The Trinity

[Spud]

Hi Sassy

Message 137- I see your point about John 8:58. Jesus did, after all, just say that Abraham rejoiced to see his day, implying that Jesus is talking about that in verse 58. (The Jews' reply to Jesus in verse 57 seems rather obscure). But how would you interpret John 12:41? Is John saying that it was Christ whom Isaiah saw in the temple?

King James 2000 Bible
God, who at many times and in various manners spoke in time past unto the fathers by the prophets,


To be all God they would have to be equal in all things and ways.
But Christ is not equal to God as he does not know everything and God does.
Only the Father knows the hour of his return.


He saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am? 16 And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God. 17 And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven. 18 And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. 19 And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

The Church built on the belief Christ is the Son of God.

That is a good question (why is the Son not all-knowing, like the Father?). But could we just establish who Isaiah saw in the temple (Is. 6:1), if no-one can see God face to face?

[ad_orientem]

I knew you were a heretic.

Only by manmade and worldly standards...

My Saviour says the same as I do...


17Jesus saith unto her, Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father: but go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God.

You see Christ said he ascended to his God and my God.
So why argue about such little details when you see the Son of God says he ascended to HIS God and our God...

We all grow up believing what sometimes we never question. But when we read the bible as God intends us to read it, with the living God before our eyes. WELL then we know that Christ never said he was God and never said you should believe he was God.

Not man made but from the Holy Spirit. The scriptures clearly teach that both Christ and the Holy Spirit are God along with the Father, but like Arius you listen to the Devil instead.

[Spud]

I knew you were a heretic.

Only by manmade and worldly standards...

My Saviour says the same as I do...


17Jesus saith unto her, Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father: but go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God.

You see Christ said he ascended to his God and my God.
So why argue about such little details when you see the Son of God says he ascended to HIS God and our God...

We have to interpret any passage in such a way that it doesn't contradict another passage. That's in one of the 39 articles of the CofE. So with this verse in John, we need to remember what John has told us, for example, in the first few verses of chapter 1, and what he tells us Thomas says to Jesus  after his resurrection. When Jesus talks about his God, the only way this can be reconciled with Thomas' exclamation is if Jesus is referring to God the Father whilst at the same time being himself God the Son.

[~TW~]

It is reasonable to believe that this angel, who had ‘Jehovah’s name within him,’ was God’s firstborn Son

(Quoting the WT in TW's post)
But this doesn't prove that the angel of God is God's Son, they have only said it is reasonable to believe it.

Does anyone know if this can be properly shown from the Bible?

Spud The Angel OF the Lord is  Jesus   http://biblehub.com/judges/6-22.htm 

 ~TW~

[Spud]

It is reasonable to believe that this angel, who had ‘Jehovah’s name within him,’ was God’s firstborn Son

(Quoting the WT in TW's post)
But this doesn't prove that the angel of God is God's Son, they have only said it is reasonable to believe it.

Does anyone know if this can be properly shown from the Bible?

Spud The Angel OF the Lord is  Jesus   http://biblehub.com/judges/6-22.htm 

 ~TW~

It's taken me a while to get this, but I think you're right. In Exodus and Judges Moses and Joshua worship the Angel of the Lord but in Revelation 19:10 22:8-9 John is told not to worship the angel who is showing him the visions, so the AOTL can't be a created angel.

[~TW~]

It is reasonable to believe that this angel, who had ‘Jehovah’s name within him,’ was God’s firstborn Son

(Quoting the WT in TW's post)
But this doesn't prove that the angel of God is God's Son, they have only said it is reasonable to believe it.

Does anyone know if this can be properly shown from the Bible?

Spud The Angel OF the Lord is  Jesus   http://biblehub.com/judges/6-22.htm 

 ~TW~

It's taken me a while to get this, but I think you're right. In Exodus and Judges Moses and Joshua worship the Angel of the Lord but in Revelation 19:10 22:8-9 John is told not to worship the angel who is showing him the visions, so the AOTL can't be a created angel.

 Spud also note once Jesus is born the angel OF THE LORD makes no more appearances ,that is very telling.Is it job done spud.

 ~TW~

[Spud]

 Spud also note once Jesus is born the angel OF THE LORD makes no more appearances ,that is very telling.Is it job done spud.

 ~TW~

Acts 12:7 might be an exception?

[DaveM]

 Spud also note once Jesus is born the angel OF THE LORD makes no more appearances ,that is very telling.Is it job done spud.

 ~TW~

Acts 12:7 might be an exception?

I don't think so.  I think there is a clear distinction between the terms, 'The angel of the Lord' and 'an angel of the Lord'.  The former is found in several places in the OT and I am one of those who holds to the view that these are theophanic appearances of Jesus in the OT. I stand under correction but am not aware of this term being found in the NT.

