Eclectic Topics in no Particular Order
Various Topics Discussed
/>
Someone wrote “I wrote on some YouTube video that God is not a man. Some Christian lady told me explain how come God comes many times as angels / bush or other shapes.
"I explain that an angel is not a man but she of course doesn't like answers that make sense. She finished with the following: Jesus is your Messiah. The New Testament is part of the Jewish bible written by Jews for Jews and gentiles. Jesus is one with the father. Explain to me who is the angel of the Lord. Why did Hagar say what she said and why did the angel say what he said. Why non of.the regular angels speak as.this angel of the lord speaks. Who is this angel that appears to Moses in the burning bush. Explain to me this, otherwise this is the evidence that God and Jesus are one." You get a call on your cellphone. It’s FaceTime so you can see the person as you talk to them. Does that mean your phone is really a human? How about watching television. Is the television a human? Of course not, it is ridiculous, right? A phone isn’t a person and neither is a television. And G-d may communicate with humans, getting our attention with a cloud (for example) but the cloud is no more G-d than is a cellphone call or a television show. An angel isn’t G-d. A burning bush isn’t G-d. Humans (a man) isn’t G-d. Only G-d is G-d. The Hebrew Bible tells us time and time again that G-d is not a man, G-d has no form at all. "G-d is not a man." Bamidbar / Numbers 23:19; "I HaShem do not change ." Malachi 3:6; "Remember the first things of old, that I am G-d and there is no other; I am G-d and there is none like Me." Isaiah 46:9. There are many more such statements that tell us G-d is one (not a trinity), G-d is unique, no one can see G-d and live, there is nothing like G-d… Let’s address her arguments. She says G-d comes “many times” as an angel. This is 100% false. G-d never appears as an angel. The very word for angel in Hebrew means messenger. The word is מַלְאָך / "mal'ach” which translates to “messenger.” In the Hebrew Bible there are HUMAN "angels" (messengers) as well as heavenly -- somehow the Christian translations don't call the human ones angels -- they translate the word there as messenger. "Jacob sent messengers / מַלְאָכִים / m'lachim ahead of him to his brother Esau, to Edom's Field in the Seir area." B'reshit / Genesis 32:4. Why do suppose that the King James Version and other Christian translations choose the word "messenger" here and not "angels"? A bit self serving, wouldn't you agree? Somehow when it applies to humans it is translated as "messenger" and when it refers to a heavenly messenger the word is suddenly translated as "angel"! Do you see why translations are traitors? Heavenly messengers are servants of G-d. None are G-d Himself. A heavenly messenger simply relays a message from G-d -- telling a person of G-d's will. Since when is one entity its own messenger? That is an oxymoron – not possible. A messenger delivers a message for SOMEONE ELSE. Thus the word itself refutes her assertion that G-d is His own messenger! G-d never appears as anything – including angels or burning bushes or anything else. Speaking of the burning bush – she said G-d “came many times as an angel/bush”… (ridiculous)… In Sh'mot / Exodus 3:2 Moses did not "see" G-d at all in the bush — it was an "angel" (messenger) not G-d. The angel did not take on the form of a burning bush either -- "G-d's angel appeared to [Moses] in the heart (or flame) of a fire." She asked “who is the angel in the burning bush?” That is totally unimportant (or the Torah would tell us). An angel is JUST a messenger. That angel was relaying a message to Moses, nothing more. She asked “who is the angel of the Lord?” Her first problem is a mistranslation. The Hebrew Bible never says “the” angel of the L-rd. Nope. Not once. It says “מַלְאַךְ יְיָ / mal'ach hashem”, which translates to “a messenger of the L-rd”—note the indefinite article "an" (no “the”). Christian translations also capitalize it "the angel of the LORD" to make it seem unique, although Hebrew does not have capital letters. The phrase “an angel of the L-rd” appears 58 times in the Hebrew bible and Christians often translate it as “the angel of the L-RD” instead of the correct “an angel of the L-rd.” There is absolutely nothing in the text that suggests the same entity is meant on every occasion let alone that it is a “holier” angel or (heaven forbid) G-d Himself! Which brings us to Hagar (Abraham’s concubine who ran away and nearly died in the process). She must think this speaks of “the angel of the L-rd” but it is a perfect example that it says no such thing. It has “מַלְאַךְ יְיָ / mal'ach hashem” – AN angel of the L-rd… Look it up! “וַיֹּאמֶר לָהּ מַלְאַךְ "", שׁוּבִי אֶל-גְּבִרְתֵּךְ, וְהִתְעַנִּי, תַּחַת יָדֶיהָ” Three different angels spoke to Hagar – but G-d did not. She asked "Why did Hagar say what she said and why did the angel say what he said." The exchange takes place in B'reshit / Genesis chapter 16 after Hagar has run away from Sarah... "And an angel / מַלְאַ֧ךְ / mal'ach of the L-rd found her by a water fountain in the desert, by the fountain on the road to Shur." B'reshit / Genesis 16:7. Verse 10 even says 'And an angel of G-d said to her / "" וַיֹּאמֶר לָהּ מַלְאַךְ' -- so this is an angel, not "the" angel and