• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Gabriel as Messiah

Moz

Religion. A pox on all their Houses.
Your scenario is based on some false assumptions.



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.



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.



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.

Hi.
1 I really think that you are just injecting semantical and theological issues into the senario so as not the examine the underlying point of the excercise, (Not just you but all the trinitarians who've responded so far). High level objections are being shoehorned in so as not to answer the basic simple question proposed.

Namely.... Was it GODS life or a perfect HUMAN life that lies at the bottom of whatever cockamamie attontement theology structure you build on top.

2 . YOU SAID........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.

Ok this is good it get's us somewhat along the path i want to explore. The choice of the word GUARANTEED is very interesting. It seems that God had to stack the deck in your opinion. He could not trust a SINGLE creation, not even Angels who had stood against satans rebellion of remained faithful. Their seems in your opinion to be something intrinsically wrong with Flesh. Even though at the end of the story living faithfully in the flesh is what seems to be restored as the eternal purpose of mankind.

Guaranteed......... If their was NO POSSIBILITY of failure then how is anything accomplished?

3 On the rest of what you wrote.....

"Prove satan a liar" is founded in...... "YOU POSITIVELY WILL NOT DIE" That's pretty foundational. But most forget that the First issue is God's honour and Sovereignty. "Salvation" is a consequence of how The Father chose to deal with satans rebelion. It's a two birds with one stone thing. But the heavenly challenge is the bigger bird by far.

It seems to me that if God was the only one who could do it then he was obligated to take on the job, otherwise his creation of mankind would have come to nothing and would have been a manifest mistake.
Peace.
 

LightofTruth

Well-Known Member
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.



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.



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?



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.



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.



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?
Jesus said that God's angels in heaven never die. I believe him.
 

Moz

Religion. A pox on all their Houses.
Jesus said that God's angels in heaven never die. I believe him.
Hi. Eternal life and immortality while often confused with each other are not the same thing. But the point is moot now. The Angels have been sorted, no faithful Angel will ever fall again. They've made their choice.
Peace.
 

LightofTruth

Well-Known Member
Hi. Eternal life and immortality while often confused with each other are not the same thing. But the point is moot now. The Angels have been sorted, no faithful Angel will ever fall again. They've made their choice.
Peace.
The word eternal refers to having no beginning or end. Immortality refers to being deathless. When a mortal person is given eternal life it means that time no longer is an issue. When a person becomes immortal it means the person is no longer subject to death.
 

LightofTruth

Well-Known Member
So what ? It is a simple concept, but everyone is entitled to their own beliefs.
The funny thing is, trinitarians would rather argue that Jesus is the one true God with non-trinitarians rather than come to agree with each other on the truth of their own beliefs.
The compromise is that they all believe Jesus is the one true God even if they can't agree with each other on what that means. So they attack anyone who doesn't accept Jesus as the one true God.
The trinity is the main doctrine to be believed among trinitarians. But it comes down to believing Jesus is the God.
 

Moz

Religion. A pox on all their Houses.
The word eternal refers to having no beginning or end. Immortality refers to being deathless. When a mortal person is given eternal life it means that time no longer is an issue. When a person becomes immortal it means the person is no longer subject to death.
Hi
The problem arises with the juxtaposition, in some minds, of "immortal soul" and "eternal life".

I'm not so sure about the no beginning aspect of eternal you mention but that's a philosophical distinction i suppose.
Peace.
 

LightofTruth

Well-Known Member
Hi
The problem arises with the juxtaposition, in some minds, of "immortal soul" and "eternal life".

I'm not so sure about the no beginning aspect of eternal you mention but that's a philosophical distinction i suppose.
Peace.
Eternal life is given by one who is Himself eternal. Immortality is given by one who is Himself deathless.
To be born of the Spirit refers to being born of one who is eternal and deathless.......so...there you have it.
 

