Monday 31 January 2022

Refuting the Muslim Assault On Matthew 2:23

The following is my response to a vile Muhammadan troll that sought to refute Christian apologist and blogger Ken Temple’s defense (https://bloggingtheology2.com/2018/12/04/paul-and-the-depths-of-jewish-hermeneutics/#comment-237) of the following statement from Matthew:

“And he went and lived in a city called Nazareth, that what was spoken by the prophets might be fulfilled, ‘He shall be called a Nazarene.’” Matthew 2:23

The claim is made that Matthew was in error since there isn’t a single OT text which prophesies that the Messiah would be a Nazarene.

Ken sought to demonstrate that Matthew wasn’t quoting a specific prophecy, but was referring to a theme found throughout the Hebrew Bible, hence the plural “spoken by the PROPHETS,” not prophet (singular). He noted that one of the verses that Matthew may have had in mind was Isaiah 11:1, where the prophet spoke of the Branch of Jesse, David’s father, arising to rule the nations in justice. Ken noted that the Hebrew term is Netzer, and Matthew may have intended Nazarene to be a play on or allusion to that word.

Not surprisingly, the Muhammadan took umbrage to Ken’s response. I, therefore, decided to chime in and give this vile blogger a taste of his own medicine. I have slightly edited my comments to make for smoother reading.

Let me further help you refute the Muslim commenter who pretended to be responding to your points by simply stating the obvious, i.e., we do not know for certain what Matthew was referring to since the wording “what was SPOKEN by the PROPHETS,” indicates he didn’t have a single prophecy in mind, but what the prophets taught as a whole. I will do so by obliterating the following claim:

Zacharias also admits that if “Matthew” had Isaiah 11:1 in mind, then he was simply “making a play” on the word “netser”.[14] Based on this, he also admits that:

“[in] this regard, Isa 11:1 as the origin suffers from the same pitfall as all of the other options – there is no one-to-one correspondence.”[15]

So, this brings us back to the main point which I raised in my previous response to Ruhl. There is simply no such “prophecy” about the Messiah being called “Nazarene” anywhere in the Tanakh. Appealing to the author’s “wordplay” only shows that he was appealing to the “theme” (as Ruhl also admitted), but there is no evidence that Isaiah had the same theme in mind! Ruhl will be hard-pressed to prove that Isaiah was speaking about the town of Nazareth when prophesying about the “branch” from the line of Jesse!

Let’s have fun at this Muslim’s expense shall we?

He claims that Isaiah did not have the same “theme” in mind, which I take to mean that the prophet didn’t view the Messiah’s being rejected and looked down upon by others due to what appeared to be his unassuming and humble circumstances, which is the point you were making about Jesus being a Nazarene, namely, that the people could not accept Jesus as the long awaited Messiah because of his background and upbringing. Let’s see if this is the case.

In the first place, we are told that the Branch of Isaiah is from the line of Jesse, a clear Messianic prophecy since this connects him with the promises given to David:

“And there shall come forth a shoot from the stump of Jesse, and a Branch shall grow out of his roots. THE SPIRIT OF THE LORD SHALL REST UPON HIM, the Spirit of wisdom and understanding, the Spirit of counsel and might, the Spirit of knowledge and of the fear of the LORD.He shall delight in the fear of the LORD, and he shall not judge by what his eyes see, nor reprove by what his ears hear; BUT WITH RIGHTEOUSNESS HE SHALL JUDGE the poor, and REPROVE WITH FAIRNESS for the meek of the earth. He shall strike the earth with the rod of his mouth, and with the breath of his lips he shall slay the wicked. Righteousness shall be the belt of his loins, and faithfulness the belt about his waist. The wolf also shall dwell with the lamb, and the leopard shall lie down with the young goat, and the calf and the young lion and the fatling together; and a little child shall lead them. The cow and the bear shall graze; their young ones shall lie down together; and the lion shall eat straw like the ox. The nursing child shall play by the hole of the asp, and the weaned child shall put his hand in the viper’s den. They shall not hurt or destroy in all My holy mountain, for the earth shall be full of the knowledge of the LORD, as the waters cover the sea. In that day there shall be a ROOT (sheresh) of Jesse, who shall stand as a banner to the peoples. For him shall the nations seek. And his rest shall be glorious. In that day the Lord shall set His hand again the second time to recover the remnant of His people, who shall be left, from Assyria, from Egypt, from Pathros, from Cush, from Elam, from Shinar, from Hamath, and from the islands of the sea.” Isaiah 11:1-10

