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.
E
evyaniy
Guest
interesting how the schooled newbies directly challenge other posters and try to make it personal.
E
evyaniy
Guest
Yes, that is beautiful.
Heb 2:13
Again, "I will put my trust in Him." Again, "Behold, here I am and the children whom EL(Theos, Father, YAH, God) has given Me."
I would like to preface this by saying: I am an extremely skeptical person, and try to be very cautious in voicing my thoughts. I am more critical of my own views than probably any of my own critics could ever be. That said, I do not tend to express my thoughts or conclusions in an open forum format unless I can say (in my own mind), and without hesitation, that it (will and) has survived the scrutiny it deserves. Laced into my subconscious is the Proverb,
In short: I try to spend more time articulating and developing my points, than yapping like a poodle. That way, when I do “yap” (as we all do), it is rooted and grounded in its proper dwelling, so that when the “verbal assault” and “punches” come, I am not caught off guard like a deer in the headlights, but that they are met by the “strong tower.” And not a “strong tower” based off “imagination,” but rooted in the Strong Tower. That’d be a bit like punching a brick wall.
That said, I do not hesitate to say, that Jubilees, 2 Ezra, or Enoch is not at all valid, but I don't dismiss it as irrelevant. Total avoidance is not the right approach. It is real, historical data that gives us a glimpse into what scribes during the time believed. You don't have to accept it (I don’t). Or you might accept parts of it, and not the rest. In either case, that doesn’t mean we should dismiss the fact that what’s missing from each of these accounts, in each their own tradition (Jewish, Christian, or Secular), is one very important aspect: Angels existing prior to Gen. 1:1.
That should at least cause folks to give pause for a moment before they jump the gun on Job 38:4-7.
We just need to be a bit more pragmatic and objective to the approach, and take into serious consideration that our previously held interpretation of Job 38:4-7 just might be due for some fine tuning, given the fact that the language does not require any such tradition that sometimes gets imposed onto the text. People have read too much into Job 38:4-7, and not enough into the texts that attribute the act of “creation” to her Creator.
It would be one thing if I was basing this objection off a tradition with minimal attestation, but that’s not necessarily the case in our situation. We have information coming from multiple streams/traditions that suggest angels find their place in the order of things sometime along the 7-Day spectrum. Some of those sources may agree or even disagree with one another. But the one thing they do agree on is simple: Angels did not exist prior to Gen. 1:1.
That said, that should cause the reader to dig further into Scripture to see what God’s Word does, and does not say. The OT does not specify with any degree of precision which day the angels came into existence, but one thing is certain: Job 38:4-7 (in harmony with the other aforementioned data) does not require we push their existence back to a time that antedates Gen. 1:1, either.
And when one takes into account texts such as Isaiah 44-45, Deut. 32:39 and couple that with the NT (where both sets of texts are alluded to over and time again), it becomes quite clear that the only power responsible for “creating” are (in harmony with Targum Neofiti on Gen. 1:1), Father, Son, and Holy Spirit (cf. Jn. 1:1-3). Angels find their place in the natural sequence of things, but the only power present prior to the formation of the heavens and the earth are Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. John doesn’t mention angels anywhere in his prologue. Paul (while alluding to the Genesis mandate) specifically identifies none other than the Father, through the Son, in Spirit, bringing forth creation.
Therefore, I am on very solid ground to suggest Job 38:4-7 is probably best understood (with some flexibility) in this order of sequence:
To expand on this a little further, consider Jubilees 2:2-4 (translation by RH Charles),
This account from Jubilees 2 is quite “packed.” There are probably a couple different ways the reader can understand the specifics of this. One option is to see the author as taking events from the “Day 2” account of Genesis and merging it together with its own version of the “Day 1” account. But I think the better option is that the author of Jubilees is describing the creation of the “third heavens” (along with its hosts) in its “Day 1” account, and then latter goes on to describe a “lower heaven” on Day 2. Either way, packed into their version of the “Day 1” account, the author arranges its (“Day 1”) events in a sequence that follows a pattern which Gen. 1 routinely makes: The “dwelling” is established first (whether that “dwelling” is the earth [for its inhabitants], sea [for the sea creatures], land [for land mammals], heavens, etc.), and then the mention of its corresponding inhabitants/hosts are made.
