• 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!

A Thought Question

J

Jake1001

Computer Simulator
I was reading up on the opinions regarding the 3 "visitors" who stopped by Abraham's tent.

I am assuming (for the sake of argument) that the text of the Chumash is historically accurate -- there was a guy and he was visited by three visitors.

Some commentators explain that the 3 visitors were angels. Others explain that they were not angels, but men.

Only one of those two can be, ultimately, correct. If we were to go back in time and watch the event unfold, either men or angels who looked like men showed up. Right now, all we have is opinion because we weren't there but each opinion is trying to present a truth of the situation so only one can be correct.

But if we learn a lesson from each of the options (like each angel can have only 1 mission or that we should recognize a blessing even in the words of mortal men and be thankful for it) then only one of those lessons can be sourced in the actual event. So learning one of them would be in error (if they were men, then we can't learn about angelic missions and if they were angels then we can't learn about human blessings).

Does this devalue any of the lessons we learn?

I wonder if there are other examples -- I suspect that there are but off the top of my head, I can't think of one.

#1
 
Saint Frankenstein

Saint Frankenstein

Wanderer From Afar
Premium Member
Jake1001 said:
New I was reading up on the opinions regarding the 3 "visitors" who stopped by Abraham's tent.
Click to expand...
In Christianity, it is commonly believed that they were the Holy Trinity appearing in a theophany, but views vary. St. Augustine believed it was the Trinity, though.
 
Brickjectivity

Brickjectivity

wind and rain touch not this brain
Staff member
Premium Member
Jake1001 said:
My theory is there is no such think as an angel. Everyone agree ?
Click to expand...
Maybe the point of the story is to bring attention to the fact that bad things happen in all or most cities. What city has no kidnappings and no rapes, no poor, no upper and lower classes? I notice Abraham lives away from cities. Lot's mistake is that he has chosen to live in a city, perhaps. That could be inferred. Genesis overall is very negative about city life. Any time a city appears in Genesis, bad things happen. What good thing in Genesis ever happens in a city? Good people live in the fields, herding. People who move to the cities become corrupt. Cain builds the first city, so the first city is built by the first murderer. That seems like a hint about the Sodom story.

The angels may not be relevant, because the story could make all of its points without them.
 
J

Jake1001

Computer Simulator
Brickjectivity said:
Maybe the point of the story is to bring attention to the fact that bad things happen in all or most cities. What city has no kidnappings and no rapes, no poor, no upper and lower classes? I notice Abraham lives away from cities. Lot's mistake is that he has chosen to live in a city, perhaps. That could be inferred. Genesis overall is very negative about city life. Any time a city appears in Genesis, bad things happen. What good thing in Genesis ever happens in a city? Good people live in the fields, herding. People who move to the cities become corrupt. Cain builds the first city, so the first city is built by the first murderer. That seems like a hint about the Sodom story.

The angels may not be relevant, because the story could make all of its points without them.
Click to expand...
Hi Brick, it looks like we agree. Angels were irrelevant. You are good people.
 
Brickjectivity

Brickjectivity

wind and rain touch not this brain
Staff member
Premium Member
Jake1001 said:
I wonder if there are other examples -- I suspect that there are but off the top of my head, I can't think of one.
Click to expand...
The story of the tower called Babel? Its kind of similar but instead of destroying the city they scramble the language.
 
Deeje

Deeje

Avid Bible Student
Premium Member
Jake1001 said:
I was reading up on the opinions regarding the 3 "visitors" who stopped by Abraham's tent.

I am assuming (for the sake of argument) that the text of the Chumash is historically accurate -- there was a guy and he was visited by three visitors.

Some commentators explain that the 3 visitors were angels. Others explain that they were not angels, but men.
Click to expand...
The three men were 'messengers' sent to Abraham to announce the birth of his son, Isaac.....so it stands to reason that they were angels in materialized form. One spoke as Jehovah's representative....the other two, after they had visited with Abraham and Sarah and partaken of their hospitality, went on to Sodom to escort Abraham's nephew Lot out of the city with his family before God destroyed it. They took the family by the hand and became urgent with them because they were delaying.

When these "men" came into Lots house, the depraved inhabitants of the city wanted to gang rape his visitors, but Lot, knowing that these were God's representatives, offered his daughters to the mob to protect God's angelic servants. The angels struck them blind....so these were no ordinary men. The cities were razed to the ground in a massive explosion of God's power, not something men could do at that time.

Only one of those two can be, ultimately, correct. If we were to go back in time and watch the event unfold, either men or angels who looked like men showed up. Right now, all we have is opinion because we weren't there but each opinion is trying to present a truth of the situation so only one can be correct.
Click to expand...
Nothing of the story fits mortal humans.

But if we learn a lesson from each of the options (like each angel can have only 1 mission or that we should recognize a blessing even in the words of mortal men and be thankful for it) then only one of those lessons can be sourced in the actual event. So learning one of them would be in error (if they were men, then we can't learn about angelic missions and if they were angels then we can't learn about human blessings).

Does this devalue any of the lessons we learn?
Click to expand...

What is the lesson? God forbade his people to communicate with spirits because the devil had influenced a great many of the angels to join him in rebellion. (Deuteronomy 18:9-12) It was these wicked spirits behind many of the spiritistic practices of false worship, that God warned his people not to adopt. They did not listen.

I wonder if there are other examples -- I suspect that there are but off the top of my head, I can't think of one.
Click to expand...

Do you mean angelic visits? Just off the top of my head, Gabriel appeared to Daniel and 500 years later to Mary. Angels were at Jesus' empty tomb and again they appeared at the time of his ascension to strengthen the apostles as Jesus was leaving them to prepare a place for them in heaven. An angel also presented the revelation to John.
 
Brian2

Brian2

Veteran Member
Jake1001 said:
I was reading up on the opinions regarding the 3 "visitors" who stopped by Abraham's tent.

I am assuming (for the sake of argument) that the text of the Chumash is historically accurate -- there was a guy and he was visited by three visitors.

Some commentators explain that the 3 visitors were angels. Others explain that they were not angels, but men.

Only one of those two can be, ultimately, correct. If we were to go back in time and watch the event unfold, either men or angels who looked like men showed up. Right now, all we have is opinion because we weren't there but each opinion is trying to present a truth of the situation so only one can be correct.

But if we learn a lesson from each of the options (like each angel can have only 1 mission or that we should recognize a blessing even in the words of mortal men and be thankful for it) then only one of those lessons can be sourced in the actual event. So learning one of them would be in error (if they were men, then we can't learn about angelic missions and if they were angels then we can't learn about human blessings).

Does this devalue any of the lessons we learn?

I wonder if there are other examples -- I suspect that there are but off the top of my head, I can't think of one.

#1
Click to expand...

Maybe one was God since when 2 of them left one remained and it says Abraham was there standing before the LORD.
 
IndigoChild5559

IndigoChild5559

Loving God and my neighbor as myself.
Jake1001 said:
Some commentators explain that the 3 visitors were angels. Others explain that they were not angels, but men.

Only one of those two can be, ultimately, correct.
Click to expand...
Look, I'm no scholar. You are probably better off reading the various Jewish experts on the text, even though they disagree. But since this is a forum where all of us insert our two cents worth, here goes.

The word for angels in Hebrew is malakhim. It actually means messengers. If sometimes thought to myself that if a human being were a messenger of God, he would still be a Malakh, even if he weren't a heavenly being. IOW we might call him an angel, simply because he is God's messenger.

But that's just me thinking late at night in the quiet darkness when I can hear myself think.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top