Matthew 23:35

[Fenris]

Words can bring about good or bad, inspiring or inciting people, depending who the speaker is, and what is said. But I agree that a great number of people of an antisemitic mentality have used the the negative image of Jews portrayed in the NT as justification for their malevolent actions.

That's true and I agree. Still, people used those words and terrible things happened.

Fenris, you believe God appeared to Abraham in the form of a man, and even ate the food he prepared for Him, right?

No, I don't. Three angels came before Abram (not yet "Abraham") as the later text reveals.

[Sojourner]

Fenris, you believe God appeared to Abraham in the form of a man, and even ate the food he prepared for Him, right?

No, I don't. Three angels came before Abram (not yet "Abraham") as the later text reveals.

I disagree. Genesis 18:1 clearly states it was יְהוָֹה who visited Abram. And verses 13, 20, 26 and 33 also say it was God speaking. When the two angels departed for Sodom, the text says Abram was left standing before God. Are you suggesting that an angel usurped God's authority when Abram interceded for Sodom?  Who but God had the final say about the fate of the people of Sodom? Moreover, I submit that Abram would have known whether it was God or an angel speaking to him from their previous encounters. Can the omnipotent Creator not incarnate Himself if He chooses to? On what premise do you base His being a mere angel?

[Fenris]

I disagree. Genesis 18:1 clearly states it was יְהוָֹה who visited Abram.

C'mon, you think we don't know what is in our own bible? 

וַיֵּרָ֤א אֵלָיו֙ יְהֹוָ֔ה בְּאֵֽלֹנֵ֖י מַמְרֵ֑א
Now the Lord appeared to him in the plains of Mamre

"Lord" in this case being YHVH.

Following verse

And he lifted his eyes and saw, and behold, three men were standing beside him...

Next verse

וַיֹּאמַ֑ר אֲדֹנָ֗י אִם־נָ֨א מָצָ֤אתִי חֵן֙ בְּעֵינֶ֔יךָ
And he said, "My lords, if only I have found favor in your eyes..."

"Lords" in this case being "Adoni", which simply means "my master". No implication of divinity. If you go shopping in a market in Israel, shopkeepers will call you "Adoni". They're not saying that you're a divinity (although I am sure you are a fine fellow!)

And verses 13,  20, 26 and 33 also say it was God speaking

This is YHVH. It's easier to read it in the original Klingon, err, I mean Hebrew.

When the two angels departed for Sodom, the text says Abram was left standing before God.

So... it was two angels and God? Again he doesn't call them "God" and there's nothing in the text to suggest otherwise.

Are you suggesting that an angel usurped God's authority when Abram interceded for Sodom?

Abram was speaking to God. Not the "men".

Can the omnipotent Creator not incarnate Himself if He chooses to?

I would say no, He cannot. Because, you see, God doesn't exist inside of our universe. Rather, our universe exists within God. God cannot be contained by any physical space. God is not a man (Numbers 23).

[Sojourner]

Abram was speaking to God. Not the "men".

While I defer to your knowledge of Hebrew, the text states that one of the "men" remained after the other two departed, and it was he that spoke with Abram about the fate of Sodom. At one point, Abram stepped forward while beseeching the Lord, indicating the one standing in front of him was the Lord. And that "man" agreed not to destroy Sodom if 10 righteous people were found there. Who had the authority to make that call but God Himself?

Can the omnipotent Creator not incarnate Himself if He chooses to?

I would say no, He cannot. Because, you see, God doesn't exist inside of our universe. Rather, our universe exists within God. God cannot be contained by any physical space. God is not a man (Numbers 23).

I think you're imposing a limitation on what God can and cannot do. No, God is not a man, but I believe He has the power to do anything He chooses to do--up to and including appearing as a man. The one speaking to Abram is the same one Adam and Eve hid from when He was walking around in the garden of Eden.

[Fenris]

While I defer to your knowledge of Hebrew, the text states that one of the "men" remained after the other two departed, and it was he that spoke with Abram about the fate of Sodom.

Any text that says "two men" left is a mistranslation. I see that some bibles "helpfully" include this text. But the KJV and NIV for example, translate it properly and simply say that "the men turned away" which is what the Hebrew says, without telling us a number.


The text says that the "men" departed, and Abraham spoke to YHVH.

I think you're imposing a limitation on what God can and cannot do.

Some things simply are limited by their nature. Can God tell a lie? Or behave unjustly? Of course not. Nor can He occupy finite space, since He is infinite. This is standard Jewish theology, and it's not invented out of nowhere. It comes from the bible.

"The Lord spoke to you out of the midst of the fire; you heard the sound of the words, but saw no image, just a voice." Deut 4:12

"You saw no form of any kind the day the LORD spoke to you at Horeb out of the fire." Deut 4:15

"With whom, then, will you compare God? To what image will you liken him?" Is 40:18

"But will God indeed dwell on the earth? Behold the heaven and the heaven of heavens cannot contain You; much less this temple that I have erected." 1 Kings 8:27

"But who is able to build a house for Him, since the heavens, even the highest heavens, cannot contain Him? " 2 Chron 2:6

[Athanasius]

It's the same in the Christian trandition. God couldn't create a stone so heavy that God couldn't lift it, as that would entail a logical contradiction.