LightofTruth

Well-Known Member
The life that faithful believers are to have is totally unlike the life they now have. The life they now have has a beginning and an end from a mortal father and mother.. The life they will have is of a Father who has no beginning or end. The life they now have ends in death. The life they will have is deathless.
 

Moz

Religion. A pox on all their Houses.
Hi.

It is interesting that "non trinitarians" basically have no problem with the proposition that a perfect human life, as defined by the Law and the prophets, was all that was needed as the sacrifice and that perfect obedience was the key. For thousands of years their have been Christians who have no problem with the idea that a perfect creation was sent by the Father to redeem mankind.

The trinitarians on the other hand seem to have the need to say that because Jesus is God then God must have been the only one that could have supplied the sacrifice, because it was God who supplied the sacrifice. Yet they also agree, when you pin them on it, that it was the perfect HUMAN nature of Christ that was obedient to the divine nature. An each way better i would suggest.

It seems clear that whether he was Almighty God or not, at the end of the day, even the trinitarians admit that it was the HUMAN Jesus who saves.

(Imagine the kerfuffle if i had suggested Michael for this exercise instead of Gabriel)

Peace.
 

Rise

Well-Known Member
Hi.
1 I really think that you are just injecting semantical and theological issues into the senario so as not the examine the underlying point of the excercise, (Not just you but all the trinitarians who've responded so far). High level objections are being shoehorned in so as not to answer the basic simple question proposed.

You ignored my logical objection to a key premise behind your argument. You are actually committing the logical fallacy of "handwaving" by dismissing the need to answer the logical objection I raised to your premise.

Your conclusion is premised on the assumption that it would have been possible for an already created angel to incarnate into a new birth.
If your premise cant be true then your conclusion cant be true. So, the question stands: what basis do you have for concluding it could happen when everything in the Bible tells us that reincarnation doesnt exist as a concept?

2 . YOU SAID........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.

Ok this is good it get's us somewhat along the path i want to explore. The choice of the word GUARANTEED is very interesting. It seems that God had to stack the deck in your opinion. He could not trust a SINGLE creation, not even Angels who had stood against satans rebellion of remained faithful. Their seems in your opinion to be something intrinsically wrong with Flesh. Even though at the end of the story living faithfully in the flesh is what seems to be restored as the eternal purpose of mankind.

You did not deal with the objection I raised to your premise.

Your conclusion rests on the premise that it would be possible for an angel to live a sinless life if reborn - but you have no reason to assume that is true, as I pointed out. You haven't given us any reason why we should believe it's true.

The opposite is suggested to be true by the fact that 1/3 of angels sinned, and the fact that no one could be found worthy in Heaven or on earth to open the scrolls but Jesus due to what He did. Revelation 5.

If the assumption behind your premise is not true then your conclusion can't be true.

Guaranteed......... If their was NO POSSIBILITY of failure then how is anything accomplished?

The premise behind your statement is based again on an unproven assumption.

Who says God needed to be able to fail? Doesn't say that anywhere in the Bible.
Your objection doesn't make logical sense because you are basing it on a false, unproven, assumption you have about how things needed to happen.


3 On the rest of what you wrote.....

"Prove satan a liar" is founded in...... "YOU POSITIVELY WILL NOT DIE" That's pretty foundational.

I didn't ask you to prove to me that satan is a liar. We already know that to be true.

I asked you to prove your claim that God did what He did through Jesus in order to prove satan is a liar. Your claim has no Biblical basis and is directly contradicted by parts of the Bible which tell us God did it to save mankind from the consequence of sin and death, restoring what was lost.

But most forget that the First issue is God's honour and Sovereignty. "Salvation" is a consequence of how The Father chose to deal with satans rebelion. It's a two birds with one stone thing. But the heavenly challenge is the bigger bird by far.

You did not give an logical reasons why your claim about the purpose of Jesus's sacrifice is true. You merely reasserted your original claim.

You are engaging in the logical fallacy of "argument by assertion". Merely asserting your claim is true doesn't prove it is true. You need to give facts or logical reasons that establish why your claim is true.

