Was Jacob actually wrestling with God?

[Walt]

I believe it was God Himself in a human body just as He was in a human body when He eat a meal with Abraham and two angles.

I do, too.

I'm willing to listen to other Scriptural arguments to the contrary, however - if there are any.

 

[Alter2Ego]

In the Biblical account of the three individuals who appeared to Abraham at Genesis 18, all three  were angels.

The Bible's account referred to the one angel who stayed behind and conversed with Abraham as "God" or "Jehovah"  for the simple reason that the particular angel was God's mouth piece at that point in time.

That's an interpretive issue, not something that van be factually established through exegesis of the text. Believing the third man was a theophany does no harm to the understanding of the story.

Ransom:

As previously stated, all three of the individuals that appeared to Abraham were angels.  This fact is based entirely upon scripture and has nothing to do with my personal interpretation. 

God's inspired word, the Judeo-Christian Bible, makes it abundantly clear that humans cannot see Almighty God and continue to live.  Recall what God told Moses when the latter asked to see God's glory.

"Then Moses said, 'I pray You, show me Your glory!'" (Exodus 33:18)

Please read Exodus 33:20, and you will see how Almighty God Jehovah responded to the above request from Moses.


Alter2Ego

 

[Ransom]

God's inspired word, the Judeo-Christian Bible, makes it abundantly clear that humans cannot see Almighty God and continue to live.

Did God the Son leave a trail of bodies around Judea during his earthly ministry, or were his disciples able to look at him and continue to live?

In other words, if Jesus could be seen by men, then is it not conceivable that God could appear at other times, as well, without exposing men to his full glory?

 

[Walt]

In the Biblical account of the three individuals who appeared to Abraham at Genesis 18, all three  were angels.

The Bible's account referred to the one angel who stayed behind and conversed with Abraham as "God" or "Jehovah"  for the simple reason that the particular angel was God's mouth piece at that point in time.

That's an interpretive issue, not something that van be factually established through exegesis of the text. Believing the third man was a theophany does no harm to the understanding of the story.

Ransom:

As previously stated, all three of the individuals that appeared to Abraham were angels.  This fact is based entirely upon scripture and has nothing to do with my personal interpretation. 

God's inspired word, the Judeo-Christian Bible, makes it abundantly clear that humans cannot see Almighty God and continue to live.  Recall what God told Moses when the latter asked to see God's glory.

Humans in this body cannot see God as He truly in His full splendor and glory and majesty and glory.

That doesn't mean that God could not appear as a man, or perhaps it was Jesus in a pre-incarnation appearance.

 

[Ransom]

That doesn't mean that God could not appear as a man, or perhaps it was Jesus in a pre-incarnation appearance.

Exactly. "No man can see God and live" is not an absolute that admits no exceptions. If God cannot be seen under any circumstances ever, then the Incarnation could not have been possible.  And yet, because the Incarnation happened, we know that God can make himself known, in part by making himself seen. Thus there's no reason to believe he did so only that one time, especially in light of the number of times figures in the Old Testament had a personal encounter with someone who is identified as God.

 

[Alter2Ego]

That doesn't mean that God could not appear as a man, or perhaps it was Jesus in a pre-incarnation appearance.

Walt:

No doubt you will provide us at least one scriptural quotation that supports your speculation, to quote you: "That doesn't mean that God could not appear as a man."


Alter2Ego

 

[Alter2Ego]

That doesn't mean that God could not appear as a man, or perhaps it was Jesus in a pre-incarnation appearance.

Exactly. "No man can see God and live" is not an absolute that admits no exceptions. If God cannot be seen under any circumstances ever, then the Incarnation could not have been possible.  And yet, because the Incarnation happened, we know that God can make himself known, in part by making himself seen. Thus there's no reason to believe he did so only that one time, especially in light of the number of times figures in the Old Testament had a personal encounter with someone who is identified as God.

Ransom:

God's inspired word, the Judeo-Christian Bible, is the only authority Christians should accept for resolving religious beliefs and doctrines.  Clearly, based upon the tone of this conversation, we have different religious beliefs.  Yours and Walt's responses indicate you are Trinitarians. 

I would like to start a thread dealing specifically with the Trinity, using God's inspired word, the Judeo-Christian Bible, as the final authority.  No Christian should be afraid to examine any religious doctrine where the Bible is the authority.  It is when people are reluctant to be corrected by scripture--when scripture contradicts their favorite religious traditions--that is when we start seeing threads being locked.

Is the Bible your authority?  It is mine. 

Looking forward to your reply.


Alter2Ego

 

[Ransom]

No doubt you will provide us at least one scriptural quotation that supports your speculation, to quote you: "That doesn't mean that God could not appear as a man."