Therefore, in order to properly understand the promises of Isaiah 11 we need to connect it with all that Isaiah says about the Davidic heir:

“Nevertheless there shall be no more gloom for her who was in anguish. In the former time He contemptuously treated the land of Zebulun and the land of Naphtali, but in the latter time He shall make it glorious, by the way of the sea, beyond the Jordan, in Galilee of the nations. The people who walked in darkness have seen A GREAT LIGHT; those who dwell in the land of the shadow of death, upon them THE LIGHT HAS SHINED… 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 Counselor, Mighty God, Eternal Father, Prince of Peace. Of the increase of his government and peace there shall be no end, UPON THE THRONE OF DAVID AND OVER HIS KINGDOM, to order it and to establish it with justice and with righteousness, from now until forever. The zeal of the LORD of Hosts will perform this.” Isaiah 9:1-2, 6-7

“In mercy THE THRONE shall be established; and one who judges and seeks justice and is diligent in righteousness shall sit on it in truth IN THE TABERNACLE OF DAVID, judging.” Isaiah 16:5

“Ho! Everyone who thirsts, come to the waters; and you who have no money, come, buy and eat. Come, buy wine and milk without money and without price. Why do you spend money for that which is not bread, and your labor for that which does not satisfy? Listen diligently to Me, and eat what is good, and let your soul delight itself in abundance. Incline your ear, and come to Me. Listen, so that your soul may live, and I will make an EVERLASTING COVENANT with you, EVEN THE SURE MERCIES OF DAVID. See, I have given HIM AS A WITNESS TO THE PEOPLE, A LEADER AND COMMANDER TO THE PEOPLE. Surely you shall call a nation that you do not know, and nations that did not know you SHALL RUN TO YOU because of the LORD your God, even the Holy One of Israel; for He has GLORIFIED YOU. Seek the LORD while He may be found, call you upon Him while He is near. Let the wicked forsake his way, and the unrighteous man his thoughts; and let him return to the LORD, and He will have mercy upon him, and to our God, for He will abundantly pardon.” Isaiah 55:1-7

So far what we see is that the Root of Jesse is the child who is born and the son given to reign over David’s throne forever as the Mighty God, being the great light that shines forth from Galilee, the One whom the nations are to enter into a covenant with in order to experience salvation.

Secondly, Isaiah identifies the Davidic heir as the Root (sheresh), a word which connects this same King with the Arm/Servant of the Lord of Isaiah 53. We’ll start with 52:13 for context:

“See, MY SERVANT shall deal prudently; he shall be exalted and extolled, and be very high. Just as many were astonished at you, HIS VUSAGE WAS SO MARRED, MORE THAN ANY MAN, AND HIS FORM MORE THAN THE SONS OF MEN; so he shall sprinkle many nations. Kings shall shut their mouths at him; for that which had not been told them they shall see, and that which they had not heard they shall consider. Who has believed our report? And to whom has the arm of the LORD been revealed? For he grew up before Him as a tender plant and as A ROOT (sheresh) out of a dry ground. HE HAS NO FORM OR MAJESTY THAT WE SHOULD LOOK UPON HIM NOR APPEARANCE THAT WE SHOULD DESIRE HIM. HE WAS DESPISED AND REJECTED OF MEN, A MAN OF SORROWS AND ACQUAINTED WITH GRIEF. AND AS WE HID, AS IT WERE, OUR FSACES FROM HIM; HE WAS DESPISED, AND WE DID NOT ESTEEM HIM. Surely he has borne our grief and carried our sorrows; Yet we esteemed him stricken, smitten of God, and afflicted. But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities; the chastisement of our peace was upon him, and by his stripes we are healed. All of us like sheep have gone astray; each of us has turned to his own way, but the LORD has laid on him the iniquity of us all. He was oppressed, and he was afflicted, yet he opened not his mouth; he was brought as a lamb to the slaughter, and as a sheep before its shearers is silent, so he opened not his mouth. By oppression and judgment he was taken away, and who shall declare his generation? For he was cut off out of the land of the living; for the transgression of my people he was struck. His grave was assigned with the wicked, yet with the rich in his death, because he had done no violence, nor was any deceit in his mouth. Yet it pleased the LORD to bruise him; He has put him to grief. If he made himself as an offering for sin, he shall see his offspring, he shall prolong his days, and the good pleasure of the LORD shall prosper in his hand. He shall see of the anguish of his soul and be satisfied. By his knowledge MY RIGHTEOUS SERVANT shall justify the many, for he shall bear their iniquities. Therefore, I will divide him a portion with the great, and he shall divide the spoil with the strong, because he poured out his soul to death, and he was numbered with the transgressors, thus he bore the sin of many and made intercession for the transgressors.” Isaiah 52:13-53:12

