I don't see G-d speaking to anyone besides Abraham here.
Then you're missing the obvious. God spoke, Sarah heard it, she responded, and God responded back to her.
Genesis 18:13-15
Then in Genesis 18:16-19, with Sarah not there, God speaks of Abraham in the third person. This implies He is not speaking just to Abraham.
The third man was the third angel who completed his job having told Abraham of the news of his impending child.
...
The Scriptural basis for the three events that occurred? You can find them in the passages we've been discussing.
No, I asked what is your scriptural basis for the idea that the third man is an angel who left because he had already completed his task.
There's no reason to conclude that from the text.
Especially since Genesis 18:22 implies everyone went towards Sodom except Abraham and God.
Then, no surprise, we only see two men enter Sodom in Genesis 19:1
G-d is everywhere. "Going down" is a metaphor for directing attention to. As in Gen. 11:7. G-d doesn't need to be physically present somewhere in order to effect something. He is everywhere.
I agree. Which only further supports the idea that God was in Sodom to see what was going on, even though we only see two angels entering.
If the third man was God then there was no need for Him to physically manifest and walk in there Himself.
No, its two different statements.
"And the men turned from there" All three.
"And they went to Sodom." Only two.
Genesis 18:16 ESV
Then the men set out from there, and they looked down toward Sodom. And Abraham went with them to set them on their way.
All the men who were with Abraham set out towards Sodom. All were headed towards Sodom. One didn't leave the group.
Genesis 18:22 ESV
So the men turned from there and went toward Sodom, but Abraham still stood before the Lord.
"the men" then continued towards Sodom. With Abraham and the Lord staying behind. There is still no indication anywhere that one of the angels left this group and went elsewhere, or stayed behind with Abraham.
And they are going in the same direction as they had when they all set out. There is a continuity of purpose and intention here.
Genesis 19:1 ESV
The two angels came to Sodom in the evening, and Lot was sitting in the gate of Sodom.
You have no basis to claim that one of the angels vanished between verse 16 and 22, having no intention to go to Sodom even though it says all the men were traveling in that direction with them in verse 16. Only God and Abraham stopped while the other two went on.
And as I've just show you, you've done so without regard for sound exegesis of scripture.
Verse 18:22 completely disproves your original claim that the plural use of men always refers to the three men. If that were the case, then you are claiming that even though three angels ventured towards Sodom in Genesis 18:22 that by 19:1 one of the angels decided to stop going that direction and vanished. There is nothing in scripture that could lead you to conclude that is what happened. You're inserting events into the text that aren't there in order to support your desired conclusions, instead of letting the text speak for itself.
No. The angel is telling Abraham that he (the angel) will return to Abraham for the birth of Isaac.
In response Sarah laughs.
G-d asks Abraham, why is Sarah laughing (v.13-14). Presumably Abraham voices the question to Sarah. Sarah denies it. Abraham repudiates the denial (v15).
Genesis 18:13-14
God says that He Himself will return to Sarah in a year.
This comes after 18:10 where it simply says "He said".
He said, “I will certainly return to you around this time next year
You can legitimately read 13-14 as a clarification of who was originally speaking, as God is reiterating to her the sureness of what He said He would do.
Otherwise you have to answer the question of why one of the angels would need to promise to return in a year along with God Himself, and both would promise it separately.
Are you turning to racist remarks now?
G-d already knows the situation in Sodom and says so in the chapter before. There's no testing needed.
Genesis 18:21
I agree that God knows the answer before He gets there, but God is the one who said He has come to investigate, and the angels are sent into Sodom for a reason.
Which brings us to the fact that you didn't address the statement I made: Which is that the angel's already had a stated purpose related to dealing with Sodom. They set out towards Sodom.
There's no reason, scripturally, to assume one of them had a different purpose and left between verse 22 and chapter 19.
There's no other type of angel. They're all angels of G-d.
Angels are called elohim in the Torah. Judges and Moses are also called elohim. They are not G-d. The word "elohim" seems to mean "power". So anyone who has or represents a power is given this name. That's why false gods, which were typically based off the powers of nature such as the sun and moon, were also called elohim.