You're welcome.

Have this attitude in yourselves which was also in Christ Jesus, who, although He existed in the form of God, did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied Himself, taking the form of a bond-servant, and being made in the likeness of men. Being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross. (Phil. 1:5-8)

 

[Ransom]

I would like to start a thread dealing specifically with the Trinity, using God's inspired word, the Judeo-Christian Bible, as the final authority.

Bless your heart.

I had my suspicions that you were more than just some newbie who wandered onto the forum and decided to engage in conversation. It is now clear that you are here specifically to evangelize for your religion and to try and pick a fight.  Since Scripture is indeed my final authority, I will heed Scripture and not give you a platform to air your views.

For there are many who are insubordinate, empty talkers and deceivers, especially those of the circumcision party. They must be silenced, since they are upsetting whole families by teaching for shameful gain what they ought not to teach. (Titus 1:10-11)

But avoid foolish controversies, genealogies, dissensions, and quarrels about the law, for they are unprofitable and worthless. (Titus 3:8)

For many deceivers have gone out into the world, those who do not confess the coming of Jesus Christ in the flesh. Such a one is the deceiver and the antichrist. . . . If anyone comes to you and does not bring this teaching, do not receive him into your house or give him any greeting, for whoever greets him takes part in his wicked works. (2 John 7, 10-11)

All the best in your future endeavours. Have a nice day.

 

[Alter2Ego]

I would like to start a thread dealing specifically with the Trinity, using God's inspired word, the Judeo-Christian Bible, as the final authority.

Bless your heart.

I had my suspicions that you were more than just some newbie who wandered onto the forum and decided to engage in conversation. It is now clear that you are here specifically to evangelize for your religion and to try and pick a fight.  Since Scripture is indeed my final authority, I will heed Scripture and not give you a platform to air your views.

For there are many who are insubordinate, empty talkers and deceivers, especially those of the circumcision party. They must be silenced, since they are upsetting whole families by teaching for shameful gain what they ought not to teach. (Titus 1:10-11)

But avoid foolish controversies, genealogies, dissensions, and quarrels about the law, for they are unprofitable and worthless. (Titus 3:8)

For many deceivers have gone out into the world, those who do not confess the coming of Jesus Christ in the flesh. Such a one is the deceiver and the antichrist. . . . If anyone comes to you and does not bring this teaching, do not receive him into your house or give him any greeting, for whoever greets him takes part in his wicked works. (2 John 7, 10-11)

All the best in your future endeavours. Have a nice day.

Ransom:

I am curious about your above dismissive response.  Accusing me of trying to pick a fight and "evangelize for your religion," merely because I expressed a desire to open up a Trinity thread in which we would use the Bible as the authority. 

It might interest you to know that the Trinity doctrine did not become "Christian" teaching until the 4th century AD, some 300 years after Jesus Christ left the earthly scene and returned to heavenly life, and 300 years after the last book of the Bible was written by inspiration of God.  Yet, you refuse to discuss a topic like that here, at a Christian website. 

Your response to my invitation for me to open a topic on Trinity was to quote Titus 1:10-11, which refers to deceivers who are "especially of the circumcision party." Since I am not of the circumcision party, that scripture is being quoted out of context.

You then followed with the quotation from Titus 3:8, which is directed towards individuals who are having controversies "about the law"--the Mosaic Law, that is.  That scriptural quotation is being quoted out of context, since neither one of us is under the Mosaic Law and neither one of us is even having a controversy about the Mosaic Law.

At this point, you are left only with 2 John 7, 10-11, which applies to those who do not believe that Jesus Christ came in the flesh.  I am a Christian whose salvation is based upon belief in the resurrection of Jesus Christ.  The same Jesus Christ who is Mediator between Almighty God and mankind, as stated at 1 Timothy 2:5.  Christ's resurrection is a guarantee from Almighty God Jehovah that obedient mankind will be granted the gift of everlasting life--including those that are resurrected from their deaths.

"For he [Jehovah] has set a day when he will judge the world with justice by the man he has appointed. He has given proof of this to everyone by raising him from the dead."  (Acts 17:31 -- New International Version)

Jesus Christ would have had to come in the flesh in order for him to have died and be resurrected.  So 2 John 7, 10-11 does not apply to me.

My invitation to discuss Trinity--using the Bible as the authority--remains open to all.


Alter2Ego

 

[Alter2Ego]

No doubt you will provide us at least one scriptural quotation that supports your speculation, to quote you: "That doesn't mean that God could not appear as a man."

You're welcome.

