BilliardsBall
Veteran Member
After all, at least let us say Abraham ate with God.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
How in the world can ANYBODY think the Jews and Christians have the same god, that Jesus is messiah?
- Thread starter 1137
- Start date
rosends
Well-Known Member
rosends
Well-Known Member
Does the text say that Abraham ate anything? He served to the men and stood over them. Can you show me Abe eating anything according to the text?
catch22
Active Member
Yet, this is what your whole faith is based on, and sages have to do, in order to explain away this chapter. Here's Rashi's commentary on the final verse of chapter 18:
Who's making an inference, now? The text says no such thing. The text does outright state God departs, though.
I'm not trying to equate Him, I see no other way to read it. God is in the context of the whole chapter. Theophany is, believe it or not, is a problem for the Jew, not the Christian. Likewise, I don't need it to be there, especially in this chapter, for my faith in any fashion. This means far more to you, than to me.
I'd rather just stick to the text. Three appear, two arrive in Sodom. The LORD leaves having spoken to Abraham. I mean, PHYSICAL positioning is emphasized here:
"22 And the men turned from there and went to Sodom, and Abraham was still standing before the Lord. 23 And Abraham approached and said..." (chabad.org Tanakh)
That's just how the text reads. Argue this is somehow metaphysical, you won't convince anyone but yourself of it. Sometimes the text is just the text, and you just have to read it for what it is. Alas, demonstrate to me where the third man departs. Rashi says he just does, and you claim I'm the one making the inference? Come on. And consistently you say I am intellectually dishonest? Come on....
3-1 = 2. The text says the Lord departed. Then, there were only two men immediately in the very next verse. This is really pretty simple math. Trying to apply some extra-scenario to the text that isn't present doesn't remove the third guy when the text doesn't address it. It just makes you (and Rashi) guilty of what you accuse me of doing.
If God is in human form, your entire faith crumbles (theophany). You have to systematically address every other referenced variation of God having humanity in some way as suddenly being true. If any of these one passages become true, all of them are then called into question.
Suddenly, Christ is a real possibility.
The motive for omission or alteration is strong for the Orthodox Jew. Inclusion for me in passages like this... take it or leave it. So it's fair for you to say what I essentially said to you, back at me, but I'll reiterate my original position: it does little for me, theologically. It's more of an academic "let's be honest reading this properly" thing. The same was, and still is, true about Isaiah 9:5.
But yet, if God appears as a man here, then what do you say? When it says "and they did eat" and that really meant the three men (assumed angels), one of which was God actually God Himself, what does that mean for you? If Christ citing Psalm 22 on the cross, demonstrating what was happening to Him, is true, and crucifixion is predicted before it is used as a means to execute people... then what? If Isaiah 9:5 refers to a child to be born to us as Everlasting Father and Mighty God, then what? If God really wrestled with Jacob, then what? If the virgin is not simply a young woman who bears a child, then what?
Jesus existed. It's historical truth. The question of His divinity will always be a point of conjecture. While it appears to me He is foretold littered throughout the Old Testament, my faith is relatively unchanged if Isaiah 9:5 is talking about Hezekiah and only Hezekiah, and if God is somehow outside the context of the entire conversation and interaction in Genesis 18. Okay, so God really didn't eat, and really wasn't one of the three men? Okay. So?
I can't honestly read it that way, which is why I debate. I don't like dishonesty. But even if I did, it changes nothing for me. Really. Nothing. So what's my motive in all this?
You absolutely cannot say the same thing in your case, and don't try to minimize the extremity of the situation. For your faith, God must absolutely never be material, there must never even be a hint of it. Jesus doesn't cease to exist for me if the opposite is true. And His divinity is one I am convinced of based on testimony I believe to be completely true.
Domenic
Active Member
Jews verses Christians, or Jews verses the world? Gods chosen people who he named Israel, are made up of twelve tribes. The Jews come from only one of those tribes…the tribe of Judah. It seems strange to me the tribe of Judah (Jews) have the whole world believing all the twelve tribes are Jews?
It was the tribe of Judah who rejected Jesus as the Messiah. This rejection caused their dismissal as part of Gods people. Their position was given to the Gentiles…those outside of the twelve tribes. The tribe of Judah has the world believing in 1948 Gods people returned to the land he gave the twelve tribes. This is not so, only the ejected tribe of Judah is in the land.
