles" or "names/offices which means to you Jesus is playing the role of an angel when I can say without reservation it is not necessary.
What you are doing in reality is comparing rolls or offices to an "ontological" being, that is the person of Jesus Christ. That's an invalid comparison. Nature or substance is the totality of powers and qualities which constitute a being. The nature of Jesus Christ is "deity," and His nature of "deity" separates Him from all that is not "deity." Our human nature separates us from all that is not human in nature.
Angels are "spirits" or spiritual beings/ministering spirits created by God to serve His purpose. They cannot go around and "multiply' someone's descendants like the real angel of the Lord/Jeus Christ did at Genesis 16:10 to Hagar. And what did Hagar say at Genesis 16;13? "The she called the name OF THE LORD who spoke to her, "Thou art a God who sees," for she said, "Have I even remained alive after seeing HIM?"
Angels cannot at Genesis 17:1-3, claim to be God Almighty and make covenants with people like He did with Abraham here at vs2. "And I will establish My covenant between Me and you, And I will multiply you exceedingly. Vs3, And Abram fell on his face, AND GOD TALKED WITH him saying." At Genesis 18:1 it clearly says, "the Lord appeared to him/Abram etc. Yes, the Lord appeared to him in the person of the angel of the Lord, and two actual angels appeared with the preincarnate Jesus Christ.
Lastly, and I know you don't like hearing it but angels cannot swear oaths like the real angel of the Lord did at Genesis 22. I'm not going to go through it again but those are the facts. I have one last note of wisdom on this subject and I'm pretty sure your not aware that there is a difference between the little word, "an/a" and the little word, "the."
The chief grammatical function of "an" (or a) is to connote a thing NOT previously noted or recognized. While "the" connotes a thing PREVIOUSLY noted or recognized. The first appearance of the angel of the Lord as the angel of the Lord is at Genesis 16:7. So, when we see "the" angel of the Lord at other places we know who it is mainly by his actions. Genesis 22 is just one example. Also at Genesis 31:11, "Then the angel of the Lord said to me in a dream etc.
As far as the word, "an/a" you have in the New Testament at Acts 12:3-19 where Peter is in prison and at vs7, "And behold, "AN" angel of the Lord suddenly appeared and Peter left the prison. No name is given of this angel. One more! At Acts 7 is where Stephen is reading the riot act to the Jews. Acts 7:30 states, "And after forty years had passed, AN angel appeared to Him/Moses in the wilderness of Mount Sinai, in the flame of a burning bush."
Now, I know the word, "an" angel appeared to Moses at vs30. But at vs38 Stephen clarifies who this angel was when he says, "This is the one who was in the congregation in the wilderness together with THE angel who was speaking to him on Mount Sinai." This event took place at Exodus 3 and it was God speaking in the person of the angel of the Lord. So Goldwing, you really need to rethink your position because it is based on a huge misunderstanding regarding the true identity of the angel of the Lord.
IN GOD THE SON,
bluto
-
2
- Show all