Why Torah based Jews would be unconvinced

[Redemptionsong]

My claim is there is more than 1 way to serve God. 1 God, 1 savior, at least more than 1 way to serve.

You can add King Solomon to the list of those that claim multiple ways: Proverbs 21:3. Here he lists three ways, righteousness and justice and sacrifices.

Thus, Moses, Hosea, and King Solomon support my position.

But the 'way' of Jesus is about the person, not the manner of our service.

Proverbs 21:3. 'To do justice and judgment is more acceptable to the LORD than sacrifice.'

So, whose justice, judgment and sacrifice is it?

 

[Redemptionsong]

What if God tells me that the Bible isn’t true?

He wouldn't.

 

[Redemptionsong]

A nice literary sentiment. Irrelevant, but nice. Place names biblically were often reflective of events that took place there.

Great. It is nice to have your own interpretation. Of course, it is just that, yours, and no one else need be convinced by your particular thoughts on the atter, hence the topic of this thread.


It suggests no such thing (and the intellectual dishonesty of presenting a transation with the word inserted should not be ignored). It says what it says. Making fanciful derivations and such from it is more literary fancifulness driven by a need to connect the text to another verse, and not anything steeped in the text.

There is incredible significance to this encounter but I will just point out the most superficial - Jacob's name has a root which is tied to trickery or deception. By changing the name, the public statement is made that no one should ever suspect that the one based in trickery stole any blessings as the recipient is a different person via the name change. There is, of course, a lot more, but about our ability to know God? I'm not sure what you mean. We do learn a lot about the nature of angels in the passage.

'The angel of the LORD' that appeared to Manoah [Judges 13:15-22] is very similar to the angel that appeared to Jacob. On both occasions the man asks the angel his name, and on both occasions the angel refuses to reveal his name. The KJV describes the name as 'secret' or 'wonderful', the same word as used in Isaiah 9:6.

Jacob says he encountered the Lord 'face to face', and Manoah says 'we have seen God'.

It seems more than just coincidence that these two encounters should elicit such similar responses, both from the angel, and from the men.

Back in Judges 6, there was another encounter with the angel. On this occasion it was Gideon asking the questions, and fire was seen to ascend from 'the rock' much as it did with Manoah. Gideon also fears for his life, having seen 'an angel of the LORD face to face'.

Three similar encounters in which the man fears for his life because he has seen the angel of the LORD 'face to face'.

This was no ordinary angel.

 

[Harel13]

This was no ordinary angel.

I was not aware that any angels were "ordinary".
פשטות המתחדשות בכל יום כפשוטו...(basically, you learn something new every day).

 

[rosends]

'The angel of the LORD' that appeared to Manoah [Judges 13:15-22] is very similar to the angel that appeared to Jacob. On both occasions the man asks the angel his name, and on both occasions the angel refuses to reveal his name. The KJV describes the name as 'secret' or 'wonderful', the same word as used in Isaiah 9:6.

So the appearance of an angel was similar to the appearance of an angel. Got it.
And your belief that the translation you like is referring to the angel in a verse which doesn't mention the angel? Whatever works for you. It just isn't at all persuasive.

Jacob says he encountered the Lord 'face to face', and Menoah says 'we have seen God'.

It seems more than just coincidence that these two encounters should elicit such similar responses, both from the angel, and from the men.

And Mano'ach is conviced he is going to die while Jacob isn't. And only one of them makes a sacrifice and the angel ascends in the flames. And only one fo the instances actually mentions an angel. Maybe they aren't all that similar. I guess it depends on the details you choose to highlight.

Back in Judges 6, there was another encounter with the angel. On this occasion it was Gideon asking the questions, and fire was seen to ascend from 'the rock' much as it did with Manoah. Gideon also fears for his life, having seen 'an angel of the LORD face to face'.

The sacrifices were given on top of a rock so that's where the flame rose from. But in Judges 6 there is no mention fo the angel ascending. Compare -- Chapt 13:
וַיַּ֥עַל מַלְאַךְ־יְהֹוָ֖ה בְּלַ֣הַב הַמִּזְבֵּ֑חַ
and Chapt 6:
וּמַלְאַ֣ךְ יְהֹוָ֔ה הָלַ֖ךְ מֵעֵינָֽיו

quite different.

Three similar encounters in which the man fears for his life because he has seen the angel of the LORD 'face to face'.