Did you catch it? The Branch of Isaiah 11, the Root of Jesse, is the same Arm/Root whom Isaiah says had no beauty that attracted him to the people, but was one who was despised and acquainted with sorrows, deemed to be God-stricken and forsaken by those that saw him. Sure sounds like Isaiah had the same theme that Matthew had in view!

There are further ties between the Davidic heir and Isaiah’s Servant. Recall that Isaiah said that the child born to rule over David’s throne was to be the great light that shines upon those living in darkness in 9:1-2, and the One through whom God establishes his everlasting covenant in 55:1-7. Compare that with the following texts:

“Here is MY SERVANT, whom I uphold, My chosen one, in whom My soul delights. I have put MY SPIRIT UPON HIM; he shall bring forth justice to the nations. He shall not cry out, nor lift up his voice, nor cause his voice to be heard in the street. A bruised reed he shall not break, and the smoking flax he shall not quench; HE SHALL BRING FORTH JUSTICE FAITHFULLY. He shall not be disheartened nor be discouraged, UNTIL HE HAS SET JUSTICE IN THE EARTH; and the coastlands shall wait for his law. Thus says God the LORD, who created the heavens and stretched them out, who spread forth the earth and that which comes out of it, who gives breath to the people on it, and spirit to those who walk in it: I the LORD have called You in righteousness, and will hold Your hand, and will keep You and appoint You FOR A COVENANT OF THE PEOPLE, FOR A LIGHT OF THE NATIONS, to open the blind eyes, to bring out the prisoners from the prison, AND THOSE WHO SIT IN DARKNESS out of the prison house.” Isaiah 42:1-7

“Listen to me, O coastlands, and pay attention, you peoples from afar. The LORD called me from the womb; from the body of my mother He named me. He has made my mouth like a sharp sword; in the shadow of His hand He has hidden me and made me a select arrow; in His quiver He has hidden me. He said to me, ‘You are MY SERVANT, Israel, in whom I will be glorified.’ Then I said, ‘I have labored in vain; I have spent my strength for nothing and vanity, yet surely the justice due to me is with the LORD, and my reward with my God.’ Now says the LORD, who formed me from the womb to be HIS SERVANT, to bring Jacob back to Him, so that Israel might be gathered to Him (yet I am honored in the eyes of the LORD, and my God is my strength), He says, ‘It is a light thing that you should be MY SERVANT to raise up the tribes of Jacob and to restore the preserved ones of Israel; I will also make you A LIGHT TO THE NATIONS SO THAT MY SALVATION MAY REACH TO THE ENDS OF THE EARTH.’ Thus says the LORD, the Redeemer of Israel, and his Holy One, TO THE DESPISED ONE, TO THE ONE WHOM THE NATIONS ABHORS, to the servant of rulers: ‘Kings shall see and arise, princes also shall worship, because of the LORD who is faithful and the Holy One of Israel who has chosen you.’ Thus says the LORD: In an acceptable time I have heard you, and in a day of salvation I have helped you; and I will preserve you, and give you as A COVENANT OF THE PEOPLE, TO RESTORE THE EARTH, to make them inherit the desolate heritages, saying to the prisoners, ‘Go forth,’ to those WHO ARE IN DARKNESS, ‘Show yourselves.’ They shall feed along the paths, and their pastures shall be in all desolate heights; they shall not hunger nor thirst, neither shall the heat nor sun strike them; for He who has mercy on them shall lead them, even by the springs of water He shall guide them.” Isaiah 49:1-10

Note the theme of the Servant being despised and abhorred again.

