How in the world can ANYBODY think the Jews and Christians have the same god, that Jesus is messiah?

[Saint Frankenstein]

Did you borrow it from paganism, or make it up yourself?

Technically, I am a Pagan.

 

[Domenic]

Technically, I am a Pagan.

Tell me something I don't know.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Tell me something I don't know.

There's not enough time in the world for that.

 

[Domenic]

I think you need to get a life.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

I think you need to get a life.

Lol.

 

[rosends]

Well as a Jew, how would you explain Genesis 3:15 in the Hebrew scriptures...it should be a part of what Jews believe.

To understand what a Jew believes about 3:15 (assuming some monolithic and universally accepted singular canon of Jewish belief about anything) you would have to understand FIRST what the yetzer hara is (the evil inclination) then what the role of Hasoton is. Then you would need to look at the range of understandings about the literal vs. metaphorical role of the text of Genesis and the literal vs. metaphorical understandings of the serpent and what the sin was. The one thing it WASN'T, according to Judaism, was "Satan who is against God".

 

[Flankerl]

To understand what a Jew believes about 3:15 (assuming some monolithic and universally accepted singular canon of Jewish belief about anything) you would have to understand FIRST what the yetzer hara is (the evil inclination) then what the role of Hasoton is. Then you would need to look at the range of understandings about the literal vs. metaphorical role of the text of Genesis and the literal vs. metaphorical understandings of the serpent and what the sin was. The one thing it WASN'T, according to Judaism, was "Satan who is against God".

I disagree.
Hashem addresses the Serpent. That's pretty much it and anything beyond stating this simple fact is pure overkill.

 

[rosends]

I disagree.
Hashem addresses the Serpent. That's pretty much it and anything beyond stating this simple fact is pure overkill.

I tried that in posts 427 and 432. It didn't seem to satisfy.

 

[catch22]

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.

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".

At this point, Rosends, all I can do is laugh. Truly. You read nothing I say, you counter none of my arguments, you just reflect your obvious bias back to me. It's quite futile. It's not textual, except that's it written in the text, that God departs.

You say the third guy leaves, except, that's not actually in the text. Period. You use theologically bias sources as authority and your own bias to determine that, still accusing me of doing exactly what you're in fact doing.

IT'S NOT. IN. THE. TEXT. THREE APPEAR. TWO ARRIVE IN SODOM. ONE IS NOT ADDRESSED IN THE TEXT (well, they are, you just don't "read" it that way). How long shall you pander around the clearly obvious: you have no explanation. It's not written in the hebrew where the third guy goes, you just assume since the Lord (YHVH) speaks to Sarah (through the angel, I suppose?) so he then leaves (even though it's.. not in the text). Except, in Chapter 16 and 22, there's a distinction when God speaks through an angel (malak). Not here, though.

Add. Add. Omit. Infer. Agenda. Lol.

So yeah. Laugh. How many times do I have to keep saying God corporeal or not here makes no nevermind to me... it's like kicking a puppy at this point... :\

Onward.

 

[rosends]

At this point, Rosends, all I can do is laugh. Truly. You read nothing I say, you counter none of my arguments, you just reflect your obvious bias back to me. It's quite futile. It's not textual, except that's it written in the text, that God departs.

You say the third guy leaves, except, that's not actually in the text. Period. You use theologically bias sources as authority and your own bias to determine that, still accusing me of doing exactly what you're in fact doing.

IT'S NOT. IN. THE. TEXT. THREE APPEAR. TWO ARRIVE IN SODOM. ONE IS NOT ADDRESSED IN THE TEXT (well, they are, you just don't "read" it that way). How long shall you pander around the clearly obvious: you have no explanation. It's not written in the hebrew where the third guy goes, you just assume since the Lord (YHVH) speaks to Sarah (through the angel, I suppose?) so he then leaves (even though it's.. not in the text). Except, in Chapter 16 and 22, there's a distinction when God speaks through an angel (malak). Not here, though.

Add. Add. Omit. Infer. Agenda. Lol.

So yeah. Laugh. How many times do I have to keep saying God corporeal or not here makes no nevermind to me... it's like kicking a puppy at this point... :\

Onward.

I'll try to make this simple and straightforward. It is up to you to show me something different.

God arrives. He is named explicitly
Three men arrive. they are listed explicitly
"THE men" leave. No number. "THE Men" are listed explicitly
God leaves, named explicitly.
Two angels arrive in Sdom.