It seems to me that if God was the only one who could do it then he was obligated to take on the job, otherwise his creation of mankind would have come to nothing and would have been a manifest mistake.

Again, you're basing your conclusions on assumptions that you have no factual or logical basis for believing are true.

Who says God is obligated to?

Who says He can't make the choice to leave mankind in the consequence of sin?


You won't find that idea in the Bible.

Logically there is no reason He wouldbe forced to either.

It's just an idea you made up without having a factual basis for concluding it's true.
 

Deeje

Avid Bible Student
Premium Member
Jesus said that God's angels in heaven never die. I believe him.
Please back up statements with scripture or it is useless to just post an opinion on what you think the scriptures say.

God's angels can die, just like us. The first humans had no natural cause of death, and the angels don't either. Because they are not material beings, they do not require life support like we do...air....food....water.

When satan rebelled and took a third of the angels with him, Jesus said that their fate was everlasting death. (Matthew 25:41) The lake of fire is "the second death" a kind of death that never ends.
 

Moz

Religion. A pox on all their Houses.
You ignored my logical objection to a key premise behind your argument. You are actually committing the logical fallacy of "handwaving" by dismissing the need to answer the logical objection I raised to your premise.

Your conclusion is premised on the assumption that it would have been possible for an already created angel to incarnate into a new birth.
If your premise cant be true then your conclusion cant be true. So, the question stands: what basis do you have for concluding it could happen when everything in the Bible tells us that reincarnation doesnt exist as a concept?



You did not deal with the objection I raised to your premise.

Your conclusion rests on the premise that it would be possible for an angel to live a sinless life if reborn - but you have no reason to assume that is true, as I pointed out. You haven't given us any reason why we should believe it's true.

The opposite is suggested to be true by the fact that 1/3 of angels sinned, and the fact that no one could be found worthy in Heaven or on earth to open the scrolls but Jesus due to what He did. Revelation 5.

If the assumption behind your premise is not true then your conclusion can't be true.



The premise behind your statement is based again on an unproven assumption.

Who says God needed to be able to fail? Doesn't say that anywhere in the Bible.
Your objection doesn't make logical sense because you are basing it on a false, unproven, assumption you have about how things needed to happen.




I didn't ask you to prove to me that satan is a liar. We already know that to be true.

I asked you to prove your claim that God did what He did through Jesus in order to prove satan is a liar. Your claim has no Biblical basis and is directly contradicted by parts of the Bible which tell us God did it to save mankind from the consequence of sin and death, restoring what was lost.



You did not give an logical reasons why your claim about the purpose of Jesus's sacrifice is true. You merely reasserted your original claim.

You are engaging in the logical fallacy of "argument by assertion". Merely asserting your claim is true doesn't prove it is true. You need to give facts or logical reasons that establish why your claim is true.



Again, you're basing your conclusions on assumptions that you have no factual or logical basis for believing are true.

Who says God is obligated to?

Who says He can't make the choice to leave mankind in the consequence of sin?


You won't find that idea in the Bible.

Logically there is no reason He wouldbe forced to either.

It's just an idea you made up without having a factual basis for concluding it's true.

Hi.

You said.... Your conclusion is premised on the assumption that it would have been possible for an already created angel to incarnate into a new birth.

All i have done is to propose that the exact SAME mechanism that transferred the Word from a heavenly existence could no doubt have been applied to an angelic existence.You do believe that Jesus existed in heaven as a spirit before he came to earth don't you?


You say....
Who says He can't make the choice to leave mankind in the consequence of sin?

He did when he declared the creation of man GOOD.


You say ....Your conclusion rests on the premise that it would be possible for an angel to live a sinless life if reborn - but you have no reason to assume that is true, as I pointed out.

My premise, i suppose, is that a TRUE test of obedience is for a perfect human to show perfect obedience and injecting God Almighty into the picture is overkill and makes the whole issue of obedience to God moot.

God who cannot sin, did not sin...... well i'm glad we had to go through 5000 years of crap to prove that tautology. Seems pretty self evident if you ask me.