Now compare this with the following:

“The people who walked IN DARKNESS have seen A GREAT LIGHT; those who dwell in the land of the shadow of death, upon them THE LIGHT HAS SHINED.” Isaiah 9:2

“… In that day there shall be a ROOT (sheresh) of Jesse, who shall stand as a banner to THE PEOPLES. FOR HIM SHALL THE NATIONS SEEK. And his rest shall be glorious. ” Isaiah 11:10

So the Branch of Jesse who is endowed with God’s Spirit, just like the Servant in 42:1, and the child born is the light that draws in the Gentiles to a saving knowledge of God, thereby connecting him with the Servant of Isaiah.

We, therefore, have Isaiah identifying the Branch as the Servant of Jehovah who is the child born to rule on David’s throne as the Mighty God, that is first despised and rejected by men, beaten beyond human semblance, and killed for the sins of mankind, and then raised and exalted by God to reign forever.

If you ask me this sure sounds exactly like what Matthew had in mind, and yet none of this agrees with Muhammad. In fact, Matthew even quotes Isaiah 53:4 and 42:1-4 in the following verses:

“When the evening came, they brought to Him many who were possessed with demons. And He cast out the spirits with His word, and healed all who were sick, to fulfill what was spoken by Isaiah the prophet, ‘He Himself took our infirmities and bore our sicknesses.’” Matthew 8:16-17

“But when Jesus knew it, He withdrew from there. And great crowds followed Him, and He healed them all, and warned them that they should not make Him known, to fulfill what was spoken by Isaiah the prophet, saying: ‘Here is My Servant, whom I have chosen, My Beloved, in whom My soul is well pleased; I will put My Spirit upon Him, and He will render judgment to the Gentiles. He shall not struggle nor cry out, nor will anyone hear His voice in the streets. A bruised reed He will not break, and a smoldering wick He will not quench, until He renders judgment unto victory; and in His name will the Gentiles trust.’” Matthew 12:15-21

Therefore, the testimony of Isaiah and Matthew condemns Muhammad as a false prophet and antichrist.

So what do you think?

TURNING THE TABLES

As you said , your post obviously fell on deaf ears since nothing in the alleged “response” to you even came close to refuting your point. This is the problem with debates on comments sections. It allows the charlatan to get away with fluff.

However, let’s help keep these Muslims honest and consistent, shall we? We will do so by insisting that they employ equal weights and measures in their criticisms.

According to the Quran, there is a prophesy about an unlettered prophet, i.e. one ignorant and unlearned about the previous Scriptures, that is referred to in the Torah and the Gospel which was in the possession of the Jews and Christians at the time of Muhammad:

those who follow the Messenger, ‘the Prophet of the common folk, whom they find written down WITH THEM IN THE TORAH AND THE GOSPEL, bidding them to honour, and forbidding them dishonour, making lawful for them the good things and making unlawful for them the corrupt things, and relieving them of their loads, and the fetters that were upon them. Those who believe in him and succour him and help him, and follow the light that has been sent down with him — they are the prosperers.’ S. 7:157

Since on historical, textual and archaeological grounds we know for a fact that the Scriptures that the Jews and Christians had were basically identical to what we possess today, this means that it is not hard to find such a prophesy in our modern day Bibles. However, since these Muslims keep insisting that the Torah is not identical to the OT, or even with the Pentateuch, and the Gospel is not identical to the fourfold Gospels of the NT, this means that they cannot appeal to these sources to show us where such a prophesy is to be found.

Therefore, please have them answer the following questions for us.

1. Show us a single verse in the Quran which says the Torah was given to Moses.
2. Show us what the Torah and the Gospel were at the time of Muhammad, which the Jews and Christians had with them, as the verse claims, and do so by pointing to the historical, textual and/or archaeological data to prove your point.
3. If you concede that the Torah and the Gospel refer to the Pentateuch and the fourfold Gospels, or at least to material found therein, then please quote the verses from the Pentateuch and the fourfold Gospels that do not simply mention a prophet like Moses or the Comforter whom Jesus was going to send. Rather you must show verses from both the Pentateuch and the fourfold Gospels which explicitly mention an illiterate, unlettered prophet/apostle that would be sent after Moses and Jesus.
4. If you claim that these prophecies were removed then please point to the pre-Islamic biblical manuscripts where such a prophesy appears in the Pentateuch and fourfold Gospels. After all, no Jew or Christian would have thought to remove such passages prior to the coming of Muhammad since they would have no reason to do so, especially when they didn’t even know that Muhammad would arise to challenge them and contradict their Scriptures.

