So he lifted his eyes and looked, and behold, three men were standing by him; and when he saw them, he ran from the tent door to meet them, and bowed himself to the ground, Then the men turned away from there and went toward Sodom, but Abraham still stood before the Lord .Gn. 18:2-22
Why can you not interpret scripture as is?
Bs"d
Is an angel a man?
Just keep on reading from Gen 18, to the beginning of chapter 19, and there you see that at least 2 of the the 3 men were angels.
So God is not three man. God is not a man at all, just like the angels were not men.
Prior I asked if a Rabi could tell God that He could not become man and your answer was perfect!
Now, verse 18:2 clearly states that were 3 man! so there is no confusion upon....
Gen 19:1 "Now the two angels came to Sodom in the evening, and Lot was sitting in the gate of Sodom."
Then some how, after Abraham made some FOOD, and WASH their feet.....clearly human actions....some how one of the 3 men is now the YHWH! in the verse 22!
No, they were three angels.
God visited Abraham separate from the angels.
This situation is ONE of many trought out the Hebrew Bible.....
....does the situation above contradicts the verses as rightly states...
"God is not human"....
Were the angels human? Of course not. The just appeared to be human.
Who is The Angel of the Lord?
The Hebrew word translated with "angel" is "messenger", and like that it is always translated, except when it talks about a messenger of God, then it is translated as "angel".
So the angel of God is a messenger of God.
For unto us a Child is born, Unto us a Son is given; And the government will be upon His shoulder. And His name will be called Wonderful, Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace. Of the increase of His government and peace There will be no end, Upon the throne of David and over His kingdom, To order it and establish it with judgment and justice From that time forward, even forever. The zeal of the Lord of hosts will perform this. Is 9:6-7!
God bless my friend..."An the people the were in darkness a Light appered!"
Isaiah 9:2-7 "2 The people who walked in darkness have seen a great light; those who dwelt in a land of deep darkness, on them has light shined. 3 Thou hast multiplied the nation, thou hast increased its joy; they rejoice before thee as with joy at the harvest, as men rejoice when they divide the spoil. 4 For the yoke of his burden, and the staff for his shoulder, the rod of his oppressor, thou hast broken as on the day of Mid'ian. 5 For every boot of the tramping warrior in battle tumult and every garment rolled in blood will be burned as fuel for the fire. 6 For to us a child is born, to us a son is given; and the government will be upon his shoulder, and his name will be called "Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace". 7 Of the increase of his government and of peace there will be no end, upon the throne of David, and over his kingdom, to establish it, and to uphold it with justice and with righteousness from this time forth and for evermore. The zeal of the LORD of hosts will do this."
Please take notice of the fact that Isaiah is talking in the past tense: "The people who walked in darkness have seen a great light; those who dwelt in a land of deep darkness, on them has light shined.|
"For to us a child is born, to us a son is given; and the government is upon his shoulder, and his name was called "Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace."
These are things which had happened already in the days of Isaiah.
If, despite these facts, you still want to apply these verses to JC, than read verse 5, 6, and 7, and see that JC didn't do any of those things. He never ruled on the throne of David, he never had any government on his shoulders, and there never was endless peace over his kingdom.
The same holds true for the verses 6 and 7: "For to us a child is born, to us a son is given; and the government will be upon his shoulder, and his name will be called "Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace". 7 Of the increase of his government and of peace there will be no end, upon the throne of David, and over his kingdom, to establish it, and to uphold it with justice and with righteousness from this time forth and for evermore. The zeal of the LORD of hosts will do this."
All of this doesn't hold true for JC; he never had any government on his shoulder. And also here is spoken in the past tense: "A child is born, a son is given. But most translations give it in the future tense. For instance the RSV, NIV, NAS, ESV, KJV, NIRV, the all say; "His name will be called ....", future tense. However, in the Hebrew text this too is past tense: "His name was called ...." The Hebrew expression here is "wayikra". That is the first word in the book of Leviticus. And all the previously mentioned translations there say: "And the Lord called Mozes ..." Past tense. Exactly the same the word. Isn't that weird? Exactly the same word is used in Genesis 5:1; "And God called the light 'day'" Called. Past tense. Nobody argues with that one. But why then, in Isaiah 9, is it suddenly changed to future tense? The answer is simple: The past tense doesn't fit with the Christian theology, and therefore the Bible translations are corrupted and twisted to fit the Christian religion. Just like that. There is only one solution for this problem: Take a course in Biblical Hebrew. It is more easy then it looks. Then your eyes will be opened and the Christian deception will stare you in the face. And yes, I do sympathize with the poor misguided Christians whom are being led astray by their clergy by means of twisted and corrupted Bible translations. That's the reason why I fulfill my duty of being a light unto the nations and uncovering the Christian deception.
"Of the increase of his government and of peace there will be no end" "There will be no end", future tense. And this too is WRONG. It is in the Hebrew present tense. I found only one translation which is correct here, and that is Young's Literal Translation.
Why all this stress on the tenses? Isaiah spoke about a king who was living in his days, and therefore JC is out. The king that Isaiah speaks about is Hezekiah, the son of Achaz who got from Isaiah the sign about the young woman (no, not the virgin) who was pregnant and gave birth to the son Immanuel.