Their flag bears what they call the Star of David. David never had a star. His son Solomon did. This star has nothing to do with King David. It is an Egyptian sign of Satan.
I would agree with the OP, The tribe of Judah and Christians do not have the same God. The Christian God is YHWH as presented in the Hebrew, and Greek scriptures. The Hebrew scriptures are not Jewish scriptures. Nor do those of the tribe of Judah follow Gods laws as the other eleven tribes of Israel.
Jews say there is no Satan who is against God. Strange, God is talking to him in Genesis 3:15 of the Hebrew scriptures,
It was the tribe of Judah who rejected Jesus as the Messiah. This rejection caused their dismissal as part of Gods people. Their position was given to the Gentiles…those outside of the twelve tribes. The tribe of Judah has the world believing in 1948 Gods people returned to the land he gave the twelve tribes. This is not so, only the ejected tribe of Judah is in the land.
Their flag bears what they call the Star of David. David never had a star. His son Solomon did. This star has nothing to do with King David. It is an Egyptian sign of Satan.
I would agree with the OP, The tribe of Judah and Christians do not have the same God. The Christian God is YHWH as presented in the Hebrew, and Greek scriptures. The Hebrew scriptures are not Jewish scriptures. Nor do those of the tribe of Judah follow Gods laws as the other eleven tribes of Israel.
Jews say there is no Satan who is against God. Strange, God is talking to him in Genesis 3:15 of the Hebrew scriptures,
rosends
Well-Known Member
Sorry, but I don't see how you come to your conclusion. God, plus 3 men equals God and three men. Men leave and God stays, later, there are two men. This does not mean that God suddenly became one of the 3 men and is subtracted from "men." In fact, God remained God and while 3 men left, 2 men arrived at another location. Then God left. You completely misunderstand Rashi's point. Rashi is quoting the understanding that each angel had a particular purpose (in Judaism, an angel has a specific mission and then can't do anything else). The one who came to give news to Sarah departed while the other two went to Sdom (1 to destroy and one to save). All of this is from the medrash rabbah and, IIRC, the talmud. I can get you more citations if you would like.
According to your understanding, God leaves at verse 33, so there should be 3 who arrive in Sdom since none is left with Avraham. Why only 2 in Sdom if God was one of them and eventually (before getting to Sdom in 19:1) all 3 left? Simple -- The three were separate from God. Each had a mission. One mission was done.
Exactly. Men arrive, men leave. God remains. Seeing God as one of the men is not what the text says.
I don't recall the text saying that only 2 men leave, only that two men arrive at the next location. The text says "the men" leave. You have to claim that only 2 men leave for your point to work. That's not textual. You have to infer that even though God was not counted as one of the men in the first 2 verses, he suddenly is now. That's not in the text. No matter how many times you claim that that reading makes sense to you, that doesn't change what is in the text.
The motive for this forced reading is strong for the Christian, in fact necessary or else his entire theological house of cards collapses.
If, instead, you are honest about a) what the text says and b) how the text has been understood since before Jesus was born, you would have to admit that the forced reading you rely on is unstable at best and dishonest more likely.
I look for the honesty of the text as a whole while you deny the value of huge chunks of it. I don't like intellectual dishonesty and, even worse, unsubstantiated posturing. You have quoted a variety of sources here and elsewhere which you simply don't understand. My motive is simply to protect the integrity of the text from "what ifs".
According to your understanding, God leaves at verse 33, so there should be 3 who arrive in Sdom since none is left with Avraham. Why only 2 in Sdom if God was one of them and eventually (before getting to Sdom in 19:1) all 3 left? Simple -- The three were separate from God. Each had a mission. One mission was done.
Your seeing no other way seems like a reflection of blinders. The men are identified as arriving and leaving. God is identified as separate. Conflating them is an act of convenience to fit a predetermined theological need. It isn't textual.
Exactly. Men arrive, men leave. God remains. Seeing God as one of the men is not what the text says.
I don't recall the text saying that only 2 men leave, only that two men arrive at the next location. The text says "the men" leave. You have to claim that only 2 men leave for your point to work. That's not textual. You have to infer that even though God was not counted as one of the men in the first 2 verses, he suddenly is now. That's not in the text. No matter how many times you claim that that reading makes sense to you, that doesn't change what is in the text.