not G-d. Again we see the word for angel / messenger but no "the." In Hebrew "the" would be a heh / ה as a prefix to the word... It isn't there. The messenger tells her that she will have a child and that he will father many nations. This is why the angels (plural, there are three of them in this chapter -- each angel has one specific mission. Refer back to the story of Sodom for proof of this) visited her and told her what they did... Nothing to do with "the angel" let alone with an angel being G-d. Hagar then prayed to G-d who had communicated with her (through those three angels)... You may notice that even Jewish translations may say "the angel of G-d" in this chapter, and the only explanation I can give (since the word "the" is not present) is that many translators try to stay close to the familiar in order to sell their translations... If you check the Hebrew and search this chapter for מַלְאַךְ you will see that not one of them has the heh / ה as a prefix which would make it "the angel." The Torah tells us G-d is incorporeal (has no physicality) time and time again. "You did not see any image on the day that G‑d spoke to you at Horeb [Sinai]."-- D’varim / Deuteronomy 4:15. G-d has no physical manifestation -- He is not a bush, a cloud, or a man. (D'varim) Deuteronomy 4:15 clearly tells us that the Israelites did not see G-d in any form. Ergo G-d was NOT the pillar or the cloud. "You cannot see My Face, for man cannot see Me and live." (Sh'mot / Exodus 33:20). There plainly G-d says no man can see Him and live – yet this woman disagrees with G-d Himself? There is zero evidence that Jesus ever existed, let alone that he was a messiah and most definitely NOT G-d. Even if everything she had claimed were true (that G-d was an angel or a bush or a frog for that matter) it would not be evidence that Jesus was anything at all. She is simply wearing Jesus colored glasses and doesn’t see that her argument is no argument at all! We’ve spent enough space here refuting her, but the fact is that Jesus (if he lived at all) was never a messiah – an anointed king of Israel. He didn’t have any right to be one either. The messiah must be born of human Jewish parents. The father must not only be Jewish, he must be of the tribe of Judah and descended from Kings David and Solomon. (see B'reshit / Genesis 49:10, Y'shayahu / Isaiah 11:1, Y’rmiyahu / Jeremiah 23:5, 33:17; Y’chezkel / Ezekiel 34:23-24). If the virgin birth story was true, and Joseph was not the biological father of Jesus then Jesus did not even have the most basic right to even try to be the messiah. Finally her point seems to be that because Jews were the original followers of Jesus this MUST make him the messiah. Did she forget all those Jews who worshiped the false gods of Ba’al and Moloch? How about the Jews who thought Bar Kochba was the messiah (and were wrong)? How about the Jews who thought Shabbatai Zvi was the messiah (and were wrong)? If Jesus existed and if he had early Jewish followers “so what”? Sadly there have always been Jews who turned away from G-d and into idolatry. Christianity is primarily the religion of Rome, not of Jews and it bears scant resemblance to Judaism. It has far more in common with pagan religions where gods as men was common (not to mention gods with a human mother!). Her claim “The new testament is part of the Jewish bible written by Jews for Jews and gentiles” is most likely false as well. No one knows who wrote the Christian bible but very unlikely any were Jewish. They get too many basic facts wrong (Paul certainly did!). There were Ebionites who claimed that Paul was a non-Jew who converted to Judaism simply to marry a priest’s daughter and when he was refused, he became anti-Jewish. Given his views this wouldn’t surprise me! Epiphanius (4th century CE) wrote: "They declare that he (Paul) was a Greek (not a Jew)...He went up to Jerusalem, they say, and when he had spent some time there, he was seized with a passion to marry the daughter of the (Jewish) priest. For this reason he became a proselyte (convert) and was circumcised. Then, when he failed to get the girl, he flew into a rage and wrote against circumcision and against the sabbath and the Torah (bible / Five Books of Moses)" (Epiphanius, Panarion, 30.16. 6- 9). But again “so what” if Jews did write the Christian bible? Christians wrote the Book of Mormon – does she think that gives credence to the Mormons? If so she should immediately convert and become a Mormon! Did you notice that she threw out numerous arguments? This is typical of a missionary – they flood you with arguments hoping one will “stick.” It takes time and effort to show the ignorance (“the angel of the L-rd being a perfect example). These missionaries don’t know a word of Hebrew and read their “bibles” in mistranslations. They believe the third party translation (usually translated from other translations) and are bullheaded in their insistence even though they are clueless as to what the Hebrew Bible really might say… In closing, it isn’t worth your time (or mine) to argue with dyed in the wool missionaries who will simply change the argument when you refute them with proof. I went to all this trouble not for her, but for you. I hope you found this response helpful.
0 Comments
Your comment will be posted after it is approved.
Leave a Reply. |
Categories
All
|