• 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.
Look at the forum you are in - This is a "debate" forum. You have no reason to expect to be able to make claims here about what is true without being challenged to prove your premises are true.

You are commiting the logical fallacy of "avoiding the issue" and "handwaving".

I identified the premises behind your claim and challenged you to prove your assumptions are true.
Rather than support the truth of your premises with reasoned arguments and facts, you instead try to ignore it and try to act like you don't need to prove the premises that your conclusion depends on.

You dont get to claim something is true and have your claim be accepted if you can't back up your claim with proof. Otherwise it's just an unsupported opinion and will be treated as such.



You are committing the logical fallacy of "red herring".
The objections I raised to your premise have nothing to do with the doctrine of the trinity itself.

I challenged a specific assumption you had that said the incarnation happened in a way that an angel could duplicate. You are making assumptions about both God and angels with that statement that you can't support.
You have no Biblical basis for believing that.

There are many Biblical reasons to believe what you say would likely be impossible.

We know God's abilities cannot even begin to be compared with an angel. The fact that some things are reserved only for Him and not angels is not Biblically disputable.

We know it would be impossible for the spirit of man to reincarnate because the Bible says they are given to die once and then face judgement, leading to thier eternal fate.

We know angels are also judged and have one of two eternal fates.

Angels and man are both created. God is uncreated.

God imprisons the angels for not keeping their proper place in heaven, and will judge them.

We see demonic possession never involves reincarnation of any sort. But is a demonic spirit acting to enslave a created and born human spirit. Jesus refers to thier activities as unlawful in His parables, and casts them out of people everywhere He goes.

We never see angels even engaged in possession, further confirming that possession is illegal acitivity in terms of God's ways.

There is not the remotest hint anywhere in the Bible that an angel had the physical ability or the moral right to reincarnate as a baby human.

Angels are said to be ministering spirits to man. And angels are always seen performing a task or acivity of some sort. God has created them with a purpose and place in mind just as the Bible tells us the Heavens, animals, and man all have their God ordained place and role.

Everything we see suggests it would grossly violate God's established order, where God clearly creates new life with the intention of letting them grow and play out thier life to it's consequence without reincarnating them to try again. Shoving an spirit of one order of things into another order would also be suggestive violate the intended place and purpose of that spirit.

All these are some reasons why we would doubt the possibility of your claim, as they run counter to what we consistently see in the Bible.
We can state factually what you claim is found no where in the Bible. And that what you claim goes against the trend of how God appears to do things in the Bible.

This makes it all the more damaging for your claim that you cannot provide a single reason why your claim is true. You just have an opinion with no basis for it. The onus is on you as the one making the claim to prove the truth of your claim.



You are committing the logical fallacy of "red herring".

Rather than address the logical objections I raised to your premises you try to change the topic.

Your question would only be a logically legitimate rebuttal if you explained why your new topic answers all my points or renders them moot. You haven't established that to be the case. You merely act as though you don't need to address them without giving valid reasons why you don't, which is the logical fallacy of "handwaving".



Logical fallacy, appeal to authority. Whether or not Athanasius agrees with you neither proves nor disproves the truth of your claims.



Is what cicular logic? Athanasius's argument? I am not required to defend Athanasius's arguments. I am responsible only for my arguments. You are engaging in a type of logical fallacy known as "strawman" by attempting to make me defend what someone else has said instead of dealing with what I said.



Which brings us to back to what I originally challenged you with: You have no basis for your assumption. You claim it's true but you have no proof. If it's not true then your conclusion falls apart. The onus is on you as the one making the claim to prove the truth of it.

And I also gave you several Scriptures which disprove the idea that you can take your assumption for granted, which you haven't attempted to refute.



Your claim is still based on unproven or false assumptions.
1. The assumption that God's plan of salvation needed to involve a pass/fail test.
2. The assumption that a pass/fail test is required to "establish something" (establish what exactly?)
3. The assumption that God needs to prove something to someone.

