10:25
@Wyrsa - With all due respect, ... if God didn't incarnate as a human, there is no direct connection between God and humanity. Really! The only begotten god, i.e. the actual Son of God, known as the Word/Logos at the time, was the actual incarnated one, who then became the human that was Jesus Christ - the Word/Logos and Michael the Archangel being one and the same - who then made that, albeit indirectly, connection between God and humanity, as God's true and authentic sole mediator.
God and Jesus are two distinctly separate spiritual beings, both with true divinity, their oneness being in nature. 325 AD (not BC, my bad) was actually not when the Trinity belief was consolidated, as the matter of the spiritual personage of the so called Holy Spirit (capitalizations not mine) wasn't even debated, that came several decades later.
The Binity of God and the Son, as one co-divinity was however consolidated, which won out against Arianism, which then, quite wrongly IMO, was considered Heresy.
It is true that some early church fathers, such as Irenaeus, Ignatious and Clement had designs on Trinitarianism, but as far as the Apostles were concerned, I don't think so. The gospel writers and the Apostle Paul are NOT found to be explaining this doctrine, a doctrine supposedly so worthy, you would expect to be soundly explicated, but it clearly wasn't.
11:01
At the end of your discourse, you quote Matt, 21:19, but I think you meant Matt, 28:19, which actually has the "baptismal formula". This however, on recent learning, was apparently not in the original Hebrew transcript of Matthew, according to one Professor James D Tabor, who insinuates that this formula had to have been added when the Greek was compiled, to insidiously promote the Trinity.
2 hours later…
13:06
the Apostles had a Trinitarian position, even if it not expressly stated.
This is evidenced by their Trinitarian baptismal formulas *(Matt 28:19)* (Yep, it was chapter 28), Trinitarian blessings (2 Cor 13:14), and obvious personifications of the Son and Spirit (Mark 3:29, Luke 3:22, Acts 5:3, Heb 3:7) as mutually exclusive people treated as God.
This is evidenced by their Trinitarian baptismal formulas *(Matt 28:19)* (Yep, it was chapter 28), Trinitarian blessings (2 Cor 13:14), and obvious personifications of the Son and Spirit (Mark 3:29, Luke 3:22, Acts 5:3, Heb 3:7) as mutually exclusive people treated as God.
13:31
My point is like this about that claim.
There are 2 types of things that exist.
1. Immutable, Uncreated, Eternal, Infinite
2. Mutable, created, finite, etc.
Angels are created beings. We basically have 3 beings with unique natures that exist that concern us right now (lets not worry about animals and plants... )
1. Divine
2. Angel
3. Human
-----
So the common thing I see from people claiming Christ is an angel, is "first born of creation"... but "All things were created through Him" implies that Christ existed before creation... So which is it? is never answered very well.
There are 2 types of things that exist.
1. Immutable, Uncreated, Eternal, Infinite
2. Mutable, created, finite, etc.
Angels are created beings. We basically have 3 beings with unique natures that exist that concern us right now (lets not worry about animals and plants... )
1. Divine
2. Angel
3. Human
-----
So the common thing I see from people claiming Christ is an angel, is "first born of creation"... but "All things were created through Him" implies that Christ existed before creation... So which is it? is never answered very well.
-----
"...who then made that, albeit indirectly, connection between God and humanity..."
This is exactly the part I have a problem with... it is "not direct"
"...who then made that, albeit indirectly, connection between God and humanity..."
This is exactly the part I have a problem with... it is "not direct"
The trinitarian side, with the 2 natures of Christ. Allows for God to be personally and directly involved with Humanity and each of us.
Where as the "incarnation was of an angel" version doesnt allow for that. It basically keeps things the same as the old testament, God is impossibly far away, follow the "new" law and remember no one can be saved by the law, so cling to this created being michael...
-----
If we are saved by Christ... and sin is take care of by Christ... how does a finite being pay for was is essentially "infinite sin" ? (All sins past and future)
If we are saved by Christ... and sin is take care of by Christ... how does a finite being pay for was is essentially "infinite sin" ? (All sins past and future)
3 hours later…
16:24
I don't wish to get into a protracted conversation here, so I will just add the following and then that's probably it from me.
Some, if not all, these verses you quote at the beginning of your further discourse, have been tackled by me either on this site or elsewhere. It's all, well not all - as some verses are of dubious translation - a matter of interpretation.
The typical angels were indeed created, but Michael, being the one and only Archangel was, as I've already stated, actually begotten and not created. There is a difference.
With regard to the "firstborn of creation", see my recent answer on Colossians 1:16, which also covers 1:15, not to mention other related answers.
« first day last day (3 days later) »
Transcript for
Feb6
Feb7
Feb10
Discussion between Wyrsa and Olde Eng…
Imported from a comment discussion on hermeneutics.stackexchan...
