djeggnog,
I'll respond to your earlier post first. I missed it my last time around. Sorry about that.
So you found my insertion of the word "other" in order to convey my understanding of the text at Hebrews 1:5 to have been dishonest in some way?
eggnog, you added a word that completely changes the meaning of the verse:
Pre-eggnog verse: God never said to any of the angels...
Post-eggnog verse: God never said to any of the other angels...
The pre-eggnog verse eliminates any and all angels. The post-eggnog verse does not.
Food for thought: If the ORIGINAL bible verse said "God never said to any of the OTHER angels", and I went ahead and removed the word "other", changing the meaning of the verse to fit my theology, would it be dishonest of me?
on what basis are you saying that you found my explanation to "reek"?
I said it reeks of the Watchtower Society, which is to say it is exactly the sort of tactic they would use to explain a problematic verse: inserting the word "other" to change the meaning of the biblical text. (consider Col 1:15-17)
Now if you believe I did something wrong here by posting my "commentary" on the first two chapters of Hebrews based on how I understand these two chapters to be saying, please tell me what you believe I did wrong here. Before I post another message to you in this thread, I'm going to require an answer from you, because you are treating me here as if I'd done something onerous to you.
eggnog, you have done nothing onerous to me. I have no problem with you posting your opinion on these or any other verses. At the same time, realize that I may not agree with your opinions and I may choose to voice that disagreement. In the case of Hebrews chapter 1, I disagree with you adding the word "other" in order to change the meaning of the biblical text so that it fits with your personal theology.
What "hoops" did I jump through? About what exactly are you accusing me of being in denial?
I was quoting debator who said "deny the obvious and bible written [sic]". You deny the obvious statement of Hebrews 1:5 and 1:13:
5God has never said to any of the angels, "You are my Son, because today I have become your Father!" Neither has God said to any of them, "I will be his Father, and he will be my Son!"
13God never said to any of the angels, "Sit at my right side until I make your enemies into a footstool for you!"
You denial is evidenced by your adding the word "other" to change the meaning of the verse to fit your theology.
I recommend re-reading the verses slowly, paying particular attention to the absence of the word "other".
My response to your more recent post:
Moses, for the most part, completes the book of Deuteronomy before his death in 1473 BC, 741 years before Isaiah completes the writing of his book, some 1,505 years before another God came into existence. So Jehovah's declaration through Moses at Deuteronomy 32:39 is true.
Are you seriously suggesting that Jehovah's declaration at Deut 32:39 ("THERE ARE NO GODS TOGETHER WITH ME") is true because Jesus didn't exist at that time?..........
I suggest you re-read John 1:1. When you do so, you will note that the verse begins "In the beginning....". To what would you consider this to be a reference? The beginning of the book of John? The beginning of the week?
But with reference to which one of the angels has he ever said: 'Sit at my right hand, until I place your enemies as a stool for your feet'? Are they not all spirits for public service, sent forth to minister for those who are going to inherit salvation?
Note that Paul says here at Hebrews 1:14 that they, including the angel that 'sits at God's right hand,' are "all [of them] spirits for public service, sent forth to minister for those that are going to inherit salvation."
I hardly know where to start. This is such an obvious misinterpretation of these verses...
What Hebrews 1:13,14 says is that God never said "sit at my right hand....." to *ANY* angel, for (because, as evidenced by) angels are merely servants of those who are going to be saved.
Do you see? Angels are "merely servants of those who are going to be saved". One such as this would not be appointed to sit at the right hand of God.
Consider the CEV rendering, which is quite clear:
God never said to any of the angels, "Sit at my right side until I make your enemies into a footstool for you!" Angels are merely spirits sent to serve people who are going to be saved.
Do you see that God never said "Sit at my right hand....." to "ANY of the angels"? For angels are merely spirits sent to serve, not to sit at the right hand of God.
bane: Stick to video games and pro wrestling.
truthlover:
So did God resurrect himself??
You tell me:
Jesus answered them, "Destroy this temple, and I will raise it again in three days." The Jews replied, "It has taken forty-six years to build this temple, and you are going to raise it in three days?" But the temple he had spoken of was his body. (John 2:19-21)
Did Jesus say *HE* was going to raise his body or did he not?
Podo:
I think UnDisfellowshipped as well as others have taken the time to explain this verse for you. "The LORD" is YHWH; "the Lord" is a reference to the incarnate Jesus.
Kenneson:
Does it make any sense that the question: "Did God ever say to any angel, 'Sit at my right side, until I make your enemies your footstool?" means that yes, God did say this to one angel Jesus, is ridiculous. The point is that this was said of Jesus, but never to ANY angel.
So true. While there are certainly difficult passages in the bible, this isn't one of them. God never said this to ANY angel. Period. Therefore, Jesus cannot be an angel. Period.
It seems to me that theology ought to be based on the unambiguous statements of scripture while the ambiguous verses are left open to debate.