You don't have a single piece of evidence for why any of those assumptions would be true.
The Bible also directly contradicts you when it is outright stated numerous places why Jesus did what he did, and none of the assumptions you just made are given in there as reasons, nor could they even be reasoned to be true from exegesis of the scripture. If you believe otherwise you are welcome to quote Scripture you think does prove your assumptions to be true.
Hi.
I do not use much scripture nor do i want to get into a scripture quoting war. I would be on scriptual discussions if that was my aim. You can quote any scriptures you want at me and i will address them though.


You said...I challenged a specific assumption you had that said the incarnation happened in a way that an angel could duplicate.

How is that an assumption, it seems you are assuming that it couldn't happen. Wash.

God can do what God can do. The Angel would not be duplicating it of his own power, it would be Gods spirit, as it was in the case of Jesus. If you have a scripture that says God could not take a life from heaven and transfer it into humanity please show it.

Sweet... you said....
The fact that some things are reserved only for Him and not angels is not Biblically disputable.
We have a fact apparently. So the role of attonment sacrifice was reserved only for God. This is the exact scripture i'm after, the scripture that would lean me mightily in the three headed Gods direction. I don't think you'll find it though, i been lookin for a while.

I am constantly bringing up Athanasius because he is the foundational fountainhead of the nicene creed. i just figure these things should be viewed at the source' as they are his reasonings you are using. If you are unfamiliar with his reasonings i'd suggest you look into him.

Yes i suppose i did assume that a "test" or "temptation" needed the possibility of failure to make it have any meaning. It was not i thought an outrageous leap of logic.
But.... you "assume" that God would set up an unlosable challenge for Christ/God to face. That seems pointless and insults logic.

You are aware of Job aren't you? It seems that you are saying in your view, the issue of the integrity of Gods creation is answered by God being obedient to God..
“Skin for skin!” Satan replied. “A man will give up all he owns in exchange for his life. 5 But stretch out Your hand and strike his flesh and bones, and he will surely curse You to Your face.”…So God did not curse God... yep a win their.

Is it all only about "sin and salvation" ... really?
Peace
 
Last edited:

shmogie

Well-Known Member
Hi. It is Jesus who saves.Cool. Oh wait ..
is that the Man part or the God part. It was the humanity right?

That's why the trinitarians need to be pinned down on this, they use it as "proof" that Jesus is God.

Their construction is ........
Jesus was sacrificed...
Only Gods life could cover sin.... Or ....
only God could be sinless ....
Therefore Jesus is God.

Peace.
Peace
Sorry, but many of us don´t use this argument to prove that Jesus is part of the trinity.

There is enough scriptural proof of the trinity, so that no one needs to rely on speculation of this type.
 

Moz

Religion. A pox on all their Houses.
Sorry, but many of us don´t use this argument to prove that Jesus is part of the trinity.

There is enough scriptural proof of the trinity, so that no one needs to rely on speculation of this type.

Hi. Thank you for at least addressing the underlying question.

Ok. I get that, for you maybe it is not one of the main planks of the teaching now, but in examining Nicaea you'll find that the this was one of the main arguments that they gave. A CREATION can not save. And it comes up in the type of reasoning"Light of Truth" is using for example. "Only God is sinlees. A creation could not possibly be faithful in the flesh".

So if we acknowledge that it was possible for a creation to have been sent in the flesh, would it not seem more reasonable for one of "Gods loyal spirit sons" to face the challenges satan hurled at God and his creation.

Would this not then prove, in a better way, that his creation is Good and capable of perfect loyalty up to death.

Wouldn't this answer all of satans issues and be more in line with Gen3:15 than God doing it all himself, by sacrificing himself to himself in obedience to himself and cutting his creation out of the loop altogether.