[Sojourner]

I have a question, fenris. We know 3 men visited Abraham. (I personally see a manifestation of the Lord and 2 angels, while you apparently see all 3 men as being angels). If 3 angels stopped to speak with Abraham on their way to Sodom, why do we see only 2 angels showing up at the doomed city in Genesis 19:1? Why is the third man suddenly absent from the text and never mentioned again?

[Fenris]

I have a question, fenris.

This is an excellent question.

The Jewish answer to this question lies beyond the mere text itself. In Judaism (unlike Christianity, I think) angels do not have free will nor do they even have fixed names. An angel's name is based on the mission it is carrying out for God at that moment. Connected to this is the concept an angel can only have one mission at a time. (The Hebrew word for "angel" is "Malach" which simply means "messenger" and yes, that is related to the prophet Malachi whose name means "My messenger".)

If we adopt this understanding, then the first angel fulfilled its mission at Abraham's tent and did not need to continue its journey to Sodom.  What was the first angel's mission? See Gen 18, verses 9 and 10-

And they said to him, "Where is Sarah your wife?" And he said, "Behold in the tent." And he said, "I will surely return to you at this time next year, and behold, your wife Sarah will have a son."

This angel's mission was to inform Abraham and Sarah that they would father a child.

The other two angels had different missions. One was to save Lot and his daughters. Super important! Because king David's great grandmother was Ruth, who was descended from Lot's incestuous relationship with his daughter.

The last angel's mission was to destroy Sodom.

[Sojourner]

I have a question, fenris.

This is an excellent question.

The Jewish answer to this question lies beyond the mere text itself. In Judaism (unlike Christianity, I think) angels do not have free will nor do they even have fixed names. An angel's name is based on the mission it is carrying out for God at that moment. Connected to this is the concept an angel can only have one mission at a time. (The Hebrew word for "angel" is "Malach" which simply means "messenger" and yes, that is related to the prophet Malachi whose name means "My messenger".)

If we adopt this understanding, then the first angel fulfilled its mission at Abraham's tent and did not need to continue its journey to Sodom.  What was the first angel's mission? See Gen 18, verses 9 and 10-

And they said to him, "Where is Sarah your wife?" And he said, "Behold in the tent." And he said, "I will surely return to you at this time next year, and behold, your wife Sarah will have a son."

This angel's mission was to inform Abraham and Sarah that they would father a child.

The other two angels had different missions. One was to save Lot and his daughters. Super important! Because king David's great grandmother was Ruth, who was descended from Lot's incestuous relationship with his daughter.

The last angel's mission was to destroy Sodom.

Yeah, that's definitely a different concept of angels than the Christian understanding holds. But if angels have no fixed names, what about Michael and Gabriel, who are consistently identified by those names? Also Michael, called one of the "first princes", is portrayed as the appointed guardian of Israel, implying a firmly established position. That seems to conflict, in part, with the idea of consistently random, transitory designations.

[Fenris]

Yeah, that's definitely a different concept of angels than the Christian understanding holds.

Yes, we follow different religions that believe different things. 

But if angels have no fixed names, what about Michael and Gabriel, who are consistently identified by those names?

Angels have no fixed names, their name applies to their mission. So the angel called "Gabriel" ("Strength of God") on account of it's mission today might have been called "Raphael" ("Healer of God") on account of it's mission yesterday.

[Sojourner]

What's your take on the archangel Michael, and why is he called a "great prince" in Daniel 12:1? Is his mission not typically guardian over Israel?

[RabbiKnife]

If I understood Fenris, it appears that Jewish thought is that the angels are transnomenclature, or nomenclature fluid (just trying my hand a a little modern lingo) that identify according to their task 'o the day, thus one angel might be Guardian of Israel one day and the Kicker of RabbiKnife's Scrawny Backside the next, depending on the specific task God assigned.

[Sojourner]

If I understood Fenris, it appears that Jewish thought is that the angels are transnomenclature, or nomenclature fluid (just trying my hand a a little modern lingo) that identify according to their task 'o the day, thus one angel might be Guardian of Israel one day and the Kicker of RabbiKnife's Scrawny Backside the next, depending on the specific task God assigned.

Yeah, I get what he's saying. It's just difficult to reconcile with my biased Christian perspective of angels. It's hard to imagine numerous "chief princes" called Michael ("who is like God") whenever they're sent to protect Israel. Again, it's a matter of the influence of Christian theology vs. rabbinic Judaism.

[RabbiKnife]

Agreed

[Fenris]

rabbinic Judaism

I don't like this term. It implies that modern Judaism is an invention of some rabbis. Religious Jews believe that we're practicing the religion in the same way that the characters in biblical times did.