This was no ordinary angel.

So there are ordinary angels? I had no idea.

 

[Redemptionsong]

So the appearance of an angel was similar to the appearance of an angel. Got it.
And your belief that the translation you like is referring to the angel in a verse which doesn't mention the angel? Whatever works for you. It just isn't at all persuasive.

And Mano'ach is conviced he is going to die while Jacob isn't. And only one of them makes a sacrifice and the angel ascends in the flames. And only one fo the instances actually mentions an angel. Maybe they aren't all that similar. I guess it depends on the details you choose to highlight.


The sacrifices were given on top of a rock so that's where the flame rose from. But in Judges 6 there is no mention fo the angel ascending. Compare -- Chapt 13:
וַיַּ֥עַל מַלְאַךְ־יְהֹוָ֖ה בְּלַ֣הַב הַמִּזְבֵּ֑חַ
and Chapt 6:
וּמַלְאַ֣ךְ יְהֹוָ֔ה הָלַ֖ךְ מֵעֵינָֽיו

quite different.


So there are ordinary angels? I had no idea.

It should not come as a surprise to hear that there is a hierarchy of angels.

When the LORD, or angel of the Lord, appears to Abraham in the plains of Mamre, he is accompanied by two other angels [Genesis 18:2,3]. Abraham calls one of the three, 'my Lord'.

Later, the two subordinate angels travel on to Sodom [Genesis 18:22 and 19:1], whilst the Lord remains behind to talk with Abraham.

What this shows is that the Lord is able to appear before men as an angel, yet with the full authority of God.

Would God allow a subordinate angel to negotiate the terms of the 'righteous' in Sodom? It seems highly unlikely.

 

[rosends]

It should not come as a surprise to hear that there is a hierarchy of angels.

When the LORD, or angel of the Lord, appears to Abraham in the plains of Mamre, he is accompanied by two other angels [Genesis 18:2,3]. Abraham calls one of the three, 'my Lord'.

yeah...I can see how relying on a translation would lead you to think that. There are a couple of explanations which you might not be aware of (not the least of which is that the actual Hebrew word can also be translated as the plural, My lords). He did not know that they were angels so he addressed one who appeared to be in the lead, but that doesn't reflect their true nature hierarchically. There is another explanation that he wasn't even talking to those three at the time. You can look that up if you like.

Later, the two subordinate angels travel on to Sodom [Genesis 18:22 and 19:1], whilst the Lord remains behind to talk with Abraham.

No, not really. It doesn't say that 2 left and one remained. It says that they left and Abe talked to God. Later, 2 arrive at Lot's house so you are working backwards from there and making assumptions not borne out by the text. Additionally, there is an idea that each angel had a job, so the one whose job it was to tell Abe and Sarah about the baby did not accompany them.

What this shows is that the Lord is able to appear before men as an angel, yet with the full authority of God.

What this shows is that God sends angels to perform missions and convey information from him to people.

Would God allow a subordinate angel to negotiate the terms of the 'righteous' in Sodom? It seems highly unlikely.

Vwese 22 says he was talking to God, not an angel. Also, see verse 33.

 

[dybmh]

But the 'way' of Jesus is about the person, not the manner of our service.

If you don't mind, I'd like to focus on this ^^. The conversation we're having is about "The Way" described in John 14:6. In this verse it says "no one gets to the Father if not by me". Can we agree that this verse indicates 1 way, not multiple ways? "by me" is the one way.

 

[Redemptionsong]

yeah...I can see how relying on a translation would lead you to think that. There are a couple of explanations which you might not be aware of (not the least of which is that the actual Hebrew word can also be translated as the plural, My lords). He did not know that they were angels so he addressed one who appeared to be in the lead, but that doesn't reflect their true nature hierarchically. There is another explanation that he wasn't even talking to those three at the time. You can look that up if you like.

No, not really. It doesn't say that 2 left and one remained. It says that they left and Abe talked to God. Later, 2 arrive at Lot's house so you are working backwards from there and making assumptions not borne out by the text. Additionally, there is an idea that each angel had a job, so the one whose job it was to tell Abe and Sarah about the baby did not accompany them.

What this shows is that God sends angels to perform missions and convey information from him to people.

Vwese 22 says he was talking to God, not an angel. Also, see verse 33.

