Gabriel as Messiah

[Moz]

The idea is called substitionary atonement. It claims that Christ died in our place so we no longer have to die.

But we all die. The idea of not dying relates to Christ as the resurrection and the life. The faithful believer can be said to "never die" in the sense that he does not remain dead but is resurrected to life eternal.

Substitionary atonement robs Jesus of his glory in overcoming the world by having come in the flesh (sinful flesh) that all man share.

Hi. You really don't want to engage the question do you. None of that is relevant.

At the end of the day.......
1 it is a perfect human life that is the needed sacrifice?

2 the life of God in the flesh is the needed sacrifice?
Which?
Peace

 

[LightofTruth]

Hi. You really don't want to engage the question do you. None of that is relevant.

At the end of the day.......
1 it is a perfect human life that is the needed sacrifice?

2 the life of God in the flesh is the needed sacrifice?
Which?
Peace

To be perfect refers to being freed from the law of sin and death. That happens when the natural man becomes the spiritual man by resurrection from the dead. This is clearly taught in 1 Cor 15

 

[Moz]

Hi. Sorry, i was writing when you posted. Cool. Thanks i think i have it.
While not wanting to engage in the substitution exercise you agree that a perfect life was the price.

I find the substitute/ representative stuff more manufactured misunderstanding than anything else. My view is on a much simpler level on that.
Thanks. I appologise if i've been at all short with you. Getting used to the format and trying to be concise but accurate and not hitting the wrong buttons on this phone is challenging.
Peace

 

[LightofTruth]

Hi. Sorry, i was writing when you posted. Cool. Thanks i think i have it.
While not wanting to engage in the substitution exercise you agree that a perfect life was the price.

I find the substitute/ representative stuff more manufactured misunderstanding than anything else. My view is on a much simpler level on that.
Thanks. I appologise if i've been at all short with you. Getting used to the format and trying to be concise but accurate and not hitting the wrong buttons on this phone is challenging.
Peace

There was no fault in him. The only reason the Romans agreed to crucify him was because he confessed to be the king of the Jews. The only king at that time was Caesar All had to confess Caesar as king only.

 

[Moz]

There was no fault in him. The only reason the Romans agreed to crucify him was because he confessed to be the king of the Jews. The only king at that time was Caesar All had to confess Caesar as king only.

Hi
Yes i agree. The "we have no King but Caesar" line was a killer .
Peace

 

[LightofTruth]

Hi
Yes i agree. The "we have no King but Caesar" line was a killer .
Peace

To get back to the OP, I don't think that a person who currently existed could become the Messiah. He had to be created as a natural man and son of Adam. .Paul says that the natural comes first, then the spiritual.

 

[sooda]

There was no fault in him. The only reason the Romans agreed to crucify him was because he confessed to be the king of the Jews. The only king at that time was Caesar All had to confess Caesar as king only.

Did Jesus say he was the king of the Jews?
At Jesus’ trial, he made several statements, which in effect were a claim to be the Messiah.

He didn’t come straight out and say this, but on several occasions, when he was asked if he was the Christ or the King of the Jews, he replied “You have said so”. This expression means – “as you say, I am …”.
Bible Q | Did Jesus ever say he was the Messiah?
bibleq.net/answer/4790/

 

[sooda]

To get back to the OP, I don't think that a person who currently existed could become the Messiah. He had to be created as a natural man and son of Adam. .Paul says that the natural comes first, then the spiritual.

In Judaism the messiah was an anointed warrior king who would vanquish the enemies of the Jews. Cyrus was considered a messiah.

Have you forgotten Herod Antipas?

 

[LightofTruth]

Adam is called the natural man because he was created directly from the earth. Eve was of the same flesh as Adam by being created from Adam. All others after them are also natural man by coming from the union of those first two.

Did Jesus say he was the king of the Jews?
At Jesus’ trial, he made several statements, which in effect were a claim to be the Messiah.