No where does it say that 2 men leave. No where does it include God as the men. In fact, the text identifies one group as "the men" and lists God separately before and after. No where does it even say that the 2 angels who arrive in chapter 19 are the same as any of the men in 18. You simply can't show otherwise. You really do need to see God as a man it seems or else why would you bend over backwards to reduce the number of visitors from 4 to 3? Sort of sad, really, but whatever floats your boat.

 

[Domenic]

Genesis was written in Hebrew. Genesis 3:15 is written in Hebrew. One word in Genesis is written in Greek. A key word. God is telling the creature he is talking to, that he(the creature) would bruse a future seed in the heel(not a lasting bruse)the Messiah, and the future seed would bruse the creature God is talking to in the head.(a lasting bruse.)
The key word in Genesis 3:15 written in Greek is linked to Genesis 5.
3:15 explains what took place in the garden, and why the human family ages, and dies. The tribe of Judah rejects the creature God is talking to as Satan. They reject Satan did anything wrong. They reject that Satan murdered the whole human family.
The key word(in Greek) in Genesis 3:15 translated into English is seed. In Greek the meaning of the word is "SPERM, OFFSPRING."
Genesis 5 list Seth as Adams first child. (Seth meaning replacement for Able.) Cain is not listed as a child of Adam.
God is asking the creature in Genesis 3:15 what he did with his SPERM.

 

[catch22]

This is the best your religion can muster? False doctrine? Now they have names!

Three Angels: Abraham Response on Ask the Rabbi

This guy is full of it. The only thing he does differently from you or Rashi is add names, though.

So really, there's two choices:

1) this guy, you, Rashi and others of your ilk are 100% full of it, OR
2) Moses is an inept writer or otherwise not divinely inspired because he can't seem to consistently identify God, messengers, The Angel of The Lord throughout the same groupings of text.

I'll go with #1.

I'll try to make this simple and straightforward. It is up to you to show me something different.

God arrives. He is named explicitly
Three men arrive. they are listed explicitly
"men" leave. No number. "Men" are listed explicitly
God leaves, named explicitly.
Two angels arrive in Sdom.

No where does it say that 2 men leave.

I'm going to use your own Tanakh to destroy your flimsy position some more (emphasis mine, for your sake):

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, "Will You even destroy the righteous with the wicked?

Men turned and went to Sodom. The amount of them is undisclosed right here, indeed, but the men we're talking about went to SODOM! Be assured, THESE MEN WENT TO SODOM. Okay?? GOT IT??

Cool.

You can rest assure that Abraham was also STANDING BEFORE the Lord. He even approaches him! Because you need to approach the invisible, all encompassing, unseen God, right???? He couldn't just stand where he was standing and speak, am I right?

Had to go walking up to the invisible, unseen Yahweh. Right?? RIGHT?? COME ON. SAY IT WITH ME NOW.

No where does it include God as the men.

Yawn. We've been over this. It's right here:

1 Now the Lord appeared to him in the plains of Mamre, and he was sitting at the entrance of the tent when the day was hot.

Who "appears"? God does! Are we contesting this? Not even you are contesting this passage, right? You said it above that God appears, so we're good I take it.

2 And he lifted his eyes and saw, and behold, three men were standing beside him, and he saw and he ran toward them from the entrance of the tent, and he prostrated himself to the ground.

Abraham becomes aware of said appearing God! Three men standing near him, and like any good host he approaches them... BUT WAIT! He falls to the ground in submission!?? Is that how Abraham, or any Jew, treat random men? I mean, there's being respectful, but to prostrate oneself on the floor, and address them collectively as... Adonai (pre-Christian LXX is singular, by the way)? Begging them to stick around and have the best stuff he can possible offer them (non-kosher, of course).

No, surely, he saw these three as being something more than just random guys? Can we agree on this point? And since no mention of their appearance or stature is made by the author, we can assume, can we not, that Abraham, by his reaction, saw something special about them? Otherwise, why does Moses even bother including verse 1?

How about this. In this text, show me how God appearing (v1), and then Abraham approaching and submitting like this IS NOT God? Keep in mind, this isn't the only time Abraham approaches the Lord. He does so in V23 as well! Don't forget!

No where does it even say that the 2 men who arrive in chapter 19 are the same as any of the men in 18.