Men left, and then 10 verses later, 2 men arrived in Sdom. Deciding that this means that God changes from 3+1 to one of the 3 is the extra textual fact you have to invent to make this make sense.
Actually, that was addressed a long time ago. Nedarim 3a.
No, you have it backward. You have decided that Jesus is a god-man so you need to read text to support that conclusion.
The motive for this forced reading is strong for the Christian, in fact necessary or else his entire theological house of cards collapses.
If, instead, you are honest about a) what the text says and b) how the text has been understood since before Jesus was born, you would have to admit that the forced reading you rely on is unstable at best and dishonest more likely.
And if it actually means count chocula what does that mean for you? Invent something and ask its implication? That's a silly. Listing "If's" opens the door to anything you want. If Jesus never existed, then what? If Mohammed was a prophet of God and invalidates Christianity, then what?
Actually, it is debated and the historical record, while favoring some level of existence is fairly light on actual verified sources.
For your faith, God must be corporeal. Your agenda is clear and your need apparent. Don't understate the extremity of that need. If God is non-corporeal then Jesus is not divine, and all your faith collapses.
I look for the honesty of the text as a whole while you deny the value of huge chunks of it. I don't like intellectual dishonesty and, even worse, unsubstantiated posturing. You have quoted a variety of sources here and elsewhere which you simply don't understand. My motive is simply to protect the integrity of the text from "what ifs".
Last edited:
rosends
Well-Known Member
really? Can you show me that in the text?
Verse 14 only mentions "serpent." Where do you get "Satan"?
Domenic
Active Member
Rev 7-10 tells who the serpent is.
Flankerl
Well-Known Member
But that's Christian scripture and has absolutely zero relevance to Jews...
rosends
Well-Known Member
Ah. So your assertion about the meaning of Genesis requires you to accept the authority of Revelation. Maybe this answers your initial point, "Jews say there is no Satan who is against God. Strange, God is talking to him in Genesis 3:15 of the Hebrew scriptures,"
Jews don't accept Revelation, therefore your understanding of Genesis is not theirs and maybe they have a different way of explaining the text that you don't accept. Maybe it is your understanding which is "strange."
Domenic
Active Member
I'm not a Jew. I use both Hebrew, and Greek scriptures.
Well, the Jews may not accept it, but the fact is, God is talking to something called a serpent in Genesis 3:15. It's not Adam, or Eve, and there is no one else there in the Garden.
rosends
Well-Known Member
OK, so it is a serpent. Why do you insist it is something else.
The fact is, Judaism teaches what it is, but I'm just trying to make a point about faith based claims as to the "meaning" of the text. You should see your theology-based lenses before you use them and you will have answers to questions like "why don't others see things the way I do?" You will also then be able to see the difference between stating what the text says vs. stating what you understand the text to mean.
Domenic
Active Member
Since you are Jewish, I don't expect you to view my comments outside of how you reason things out. As a Christian, I believe Jesus to be the Messisah, thus I also believe in the Greek scriptures. You on the other hand, still reject Jesus. That is a matter between you, and God. It is not my intent to change how you think, or to follow in your path.
rosends
Well-Known Member
If you understand that then why do you make the initial point that the way Jews see things is "strange"? It should make perfect sense to you.
Because Jews don;t accept Revelations, and "Satan" is not in the Genesis text, Jews don't have that idea of "Satan." Seems pretty obvious and yet you thought it strange.
Because Jews don;t accept Revelations, and "Satan" is not in the Genesis text, Jews don't have that idea of "Satan." Seems pretty obvious and yet you thought it strange.
Domenic
Active Member
Well as a Jew, how would you explain Genesis 3:15 in the Hebrew scriptures...it should be a part of what Jews believe.
Flankerl
Well-Known Member
I'm not a Christian. I use Jewish scripture.
Well yeah apart from all other living things like animals. And would you look at that Serpents are animals.
Magic.
As a Christian, you have zero room to talk, what with everything Christianity has "borrowed" from Paganism (pretty much everything).
Domenic
Active Member
Christians have borrowed nothing from paganism. Religions who say they are Christian, are false, and have borrowed from everything.
Do you believe in anything besides trying to throw mud?
Domenic
Active Member
LMAO!
Well, my "religion" field is filled out, for a start.
Did you borrow it from paganism, or make it up yourself?