I think that the true nature of the sacrifice is obscured when "Gods Blood" gets thrown into the mix. Because the incoming belief is often trinitarian and the "obedience" aspect of Christs life becomes lessoned. What more is needed than Gods blood, is the reasoning applied. But i think we realise that more than blood was needed. The blood seals the effort of "life long" obedience as a MAN.
Peace
 

Rise

Well-Known Member
Hi.
I do not use much scripture nor do i want to get into a scripture quoting war. I would be on scriptual discussions if that was my aim. You can quote any scriptures you want at me and i will address them though.

You need some kind of basis for your claims being true. If you have any means of doing that other than Scripture, than by all means present it for scrutiny, but as of yet you haven't even given non-scriptural proof for your assumptions being true.

Furthermore, you do, in fact, try to use Scripture to prove your point - but the few Scriptures you try to use end up being shown to be out of context or logically invalid for the purpose of proving your claim.

Your position seems hypocritical. Is Scripture authoritative for determining the truth of this issue or isn't it? If not, why are you using it? if it is, then why do you have a problem with the idea that your assertions need to line up with what Scripture says?


You said...I challenged a specific assumption you had that said the incarnation happened in a way that an angel could duplicate.

How is that an assumption,

Assumption:

3 a: an assuming that something is true, a mistaken assumption
b: a fact or statement (such as a proposition, axiom (see AXIOM sense 2), postulate, or notion) taken for granted

Synonyms
given, hypothetical, if, postulate, premise (also premiss), presumption,presupposition, supposition

Your claim that an angel could have been born as Jesus, instead of God, is based on the assumption that such a thing is possible and doesn't violate God's ways.
You assume it's true. You take it for granted. It's one of several premises behind your conclusion.

You don't seem to understand that in any logical discourse aimed at discovering the truth, you must be able to establish the truth of your premises/assumptions - otherwise all you have are baseless opinions.

Because you assert that your assumptions are actually true, and not just baseless opinions, you are responsible for demonstrating why your assumptions are true with facts and/or logic.


it seems you are assuming that it couldn't happen. Wash.

Your statement is wrong, and your reasoning is also not how logic works.

Your statement is wrong because I never stated definitively whether your assumption was true or false, I merely challenged you to prove your claim that it was true. So no assumption was presented as truth by me. I did, however, present you with a dozen scriptures that would suggest your claim is unlikely to be true, which further increases the burden on you to prove why you think your assertion is true - but you did not address any of those.

Your statement is also illogical because that's not how truth and logic work. You don't get to assume something is true just because someone else hasn't yet proved to you it's not true. You are still required to prove your assertion is true if you want to go around telling people it's true.

If neither side can conclusively prove something one way or another then it becomes "inconclusive". It doesn't automatically become true.
Assuming something is proven true just because it hasn't been proven false yet is illogical - because many untrue things can't always be disproven right away, but they were always false, even though it may have taken centuries for that false idea to be conclusively disproven with new data.

God can do what God can do. The Angel would not be duplicating it of his own power, it would be Gods spirit, as it was in the case of Jesus.

Logical fallacy, argument by assertion.
Merely repeating your asserting doesn't make it true. You need to give facts or logical reasoning that would establish the truth of your claim.

You have not given us any reason to believe your assumption is true that such a scenario could happen.

Especially in light of the evidence I presented which proves we cannot just assume it's possible; because we see in Scripture God has unique things only He can do and Angels being given a specific place and purpose in God's order.

Given that, you have no basis for just automatically assuming angels could have done that without violating God's order and ways. You need some actual reasons to believe this would have been within their purview to do.

If you have a scripture that says God could not take a life from heaven and transfer it into humanity please show it.

There are four flaws with your statement:

1. You are engaging in hypocritical behavior. You don't want to be challenged to prove why your assumptions are true, but you seem to have no trouble trying to demand others prove their assumptions are true.

2. You are engaging in the logical fallacy of "proving non-existence". Proving Non-Existence . When you propose something can happen, or something does exist, you must be the one to logically or factually establish that it can happen or does exist. You don't prove your assertion to be true by demanding others disprove it can happen, and then just assuming it's true if they don't.
The burden of proof is on you, as the one stating the opposite of that is true, to present proof of your statement. The onus is not on everyone else to prove that the opposite is true, or even to disprove your assertion.

