codker92 said:

---

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?

---

Therefore, would it not be reasonable to contend that all angels only "appear" to eat.?
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?

The exile fundamentally demonstrates the changed the way that God dealt with the exiled Israel. The Glory of the Lord left the temple. The Glory of the Lord, which occupies a similar position to the Angel of Lord in the book of Ezekiel only spoke to specific prophets and people, like Ezekiel. God, as a punishment withdrew His presence from the general populace. God sent secondary and lesser angels to the other exiles like Daniel.

codker92 said:

---

Which translation do you use?

---

I usually use ESV for my daily reading, but also have NRSV, KJV, and NIV on my shelf I use occasionally. They are all in agreement that Christ didn't stop being God nor become God, but is God.

See Hebrews 2:9. Christ became lower than angels for our benefit. Jesus' death and resurrection is the basis for Him being crowned with glory and honor.

I see trinitarianism in the OT and NT but it's not necessary to describe God.

He took on flesh and suffered for our sins. He didn't give up being God. God can't give up being Himself, else he isn't God.

Depends on what you classify as being God. I am guessing that you think that the bible only affirms that one god exists. That is false. See Psalm 82; 89, 2 Kings 22:19 etc. Jesus certainly gave up His powers, but He gave them up to Himself. When I play my little brother at football I take off my helmet, why can't God do the same thing figuratively by temporarily taking off His God Status? The is evidenced by the fact that he was not glorified the entire time He was on earth. Jesus did the works that only God could do. Yet, He gave it up. Philippians 2:7.

The main problem I have with your point of view is that you refuse to let Jesus be what He is, a person. It is not an amazing thing for God to accomplish something. He is God, it is obvious that He can whatever He wants. What is amazing is that a man did the things that God did, paving a way for us. He came back from sheol, where people go when they die.

Furthermore, the fact that you refuse to admit that Jesus gave up His status as God for a little while leads me to believe that you think that God cannot die. Was Jesus just simply alive in another universe during the three days he laid in the tomb? No. If gods never die then how will evil ever be destroyed?

Furthermore, your whole conception of Jesus is flawed. Why is Jesus taking on flesh at birth a big deal? It is not. People do this everyday and they die everyday. I 100% disagree with you that Jesus took on flesh at birth. Jesus had flesh at birth just as He had flesh before birth, when He was with the Father. But the first time that Jesus took on flesh was as a gardener at the tomb. When Jesus rose from the dead it created the world. Because through Him all things are created.

Bid deal. Even demons know that.

I just read the text which literally says He became lower than angels. Sounds to me like you are promoting self made religion, some strange form of evangelical paganism based on feelings. I'll stick to the text and the truth.

You seem to be putting forward claims which are mutually exclusive.

- The Angel of the Lord was the Incarnate Word (had a human body, etc)
- Being made man is to be made a little lower than the angels
- Jesus had flesh before birth
- Jesus only took on flesh for the first time as a gardener at the tomb

Being made a little lower than the angels is from the Psalmist - "what is Man that you are mindful of him, the son of man that you care for him? You made him a little lower than the angles, you crowned him with glory and honor..."

St Paul references this in Hebrews 2, and he says Jesus was made less than the angels - which can only mean he was made man, contextually.

This can't be applied to only in the Resurrection, though. St Paul in Ephesians chapter 1 says that when Christ was raised from the dead and seated at the right hand of the Father He was made "far above all rule and authority, power, and dominion, and every name that is named, not only in the present age but also the one to come."

Therefore at the moment of the Resurrection Christ was glorified and elevated above all angels. This cannot mean that He became incarnate at the same moment He was resurrected and became Man and made lower than angels. It doesn't work.

Not all flesh has to be a mans. I'm arguing that the flesh the Word had before was glorified. Jesus appears glorified on the mount. He can turn it off and in at will apparently.

I'm basing my theology in the fact Jesus died.

Being dead is being lower than just about everything.

Furthermore I don't think Athanasius is a good source since he came more than 600 years after the LXX was written

"God is spirit, and those who worship him must worship in spirit and truth"

"A spirit does not have flesh and bones"

There is not divine flesh; there is humanity, which becomes divine when mingled with the divine nature in the union of God and Man - Jesus.

"The Word became flesh and dwelt among us. And we beheld His glory, a glory as of an only begotten from the Father, full of grace and truth."

It doesn't say, the Word who was flesh became man, but the Word became flesh.