Do these other explanations sound as plausible, given that the LORD, who appears as 'the angel of the LORD', remained behind to talk with Abraham?

Further evidence and support for the connection between 'the angel of the LORD' and God Himself is found in Genesis 22:11,12. At the mountain in Moriah, the 'angel of the LORD' tells Abraham not to harm lsaac, and adds, 'For now l know that you fear God, since you have not withheld your son, your favored one, from me'. [JPS]

Why would an angel, who is not God, say 'from me'?

 

[Redemptionsong]

If you don't mind, I'd like to focus on this ^^. The conversation we're having is about "The Way" described in John 14:6. In this verse it says "no one gets to the Father if not by me". Can we agree that this verse indicates 1 way, not multiple ways? "by me" is the one way.

Yes, most definitely. But you must connect 'the way' to 'the truth', and to 'the life'.

 

[rosends]

Do these other explanations sound as plausible, given that the LORD, who appears as 'the angel of the LORD', remained behind to talk with Abraham?

"given"? No, not given. It is your personal conclusion, unsupported by the text. So if you discard that "given" as "fanciful innovation" suddenly, other understandings are plausible.

Further evidence and support for the connection between 'the angel of the LORD' and God Himself is found in Genesis 22:11,12. At the mountain in Moriah, the 'angel of the LORD' tells Abraham not to harm lsaac, and adds, 'For now l know that you fear God, since you have not withheld your son, your favored one, from me'. [JPS]

You really should read the Sforno on that verse, and ask yourself why the verb is repeated. The answer will show that your conclusion isn't so straightforward.

Why would an angel, who is not God, say 'from me'?

yeah, you should read the Sforno, and understand the verb subjects. You also might want to consider verse 16 to understand exactly what is going on.

------edit-------
By the way, if you are just going to keep jumping from one verse to another, not addressing anything raised as an objection, then don't expect anyone to be at all moved by the points you invent.

 

[Redemptionsong]

"given"? No, not given. It is your personal conclusion, unsupported by the text. So if you discard that "given" as "fanciful innovation" suddenly, other understandings are plausible.

You really should read the Sforno on that verse, and ask yourself why the verb is repeated. The answer will show that your conclusion isn't so straightforward.

yeah, you should read the Sforno, and understand the verb subjects. You also might want to consider verse 16 to understand exactly what is going on.

------edit-------
By the way, if you are just going to keep jumping from one verse to another, not addressing anything raised as an objection, then don't expect anyone to be at all moved by the points you invent.

What you describe as 'jumping around' is my way of demonstrating that there is consistency of meaning between the various passages of scripture. Focussing on one passage, to the exclusion of others, is only going to increase the chances of it becoming 'private interpretation'.

If the Bible is God's word, then it should be possible to discern the objectivity, and consistency, of God's perspective. This is done by the consistent use of words, phrases and ideas, repeated throughout the scriptures.

 

[rosends]

What you describe as 'jumping around' is my way of demonstrating that there is consistency of meaning between the various passages of scripture. Focussing on one passage, to the exclusion of others, is only going to increase the chances of it becoming 'private interpretation'.

If the Bible is God's word, then it should be possible to discern the objectivity, and consistency, of God's perspective. This is done by the consistent use of words, phrases and ideas, repeated throughout the scriptures.

Except you keep making erroneous statements and using poor translations, inserting words and imputing ideas to create the consistency that you need to find.

 

[Redemptionsong]

Except you keep making erroneous statements and using poor translations, inserting words and imputing ideas to create the consistency that you need to find.

You have questioned the translation of the KJV, but l'm happy to use the JPS when quoting scripture. I don't, however, see that the JPS translation changes anything with regard to the appearances of the Lord in the guise of an angel.

Is it a widely held belief amongst 'Torah based Jews' that God will never manifest Himself amongst men on earth, either in the form of an angel, or in the form of a man?

 

[dybmh]

Yes, most definitely. But you must connect 'the way' to 'the truth', and to 'the life'.

OK. Good. So we agree that John 14:6 indicates a single way.

Can we agree that Hosea 14:9 describe multiple ways? Can you perhaps look at it from my perspective. Regardless of my opinion of Chistianity, as someone who is familiar with this verse; can you understand why John 14:6 seems out of place if Hosea's words are considered binding? Can you understand why this would be a concern?

