U
una_ecclesia
Guest
One thing to note about the Hebrew for the word “angel” is that it is simply the word for “messenger”. The same word can be used for people who are not what we consider the metaphysical category for “angels”, but rather that they are relaying some message from a king or simply from one person to another.
Hence when you see “angel of the LORD” or some variation of that, be aware that it’s basically referring to one sent by God to relay a message to someone. The designation need not be a metaphysical one. So it’s not a surprise that the early fathers held that certain appearances by angels were in fact appearance by the Son, acting on behalf of the Father.
Having said all that, you do have the metaphysical category of “angels”, i.e., created purely spiritual beings that serve God and whatnot. The Son (or even the Spirit) may be the ones being referred to in certain “angel of the Lord” passages (though why do you think that all references to angel of the Lord refer to the same person? I’ve never seen the definite article attached to it, for one), but Jesus is never referred to as a Cherub or a Seraph or any of the other choirs of (metaphysical) angels.
As for trying to be friendly and build bridges as a Mormon or as a Catholic… not a problem. Let’s be honest, and approach the discussion with some sound logic and reasoning here. Thanks for your politeness… we should be the same (chill, other people) and stick to the topic. However, don’t expect for people to refrain from prying into your brain and expecting some good biblical and philosophical arguments for your case. The same should be true for us.
Hence when you see “angel of the LORD” or some variation of that, be aware that it’s basically referring to one sent by God to relay a message to someone. The designation need not be a metaphysical one. So it’s not a surprise that the early fathers held that certain appearances by angels were in fact appearance by the Son, acting on behalf of the Father.
Having said all that, you do have the metaphysical category of “angels”, i.e., created purely spiritual beings that serve God and whatnot. The Son (or even the Spirit) may be the ones being referred to in certain “angel of the Lord” passages (though why do you think that all references to angel of the Lord refer to the same person? I’ve never seen the definite article attached to it, for one), but Jesus is never referred to as a Cherub or a Seraph or any of the other choirs of (metaphysical) angels.
As for trying to be friendly and build bridges as a Mormon or as a Catholic… not a problem. Let’s be honest, and approach the discussion with some sound logic and reasoning here. Thanks for your politeness… we should be the same (chill, other people) and stick to the topic. However, don’t expect for people to refrain from prying into your brain and expecting some good biblical and philosophical arguments for your case. The same should be true for us.