Have this attitude in yourselves which was also in Christ Jesus, who, although He existed in the form of God, did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied Himself, taking the form of a bond-servant, and being made in the likeness of men. Being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross. (Phil. 1:5-8)

Ransom:

I know you meant to write Philippians 2:5-8, although you wrote chapter 1.

The scripture at Philippians 2:5-8 clearly says that Jesus Christ "did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped," so that does not help yours and Walt's opinion that "That doesn't mean that God could not appear as a man." 

Jesus Christ left heaven and appeared as a man, according to scripture.  Since, according to Trinitarian doctrine, Jesus Christ is God, then you have a problem. If Jesus Christ is God, why does Philippians 2:6 say that Jesus "did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped"?  In other words, equality with God is beyond the reach of Jesus--based upon your own scriptural quotation.

According to the Trinity doctrine, Jesus (the Son) is equal to Jehovah (the Father).  The Bible says the exact opposite at Philippians 2:6, which you quoted.  So who are you going to believe?  God's inspired word, the Bible?  Or those who invented Trinity in the 4th century AD? 

Is God's inspired word, the Judeo-Christian Bible, your authority?  It is mine.


Alter2Ego

 

[prophet]

Philippians 2:6
Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:

The actual Word of God vs. the tampered with crud.

earnestly contend

 

[Ransom]

I am curious about your above dismissive response.

You noticed it was dismissive, huh? I guess you have to get up early in the morning to slip one by you.

By the way, it was your playing coy about your beliefs, followed by your "I see you are Trinitarians" schtick (as if that comes as any surprise on a Christian forum), and now the litany of factoids about the Trinity doctrine, that showed me that you weren't on the level, but just waiting for an opening to start in with your sales pitch.

Want to debate? Come back when you've grown some honesty. I don't debate with people who don't deal straight with me.

 

[biscuit1953]

The passage in Hosea ((12:4) helps to explain this crisis in Jacob?s life.  God had a controversy with Israel because of her disobedience.  She finds herself faced by great danger;  this for her, and the hand that was wounding her was, in effect, the Divine hand;  but instead of clinging with weeping and supplication to that faithful God who would surely have delivered her, she sends for help to Syria and Egypt.  The prophet points back to Jacob, and reminds the nation that he did not act as they now are doing.  When God had a controversy with him because of his faulty life;  and when as a consequence Jacob found himself in deadly peril and realized that God Himself was behind that peril, and that it was not with Esau his brother that he had to contend, but with the Angel of Jehovah Himself;  and when sore broken by that mighty hand he ceased to wrestle and clung with weeping and supplication to the very God that wounded him, then it was he got the victory and the glorious name of Israel.  (George Williams Commentary)

 

[T-Bone]

Seems a JW has slipped into the forum...dishonestly, kind of like bringing kids to the door, to seem friendlier...and not telling those they are visiting who they are. Regardless, just another attempt to re argue their godless theology that has been biblically disputed so many times, it's no longer worth the effort talking with them.

 

[bgwilkinson]

Well we have an extreme KJVO that aggressively defends the Comma Johannan while oneness comes through. He only occasionally conducts a drive-by posting before he runs off to one of the other forums that haven't banned him.

 

[prophet]

Well we have an extreme KJVO that aggressively defends the Comma Johannan while oneness comes through. He only occasionally conducts a drive-by posting before he runs off to one of the other forums that haven't banned him.

Denying the word "Trinity", because Rome made it up, is not = Oneness Pentecostal doctrine.

Ask Servetus, who was martyred long before there was a Los Angeles to have an Azusa St.

earnestly contend

 

[Ransom]

Denying the word "Trinity", because Rome made it up, is not = Oneness Pentecostal doctrine.

Are you referring to Steven Avery? He has also used the nickname "Praxean" on other forums. Praxeas was a late 2nd-century modalist.

Avery also has not merely denied the word "Trinity," but taken issue with the wording of the Athanasian Creed.

He doesn't merely deny words. He denies the Godhead that the words describe.

 

[FSSL]

Avery has self identified as a oneness Pentecostal, as well

 

[Walt]

That doesn't mean that God could not appear as a man, or perhaps it was Jesus in a pre-incarnation appearance.

Walt:

No doubt you will provide us at least one scriptural quotation that supports your speculation, to quote you: "That doesn't mean that God could not appear as a man."


Alter2Ego

Well, I would have thought it self-evident.

However, we know from Scripture that God walked with Adam and Even in the garden of Eden, and they were not consumed.

Jesus said "He that hath seen me hath seen the Father" - and many saw Jesus and did not die.

The passages you quoted were about seeing God in the fullness of His glory.  No  man in this flesh can see God that way and live.