3. I don't have any burden of proof to establish that the opposite is true because I never stated affirmatively one way or another what was true in this circumstance, I only challenged you to prove your asserting that your claim is true.

4. You haven't even dealt with the information I did present. I also presented a dozen scriptures that establish why we cannot assume your claim is true, and why we would have reason to suspect it's not true, which further increases the burden on you to actually prove why you think your assertion is true.
The burden of proof was always required of you even before I gave the information, but I presented the information only to further help you understand why you can't take your assumption for granted.

Sweet... you said....The fact that some things are reserved only for Him and not angels is not Biblically disputable.
We have a fact apparently. So the role of attonment sacrifice was reserved only for God. This is the exact scripture i'm after, the scripture that would lean me mightily in the three headed Gods direction. I don't think you'll find it though, i been lookin for a while.

There are two problems with your statement:

1. You are engaging in hypocritical behavior. You don't want to be challenged to prove why your assumptions are true, but you seem to have no trouble trying to demand others prove their assumptions are true.

2. You did not understand what I said, and are mischaracterizing my statement. I never stated affirmatively one way or another whether the atoning sacrifice was reserved only for God, so there is no burden for me to establish the proof of that concept either way. What I said was that there are many things reserved only for God, therefore you cannot automatically assume, as you do, that an angel could have taken every role God did through Jesus. You would need to prove your assertion that an angel would be within his purview to take on all those roles Jesus did without violating God's ways or character.

The burden of proof was always solely on you to establish the truth of your claim. I only presented that information as a demonstrating of why we know you can't take your assumption for granted. Because we know Biblically we cannot assume angels can take on every role God has reserved for Himself, but they have a very specific place in God's order.
 
Last edited:

Rise

Well-Known Member
I am constantly bringing up Athanasius because he is the foundational fountainhead of the nicene creed. i just figure these things should be viewed at the source' as they are his reasonings you are using. If you are unfamiliar with his reasonings i'd suggest you look into him.

You are committing the logical fallacy of "Red Herring" and "Non-Sequitir".
A Red Herring because you are distracting from the real issue by bringing up an unrelated issue - The Nicene Creed has nothing to do with proving your assertions are true or invaliding the objections I raised to the fact that the assumptions underlying your conclusions are unfounded and unproven.
A Non-Sequitir because you are trying to prove something is true about the Nicene Creed, which is unrelated to the issue we're really dealing with, and then asserting that your argument about the Nicene Creed proves the issue it is not related to.



None of the issues I've pointed out with your claims have anything to do with the Nicene Creed. It doesn't prove your assumptions are true, nor does it disprove the validity of me calling out your assumptions as unproven and baseless. You would need to establish why the Nicene Creed is relevant to the issues I raised.


For reference, I will list the assumptions behind your conclusion that I challenged as unproven and baseless. Then you can try to tell us why you think the Nicene Creed provides proof for any of your unproven assumptions. If you can't do that, then your diversion into the Nicene Creed was an irrelevant distraction:


Your assumptions:
1. That an angel could have taken God's place as Jesus.
2. That an angel could re-incarnate into a human baby.
3. That an angel could be expected to live a sinless life under the sway of the fallen nature of mankind.
4. That God has to prove something to satan through the plan of salvation.
5. That God was forced to save mankind, and had no choice.
6. That God needed to be able to fail in his plan, in a pass/fail test, for it to be effective.

You have no basis for believing any of that. No scripture is going to support your claims. It's just something you made up.

You don't get to pretend you're stating truth unless you can prove it's true somehow. All you're doing is stating an opinion you have, an opinion without basis, and then trying to get people to accept your opinion is a fact and debate with you as though your made up assumptions are already established fact.