This same theme is illustrated in 2 Enoch’s account, though it does lay out the details in a bit of a different order, but the “prepared dwelling” → “host” sequence remains the same.
I mention this, because I think this helps illustrate a point as we detour through the OT. While Ps. 104 does not exclusively identify which “day” the angels were brought into existence, there is, (tucked away into the backdrop) a presupposition that relies on a similar sequence of events: “prepared dwelling” → “hosts”
In Ps. 104:2-3, it describes God as “stretching out the heavens,” and “laying the beams of His upper chamber.” But then notice, that as a part of that process of “stretching out the heavens” (as laid out in the second half of v. 2) is “who makes the clouds His chariot,” “who rides on the wings of the wind,” “who makes His messengers the winds,” and “attendants a flame of fire” (cf. Heb. 1:7). This sort of language comports perfectly with Jubilees 2. Whereas in the Jubilees account, angels are apart of that “third heavens” creation experience, so too is that what is being drawn upon in Ps. 104. Both accounts list the sequence of that “third heavens” creation experience with the “dwelling” coming first, and then thereafter, the angelic hosts.
So while I do not see Jubilees as “inspired,” I do see it as an ancient Jewish attempt at understanding Gen. 1 in light of Ps. 104. Whereas in Ps. 104, the angels are referred to as “messengers of the winds,” and “attendants of fire,” the Jubilees account likewise refers to the angels as “messengers of fire,” and “messengers of the wind.” The point being is that Ps. 104 provides details that were not otherwise provided in Gen. 1. These angels are brought into existence prior to the formation of the “earth” (Job 38:4-7), but after their dwelling had been established first (Ps. 104:2-3). Christ is said to have existed “before all things” (Col. 1:16-17), and is instrumental in their creation (Col. 1:16, Jn. 1:1-3, Heb. 1:7-10). Angels did not assist God in creation, nor were they there “passively” when “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.” They are only on the scene at sometime on Day 1 or Day 2, prior to the formation of earth.
If we want to discuss angels, we can start by putting them back into their proper pecking order.
In short: I try to spend more time articulating and developing my points, than yapping like a poodle. That way, when I do “yap” (as we all do), it is rooted and grounded in its proper dwelling, so that when the “verbal assault” and “punches” come, I am not caught off guard like a deer in the headlights, but that they are met by the “strong tower.” And not a “strong tower” based off “imagination,” but rooted in the Strong Tower. That’d be a bit like punching a brick wall.
That said, I do not hesitate to say, that Jubilees, 2 Ezra, or Enoch is not at all valid, but I don't dismiss it as irrelevant. Total avoidance is not the right approach. It is real, historical data that gives us a glimpse into what scribes during the time believed. You don't have to accept it (I don’t). Or you might accept parts of it, and not the rest. In either case, that doesn’t mean we should dismiss the fact that what’s missing from each of these accounts, in each their own tradition (Jewish, Christian, or Secular), is one very important aspect: Angels existing prior to Gen. 1:1.
That should at least cause folks to give pause for a moment before they jump the gun on Job 38:4-7.
We just need to be a bit more pragmatic and objective to the approach, and take into serious consideration that our previously held interpretation of Job 38:4-7 just might be due for some fine tuning, given the fact that the language does not require any such tradition that sometimes gets imposed onto the text. People have read too much into Job 38:4-7, and not enough into the texts that attribute the act of “creation” to her Creator.
It would be one thing if I was basing this objection off a tradition with minimal attestation, but that’s not necessarily the case in our situation. We have information coming from multiple streams/traditions that suggest angels find their place in the order of things sometime along the 7-Day spectrum. Some of those sources may agree or even disagree with one another. But the one thing they do agree on is simple: Angels did not exist prior to Gen. 1:1.
That said, that should cause the reader to dig further into Scripture to see what God’s Word does, and does not say. The OT does not specify with any degree of precision which day the angels came into existence, but one thing is certain: Job 38:4-7 (in harmony with the other aforementioned data) does not require we push their existence back to a time that antedates Gen. 1:1, either.
