Gabriel as Messiah

LightofTruth said:

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.

Click to expand...

Those with eternal life received it from God so even if it is taken away He can give it again.

Moz said:

Hi.
Thanks for the response.
Well i suppose if you discount the prexistence of Jesus then the question is moot. However that is not the majority, or indeed the trinitarian view.

On the point of taking life that he already posses, THAT is why it's a sacrife, an innocent life is given (or taken i suppose) . That is why it's an act of love.

Peace

Click to expand...

I believe that is not the trinitarian view but the view of some who hold to a trinity doctrine (that isn't correct).

LightofTruth said:

The Messiah has to be the promised seed of Abraham and David.

Click to expand...

I believe so and Is. 53 says
5 But he was pierced for our transgressions;
he was crushed for our iniquities;

Gabriel taking the place of Messiah would not have accomplished the redemption of mankind.

Sin and death were transferred to the line of Adam by Adam's choice which essentially sold himself and his descendants into slavery to satan, surrendering his birthrights given to him by God.

Only a blood relative could redeem mankind from satans slavery, pay the debt owed, and transfer what was surrendered back to them. Putting them back into the Kingdom of God as Sons of God with all the priviledges and rights entailed.

Angels are not descendants of Adam. They probably dont even have blood, DNA. So nothing Gabriel did could have freed mankind from sin and death.

God, incarnate as Jesus, becoming subject to everything mankind is as a physical descendant of Adam, lays claim to the bloodline of man, but was never under the control of sin or satan, and as a result death could not hold him in hell. He rose and ascended to take mankind's rightful place at God's side in Heaven.

That is why we can only become Sons of God, and be saved, through Jesus alone. No one else could combine being a blood descendant of Adam with living a sinless life.

You'll see Paul talk a lot about this subject in his letters, especially Hebrews.

Moz said:

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.

Click to expand...

No, that's the argument of Substitutionary Atonement. That's only one way to look at the crucifixion -- and, IMO, not the best way. Many Trinitarians don't believe that the crucifixion was a substitutionary atonement for sin. You should read Teilhard de Chardin sometime.

Rise said:

Gabriel taking the place of Messiah would not have accomplished the redemption of mankind.

Sin and death were transferred to the line of Adam by Adam's choice which essentially sold himself and his descendants into slavery to satan, surrendering his birthrights given to him by God.

Only a blood relative could redeem mankind from satans slavery, pay the debt owed, and transfer what was surrendered back to them. Putting them back into the Kingdom of God as Sons of God with all the priviledges and rights entailed.

Angels are not descendants of Adam. They probably dont even have blood, DNA. So nothing Gabriel did could have freed mankind from sin and death.

God, incarnate as Jesus, becoming subject to everything mankind is as a physical descendant of Adam, lays claim to the bloodline of man, but was never under the control of sin or satan, and as a result death could not hold him in hell. He rose and ascended to take mankind's rightful place at God's side in Heaven.

That is why we can only become Sons of God, and be saved, through Jesus alone. No one else could combine being a blood descendant of Adam with living a sinless life.

You'll see Paul talk a lot about this subject in his letters, especially Hebrews.

Click to expand...

Hi.

I'm not sure how you misunderstood the premise but it takes into account that "genealogy" would be covered by the same mechanism that applied in Jesus case. Mary.

Rise said:

Gabriel taking the place of Messiah would not have accomplished the redemption of mankind.

Sin and death were transferred to the line of Adam by Adam's choice which essentially sold himself and his descendants into slavery to satan, surrendering his birthrights given to him by God.

Only a blood relative could redeem mankind from satans slavery, pay the debt owed, and transfer what was surrendered back to them. Putting them back into the Kingdom of God as Sons of God with all the priviledges and rights entailed.

Angels are not descendants of Adam. They probably dont even have blood, DNA. So nothing Gabriel did could have freed mankind from sin and death.

God, incarnate as Jesus, becoming subject to everything mankind is as a physical descendant of Adam, lays claim to the bloodline of man, but was never under the control of sin or satan, and as a result death could not hold him in hell. He rose and ascended to take mankind's rightful place at God's side in Heaven.