I should also point out, as an aside, why you have additional unproven assumptions about the Nicene Creed (Not that it matters because the Nicene Creed is not relevant to the issues in contention here anyway, but I believe it will serve you well to see how you are basing your beliefs on many unfounded assumptions, probably without even realizing you're doing it):

Assumptions and assertions you made about the Nicene Creed that you can't prove to be true (and some of which I could disprove if it I had to, but don't need to right now because it's not relevant to the topic of debate).
1. That Athanasius wrote the Nicene Creed, or is at least mostly responsible for it's formation into what it is, or acted as the original source for it.
2. That the ideas in the Nicene Creed didn't exist prior to Athanasius as part of wider church tradition and teachings.
3. That anything I am saying is based on Athanasius's writings.
4. That the Nicene Creed was the product of later men, so we can only understand it through their writings - Which further implies the assumption that the basis for the beliefs of the Nicene Creed can't be found in Scripture (spoiler: It can).

You need to be a lot more careful in examining what the basis is for what you belief, asking yourself whether or not the assumptions that underlay your assertions are actually true.


Yes i suppose i did assume that a "test" or "temptation" needed the possibility of failure to make it have any meaning. It was not i thought an outrageous leap of logic.

What you "think" is not relevant to establishing what is true. What matters is what you can prove.


Your assumption about the plan of salvation needing to be a pass/fail test was proven wrong by a simple study of the Greek word peirazō.

That's why you can't go around asserting your assumptions are true without some kind of proof for why it's true. It's not true just because you think it is. You need facts and reasons that establish why it's true.


But.... you "assume" that God would set up an unlosable challenge for Christ/God to face.

I didn't assume anything one way or the other with my statements. I only pointed out that you had no factual or logical basis for your claim that it had to be a pass/fail test that God could fail.

As I already explained further up in this post for you: The onus is on you to prove your assumptions is true. The onus is not on me to prove the opposite is true in order to disprove your claim. You're the one making the claim of what is true, not me. I'm only pointing out that you can't claim your statements are true because you have no basis for saying they are true. All you have is an opinion trying to masquerade as truth.

And then I proved why the reasoning you were using to support your claim (ie. the meaning of the english word "test"), was factually wrong and invalid. So your original assertion, and the assumptions behind it, remain unproven and unsupported by you.


That seems pointless and insults logic.

What something "seems" like to you is not relevant to establishing it's validity or truth. What matters is what you can logically prove to be true.

You also don't seem to understand how logic works - if you think something violates logic then there is a logical process you can use to demonstrate why it violates logic.
Simply saying something goes against logic, ie saying it's illogical, doesn't prove that it is illogical. That would be the logical fallacy of "argument by assertion" - thinking that merely by asserting something is true that you've proven it is true.
If it does go against logic then you'd be able to logically demonstrate why it does for us. But if you can't do that then you don't get to claim it's illogical.




You are aware of Job aren't you? It seems that you are saying in your view, the issue of the integrity of Gods creation is answered by God being obedient to God..
“Skin for skin!” Satan replied. “A man will give up all he owns in exchange for his life. 5 But stretch out Your hand and strike his flesh and bones, and he will surely curse You to Your face.”…So God did not curse God... yep a win their.

You are engaging again in the logical fallacy of "Non-Sequitur" or at the very least "Irrelevant Conclusion".
What you are quoting from Job has nothing to do with proving your previous six assertions/assumptions. You have not established a logical connection between that verse and the original claims you made.

Your assumptions:
1. That an angel could have taken God's place as Jesus.
2. That an angel could re-incarnate into a human baby.
3. That an angel could be expected to live a sinless life under the sway of the fallen nature of mankind.
4. That God has to prove something to satan through the plan of salvation.
5. That God was forced to save mankind, and had no choice.

6. That God needed to be able to fail in his plan, as a pass/tail test, for it to be effective.

You do not establish through Scripture your assumption that God is required to provide an "answer" to the question of the "integrity" of His creation.
You don't even define what the "Integrity of His creation" means, let alone why your definition of that "creation's integrity" is true.
You further do not prove your assumption that what is happening in the book of Job is linked with what we see happening in the Gospels.