The latter is found frequently in both the Old and New and in these instances clearly seems to be a reference to an ordinary angel (if there is such a thing).  Unlike 'The angel of the Lord' who is eternal, these are created spiritual beings, created before God laid the foundations of the earth, as they were there to sing for joy when they witnessed this event (Job 38:7). 

[Spud]

Hi Dave,
I have also held to the same view regarding the Angel of Yahweh in the OT, that he is a theophany of Christ. It just seems strange to think of Christ appearing to people before he was born, and there doesn't seem to be any specific teaching of it in the NT. Although given John 1:1, I assume Jesus is 'the Word of the Lord' who came to the prophets of the OT.
I also find it strange that the NT uses a phrase which is very similar to the OT phrase 'the angel of Yahweh'. Which is the correct translation in the NT: an angel of the Lord, or the angel of the Lord?
You seem to think it is 'an angel'. Yet the KJV translates it 'the angel'.

[DaveM]

Hi Dave,
I have also held to the same view regarding the Angel of Yahweh in the OT, that he is a theophany of Christ. It just seems strange to think of Christ appearing to people before he was born, and there doesn't seem to be any specific teaching of it in the NT. Although given John 1:1, I assume Jesus is 'the Word of the Lord' who came to the prophets of the OT.
I also find it strange that the NT uses a phrase which is very similar to the OT phrase 'the angel of Yahweh'. Which is the correct translation in the NT: an angel of the Lord, or the angel of the Lord?
You seem to think it is 'an angel'. Yet the KJV translates it 'the angel'.

Hi Spud,

Well you have certainly put the cat amongst the pigeons with that quote from the KJV.  I must confess that I have not used the KJV for serious Bible Study for over 30 years so my comments were based on more recent translations such as the NIV, NASB and ESV.  I now find that there are several places where the KJV uses ‘the angel’ while the others use ‘an angel’.  This is where I wish I had more than a rudimentary (an exaggeration in itself) knowledge of Greek.  I have looked at Strong’s Concordance and also at an interlinear Greek/English New Testament which I have but neither throw much light on which would be the preferred translation.  Perhaps Alien, who at least has done some formal studies in Greek, can come galloping across on his white stallion to help us (avoiding encounters with windmills on the way) and provide some insights here.

I must say I am uncomfortable with the KJV’s use of the angel of the Lord in some places.  Matt 1:20 and 2:13 serve as examples here.  In the first Mary is already pregnant while the second concerns the flight to Egypt.  Philippians 2:5-8 tells us that when Jesus came to live amongst us as a man He ‘emptied himself’, or set aside, His divine attributes, including omnipresence and became fully man.  I then have a problem with a theophanic appearance of Jesus while He was present on earth, whether as a man, or still in the womb or as a young child.

Enjoy what is left of the day.   

[Spud]

I guess it would make things a lot easier if, in the Greek, the phrase meant an angel and not the angel! Thanks for your thoughts, Dave, and meanwhile maybe someone could blow their horn and summon Alien?!

[~TW~]

I guess it would make things a lot easier if, in the Greek, the phrase meant an angel and not the angel! Thanks for your thoughts, Dave, and meanwhile maybe someone could blow their horn and summon Alien?!

Spud give it up,go with the flow the Lord is now a man in Heaven,the study of revelation is worthwhile.

   ~TW~ 

[Spud]

...the Lord is now a man in Heaven.

   ~TW~ 

I can see that that would be significant.

[Spud]

Malachi 3:1 is quite helpful.

[Alien]

Hi Dave,
I have also held to the same view regarding the Angel of Yahweh in the OT, that he is a theophany of Christ. It just seems strange to think of Christ appearing to people before he was born, and there doesn't seem to be any specific teaching of it in the NT. Although given John 1:1, I assume Jesus is 'the Word of the Lord' who came to the prophets of the OT.
I also find it strange that the NT uses a phrase which is very similar to the OT phrase 'the angel of Yahweh'. Which is the correct translation in the NT: an angel of the Lord, or the angel of the Lord?
You seem to think it is 'an angel'. Yet the KJV translates it 'the angel'.

Hi Spud,

Well you have certainly put the cat amongst the pigeons with that quote from the KJV.  I must confess that I have not used the KJV for serious Bible Study for over 30 years so my comments were based on more recent translations such as the NIV, NASB and ESV.  I now find that there are several places where the KJV uses ‘the angel’ while the others use ‘an angel’.  This is where I wish I had more than a rudimentary (an exaggeration in itself) knowledge of Greek.  I have looked at Strong’s Concordance and also at an interlinear Greek/English New Testament which I have but neither throw much light on which would be the preferred translation.  Perhaps Alien, who at least has done some formal studies in Greek, can come galloping across on his white stallion to help us (avoiding encounters with windmills on the way) and provide some insights here.