And when one takes into account texts such as Isaiah 44-45, Deut. 32:39 and couple that with the NT (where both sets of texts are alluded to over and time again), it becomes quite clear that the only power responsible for “creating” are (in harmony with Targum Neofiti on Gen. 1:1), Father, Son, and Holy Spirit (cf. Jn. 1:1-3). Angels find their place in the natural sequence of things, but the only power present prior to the formation of the heavens and the earth are Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. John doesn’t mention angels anywhere in his prologue. Paul (while alluding to the Genesis mandate) specifically identifies none other than the Father, through the Son, in Spirit, bringing forth creation.
Therefore, I am on very solid ground to suggest Job 38:4-7 is probably best understood (with some flexibility) in this order of sequence:
To expand on this a little further, consider Jubilees 2:2-4 (translation by RH Charles),
This account from Jubilees 2 is quite “packed.” There are probably a couple different ways the reader can understand the specifics of this. One option is to see the author as taking events from the “Day 2” account of Genesis and merging it together with its own version of the “Day 1” account. But I think the better option is that the author of Jubilees is describing the creation of the “third heavens” (along with its hosts) in its “Day 1” account, and then latter goes on to describe a “lower heaven” on Day 2. Either way, packed into their version of the “Day 1” account, the author arranges its (“Day 1”) events in a sequence that follows a pattern which Gen. 1 routinely makes: The “dwelling” is established first (whether that “dwelling” is the earth [for its inhabitants], sea [for the sea creatures], land [for land mammals], heavens, etc.), and then the mention of its corresponding inhabitants/hosts are made.
This same theme is illustrated in 2 Enoch’s account, though it does lay out the details in a bit of a different order, but the “prepared dwelling” → “host” sequence remains the same.
I mention this, because I think this helps illustrate a point as we detour through the OT. While Ps. 104 does not exclusively identify which “day” the angels were brought into existence, there is, (tucked away into the backdrop) a presupposition that relies on a similar sequence of events: “prepared dwelling” → “hosts”
In Ps. 104:2-3, it describes God as “stretching out the heavens,” and “laying the beams of His upper chamber.” But then notice, that as a part of that process of “stretching out the heavens” (as laid out in the second half of v. 2) is “who makes the clouds His chariot,” “who rides on the wings of the wind,” “who makes His messengers the winds,” and “attendants a flame of fire” (cf. Heb. 1:7). This sort of language comports perfectly with Jubilees 2. Whereas in the Jubilees account, angels are apart of that “third heavens” creation experience, so too is that what is being drawn upon in Ps. 104. Both accounts list the sequence of that “third heavens” creation experience with the “dwelling” coming first, and then thereafter, the angelic hosts.
So while I do not see Jubilees as “inspired,” I do see it as an ancient Jewish attempt at understanding Gen. 1 in light of Ps. 104. Whereas in Ps. 104, the angels are referred to as “messengers of the winds,” and “attendants of fire,” the Jubilees account likewise refers to the angels as “messengers of fire,” and “messengers of the wind.” The point being is that Ps. 104 provides details that were not otherwise provided in Gen. 1. These angels are brought into existence prior to the formation of the “earth” (Job 38:4-7), but after their dwelling had been established first (Ps. 104:2-3). Christ is said to have existed “before all things” (Col. 1:16-17), and is instrumental in their creation (Col. 1:16, Jn. 1:1-3, Heb. 1:7-10). Angels did not assist God in creation, nor were they there “passively” when “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.” They are only on the scene at sometime on Day 1 or Day 2, prior to the formation of earth.
If we want to discuss angels, we can start by putting them back into their proper pecking order.
E
evyaniy
Guest
Is it important, and if so, how so? Or is it rather academic when concerning the Son and Salvation which is what most of Scripture is about?