He didn’t come straight out and say this, but on several occasions, when he was asked if he was the Christ or the King of the Jews, he replied “You have said so”. This expression means – “as you say, I am …”.
Bible Q | Did Jesus ever say he was the Messiah?
bibleq.net/answer/4790/

Christ is equivalent to Messiah. It means Anointed. When Jesus asked Peter about who he was Peter replied "You are the Christ (Anointed) the son of the living God."

kings in the O.T. were to be anointed to that office with the holy oil. Jesus was anointed with the Holy Spirit to the office of king.

 

[LightofTruth]

In Judaism the messiah was an anointed warrior king who would vanquish the enemies of the Jews. Cyrus was considered a messiah.

Have you forgotten Herod Antipas?

Cyrus played a very important role by his decree that Jerusalem and the temple should be rebuilt

 

[LightofTruth]

Cyrus restored Judah to Jerusalem and the rebuilding of the temple so that the worship of God could resume as it was. The Jews thought that Jesus had come to restore their kingdom back to them. He will.

 

[sooda]

Adam is called the natural man because he was created directly from the earth. Eve was of the same flesh as Adam by being created from Adam. All others after them are also natural man by coming from the union of those first two.

Christ is equivalent to Messiah. It means Anointed. When Jesus asked Peter about who he was Peter replied "You are the Christ (Anointed) the son of the living God."

kings in the O.T. were to be anointed to that office with the holy oil. Jesus was anointed with the Holy Spirit to the office of king.

Well you can fiddle with the OT scriptures to make it so.

 

[stvdv]

I like your post. Gives the opportunity to realize what Love really means.

Question

If instead of the Son it was the Angel Gabriel who had been sent to earth and born in the flesh in the same manner as Jesus, a perfect life transfered from Heaven

This implies God did the sending, I think.
Then whatever God planned will happen.
Not for humans to fill in God's plan IMHO.
(Humans don't like to be told what to do, and created in the image of God, I would be surprised if God let human tell Him what He should/could or should/could not do).

would a faithful sinless life, as defined by the law of Moses, accomplish the same thing Jesus death did?

Seems to me you describe "God's plan with Jesus" only a few years later with a different name. In essence it seems the same, so I don't see why it would/could not accomplish the same (unless God planned it to be different).

 

[shmogie]

Hi .

Background.
The trinitarian arguement seems to be that it was God who had to die to cover the sins of man. Only that immense infinite weight could balance the sins of the world.

This is a serious enquiery. I have tried this before but get overwhelmed by the false outrage over even proposing it.

My reasoning, and the Bibles i think, is that perfect life balances perfect life and that once Adams sin is repudiated then inherited sin can be viewed as unrighteous in Gods eyes and he can wipe it out.

Question

If instead of the Son it was the Angel Gabriel who had been sent to earth and born in the flesh in the same manner as Jesus, a perfect life transfered from Heaven, would a faithful sinless life, as defined by the law of Moses, accomplish the same thing Jesus death did?

Would the sin of Adam not be covered by this?
God created the plan of salvation. He determined how best, in perfect justice, to ameliorate the sin of the world.

Why would those who need the benefit of His plan dare to question His judgement ?

Hypotheticals, especially Questioning Gods actions, serve no purpose.
And if not why not?

Peace

 

[Brickjectivity]

Background.
The trinitarian arguement seems to be that it was God who had to die to cover the sins of man. Only that immense infinite weight could balance the sins of the world.

This is a serious enquiery. I have tried this before but get overwhelmed by the false outrage over even proposing it.

My reasoning, and the Bibles i think, is that perfect life balances perfect life and that once Adams sin is repudiated then inherited sin can be viewed as unrighteous in Gods eyes and he can wipe it out.

Starting off first you mustn't imagine that sacrifice covers purposeful sins even in abstraction. Even those who crucify Jesus are forgiven only on the basis of his petition on the basis of their ignorance that '...they know-not what they do.' They are ignorant and think they are doing the right thing, so Jesus prays on that basis for them to be forgiven even while they are in the process of killing him. Otherwise they'd need to repent and try to make restitution.