You really are a small creature, aren't you? Do you really use chapter 19 as a barrier to understanding? It's the same story continued. Seriously, it'll be okay if you trust v22 from chapter 18 that these are the guys who went to Sodom. It's really OKAY to not get distracted with a chapter barrier when we're clearly talking about the same two guys from ch. 18, going to the aforementioned city from ch. 18, continuing the aforementioned story FROM CHAPTER FREAKING EIGHTEEN. It is a logical breaking point in the story, afterall. Abraham and God are done conversing, the men had some walking to do... Same story. Same guys! Even Rabbi nobody I posted up there acknowledges it. Even Rashi acknowledges it THESE ARE THE SAME PEOPLE AS CHAPTER 18!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

WAIT! Hey, how bout that. It does say how many went to Sodom, after all. Two did! Wait-- where'd the third one go!? Oh my Lord, it's as if verse 22 didn't state two. But then Moses stated two but a few verses later!

CRAZY!

Where'd the pesky third guy go? If he wasn't one of the men clearly identified as GOING TO SODOM FROM VERSE 22, where could he have gone off to!?

Where's the third guy, Rosends? Where is he? Tell me. Show me in the text, the text itself, where the third guy went off to. Why is Moses so clear on all other characters in this scene and he just completely forgets about dude #3?

Either you're wrong, or Moses has no business writing the Word of God. Are you a prophet of the Lord? Has God used you to free HIS PEOPLE? To write HIS laws? Do you have business dictating the word of God, rosends????

Because Moses does. And the whole crux of your argument is Moses is incompetent or unskilled. Both are false. He wrote exactly what he was supposed to. You just don't like it.

Men turned and went to Sodom. God stayed behind to speak to Abraham, and then verse 33...

And the Lord departed when He finished speaking to Abraham, and Abraham returned to his place.

Two are reconciled with Ch 19 v 1 and Ch 18 v 22. Where's the third? If verse 33 is present, considering the submission and lordly treatment throughout the chapter of these men, God speaking directly even in several verses, what shall we conclude with JUST the text about the three men?

God appears.
3 men are seen. Abraham approaches, addressing and treating them in an over-the-top fashion.
The men speak collectively.
God speaks individually.
Abraham walks with the men.
Men depart to Sodom.
God and Abraham shoot the breeze.
God then leaves, Abraham goes back to his tent or something.
Two men arrive in Sodom (reconciles v22, clearly).

Yep. One of the three men characters in this scene is most likely God. Moses is clear about all players in this scene concisely, yet conveniently, forgets the third? Nope. He handled it. You just don't like it.

You simply can't show otherwise.

Yes, yes I can. I just did. It's all I've been doing, your eyes and ears are just shut because this can't be truth for you. You argue like "it's not the same people from chapter 18!" when your beloved sages aren't even so stupid. You can't show your position without Rabbi whoever I posted above. Or Rashi, or Kimchi, or whatever other false teacher you believe over the WRITTEN. WORD. OF. GOD.

You really do need to see God as a man it seems. Sort of sad, really, but whatever floats your boat.

Haha. Keep projecting man. It's helping you be right. Really. I can't make my stance any clearer on my "needing" God to be a man in this passage, let alone the OT. Doesn't concern me. AT ALL.

 

[rosends]

Genesis was written in Hebrew. Genesis 3:15 is written in Hebrew. One word in Genesis is written in Greek.

No word is written in Greek. It is all in Hebrew. וְאֵיבָה | אָשִׁית בֵּינְךָ וּבֵין הָאִשָּׁה וּבֵין זַרְעֲךָ וּבֵין זַרְעָהּ הוּא יְשׁוּפְךָ רֹאשׁ וְאַתָּה תְּשׁוּפֶנּוּ עָקֵב:

The tribe of Judah rejects the creature God is talking to as Satan. They reject Satan did anything wrong. They reject that Satan murdered the whole human family.

More precisely, Judaism rejects your notion of "Satan" entirely.

The key word(in Greek) in Genesis 3:15 translated into English is seed. In Greek the meaning of the word is "SPERM, OFFSPRING."

In Hebrew, the root is z-r-ayin. Not Greek, Hebrew. In its root form, it is used 53 times in the 5 books of Moses, the first time in Gen 1:11 and 12.

Genesis 5 list Seth as Adams first child. (Seth meaning replacement for Able.) Cain is not listed as a child of Adam.

Actually, Genesis 5 doesn't list Seth as the first, just the one worthy of note in this aspect of the story of mankind. Neither Cain nor Abel is listed, and yet in 4:1 and 2, both are listed as being his sons.