 

[rosends]

You have questioned the translation of the KJV, but l'm happy to use the JPS when quoting scripture. I don't, however, see that the JPS translation changes anything with regard to the appearances of the Lord in the guise of an angel.

Either your or your chosen translation has inserted ideas (a prince where it doesn't exist, anointing, IIRC, where it isn't and the idea that a certain number of people left when the text doesn't say that). The claim that God appears in teh guise of an angel is not borne out by the text.

Is it a widely held belief amongst 'Torah based Jews' that God will never manifest Himself amongst men on earth, either in the form of an angel, or in the form of a man?

God "manifests" himself by being God. There are ways of reading text that one can see that God shows his presence in unexpected ways which could be labeled as "in the form of" but that seems an unnecessary leap.

 

[Redemptionsong]

OK. Good. So we agree that John 14:6 indicates a single way.

Can we agree that Hosea 14:9 describe multiple ways? Can you perhaps look at it from my perspective. Regardless of my opinion of Chistianity, as someone who is familiar with this verse; can you understand why John 14:6 seems out of place if Hosea's words are considered binding? Can you understand why this would be a concern?

Yes, l agree that Hosea 14:9 talks about multiple ways.

Now, if l might explain how this makes no difference to Jesus being the only 'way'.

In Hosea 14:9 we are told that 'the just shall walk in them [the 'ways']'. The just do not walk in a single 'way' but in some, many, or even all of the 'ways'. So, what are these 'ways'? In verse 8 it says, 'From me is thy fruit found'. So, let me show how these ways are linked to the 'fruit of the Spirit'.

From the NT l know that the 'just shall live by faith' and that the promise made to the faithful is baptism in the Spirit. This Spirit has 'fruits', which are listed as, love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith, meekness and temperance. If a man of faith walks in these 'ways' he fulfils the law, for the scripture [Galatians 5:22,23] says, 'against such there is no law'.

Since the baptism in the Spirit is the baptism of Jesus Christ, it follows that all the fruits are found in the one Spirit of Christ. Hence, Jesus Christ, as the one through whom the Spirit comes, must, therefore, be the 'way' of God's Spirit and truth.

The 'ways', or fruits of the Spirit, are not different to the 'way' of Christ. They are the many truths that make up the one 'truth' of Christ.

 

[Redemptionsong]

Either your or your chosen translation has inserted ideas (a prince where it doesn't exist, anointing, IIRC, where it isn't and the idea that a certain number of people left when the text doesn't say that). The claim that God appears in teh guise of an angel is not borne out by the text.

God "manifests" himself by being God. There are ways of reading text that one can see that God shows his presence in unexpected ways which could be labeled as "in the form of" but that seems an unnecessary leap.

So, maybe you could give some examples of how God manifests His presence on earth. And also explain how people are to know that this 'presence' is truly the presence of God.

 

[rosends]

So, maybe you could give some examples of how God manifests His presence on earth. And also explain how people are to know that this 'presence' is truly the presence of God.

Here is a starting point

Modim Anachnu Lach - Jewish Prayers | Learn Hebrew Pod

 

[dybmh]

Yes, l agree that Hosea 14:9 talks about multiple ways.

Now, if l might explain how this makes no difference to Jesus being the only 'way'.

In Hosea 14:9 we are told that 'the just shall walk in them [the 'ways']'. The just do not walk in a single 'way' but in some, many, or even all of the 'ways'. So, what are these 'ways'? In verse 8 it says, 'From me is thy fruit found'. So, let me show how these ways are linked to the 'fruit of the Spirit'.

From the NT l know that the 'just shall live by faith' and that the promise made to the faithful is baptism in the Spirit. This Spirit has 'fruits', which are listed as, love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith, meekness and temperance. If a man of faith walks in these 'ways' he fulfils the law, for the scripture [Galatians 5:22,23] says, 'against such there is no law'.

Since the baptism in the Spirit is the baptism of Jesus Christ, it follows that all the fruits are found in the one Spirit of Christ. Hence, Jesus Christ, as the one through whom the Spirit comes, must, therefore, be the 'way' of God's Spirit and truth.

The 'ways', or fruits of the Spirit, are not different to the 'way' of Christ. They are the many truths that make up the one 'truth' of Christ.

This makes good sense as support for Jesus as a way *singular*; but it doesn't rule out other ways?