You're making a lot of assumptions about God's motivations, needs, and the methods you think he needs to meet those needs - but you have no basis for claiming your assumptions are true. They're just unsupported opinions you have.
 
Last edited:

Rise

Well-Known Member
Is it all only about "sin and salvation" ... really?

Since you are the one asserting it is about something more, the onus is on you to prove why we should believe your claim.
The Bible clearly tells us what Jesus's actions were for and why. If you want to try to add something to that you're going to need to provide some facts or logic that would establish the truth of your claim.


We already know that God's plan and actions through Jesus are about sin and salvation:

“The saying is trustworthy and deserving of full acceptance, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners, of whom I am the foremost.” 1 Timothy 1:15

“I have come into the world as light, so that whoever believes in me may not remain in darkness.” John 12:46

“Since therefore the children share in flesh and blood, he himself likewise partook of the same things, that through death he might destroy the one who has the power of death, that is, the devil, and deliver all those who through fear of death were subject to lifelong slavery. For surely it is not angels that he helps, but he helps the offspring of Abraham. Therefore he had to be made like his brothers in every respect,so that he might become a merciful and faithful high priest in the service of God, to make propitiation for the sins of the people.” Hebrews 2:14-17

“Since therefore the children share in flesh and blood, he himself likewise partook of the same things, that through death he might destroy the one who has the power of death, that is, the devil…” Hebrews 2:14

“Whoever makes a practice of sinning is of the devil, for the devil has been sinning from the beginning. The reason the Son of God appeared was to destroy the works of the devil.” 1 John 3:8

“I am the living bread that came down from heaven. If anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever. And the bread that I will give for the life of the world is my flesh.” John 6:51

““The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he has anointed me to proclaim good news to the poor. He has sent me to proclaim liberty to the captives and recovering of sight to the blind, to set at liberty those who are oppressed, to proclaim the year of the Lord’s favor…but he said to them, “I must preach the good news of the kingdom of God to the other towns as well; for I was sent for this purpose.”” Luke 4:18-19 , 42; cf. Isaiah 61:1-2

“For even the Son of Man came not to be served but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.” Mark 10:45

“…waiting for our blessed hope, the appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior Jesus Christ, who gave himself for us to redeem us from all lawlessness and to purify for himself a people for his own possession who are zealous for good works.” Titus 2:13-14

““For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life.” John 3:16

“And when Jesus heard it, he said to them, “Those who are well have no need of a physician, but those who are sick. I came not to call the righteous, but sinners.” Mark 2:17

“Truly, truly, I say to you, unless a grain of wheat falls into the earth and dies, it remains alone; but if it dies, it bears much fruit. Whoever loves his life loses it, and whoever hates his life in this world will keep it for eternal life. If anyone serves me, he must follow me; and where I am, there will my servant be also. If anyone serves me, the Father will honor him. “Now is my soul troubled. And what shall I say? ‘Father, save me from this hour’? But for this purpose I have come to this hour.” John 12:24-27

“And when Jesus came to the place, he looked up and said to him,“Zacchaeus, hurry and come down, for I must stay at your house today.” And Jesus said to him, “Today salvation has come to this house, since he also is a son of Abraham. For the Son of Man came to seek and to save the lost.” Luke 19:5 , 9-10

“For even the Son of Man came not to be served but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.” Mark 10:45

“The Spirit of the Lord God is upon me, because the Lord has anointed me to bring good news to the poor; he has sent me to bind up the brokenhearted, to proclaim liberty to the captives, and the opening of the prison to those who are bound; to proclaim the year of the Lord’s favor, and the day of vengeance of our God; to comfort all who mourn; to grant to those who mourn in Zion—to give them a beautiful headdress instead of ashes, the oil of gladness instead of mourning, the garment of praise instead of a faint spirit; that they may be called oaks of righteousness, the planting of the Lord, that he may be glorified.” Isaiah 61:1-3