 

[Domenic]

No word is written in Greek. It is all in Hebrew. וְאֵיבָה | אָשִׁית בֵּינְךָ וּבֵין הָאִשָּׁה וּבֵין זַרְעֲךָ וּבֵין זַרְעָהּ הוּא יְשׁוּפְךָ רֹאשׁ וְאַתָּה תְּשׁוּפֶנּוּ עָקֵב:

More precisely, Judaism rejects your notion of "Satan" entirely.

In Hebrew, the root is z-r-ayin. Not Greek, Hebrew. In its root form, it is used 53 times in the 5 books of Moses, the first time in Gen 1:11 and 12.

Actually, Genesis 5 doesn't list Seth as the first, just the one worthy of note in this aspect of the story of mankind. Neither Cain nor Abel is listed, and yet in 4:1 and 2, both are listed as being his sons.

Not true. In the scrolls the word seed is written in GREEK. You can change it in a book, but you can't change the scrolls. You reject There is a Satan, as you reject Jesus.
In 2,000 years the thinking of the people of Judah has not changed.

 

[Flankerl]

They reject that Satan murdered the whole human family.

Out of sheer curiosity, when did that happen?

 

[Domenic]

Satan had sex with Adams women, who Adam later names Eve. The mixing of human seed with none human see produced Cain. This mixed seed causes humans to die. It is why Satan is called a murderer.
All the trees in the Bble are symbolic. What makes the tree in the center of the garden a real tree?

 

[rosends]

This is the best your religion can muster? False doctrine? Now they have names!

You call something you don’t agree with “false doctrine.” The writer of that webpage is quoting from Bava Metzia, not making up names. You reject (as I have said) chunks of what makes Judaism, Judaism. But this doctrine predates your entire belief system. No one asked you to like it or accept it. In fact, no one cares if you don’t.

So really, there's two choices:

1) this guy, you, Rashi and others of your ilk are 100% full of it, OR
2) Moses is an inept writer or otherwise not divinely inspired because he can't seem to consistently identify God, messengers, The Angel of The Lord throughout the same groupings of text.

I'll go with #1.

Yes, for you there are 2 choices.

1. Reject everything that has been said that doesn’t fall in line with your later (and to you, more persuasive) theology

2. Accept that the text doesn’t agree with you and that religious authorities who lived before your man-god had established meaning without your help.


So you go with number 1.

I'm going to use your own Tanakh to destroy your flimsy position some more (emphasis mine, for your sake):

22 And the men turned from there andwent toSodom, and Abraham wasstill standing beforethe Lord. 23 And Abrahamapproachedand said, "Will You even destroy the righteous with the wicked?

Men turned and went to Sodom. The amount of them is undisclosed right here, indeed, but the men we're talking about went to SODOM! Be assured, THESE MEN WENT TO SODOM. Okay?? GOT IT??

Yes, I got it. THE men. The ones identified as men. That would be the three men mentioned in 18:2 who show up AFTER God is already there. So far, we’re good.

You can rest assure that Abraham was alsoSTANDING BEFOREthe Lord. He evenapproacheshim! Because you need to approach the invisible, all encompassing, unseen God, right???? He couldn't just stand where he was standing and speak, am I right?

Had to go walking up to the invisible, unseen Yahweh. Right?? RIGHT?? COME ON. SAY IT WITH ME NOW.

Wait, now you are saying that because one has to approach the divine, that makes the divine a person with a body? So if I approach your comment I am saying it is a person. If I stand up to your position, it is a person. Fascinating! Moses went up a mountain because that’s where God has his house. Of course. There are hundreds of better quotes you could cite that indicate bodily existence of God (“finger”, “arm”, “feet”, “back”) and you use this? OK, your call.

Yawn. We've been over this. It's right here:

1 Now the Lordappearedto him in the plains of Mamre, and he was sitting at the entrance of the tent when the day was hot.

Um, yeah. That was the verse right before verse 2 which says that Abe saw 3 men. The verb in verse one says that God appeared – sort of like when he appeared in a burning bush, or in a dream. Then, Abe SAW three men.

.

Abraham becomes aware of said appearing God! Three men standing near him, and like any good host he approaches them... BUT WAIT! He falls to the ground in submission!?? Is that how Abraham, or any Jew, treat random men?

So you admit that the three men are approached after God, separately, is recognized. So you accept that there are 4. Good work.