I disagree. When Jesus rose He was glorified. It's not referring to the birth but the resurrection.

Corinthians says we will be glorified like Him. We will still be human.

You disagree with.. the scripture spoken by Jesus?

Bold move.

You are assuming another unbiblical mindset. In Greco-Roman culture and Jewish culture, they believed that gods had bodies, make of something superior to flesh and blood. Paul taught that Christians would one day share Christ's body -- meaning they would have the same body as Christ.

This is in 1 Corinthians 15. What body did Christ have post resurrection? He looked human!!! The substance was flesh but better.

See the book we are being transformed by M. David Litwa. The subtitle is Deification in Paul's Soteriology.


Aphrodite for instance was born form the immortal flesh or skin of Uranus. Uranus is the Greek word for Heavens, or heavenly one. Aphrodite is born from this "immortal flesh". Uranus was immortal but Aphrodite could get wounded and bleed. Their blood was called ichor and it was not like blood.

On the Israelite side, gods could exist in more than one form simultaneously. Their gods could be embodied in two places at once. Christians call this trinitarianism. The best example is Ezekiel 1 verse 22.


20 Wherever the spirit wanted to go, they went, and the wheels rose along with them, for the spirit of the living creatures was in the wheels.
21 When those went, these went; and when those stood, these stood; and when those rose from the earth, the wheels rose along with them, for the spirit of the living creatures was in the wheels.
22 Over the heads of the living creatures there was the likeness of an expanse, shining like awe-inspiring crystal, spread out above their heads.
23 And under the expanse their wings were stretched out straight, one toward another. And each creature had two wings covering its body.
24 And when they went, I heard the sound of their wings like the sound of many waters, like the sound of the Almighty, a sound of tumult like the sound of an army. When they stood still, they let down their wings.
25 And there came a voice from above the expanse over their heads. When they stood still, they let down their wings.
26 And above the expanse over their heads there was the likeness of a throne, in appearance like sapphire; and seated above the likeness of a throne was a likeness with a human appearance.
27 And upward from what had the appearance of his waist I saw as it were gleaming metal, like the appearance of fire enclosed all around. And downward from what had the appearance of his waist I saw as it were the appearance of fire, and there was brightness around him.
28 Like the appearance of the bow that is in the cloud on the day of rain, so was the appearance of the brightness all around. Such was the appearance of the likeness of the glory of the LORD. And when I saw it, I fell on my face, and I heard the voice of one speaking.


The glory idea is important because if you followed that, Ezekiel calls the human figure seated on the throne the Glory of the Lord. He uses that same exact phrase for the God of Israel in Ezekiel 9:3. The Glory is not just a cloud. The glory has form and its a man. Just like the NT. It is not just a light.

If you go to Ezekiel 10:20, cherubim are said to be under the God of Israel. So the glory and the God of Israel are the same and they have bodily form.

In Litwa's book on page 126 he says the following:

"Turning to Paul, we not the close relationship between Yahweh's glory, his glory body, and the kind of body that Paul attributes to Christ. According to Paul, Christ has a "body of glory" Philippians 3:21. The glory here is probably a genitive of content or definition, in other words, the body constituted by glory. This is the body which Christ gained in his resurrection when He was raised by the Glory of the Father. (PAUL SAYS THIS IN ROMANS 6:4) Accordingly, in 1 Corinthians, Christ is called the Lord of Glory when believers "behold the Glory of the Lord" in 2 Corinthians 3:18. They appear to beholding Christ himself who is the image of God, 2 Corinthians 4:4, Colossians 1:15.

Basically, the ancients did not consider spirits without bodies human.

Litwa further writes:

"If glory is a way of referring to Christ's divine corporeality, how is it related to Christ as the life making pneuma? Pneuma is the word for life giving Spirt. Should we also conceive of the pneumatic in corporeal terms? There's some reason to think that this life making Spirit is a reference to Christ's physical constitution. This is because those conformed to the pneumatic Christ become like Christ by conforming to his heavenly body.

Becoming like Christ in the eschatological sense is not just some day when we're in heaven.

We do get new bodies after resurrection. So when we get the new body can we really say we are not flesh? We are still flesh, but of a different kind of flesh.

See 1 Corinthians 15: 35-44. Paul is just saying the new flesh is different.

So God can't have a body of one kind of flesh and another body of a different kind of flesh at the same time?