Now watch the tap dance that is about to take place.

Source: https://answeringislamblog.wordpress.com/2018/12/08/refuting-the-muslim-assault-on-matthew-223/

IHS

Al-Qurtubi’s Explanation of Mary’s Conception

Exposing More of Islam’s Vulgarity and Indecency

In this post, I am going to highlight some more of the indecent, tasteless and vulgar language employed within the Quran, ahadith and/or Islamic sources. In particular, I am going to focus on how one of Islam’s greatest scholars and expositors interpreted the following passage, which mentions the virginal conception of the Lord Jesus:

“She said: My Lord! when shall there be a son (born) to I me, and man has not touched me? He said: Even so, Allah creates what He pleases; when He has decreed a matter, He only says to it, Be, and it is.” S. 3:47 Shakir

Here is al-Qurtubi’s exegesis:

{He said: Even so, Allah creates what He pleases; when He has decreed a matter}

It was told that after Gabriel said to Mary: “Allah creates what he pleases” – he blew (breathed) into her garment and its sleeve; Ibn Jareeh said – Ibn Abbas said: Gabriel took the edge of her garment by his finger and breathed into it and she became pregnant almost that moment with Jesus.

Others said: Gabriel breathed into her womb (uterus) and she became pregnant as a result of that. Others said: this can’t happen because in this case this pregnancy would have been caused by an angel and the child will be half human and half angel. However, the reason she became pregnant is because when Allah created Adam, he (Allah) stored the male sperm water in the back of men, and the female sperm water was stored into the female wombs. And when both sperm waters unite then a child is created in the womb and pregnancy will take effect. However, in the case of Mary, Allah stored both the male and female sperms in her; some in her womb and some in her back. Then Gabriel blew (breathed) into it to excite her sexually because a woman needs sexual excitement in order to become pregnant. When Mary became excited sexually because of Gabriel’s act of breathing into her, then both sperm waters were mixed into her womb and she became pregnant. (Source http://quran.al-islam.com/Page.aspx?pageid=221&BookID=14&Page=56)

Was there really a need to speak of the blessed mother of our Lord being sexually aroused due to the breathing of the angel, in order to cause her to become pregnant? Or is this simply a further illustration of how perverted these Muslim scholars truly were/are, having their minds and consciences poisoned by the moral filth and sexual perversion found in the Quran and sunnah of the false prophet Muhammad?

Further Reading

The Birth Narratives of Jesus in the Quran https://answeringislam.net/Shamoun/virginalconception.htm

Source: https://answeringislamblog.wordpress.com/2018/12/02/al-qurtubis-explanation-of-marys-conception/

IHS

Origen – Dialog with Heracleides

The following is an excerpt from Origen’s dialogue with a bishop, which further confirms that he was a Trinitarian who believed in the consubstantiality of the Father and the Son. Origen also affirmed the physical, bodily resurrection of our Savior, condemning as heresy the denial that our Lord’s resurrection was physical, bodily in nature.  All bold emphasis is mine.

Dialogue of Origen with Heraclides and the Bishops with him concerning the Father and the Son and the Soul (https://sites.google.com/site/demontortoise2000/Home/origen_dialog_with_heracleides).

Dialogue of Origen with Heraclides and the Bishops with him concerning the Father and the Son and the Soul.

After the bishops present had raised questions concerning the faith of the bishop Heraclides, that he might confess before all the faith which he held, and after each one had said what he thought and asked questions, Heraclides said:

I also believe what the sacred Scriptures say: “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things were made by him, and without him nothing was made.” Accordingly, we hold the same faith that is taught in these words, and we believe that Christ took flesh, that he was born, that he went up to heaven in the flesh in which he rose again, that he is sitting at the right hand of the Father, and that thence he shall come and judge the living and the dead, being God and man.

Origen said: Since once an inquiry has begun it is proper to say something upon the subject of the inquiry, I will speak. The whole church is present and listening. It is not right that there should be any difference in knowledge between one church and another, for you are not the false church. I charge you, father Heraclides: God is the almighty, the uncreated, the supreme God who made all things. Do you hold this doctrine?