Also it seems from your comments that you think it was impossible for Adam to have remained faithful. That Gods human creation is somehow inherently flawed, by design i suppose, and that if Jesus is not God Almighty himself then his obedience would not have been possible. You seem to forget that
one day millions upon millions will perfectly serve God in the flesh for eternity.
Peace.


 

Moz

Religion. A pox on all their Houses.
Please back up statements with scripture or it is useless to just post an opinion on what you think the scriptures say.

God's angels can die, just like us. The first humans had no natural cause of death, and the angels don't either. Because they are not material beings, they do not require life support like we do...air....food....water.

When satan rebelled and took a third of the angels with him, Jesus said that their fate was everlasting death. (Matthew 25:41) The lake of fire is "the second death" a kind of death that never ends.
Hi Deeji.... He is right you now..... but so are you.

He is referring to Angels as the ones after the fall who remained faithful. They will never die.

You are referring to the generic class of Angels, effectively before the fall. Some of these Angels do indeed die.

I am sure that he would agree that the demons will die. (Even if only spiritual death and not the real thing.) The Demons sinned and the wages are death.
Peace.
 

Moz

Religion. A pox on all their Houses.
You ignored my logical objection to a key premise behind your argument. You are actually committing the logical fallacy of "handwaving" by dismissing the need to answer the logical objection I raised to your premise.

Your conclusion is premised on the assumption that it would have been possible for an already created angel to incarnate into a new birth.
If your premise cant be true then your conclusion cant be true. So, the question stands: what basis do you have for concluding it could happen when everything in the Bible tells us that reincarnation doesnt exist as a concept?



You did not deal with the objection I raised to your premise.

Your conclusion rests on the premise that it would be possible for an angel to live a sinless life if reborn - but you have no reason to assume that is true, as I pointed out. You haven't given us any reason why we should believe it's true.

The opposite is suggested to be true by the fact that 1/3 of angels sinned, and the fact that no one could be found worthy in Heaven or on earth to open the scrolls but Jesus due to what He did. Revelation 5.

If the assumption behind your premise is not true then your conclusion can't be true.



The premise behind your statement is based again on an unproven assumption.

Who says God needed to be able to fail? Doesn't say that anywhere in the Bible.
Your objection doesn't make logical sense because you are basing it on a false, unproven, assumption you have about how things needed to happen.




I didn't ask you to prove to me that satan is a liar. We already know that to be true.

I asked you to prove your claim that God did what He did through Jesus in order to prove satan is a liar. Your claim has no Biblical basis and is directly contradicted by parts of the Bible which tell us God did it to save mankind from the consequence of sin and death, restoring what was lost.



You did not give an logical reasons why your claim about the purpose of Jesus's sacrifice is true. You merely reasserted your original claim.

You are engaging in the logical fallacy of "argument by assertion". Merely asserting your claim is true doesn't prove it is true. You need to give facts or logical reasons that establish why your claim is true.



Again, you're basing your conclusions on assumptions that you have no factual or logical basis for believing are true.

Who says God is obligated to?

Who says He can't make the choice to leave mankind in the consequence of sin?


You won't find that idea in the Bible.

Logically there is no reason He wouldbe forced to either.

It's just an idea you made up without having a factual basis for concluding it's true.
Hi .
Sorry i missed this i'll be quick...

You said ...Who says God needed to be able to fail? Doesn't say that anywhere in the Bible.

Do you agree that Heb 4:15 , as one among many scriptures, speaks of Jesus being tested. By it's very nature a test implies a pass fail. (At least it used to). Would you really have God take test and expect the outcome be anything but pass?
It proves God is sinless that's all. Since by definition sin is whatever God says it is then wow. He gets to write the rules for the test... to write the questions for the test... and set the pass/fail value for the test.

And if you come back with the standard line it was the human nature that was tested you will be making my point exactly. Humanity not divinity was the needed sacrifice.
Peace.
 
Top