That is why we can only become Sons of God, and be saved, through Jesus alone. No one else could combine being a blood descendant of Adam with living a sinless life.

You'll see Paul talk a lot about this subject in his letters, especially Hebrews.

Click to expand...

Hi. In this senario, as a child of Mary , the "incarnated" Gabriel would have shared the same connection with humanity that the incarnated Jesus did. He would be Flesh and Blood.

A sinless life by this "son of Adam" (through Mary the same as Jesus)would cover the transgression of Adam would it not.

Nothing you wrote explains why God's life is the only acceptable sacrifice..


Btw... if God was the ONLY one who could have proved satan a liar then it is NOT an act of Love that drives him but necessity. He had to do what he did for his own defence against the traitor.
In my view.... although others could have been sent to face the test, Jesus chose to be the one sent showing his Love of mankind and of his Father.
Peace.

According to the s

Moz said:

I was hoping that a trinitarian would enter the conversation and explain why only Gods life could cover Adams sin. I've read Athanasius' arguments on the subject and he clearly admits that perfect life balances perfect life, then states that because Jesus is God it must be that only God could have done it. Kindergarden circular reasoning that would be thrown out in two seconds if you tried it today.

Surely if God had to sacrifice himself to himself their must be a clear reason why ONLY he could do it.... this would prove Jesus is God.

Click to expand...

According to the scriptures, Jesus, the Son of God, paid for, not only Adam's sin, but for the sins of the entire world. That means every sin committed by every person who has ever or ever will live. I believe this is a weight and price that no created being could bear, but only God Himself.

sojourner said:

No, that's the argument of Substitutionary Atonement. That's only one way to look at the crucifixion -- and, IMO, not the best way. Many Trinitarians don't believe that the crucifixion was a substitutionary atonement for sin. You should read Teilhard de Chardin sometime.

Click to expand...

Or just read the Bible.

InChrist said:

Or just read the Bible.

Click to expand...

One should read both. Remember: the bible is simply part of the Tradition of the church. Just like Teilhard.

sojourner said:

No, that's the argument of Substitutionary Atonement. That's only one way to look at the crucifixion -- and, IMO, not the best way. Many Trinitarians don't believe that the crucifixion was a substitutionary atonement for sin. You should read Teilhard de Chardin sometime.

Click to expand...

Hi.
See, this is why i have so much trouble getting this sort of hypothetical up and running. The theological detritus that has accumulated over the centuries just gets in the way.

Basically the question is whether or not only GOD' life could have supplied the sacrifice or if it is a Perfect human life. This stuff comes at the level before theological distractions like representitive or substitutionary comes into it. The question was inspired by Athanasius circular reasoning on the subject, in his original diatribes against Arius.

This is his formula that Athanasius came up with... Jesus was sent.... Jesus is God.... therefore God must be the only one who could accomplish the sacrifice. He was wrong. This is circular reasoning at it's worst.


I think that when the Father explained to his Heavenly court that one would be sent to earth to answer satans challenge that MANY of the sons of God would have wanted the greatwork but that the Firstborn invoked His privilege a pre-emminent and took on the role.

Isaiah 6:8 Then i heard the voice of the Lord "Who shall i send? And who will go for us? And i said "Here i am send me."

Peace.

sojourner said:

One should read both. Remember: the bible is simply part of the Tradition of the church. Just like Teilhard.

Click to expand...

Hi. When "tradition of the church" is invoked my blood runs cold. Theology is the death of truth not it's champion.
Peace.

sojourner said:

One should read both. Remember: the bible is simply part of the Tradition of the church. Just like Teilhard.

Click to expand...

I think that may be a matter of perspective. It may be a tradition of the Catholic church, along with other writings and traditions, but I consider the biblical scriptures to be the foundational word of God by which all other writings and/or traditions are to be tested.

Moz said:

See, this is why i have so much trouble getting this sort of hypothetical up and running. The theological detritus that has accumulated over the centuries just gets in the way.

Basically the question is whether or not only GOD' life could have supplied the sacrifice or if it is a Perfect human life.

Click to expand...