Due to the attempts made on this forum to associate Jesus with the angelic figure, “Michael” from the “Assumption of Moses” (cited in Jude 9) via Zech. 3:2; I do want to point out that “the Assumption of Moses” is but a 1st c. Jewish scribal attempt at understanding Zech. 3:2. And that is all it is. That doesn’t necessarily make that interpretation “right” or “wrong,” but neither does it suggest that Jude is “confirming” a given interpretation of the passage. The scribe of “the Assumption of Moses” was not inspired. It just gives us a glimpse into how a Jewish scribe writing in the 1st c. could have potentially understood Zech. 3:2, as a reference to Michael. The question is: How did other traditions understand Zech. 3:2? Jude does not necessarily give the “nod” to the interpretation given by the scribe, nor does Jude in anyway try to bridge a connection back to Jesus. Neither does Jude give us his interpretation of Zech. 3:2. Jude does, however, draw from other sources like 1 Enoch (Jude 1:13-14), and does not seem to be bridging a connection with Michael (1 Enoch) back to Jesus. Rather, Jude attributes different functions to the “Lord Jesus” than what 1 Enoch’s narrative does of “Michael.”
Had Jude wanted to bridge a connection between Michael and Jesus, then he had a very simple way of doing so: Substituting the name “Jesus” in place of “Michael” in Jude 1:9, as he does so in Jude 1:5 when identifying “Jesus” as the “Lord” when alluding to the OT. Or perhaps, Jude could have even substituted in “Michael” for “the Lord.”
Jude’s “Lord Jesus” does not correspond with the (very limited data we have on the) Assumption of Moses’ “Michael.” Nor does 1 Enoch’s “Michael” (cited in Jude 1:13-14) correspond back to Jude’s “Lord Jesus.” If we are going to think critically about this, then I think the best option is to reach each of the narratives individually, and then see how they are “intertextually” related.
The NT frequently places Jesus “outside” what Jewish sources (such as Jubilees, 2 Enoch, Palestinian Targumim, 2 Ezra 6) say about Michael and angels, and here we find ourselves trying to place Jesus back “inside” what those Jewish sources say about angels, hence, this whole notion that Jesus is Michael. We are progressing backwards, not forwards.
Had Jude wanted to bridge a connection between Michael and Jesus, then he had a very simple way of doing so: Substituting the name “Jesus” in place of “Michael” in Jude 1:9, as he does so in Jude 1:5 when identifying “Jesus” as the “Lord” when alluding to the OT. Or perhaps, Jude could have even substituted in “Michael” for “the Lord.”
Jude’s “Lord Jesus” does not correspond with the (very limited data we have on the) Assumption of Moses’ “Michael.” Nor does 1 Enoch’s “Michael” (cited in Jude 1:13-14) correspond back to Jude’s “Lord Jesus.” If we are going to think critically about this, then I think the best option is to reach each of the narratives individually, and then see how they are “intertextually” related.
The NT frequently places Jesus “outside” what Jewish sources (such as Jubilees, 2 Enoch, Palestinian Targumim, 2 Ezra 6) say about Michael and angels, and here we find ourselves trying to place Jesus back “inside” what those Jewish sources say about angels, hence, this whole notion that Jesus is Michael. We are progressing backwards, not forwards.
I think it is important. You have continually made reference to "strange things" happening, and indeed "strange" things are going on all around us (in the news and headlines). So I say these things so that people can understand (with clear conscious) of the proper pecking order so that when things get a "little stranger," they will know who the Lord is, and just what His proper "order" is, and not to "confuse" (or "blur") the lines of distinction.
I disagree with your closing sentence.
Many people (I would suggest most people) who come to saving faith have not yet wrestled through the issue of Jesus' deity. It's something that God works out in them after salvation. As Jesus said to Peter, "This was not revealed to you by flesh and blood, but by my Father in heaven" (Matthew 16:17).
We don't get saved by having our theology sorted out, and we don't need all our theology sorted out before we get saved. If we did, many people whose cognitive capacity is limited could never be saved.
By the way, I consider ignorance of Christ's deity and rejection of Christ's deity to be thoroughly distinct.
E
evyaniy
Guest
Thank you for the explanation and defense of His Divinity and Eternalness. YHVH means Eternal Word. Yes that is of the Highest importance. Thank you
E
evyaniy
Guest
There appears to be a concerted effort to hide truth taking place. Thank you for the answer.
E
evyaniy
Guest
Eternal Word. Even His Holy Name is about the Son and His Eternalness. And of course He created all things through His Word. So all of creation is subservient to the Son Who made all things. Yet even in His Holiness and Majesty He cares about us so much that He became One of us to save us and share His Glory with us.