I must say I am uncomfortable with the KJV’s use of the angel of the Lord in some places.  Matt 1:20 and 2:13 serve as examples here.  In the first Mary is already pregnant while the second concerns the flight to Egypt.  Philippians 2:5-8 tells us that when Jesus came to live amongst us as a man He ‘emptied himself’, or set aside, His divine attributes, including omnipresence and became fully man.  I then have a problem with a theophanic appearance of Jesus while He was present on earth, whether as a man, or still in the womb or as a young child.

Enjoy what is left of the day.   

Can't hang around long. I've tied Dobbin up, but someone might nick him since he is such a handsome stead.

Mt 1:20 "An angel of the Lord".
Mt 2:13 "An angel of the Lord".

I've not followed the discussion fully, but would suggest you don't worry too much about whether "the" is there in the Greek or Hebrew. It isn't always used quite the same way as in English.

Angelos in Greek, basically means "messenger" and, as such, says nothing about whether the messenger is supernatural or not or, even, whether someone separate is sending him. In fact, John the Baptist is described as an "angelos" in Mark 1.2, which is a quote from Malachi 3:1 where "mal'ak/mal'ach" means messenger in very much the same way as "angelos". Just to complicate things "Malachi" just means "my messenger" so is that his name (like "Fred") or his title?

I think you will have to decide based very much on the context.

[DaveM]

Hi Dave,
I have also held to the same view regarding the Angel of Yahweh in the OT, that he is a theophany of Christ. It just seems strange to think of Christ appearing to people before he was born, and there doesn't seem to be any specific teaching of it in the NT. Although given John 1:1, I assume Jesus is 'the Word of the Lord' who came to the prophets of the OT.
I also find it strange that the NT uses a phrase which is very similar to the OT phrase 'the angel of Yahweh'. Which is the correct translation in the NT: an angel of the Lord, or the angel of the Lord?
You seem to think it is 'an angel'. Yet the KJV translates it 'the angel'.

Hi Spud,

Well you have certainly put the cat amongst the pigeons with that quote from the KJV.  I must confess that I have not used the KJV for serious Bible Study for over 30 years so my comments were based on more recent translations such as the NIV, NASB and ESV.  I now find that there are several places where the KJV uses ‘the angel’ while the others use ‘an angel’.  This is where I wish I had more than a rudimentary (an exaggeration in itself) knowledge of Greek.  I have looked at Strong’s Concordance and also at an interlinear Greek/English New Testament which I have but neither throw much light on which would be the preferred translation.  Perhaps Alien, who at least has done some formal studies in Greek, can come galloping across on his white stallion to help us (avoiding encounters with windmills on the way) and provide some insights here.

I must say I am uncomfortable with the KJV’s use of the angel of the Lord in some places.  Matt 1:20 and 2:13 serve as examples here.  In the first Mary is already pregnant while the second concerns the flight to Egypt.  Philippians 2:5-8 tells us that when Jesus came to live amongst us as a man He ‘emptied himself’, or set aside, His divine attributes, including omnipresence and became fully man.  I then have a problem with a theophanic appearance of Jesus while He was present on earth, whether as a man, or still in the womb or as a young child.

Enjoy what is left of the day.   

Can't hang around long. I've tied Dobbin up, but someone might nick him since he is such a handsome stead.

Mt 1:20 "An angel of the Lord".
Mt 2:13 "An angel of the Lord".

I've not followed the discussion fully, but would suggest you don't worry too much about whether "the" is there in the Greek or Hebrew. It isn't always used quite the same way as in English.

Angelos in Greek, basically means "messenger" and, as such, says nothing about whether the messenger is supernatural or not or, even, whether someone separate is sending him. In fact, John the Baptist is described as an "angelos" in Mark 1.2, which is a quote from Malachi 3:1 where "mal'ak/mal'ach" means messenger in very much the same way as "angelos". Just to complicate things "Malachi" just means "my messenger" so is that his name (like "Fred") or his title?

I think you will have to decide based very much on the context.

Many thanks for the response Alien.  Your input much appreciated. Dave

[Sassy]

36 But of that day and hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels of heaven, but my Father only.

32 But of that day and that hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels which are in heaven, neither the Son, but the Father.




Only God knows ALL things.
Jesus Christ the Son if God would know ALL things He would know the day of his return. But he is not God the Father he is the Son of God.
God has told the end from the beginning. God is the true Alpha and Omega the beginning and end of everything,
Christ cannot be God if he does not know all things.

They write things like....

Answer: Omniscience is defined as “the state of having total knowledge, the quality of knowing everything.” For God to be sovereign over His creation of all things, whether visible or invisible, He has to be all-knowing. His omniscience is not restricted to any one person in the Godhead—Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are all by nature omniscient.

But Christ the Son isn't for he does not know everything and he admits only the true God does.

[2Corrie]

Sass do you not think that Philippians 2:5-11 explains why the Lord when incarnate did not know (or choose to know) all things?