That is disproven by what I already cited: Exodus 3:2-6
It is said YHVH Himself appears in the burning Bush, not Elohim.
Although your point is disproven anyway on that basis; out of curiosity I'd like to see any scriptural proof that angels are called Elohim, because I'd be surprised if you can really establish that with scripture itself rather than just reading tradition into the text.
I don't see any Aramaic Targum referencing G-d as "The Word of the Lord". I even just quickly glanced through the first two chapters of Genesis to double check. Please cite a verse.
One example of many: Exodus 23:35.
The Hebrew says YHVH plagued them. The Targum says the Word of the Lord plagued them.
There is no where in Jewish tradition that the "Word of G-d" is synonymous with manifestation of G-d Himself. That is false.
You obviously need to read the Targum closer.
It may be consistent with your Christian ideas, but its not consistent with Tanach.
The New Testament is not inconsistent with the Hebrew Bible.
The Targum gives us greater insight into why John would refer to Jesus as the Word of God made Flesh. Based on the Targum, we can assume it is a term that would have been well know by the Jews of his day.
Because when I dream about you, the source of the image is my mind, not your face. I haven't seen you, I've seen a metaphor that my mind created to represent you.
The scripture still explicitly says they saw YHVH. He had a form they could see with their eyes. You've got to deal with what the text says. And the context of some of them makes it clear it cannot just be product of their own mind.
I think someone who can't read the original text shouldn't be making that statement.
It says, "And they saw the G-d of Israel (El-hei Yisrael")...and they viewed the G-d (HaEl-him)."
It specifically says they saw the God of Israel. Is the God of Israel not God? Is He not YHVH?
Since the Torah also says that no one can see G-d and that G-d has no image, we are meant to interpret what the Torah is saying here differently.
I cited many passages where people do see the form that is said to be God.
You are limiting your interpretation of what that form could be in a way that doesn't line up with scripture. Scripture shows Jacob wrestling with the angel of the Lord. Which, based on Exodus 3, is already known to be YHVH.
Regardless of how abstract you want to believe these forms of God appearing are, we know it can involve the physical form of a man capable of interacting with men. We're not just talking about abstract visions in their mind's eye.
Administration means how G-d runs the world. The basis is that this is what G-d is doing throughout Tanach: running things.
That's all well and good, but you're stretching to claim that allows you to dismiss when the text clearly says the elders saw the God of Israel.
He also said that He has no form (Deut. 4:15,
Let's be precise: It is said the people "saw" no form.
It doesn't mean God cannot, or does not, have the form of His Son, Jesus.
It could merely mean that it was not given to them to see anything at that time.
That is saying that there is nothing you can compare God to. I agree with that statement.
That's why there's really no analogy we can offer of the unity of the Father and Son because He is unique. There's nothing else like Him. We can use analogies
that help us grasp parts of it, but fundamentally there is nothing known to us that we can compare Him to.
Your first statement is wrong. G-d doesn't manifest Himself, He manifests metaphors for Himself.
Your confusion here is coming from a difference of how we use the terms. God manifests truth about who He is in various ways, and in that sense manifests Himself.
That is not to say that the entirety of God is manifestly revealed to us. The later is something we cannot see without dying.
Given that, why cannot God choose to manifest his character, truth, and will in the form of flesh?
Every single verse does. You just aren't aware of it, because your bible translates the metaphor from the Hebrew.
As I already said: There is no indication whatsoever in these accounts of men seeing God that they are using idiomatic figures of speech or metaphoric language to describe something indescribable. The later is usually quite clear when it's happening, such as in Daniel or Ezekiel. The former is usually obvious from the context.
These accounts of men seeing God are written as historical narrative, real encounters.
That is because you are Christian and were trained to ignore context. All the verses were stated in context of the verses G-d not having any image or form and no one being able to see G-d Himself. Therefore they all need to be understood in that context.
All of that context is already taken into account and does not conflict with what the New Testament says about Jesus.
As I pointed out, you misapplied the verses about form to conclude far beyond what the text itself requires us to.
The NT is also consistent that Jesus reveals the Father to us, which is why we can see God through Jesus and yet not die.