Heracl.: I do. That is what I also believe.

Orig.: Christ Jesus who was in the form of God, being other than the God in whose form he existed, was he God before he came into the body or not?

Heracl.: He was God before.

Orig.: Was he God before he came into the body or not?

Heracl.: Yes, he was.

Orig.: Was he God distinct from this God in whose form he existed?

Heracl.: Obviously he was distinct from another being and, since he was in the form of him who created all things, he was distinct from him.

Orig.: Is it true then that there was a God, the Son of God, the only begotten of God, the firstborn of all creation, and that we need have no fear of saying that in one sense there are two Gods, while in another there is one God?

Heracl.: What you say is evident. But we affirm that God is the almighty, God without beginning, without end, containing all things and not contained by anything; and that his Word is the Son of the living God, God and man, through whom all things were made, God according to the spirit, man inasmuch as he was born of Mary.

Orig.: You do not appear to have answered my question. Explain what you mean. For perhaps I failed to follow you. Is the Father God?

Heracl.: Assuredly.

Orig.: Is the Son distinct from the Father?

Heracl.: Of course. How can he be Son if he is also Father?

Orig.: While being distinct from the Father is the Son himself also God?

Heracl.: He himself is also God.

Orig.: And do two Gods become a unity?

Heracl.: Yes.

Orig.: Do we confess two Gods?

Heracl.: Yes. The power is one.

Orig.: But as our brethren take offence at the statement that there are two Gods, we must formulate the doctrine carefully, and show in what sense they are two and in what sense the two are one God. Also the holy Scriptures have taught that several things which are two are one. And not only things which are two, for they have also taught that in some instances more than two, or even a very much larger number of things, are one. Our present task is not to broach a problematic subject only to pass it by and deal cursorily with the matter, but for the sake of the simple folk to chew up, so to speak, the meat, and little by little to instill the doctrine in the ears of our hearers. . . . Accordingly, there are many things which are two that are said in the Scriptures to be one. What passages of Scripture? Adam is one person, his wife another. Adam is distinct from his wife, and his wife is distinct from her husband. Yet it is said in the story of the creation of the world that they two are one: “For the two shall be one flesh.” Therefore, sometimes two beings can become one flesh. Notice, however, that in the case of Adam and Eve it is not said that the two shall become one spirit, nor that the two shall become one soul, but that they shall become one flesh. Again, the righteous man is distinct from Christ; but he is said by the apostle to be one with Christ: “For he that is joined to the Lord is one spirit.” Is it not true that the one is of a subordinate nature or of a low and inferior nature, while Christ’s nature is divine and glorious and blessed? Are they therefore no longer two? Yes, for the man and the woman are “no longer two but one flesh,” and the righteous man and Christ are “one spirit.” So in relation to the Father and God of the universe, our Saviour and Lord is not one flesh, nor one spirit, but something higher than flesh and spirit, namely, one God. The appropriate word when human beings are joined to one another is flesh. The appropriate word when a righteous man is joined to Christ is spirit. But the word when Christ is united to the Father is not flesh, nor spirit, but more honourable than these —God. That is why we understand in this sense “I and the Father are one.” When we pray, because of the one party let us preserve the duality, because of the other party let us hold to the unity. In this way we avoid falling into the opinion of those who have been separated from the Church and turned to the illusory notion of monarchy, who abolish the Son as distinct from the Father and virtually abolish the Father also. Nor do we fall into the other blasphemous doctrine which denies the deity of Christ. What then do the divine Scriptures mean when they say: “Beside me there is no other God, and there shall be none after me,” and “I am and there is no God but me”? In these utterances we are not to think that the unity applies to the God of the universe . . . in separation from Christ, and certainly not to Christ in separation from God. Let us rather say that the sense is the same as that of Jesus’ saying, “I and my Father are one.”…

Offering is universally made to Almighty God through Jesus Christ inasmuch as, in respect of his deity, he is akin to the Father. Let there be no double offering, but an offering to God through God. I shall seem to be speaking in a daring manner. When we pray let us abide by the agreements. If the word: “Thou shalt not respect the person of man, nor allow thyself to be impressed by the person of the mighty” is not realized.  If this is not realized . . . these agreements, it will give rise to fresh disputes. . . . If a man is a bishop or a presbyter, he is not a bishop, he is not a presbyter. If he is a deacon, he is not a deacon, nor even a layman. If he is a layman, he is not a layman, nor is there a meeting of the congregation. If you assent, let these agreed usages prevail.