Here's what I think: Unintentional sins are the kind we all share, part of our blood. Therefore sacrifice makes sense for them, as we all share the same red blood both we and cattle. Even so sacrifice is merely an abstraction; and we still have to forgive one another. That is the difficult part. Forgiving other people is the power behind the abstraction. Anathema, maranatha.

Question

If instead of the Son it was the Angel Gabriel who had been sent to earth and born in the flesh in the same manner as Jesus, a perfect life transfered from Heaven, would a faithful sinless life, as defined by the law of Moses, accomplish the same thing Jesus death did?

Would the sin of Adam not be covered by this?

The obstacle to using Gabriel is that as an angel he cannot sin (declared by Jesus in a gospel), so he's not one of us. If you want consistency with the gospels you can't use Gabriel. He's one of the heavenly beings. Therefore his obedience cannot demonstrate that there is a war between good and evil within Adam. Its just an abstraction though. You're not going to be destroyed by changing names around.

With Gabriel you're lacking the arguments about Jesus death in Hebrews and Romans which specifically depend upon a human choosing not to sin in spite of temptation. Gabriel cannot fulfill this role as he is declared to be an angel and incorruptible, but as I said I think it is just an abstract argument. Forgiving one another is what makes things work. If you use communion as a treaty then you have fulfilled the atonement principle regardless of whether you feel Gabriel or Jesus is the sacrifice. If on the other hand you get all of the abstraction correct but don't forgive, then you have gotten all of your abstractions correct but for no benefit.

 

[leov]

Hi .

Background.
The trinitarian arguement seems to be that it was God who had to die to cover the sins of man. Only that immense infinite weight could balance the sins of the world.

This is a serious enquiery. I have tried this before but get overwhelmed by the false outrage over even proposing it.

My reasoning, and the Bibles i think, is that perfect life balances perfect life and that once Adams sin is repudiated then inherited sin can be viewed as unrighteous in Gods eyes and he can wipe it out.

Question

If instead of the Son it was the Angel Gabriel who had been sent to earth and born in the flesh in the same manner as Jesus, a perfect life transfered from Heaven, would a faithful sinless life, as defined by the law of Moses, accomplish the same thing Jesus death did?

Would the sin of Adam not be covered by this?

And if not why not?

Peace

What Gospel that Jesus preached? "The Kingdom is near" and later "Within you". The Archetype has to be human - Son of Man.

 

[viole]

The angel Gabriel already has eternal life. Why would God want to take from Gabriel something he already possesses? Jesus was never in possession of eternal life until he was raised from the dead to die no more.

Are you telling us that one third of God had no eternal life from the start?

Ciao

- viole

 

[viole]

What Gospel that Jesus preached? "The Kingdom is near" and later "Within you". The Archetype has to be human - Son of Man.

In this case, more like “Son of Woman”.

Ciao

- viole

 

[leov]

In this case, more like “Son of Woman”.

Ciao

- viole

It nothing to do with sex, Son of the Human Race;

 

[Muffled]

Hi .

Background.
The trinitarian arguement seems to be that it was God who had to die to cover the sins of man. Only that immense infinite weight could balance the sins of the world.

This is a serious enquiery. I have tried this before but get overwhelmed by the false outrage over even proposing it.

My reasoning, and the Bibles i think, is that perfect life balances perfect life and that once Adams sin is repudiated then inherited sin can be viewed as unrighteous in Gods eyes and he can wipe it out.

Question

If instead of the Son it was the Angel Gabriel who had been sent to earth and born in the flesh in the same manner as Jesus, a perfect life transfered from Heaven, would a faithful sinless life, as defined by the law of Moses, accomplish the same thing Jesus death did?

Would the sin of Adam not be covered by this?

And if not why not?

Peace

I believe you have two premises one that a perfect sacrifice is required and that Gabriel would be a perfect sacrifice. That makes sense as far as it goes. However there was already a perfect lamb as a sacrifice so by your reasoning that should be enough.
The fact that there had to be the sacrifice of Jesus reveals that it wasn't enough. Only God making the sacrifice could work because He is the one who must be pleased.