Substitutionary Atonement is part of that detritus. A sacrifice is not necessary to "pay" for our sins. Love doesn't demand payment. According to Teilhard (and others), the cross shows us the cost of love, not the cost of sin.

Moz said:

When "tradition of the church" is invoked my blood runs cold. Theology is the death of truth not it's champion.

Click to expand...

Get a blanket and a cup of hot coffee, because the bible IS theology, and it IS part of the Tradition of the church. When you talk about Substitutionary Atonement, you're talking theology (just not very good theology, IMO).

InChrist said:

I think that may be a matter of perspective. It may be a tradition of the Catholic church, along with other writings and traditions, but I consider the biblical scriptures to be the foundational word of God by which all other writings and/or traditions are to be tested.

Click to expand...

Uh huh. Which biblical scriptures? What makes them "specialer" than other traditions? The Canon was invented by the church. And not as a hard bar, but as a minimum qualifier.

LightofTruth said:

I think the word preexistence is self contradictory. Someone cannot exist before they exist. Trinitarians believe that the man Jesus was created in the womb of Mary. A man who they claim is both fully God and fully man with two minds and two wills.

Click to expand...

No, one mind and one will.

sojourner said:

Substitutionary Atonement is part of that detritus. A sacrifice is not necessary to "pay" for our sins. Love doesn't demand payment. According to Teilhard (and others), the cross shows us the cost of love, not the cost of sin.


Get a blanket and a cup of hot coffee, because the bible IS theology, and it IS part of the Tradition of the church. When you talk about Substitutionary Atonement, you're talking theology (just not very good theology, IMO).

Click to expand...

God loves perfectly, but he is also perfectly just. Paul says the wages of sin is death, the second and final death.

This is as it was at the beginning.

At the cross Gods perfect love was expressed, as well as his perfectly just character. Death was the result of the sins of the world, the debt owed God in perfect justice was paid.

There was no other reason for Christ to have died.

The entire Jewish system, which God gave them was based in sacrifices for forgiveness.

God did not radically move the goalposts and say, ¨your sins offend me, and I promised punishment for them, but forget about it, I just forgive you all. No more spilled blood for atonement. Sure, the sacrificial system was a model for the ultimate and final sacrifice, but just forget about it ¨

Your scenario is based on some false assumptions.

Moz said:

Hi.

I'm not sure how you misunderstood the premise but it takes into account that "genealogy" would be covered by the same mechanism that applied in Jesus case. Mary.


Hi. In this senario, as a child of Mary , the "incarnated" Gabriel would have shared the same connection with humanity that the incarnated Jesus did. He would be Flesh and Blood.

Click to expand...

Your proposition is based on the assumption that an angel could do that without violating God's ways. But you have no reason to assume that. Biblically we know reincarnation as a concept doesnt exist for created beings such as humans or angels.

A sinless life by this "son of Adam" (through Mary the same as Jesus)would cover the transgression of Adam would it not.

Nothing you wrote explains why God's life is the only acceptable sacrifice..

Click to expand...

You mistakenly assume an angel is beyond sinning when subject to the temptations of being in mankind's body. It was satan who sinned and led 1/3 of the angels to sin. Only God Himself is guaranteed to be beyond sin.

Btw... if God was the ONLY one who could have proved satan a liar then it is NOT an act of Love that drives him but necessity. He had to do what he did for his own defence against the traitor.
In my view.... although others could have been sent to face the test, Jesus chose to be the one sent showing his Love of mankind and of his Father.
Peace.

Click to expand...

Your statement is irrelevent because it is based on a false assumption: the assumption that God did what he did to "prove satan is a liar". I don't know where you are getting that from but you won't find that in the Bible.

It's also wrong in another way because of your false assumption. God wasn't forced to save mankind for any reason. He chose to, because he wanted to, out of love.

You have a mistaken assumption that God's actions can't be loving unless someone else could take his place because you have a wrong assumption about God's motivations and "need" to do what He did.

sojourner said:

Uh huh. Which biblical scriptures? What makes them "specialer" than other traditions? The Canon was invented by the church. And not as a hard bar, but as a minimum qualifier.

Click to expand...