Let this mind be in you which was also in Christ Jesus, 6 who, being in the form of God, did not consider it robbery to be equal with God, 7 but made Himself of no reputation, taking the form of a bondservant, and coming in the likeness of men. 8 And being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself and became obedient to the point of death, even the death of the cross.

[~TW~]

Sass do you not think that Philippians 2:5-11 explains why the Lord when incarnate did not know (or choose to know) all things?

Let this mind be in you which was also in Christ Jesus, 6 who, being in the form of God, did not consider it robbery to be equal with God, 7 but made Himself of no reputation, taking the form of a bondservant, and coming in the likeness of men. 8 And being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself and became obedient to the point of death, even the death of the cross.

Hi 2 Corrie we have another silly answer from Sass nothing changes,she seems to have forgotten this " “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me".Mind you did she ever know that.

      ~TW~

[Sassy]

Sass do you not think that Philippians 2:5-11 explains why the Lord when incarnate did not know (or choose to know) all things?

Let this mind be in you which was also in Christ Jesus, 6 who, being in the form of God, did not consider it robbery to be equal with God, 7 but made Himself of no reputation, taking the form of a bondservant, and coming in the likeness of men. 8 And being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself and became obedient to the point of death, even the death of the cross.

Being in the form of God not being God.
Do you understand what it means to be in the form of rather than being God?

God knows ALL things he never stops knowing all things. Christ was a man and man was made in Gods image. But Christ spoke and acted in the same manner/form as God would in person had Christ been God and not the Son of God. A son does as his Father as Christ did and shown in Christs own words.


39 They answered and said unto him, Abraham is our father. Jesus saith unto them, If ye were Abraham's children, ye would do the works of Abraham.

40 But now ye seek to kill me, a man that hath told you the truth, which I have heard of God: this did not Abraham.

41 Ye do the deeds of your father. Then said they to him, We be not born of fornication; we have one Father, even God.

42 Jesus said unto them, If God were your Father, ye would love me: for I proceeded forth and came from God; neither came I of myself, but he sent me.

43 Why do ye not understand my speech? even because ye cannot hear my word.

44 Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it.


We to are to think as Christ and have the same mind. "To do the will of our Father, God.

[Sassy]

Sass do you not think that Philippians 2:5-11 explains why the Lord when incarnate did not know (or choose to know) all things?

Let this mind be in you which was also in Christ Jesus, 6 who, being in the form of God, did not consider it robbery to be equal with God, 7 but made Himself of no reputation, taking the form of a bondservant, and coming in the likeness of men. 8 And being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself and became obedient to the point of death, even the death of the cross.

Hi 2 Corrie we have another silly answer from Sass nothing changes,she seems to have forgotten this " “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me".Mind you did she ever know that.

      ~TW~

Some times you break your teeth chewing stones.
As Christ said:


King James Bible
Behold, I give unto you power to tread on serpents and scorpions, and over all the power of the enemy: and nothing shall by any means hurt you.

Followed by:


King James Bible
And when all things shall be subdued unto him, then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him that put all things under him, that God may be all in all.

Christ becomes subject to God the Father again, when he returns everything back under God so God may be ALL and in ALL.

So Christ is given authority... God does not require to be given anything that already belongs to him.

Acts 10:38 How God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Ghost and with power: who went about doing good, and healing all that were oppressed of the devil; for God was with him.

Christ received his power from God. Jesus had the Holy Ghost and power from God.

Truth will eventually cause the scales to fall from your eyes.

[2Corrie]

So do you think Jesus was created then?

[~TW~]

So Sass like your friends in the JW's and other cults you have no answer.

                  ~TW~

[Sassy]

So do you think Jesus was created then?

Isn't all flesh created?
Wasn't Christ a human being?
Did God speak about him and hence he became the word made flesh the word below made flesh?

King James Bible
I will raise them up a Prophet from among their brethren, like unto thee, and will put my words in his mouth; and he shall speak unto them all that I shall command him.

Was Adam Created by the words of God?

The book of life written before the foundation of the world.
Where did we come into existence? Was it at our birth or when God wrote the Lambs book of the living?

When did Christ and us come into actual existence?

King James Bible
For many deceivers are entered into the world, who confess not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh. This is a deceiver and an antichrist.

Jesus Christ came in the flesh. What do you say about Jesus. Was it God or Jesus who came in the flesh?

If you want to try and trick me then please learn what the bible says and understand that it gives the answers. So were we all there before the beginning or just our names before the foundation of the world?

[~TW~]

Sass you ask--------------Isn't all flesh created?
Wasn't Christ a human being?
Did God speak about him and hence he became the word made flesh the word below made flesh?

The answer is read this-------------   2 He was with God in the beginning. 3 Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made.

So the bible says you are wrong.

                  ~TW~