As to your question about Abe’s behavior, and whether it is de rigueur, actually, yes. The code of middle eastern hospitality dictated Abe’s movements, washing feet, inviting in - in a submissive manner, preparing food…Lot also bows to his guests in 19:2. This is especially true if, as the commentators note, they appeared as great and important men. But hey, those commentators must be full of 100% BS, right?


You might want to look up Gen 33:1-3.

I mean, there's being respectful, but to prostrate oneself on the floor, and address them collectively as... Adonai (pre-Christian LXX says God, by the way)? Begging them to stick around and have the best stuff he can possible offer them (non-kosher, of course).

So the LXX has the wrong word? Oh, wait, it must be right because it validates your beliefs. This must be proof that the masoretic text was changed. Not that the LXX is a mistake. I mean, you DO have the Hebrew text that the LXX was based on, right? I couldn’t find it – please pass it my way so I can read it.


The Hebrew word “adonai” just means “my masters” though the commentators actually argue over whether it should be pronounced adonai or adonawy. You should look at how Lot refers to the messenger/angels who show up in chapter 19, or how the peple of Hebron refer to Abraham and his retinue in 23:6 and 11.


And whether or not you think the food was kosher is really a meaningless fact. The laws of Kashrut hadn’t been given yet, thought Jewish tradition includes much more on this subject. But I’m sure it is all 100% BS, right?

No, surely, he saw these three as being something more than just random guys? Can we agree on this point?

If you accept the Jewish oral law, then yes. Otherwise, why jump to this conclusion? It certainly isn’t textual.

And since no mention of their appearance or stature is made by the author, we can assume, can we not, that Abraham, by his reaction, saw something special about them?Otherwise, why does Moses even bother including verse 1?

OK, so let’s say, for the sake of argument, that (as the commentators and their 100% BS say) Abe saw something special about them. So? So now your “proof” is that Moses included a verse which mentions that Abe saw God? You lost me. If God appeared to Abe, that shouldn’t be mentioned?

How about this. In this text, show me how God appearing (v1), and then Abraham approaching and submitting like this IS NOT God? Keep in mind, this isn't the only time Abraham approaches the Lord. He does so in V23 as well! Don't forget!

I have to show you how Abraham approaching 3 men and bowing and washing feet and making them food is NOT God? Well, in verse 1, God appears and Abraham does none of those things. Three men are seen and he does. Therefore, the three men are accorded that behavior and God isn’t. I think you should show me where it says otherwise. Hint, you can’t.

You really are a small creature, aren't you? Do you really use chapter 19 as a barrier to understanding? It's the same story continued. Seriously, it'll be okay if you trust v22 from chapter 18 that these are the guys who went to Sodom.

You are cute when you call names but can’t answer simple points. If you want to believe that the 2 angels are the same as the men who left, then that’s fine. The text doesn’t say that. My point is simply to show the logical leap you make. You don’t even see that that’s what you are doing. That’s what I find sad.

You can assume the logical breaking point etc. all you want. But at least have the guts to admit that all you are doing is drawing an inference to match your logical expectation. Don’t be so blind to your own method.

Even Rabbi nobody I posted up there acknowledges it. Even Rashi acknowledges it THESE ARE THE SAME PEOPLE AS CHAPTER 18!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

And I’m not saying they aren’t the same guys. I’m saying that I believe they are because I have the authority of Rashi (and others who well predate him) on that. If you want to stick to the text, itself, you have nothing and citing Rashi would mean you acknowledge his authority. And if you do that…

WAIT! Hey, how bout that. Itdoes sayhow many went to Sodom, after all. Two did! Wait-- where'd the third one go!? Oh my Lord, it's as if verse 22 didn't state two. But then Moses stated two but a few verses later!

It DOES say two! (well, two angels, not two men, but you accept Rashi and his 100% BS…) And if the men left, and then God left (verse 33) and God was one of the men, it should say 3! Where did God go? Of course, Rashi has an answer for this, but he’s 100% BS, until you cite him to support your belief system out of convenience.

Where'd the pesky third guy go? If he wasn't one of the men clearly identified as GOING TO SODOM FROM VERSE 22, where could he have gone off to!?

Your Hebrew needs work. There are a couple of different translations possible, including THE men went “towards Sdom”. Not “TO Sdom.” The Aramaic does explain it as “to Sdom” but that’s another of those pesky commentators. Compare to the text of Joshua 8:9 once you learn Hebrew.


Where did God go after he left in verse 33? You mean the text doesn’t account for his movement but it should for each of the three men? Got it.

