codker92 said:Therefore, would it not be reasonable to contend that all angels only "appear" to eat.?Ordhound04 said:codker92 said:
That appears to only apply to Raphael. Did it say that it applied to the Angel of the Lord also? If that is what the writer wanted to convey and it was important for the writer to convey it, then why did the writer only make it apply to Raphael and not all angels?
Rafael is the only one that explicitly states it, but it is clear that angels often will go incognito in the old testament. Therefore, would it not be reasonable to contend that all angels only "appear" to eat.? Also, are you implying that the writer of Tobit is also the writer of Genesis?
A. No. Because to hold that all angels only appear to eat means that Jesus did not eat. The bible actually calls Jesus an angel in the NT.
"The revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave him to show to his servants the things that must soon take place. He made it known by sending his angel to his servant John, 2 who bore witness to the word of God and to the testimony of Jesus Christ, even to all that he saw." Rev. 1:1-2.
It is important to note that the book of Tobit takes place after the exile. I don't know this for sure, but my guess is that Raphael appeared to Tobit due to the exile status. In other words, seeing an angel is not a sign that a party is righteous, but they are separated from God. This makes sense given that the Glory of the Lord left the temple before the events in Tobit. God was not on speaking terms with Tobit's community because of their idolatry. But, nevertheless, God still chooses to show mercy to righteous individuals. Lesser angels such as Raphael appear in exile situations in the book of Tobit and the book of Daniel.
Also, are you implying that the writer of Tobit is also the writer of Genesis?
No. Most of the parts of Genesis date before the book of Tobit.
Quote:
A. No. Because to hold that all angels only appear to eat means that Jesus did not eat. The bible actually calls Jesus an angel in the NT.
Uhhhh, is your claim now that Jesus was an Angel?
Quote:
It is important to note that the book of Tobit takes place after the exile. I don't know this for sure, but my guess is that Raphael appeared to Tobit due to the exile status. In other words, seeing an angel is not a sign that a party is righteous, but they are separated from God. This makes sense given that the Glory of the Lord left the temple before the events in Tobit. God was not on speaking terms with Tobit's community because of their idolatry. But, nevertheless, God still chooses to show mercy to righteous individuals. Lesser angels such as Raphael appear in exile situations in the book of Tobit and the book of Daniel.
Is it your claim that since Tobit was after the exile this fundamentally changed the nature of Angels?
Overall, it seems like you are all over the place. First you seem to be affirming a bit of adoptionism, then that Jesus was an Angel. Is yoru contention that Jesus was fully God, Fully Angel, and Fully Man, or some mix of the 3? Perhaps and Aeon?