I don't believe the canon was invented by the church. The church council's purpose in establishing the canon was to take a stand against heresy and this did not occur until 397 B.C. Yet,the scriptures of the Old Testament were already in existence and recognized by the first Jewish believers and the gospels and epistles were already widely circulated and recognized by believers in the early church as God's word, well before that time.

shmogie said:

God loves perfectly, but he is also perfectly just. Paul says the wages of sin is death, the second and final death.

This is as it was at the beginning.

At the cross Gods perfect love was expressed, as well as his perfectly just character. Death was the result of the sins of the world, the debt owed God in perfect justice was paid.

There was no other reason for Christ to have died.

The entire Jewish system, which God gave them was based in sacrifices for forgiveness.

God did not radically move the goalposts and say, ¨your sins offend me, and I promised punishment for them, but forget about it, I just forgive you all. No more spilled blood for atonement. Sure, the sacrificial system was a model for the ultimate and final sacrifice, but just forget about it ¨

Click to expand...

I don't think it was the "model." The sacrificial system was revised with the new covenant. One cannot love perfectly when one requires something of someone else.

InChrist said:

I don't believe the canon was invented by the church. The church council's purpose in establishing the canon was to take a stand against heresy and this did not occur until 397 B.C. Yet,the scriptures of the Old Testament were already in existence and recognized by the first Jewish believers and the gospels and epistles were already widely circulated and recognized by believers in the early church as God's word, well before that time.

Click to expand...

Believe what you want. But it was the church who set the canon, just as it was the church who produced the writings.

LightofTruth said:

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.

Click to expand...

No angel has eternal life.....no angel is immortal. Like humans, they can have everlasting life, (no natural cause of death) but it is contingent upon obedience to God's commands. Not even Jesus was originally immortal because he was sent from heaven to die on behalf of mankind. He was with God, but he was not God. Immortals cannot die. Mere humans cannot kill God.

LightofTruth said:

I think the word preexistence is self contradictory. Someone cannot exist before they exist. Trinitarians believe that the man Jesus was created in the womb of Mary. A man who they claim is both fully God and fully man with two minds and two wills.

Click to expand...

Jesus clearly states that he was with God before his mission on earth. He existed long before he became a human. How can a human be fully an immortal God and at the same time be a fully mortal man? That is completely contradictory.

LightofTruth said:

You are mistaken if you think of a spirit as immaterial. Gabriel has a body.

Click to expand...

Gabriel materialized a body, just as other angels had done in the past. What do you think spirit beings are? Spirits have a body but it isn't material. In order to become visible, they must materialize. Why do you have a problem with that? Where do you think heaven is?

LightofTruth said:

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

Click to expand...

And that is what the Bible teaches....a perfect life had to be given to "atone" for the life Adam lost for his children. The word "atone" means "at one"....one for one...."eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth, life for a life". That was God's law. Jesus life bought back what Adam forfeited. He never needed to be God to do that.

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.

Click to expand...

Yes, we still die because it is not yet God's time to bring his kingdom rulership to this earth.....but according to the sign that Jesus gave, it must be close. The rule of God's Kingdom will bring great and welcome change to this earth. (Revelation 21:2-4)
In the meantime, we have Jesus' sacrifice to cover the effects of sin in our lives. Forgiveness is assured, as long as we are obedient to Christ's teachings.

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

Click to expand...

Really? His humanity was equivalent to Adam's....he was the perfect, sinless life offered on our behalf. That is what the ransom demanded...no more and no less.

The very thought of God becoming a human is ludicrous.

When humans were tempted by the first rebel and he succeeded in alienating them from their Creator, God needed his most trusted servant to undo all the damage that was caused, but at the same time, preserving God's gift of free will. Jesus was his most trusted. As a free willed being, he too was open to temptation. The devil knew this, which is why he tempted him three times after his baptism...each time appealing to self interest, which had worked for him in Eden. It was what set him off on his own course of rebellion. He wanted worship.

When humans became alienated from God, he appointed a mediator as a 'go-between' so that humans could still approach God, but no longer directly. Sin was now a barrier that would have to be removed in due time. That mediator was Jesus Christ.....so if he is God, where is the mediator between us and him?