The Talmud explains that under the rule of the God fearing Hezekiah the Jewish kingdom rose to great heights, and that's why he was entitled to those impressive titles.
Because of the fact that the name of the son is "Mighty God", (or "God is Mighty", both are possible translations) and "Eternals Father", the Christians deduce that the boy spoken about must have been God.
HOWEVER, a name is only that; a name. A name is not a description of the bearer of that name. An example: Buffalo Bill was not a buffalo. The indian chief Sitting Bull was not a bull.
Many times people in the Bible have in their name the word "God", or the name of God, but that doesn't mean that those people are God. For instance; in Exodus 6:23 is spoken about a man called "Elazar". That means "God is helper", or "Helping God". But that doesn't mean that that man was God.
Exodus 6:24; "Elkanah", that means "God acquired", or "acquiring God". II Samuel 22:19; "Elchanan"; "God is merciful", or "Merciful God". But these men were not God, just like the the child in Isaiah 9 wasn't God.
Apart from that, the Hebrew words "El gibor", in Christian Bibles translated with "Mighty God", can have a different meaning. "El" can mean "God", but it can also mean "judge", "leader", or "mighty man". In Exodus 4:16 God says to Moses that he will be of an elohiem for his brother Aharon. ("elohim" is the longer form of the word "el") This doesn't mean that Moses was a God for Aharon and Aharon started to worship his brother, it meant that Moses would be the leader of Aharon.
In Exodus 21:1-6 is spoken about a slave who after the normal period of servitude ended, doesn't want to leave his master. In that case the owner has to take him to court, where the slave will make a statement that he doesn't want to leave his master, and that he will serve his master until his death. The Hebrew text there says that his master must take him to the "elohim". There the NAS, ASV, ESV, NRSV, RSV, YLT, they all say that his master must take him "to God". However, his master doesn't take him for a ride to heaven, but takes him to the courthouse. Therefore the NIV, KJV, TNIV, and the NIRV, they all say that the master must take him to "the judges".
Even so in Isaiah 9 the word "El" does not necessarily mean "God". Therefore the text in Isaiah 9 is in no way a proof that the child spoken about was God.
"For all people will walk every one in the name of his god, and we will walk in the name of Y-H-W-H our God for ever and ever.".
Micah 4:5
1) Not all Jews translate the verse as he has been led to believe. For*example, the Greek translation of the OT known as the Septuagint (LXX)*translated the expression as "his name is called." The LXX was translatedby Jews in the 3rd century BC, and thus not affected by the Christian-Jewish debates over this issue. It is true that the LXX paraphrased the*translation of the names in that verse, but the translation of the verb*is the important thing here. The Jewish Tanach that I have translates*the verse as follows: "For to us a child is born, to us a son is given;*and the government is upon his shoulder; and his name shall be called*"Wonderful counsellor of the mighty God, of the everlasting Father,*of the Prince of peace". Obviously these Jewish translators had no*problem rendering the verb as a passive. However, their insertion of*the word "of" in several places is not justified by any rule of Hebrewgrammar that I know, nor by the rendering of the verse in the Talmud*(see below).(2) In the Talmud the verse is translated as follows: "For unto us a child is*born, unto us a son is given; and the government shall be upon his shoulder:*and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, Mighty, Judge,*Everlasting, Father, Prince, and Peace. [Sanhedrin 94a]. Obviously this*is an authentic Jewish translation. Therefore, those who have persuaded*your friend otherwise have misled him.(3) Your friend seems to be unaware of the well-known grammatical*construction referred to as the indefinite personal subject. See the*discussion of this in the Gesenius-Kautzsch-Cowley Hebrew Grammar(Oxford, 1910) § 144d (p. 460). Literally the Hebrew would be translated*as "One will call his name XXX," but most often translators render the verbas a passive instead. The Gesenius-Kautzsch-Cowley grammar lists*Isa. 9:6 [5] as one such case. So your friend is wrong in stating that the*active stem [Qal] of the verb "qara'" never is translated as a passive.Here are some examples of where the Qal stem of the verb "qara'" [call]*is properly translated as though it were passive when it governs the word*"shem" [name] as its object, and has an indefinite personal subject.Genesis 11:9 Therefore its name is called Babel,*'al ken qara' shemah babelGenesis 19:22 Therefore the name of the city was called Zoar.'al ken qara' shen-ha'ir zo'arGenesis 25:26 and his name was called Jacob.*wayyiqra' shemo ya'aqobGenesis 25:30 Therefore his name was called Edom.'al ken qara' shemo 'edomGenesis 29:34 Therefore his name was called Levi.'al ken qara' shemo lewiGenesis 31:48 Therefore its name was called Galeed,'al ken qara' shemo gal'edGenesis 33:17 Therefore the name of the place is called Succoth.'al ken qara' shem-hammaqom sukkoth=================And second response from Dr. Price:Your friend, needs to study the syntax*of the Hebrew expression "X called the name of Y Z,"*where X is the person who gives the name, Y is the person*or thing receiving the name, and Z is the name given.*An exhaustive study of these expressions in the Tenach*indicates the following