Where's the third guy, Rosends? Where is he?Tell me.Show me in the text, the text itself, where the third guy went off to. Why is Mosesso clearon all other characters in this scene and he just completely forgets about dude #3?

Maybe he went to God’s house to hang with God. Neither is mentioned as arriving in chapter 19.

Either you're wrong, or Moses has no business writing the Word of God.Are you a prophet of the Lord? Has God used you to free HIS PEOPLE? To write HIS laws? Do you have business dictating the word of God, rosends????

Weird approach and are you being paid by the question mark association? Your false binary does nothing to resolve the hole you have dug for yourself. The text is clear. God shows up, three men show up, THE men leave, God leaves, two angels show up in Sdom. That’s what the text says. Just admit that your belief that God became one of the men, and then went someplace else is a matter of theological conjecture. And take a breath. It is OK for you not to understand the text as written. Fortunately for me, these issues were addressed 2000 years ago and all I need to do is quote explanations which predate your entire religion. It doesn’t take a prophet to explain things the way they have been explained for a long time.

He wrote exactly what he was supposed to. You just don't like it.

I like it fine. You just don’t understand it. That much is clear.

Two are reconciled with Ch 19 v 1 and Ch 18 v 22. Where's the third?

The two are “reconciled” only if you see a problem that needs to be reconciled. Three men show up, one does his job so when they all leave, one doesn’t have to go with the others. Meanwhile God, who showed up earlier, stays later.

God appears.
3 men are seen. Abraham approaches, addressing and treating them in an over-the-top fashion.
The men speak collectively.
God speaks individually.
Abraham walks with the men.
Men depart to Sodom.
God and Abraham shoot the breeze.
God then leaves, Abraham goes back to his tent or something.
Two men arrive in Sodom (reconciles v22, clearly).

Perfect! You see the three men as distinct from God. You are finally learning! This is cause for celebration!

Yep. One of the three men characters in this scene is most likely God.

OOOO. Swing and a miss. You go from God and Three men to God as one of the three men for no apparent reason. And you were so close.

Moses is clear about all players in this scene concisely, yet conveniently, forgets the third? Nope. He handled it. You just don't like it.

Moses was clear and his math is excellent. 3 men+1 God=4 visitors. The men leave, 1 visitor is left. Then that 1 leaves. Later, at another location, 2 men arrive. Sorry that that deflates your argument.

You argue like "it's not the same people from chapter 18!" when your beloved sages aren't even so stupid. You can't show your position without Rabbi whoever I posted above. Or Rashi, or Kimchi, or whatever other false teacher you believe over the WRITTEN. WORD. OF. GOD.

And you can only advance your position when you quote my beloved sages. I find that hilarious.

Haha. Keep projecting man. It's helping you be right. Really. I can't make my stance any clearer on my "needing" God to be a man in this passage, let alone the OT. Doesn't concern me. AT ALL.

I tried to make this simple. You were unable to show anything in the text, and only quote my beloved strangers to support your points. Strange. Keep denying if that makes you feel good. If God is not a man, your entire notion of the godhead disappears. I have no stamina to keep restating the obvious, nor ability to make it any simpler than I have. Sorry you don’t get it. Feel free to keep using all caps to make the same flawed argument; I don’t see myself responding to your mistakes, but I enjoy watching you chase your tale (sic).

 

[rosends]

Not true. In the scrolls the word seed is written in GREEK. You can change it in a book, but you can't change the scrolls. You reject There is a Satan, as you reject Jesus.
In 2,000 years the thinking of the people of Judah has not changed.

What scrolls have the word in Greek?

 

[rosends]

Satan had sex with Adams women, who Adam later names Eve. The mixing of human seed with none human see produced Cain. This mixed seed causes humans to die. It is why Satan is called a murderer.
All the trees in the Bble are symbolic. What makes the tree in the center of the garden a real tree?

so Gen 4:1 is a lie?

 

[Domenic]

Out of sheer curiosity, when did that happen?

so Gen 4:1 is a lie?

No, that is a truth. Adam had sex with his wife, and she gave birth to Cain. She also gave birth to Able.
It has been proven in our time, a women can be with two children by two different men at the same time.

You should read the scrolls. In the book it reads, Eve said, "I have gotten a man from the Lord." In the scrolls she says, "I have goten a man fom the angel of the Lord, Sammual." The scrolls have to be taken over any book written from them. The two should match...they do not. It is the book that has the lie, not the scrolls.