E
evyaniy
Guest
E
evyaniy
Guest
HalleluYAH what a Savior
Philip P Bliss published 1875
Philip P Bliss published 1875
- “Man of Sorrows!” what a Name
For the Son of YAH, Who came
Ruined sinners to reclaim.
HalleluYAH! What a Savior! - Bearing shame and scoffing rude,
In my place condemned He stood;
Sealed my pardon with His blood.
HalleluYAH! What a Savior! - Guilty, vile, and helpless we;
Spotless Lamb of YAH was He;
“Full atonement!” can it be?
HalleluYAH! What a Savior! - Lifted up was He to die;
“It is finished!” was His cry;
Now in Heav’n exalted high.
HalleluYAH! What a Savior! - When He comes, our glorious King,
All His ransomed home to bring,
Then anew His song we’ll sing:
Hallelujah! What a Savior!
What post are you referring to where new members “newbies” are making it personal.
I don’t believe your assertion, and you seem to have a problem with new members that may have more knowledge than yourself concerning the word.
And why does this even matter? I could proclaim that anyone spending hours upon hours in debate, are not spending hours upon hours, visiting widows, and feeding the homeless. All in all, I would rather be a newbie to a forum, than be a newbie to doing what God has instructed us to do.
The words of a man’s mouth are deep waters;
The fountain of wisdom is a bubbling brook.
5 To show partiality to the wicked is not good,
Nor to thrust aside the righteous in judgment.
6 A fool’s lips bring strife,
And his mouth calls for blows.
7 A fool’s mouth is his ruin,
And his lips are the snare of his soul.
8 The words of a whisperer are like dainty morsels,
And they go down into the innermost parts of the body.
9 He also who is slack in his work
Is brother to him who destroys.
10 The name of the Lord is a strong tower;
The righteous runs into it and is safe.
11 A rich man’s wealth is his strong city,
And like a high wall in his own imagination.
12 Before destruction the heart of man is haughty,
But humility goes before honor.
13 He who gives an answer before he hears,
It is folly and shame to him.
More of this:
Less of this:
You are, after all interested in what God has "instructed" you to do, per your closing statement, right? Maybe try taking your own advice. Take the loss, and go learn. More time is needed in Scripture, young padwon. And maybe an elder to help guide you along the way, as per Post 224.
E
evyaniy
Guest
1 Peter 2
21 For you were called to this, because Messiah also suffered for us, leaving you an example, that you should follow His steps, 22 Who didn’t sin, “neither was deceit found in His mouth.” 23 When He was cursed, He didn’t curse back. When He suffered, He didn’t threaten, but committed Himself to Him Who judges righteously. 24 He Himself bore our sins in His body on the tree, that we, having died to sins, might live to righteousness. You were healed by His wounds. 25 For you were going astray like sheep; but now you have returned to the Shepherd and Overseer of your souls.
21 For you were called to this, because Messiah also suffered for us, leaving you an example, that you should follow His steps, 22 Who didn’t sin, “neither was deceit found in His mouth.” 23 When He was cursed, He didn’t curse back. When He suffered, He didn’t threaten, but committed Himself to Him Who judges righteously. 24 He Himself bore our sins in His body on the tree, that we, having died to sins, might live to righteousness. You were healed by His wounds. 25 For you were going astray like sheep; but now you have returned to the Shepherd and Overseer of your souls.
Sorry, but I have no idea what you are trying to convey here. Take my own advice? I haven’t suggested anyone do anything. Take the loss? There is no loss to be taken, furthermore I am not interested in I beat you or you beat me discussion. Young padwon? You neither know my age or my hours of study, truthfully you don’t no much about me at all, but you throw mislabeled titles for from fictional sci-fi movies in an attempt to discredit… You have fun with that.
Yapping like a poodle... . Go study. For crying out loud. It might beseach you to pick up a commentary or two along the way as well, instead of relying on halfquotes from the internet. Entrench yourself in the literature. Get back on track to what bigger and badder minds have had to say. There is no "beating," nor is that my interest. I am simply drawing and alluding to language from Prov. 18. How did you not catch that?