“…by which he has granted to us his precious and very great promises, so that through them you may become partakers of the divine nature,having escaped from the corruption that is in the world because of sinful desire.” 2 Peter 1:4

“For to us a child is born, to us a son is given; and the government shall be upon his shoulder, and his name shall be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace. Of the increase of his government and of peace there will be no end, on the throne of David and over his kingdom, to establish it and to uphold it with justice and with righteousness from this time forth and forevermore. The zeal of the Lord of hosts will do this.” Isaiah 9:6-7

“Yet death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those whose sinning was not like the transgression of Adam, who was a type of the one who was to come. But the free gift is not like the trespass. For if many died through one man’s trespass, much more have the grace of God and the free gift by the grace of that one man Jesus Christ abounded for many.” Romans 5:14-15

“Jesus said to her, “Everyone who drinks of this water will be thirsty again, but whoever drinks of the water that I will give him will never be thirsty again. The water that I will give him will become in him a spring of water welling up to eternal life.”” John 4:13-14
 
Last edited:

Moz

Religion. A pox on all their Houses.
Hi. A little knowledge is a dangerous thing





My assumptions as you call them
:
1. That an angel could have taken God's place as Jesus.

God's place? Now who is making assumptions. LOOK... their exists a non trintiarian theology that has for thousands of years believed that a CREATION and not the CREATOR was the one sent. Their is ABSOLUTELY NO TEACHING that prohibits a creation being sent .
That is why "It's impossible for an angel to have been sent " has NEVER been an argument used against non-trintiarians. Except here it seems. If you are able it would be of help if you could cite a source that uses this reasoning. I assumed, their i go again, that you would at least be aware of the opposing viewpoint to your own. I know your stuff inside out.

2. That an angel could re-incarnate into a human baby.

Is that what Jesus did? He re-incarnated into a human baby did he.
But anything that God did for or too Jesus he could do for or too another . Couldn't he?

3. That an angel could be expected to live a sinless life under the sway of the fallen nature of mankind.

A perfect MAN not an Angel, he used to be an Angel but gave up that position and became MAN ....get it.
Expected too live a sinless life...... well that is an interesting point.
I started this with Gabriel right. Gabriel has existed for all his existence "In The Presence of God'. Faithful BEFORE the fall and continueing faithful AFTER the fall. A faithful representative who has been to earth numerous times and many missions and being accosted by satan himself.

I am certain that the Father could trust one such as this to NOT fall just because of a change in location and substance.... He would be the exact same"person" in the flesh as he was in the spirit wouldn't he?

I don't think that the Angel Gabriel would follow satan's lead NO MATTER where he was or what he was made of... do you REALLY think he would?


4. That God has to prove something to satan through the plan of salvation.

The FACT that Jesus obedience was the issue shows that something more than just Blood Sacrifice is going on. Otherwise sacrifice the baby Jesus and nothing changes. .......Oh wait, maybe that will help. If Jesus was killed as an infant would the sacrifice still have been fulfilled? Or was something other than just his blood needed. Did he possibly have to PROVE obedience before his Blood was worthy?

And you misunderstand. God does not have to prove anything to satan. Creation has to prove that it CHOOSES obedience over satans lie. That is what Jesus obedience unto death proved.... but only if he is a creation. If he's God nothing is proved.


5. That God was forced to save mankind, and had no choice.

If mankind failed then God failed did he not? After all he designed them in his own image. He said the creation of man was good.
To not save mankind would make him a liar... he can not lie. So you tell me if that does not force action.

6. That God needed to be able to fail in his plan, as a pass/tail test, for it to be effective.

Again you are presupposing that it is GOD who is facing this test, you do this because you think only God could pass the test. That seems fuzzyheaded to me.

My point is that a test of obedience would have to allow for the possibility of disobedience or WHAT IS THE POINT.

How is it effective, as you put it, if nothing is established other than ONLY God can be obedient to God?
Really tell me what an unfailable test accomplishes.


Peace.
 
Top