Some people raise the objection that, with reference to the problem of deity, while I have thus attributed deity to Jesus Christ substantially, I have professed before the church my faith that at the resurrection the body which rose had been a corpse. But since our Saviour and Lord took a body, let us examine what the body was. The church alone in distinction from all the heresies that deny the resurrection confesses the resurrection of the dead body. For from the fact that the firstfruits were raised from the dead, it follows that the dead are raised. “Christ the firstfruits”; on that account his body became a corpse. For if his body had not become a corpse, capable of being wrapped in a grave-cloth, of receiving the ointment and all the other things applied to dead bodies, and of being laid in a tomb—these are things that cannot be done to a spiritual body. For it is entirely impossible for that which is spiritual to become a corpse, neither can that which is spiritual become insensible. For if it were possible for that which is spiritual to become a corpse, we would have reason to fear lest after the resurrection of the dead, when our body is raised, according to the apostle’s saying, “It is sown animate, it is raised spiritual,” we shall all die. . . . In fact “Christ being raised from the dead dies no more.” And not only Christ, but those who are Christ’s, when they are raised from the dead, die no more. If you agree to these statements, they also with the solemn testimony of the people shall be made legally binding and established.

What else is there to be said concerning the faith? Do you agree to this, Maximus? Say.

Maximus: May everyone hold the same doctrines as I do. Before God and the Church I both give my signature and make my oath. But the reason why I raised a certain question was in order that I might be in no doubt or uncertainty at all. For the brethren know that this is what I said: “I need the help of my brother and instruction on this point.” If the spirit was truly given back to the Father, in accordance with the saying, “Father, into thy hands I commend my spirit,” and if without the spirit the flesh died and lay in the tomb, how was the tomb opened and how are the dead to rise again?

Orig.: That man is a composite being we have learnt from the sacred Scriptures. For the apostle says, “May God sanctify your spirit and your soul and your body,” and “May he sanctify you wholly, and may your entire spirit and soul and body be preserved unblameable at the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ.” This spirit is not the Holy Spirit, but part of the constitution of man, as the same apostle teaches when he says: “The spirit bears witness with our spirit.” For if it were the Holy Spirit he would not have said: “The spirit bears witness with our spirit.” So then our Saviour and Lord, wishing to save man in the way in which he wished to save him, for this reason desired in this way to save the body, just as it was likewise his will to save also the soul; he also wished to save the remaining part of man, the spirit. The whole man would not have been saved unless he had taken upon him the whole man. They do away with the salvation of the human body when they say that the body of the Saviour is spiritual. They do away with the salvation of the human spirit, concerning which the apostle says: “No man knows the things of man except the spirit of man that is in him.” . . . Because it was his will to save the spirit of man, about which the apostle said this, he also assumed the spirit of man. At the time of the passion these three were separated. At the time of the resurrection these three were united. At the time of the passion they were separated—how? The body in the tomb, the soul in Hades, the spirit was put in the hands of the Father. The soul in Hades: “Thou shalt not leave my soul in Hades.” If the spirit was put into the hands of the Father, he gave the spirit as a deposit. It is one thing to make a gift, another thing to hand over, and another to leave in deposit. He who makes a deposit does so with the intention of receiving back that which he has deposited. Why then had he to give the spirit to the Father as a deposit? The question is beyond me and my powers and my understanding. For I am not endowed with knowledge to enable me to say that, just as the body was not able to go down to Hades, even if this is alleged by those who affirm that the body of Jesus was spiritual, so also neither could the spirit go down to Hades, and therefore he gave the spirit to the Father as a deposit until he should have risen from the dead. . . . After he had entrusted this deposit to the Father, he took it back again. When? Not at the actual moment of the resurrection, but immediately after the resurrection. My witness is the text of the gospel. The Lord Jesus Christ rose again from the dead. Mary met him and he said to her: “Touch me not.” For he wished anyone that touched him to touch him in his entirety, that having touched him in his entirety he might be benefited in body from his body, in soul from his soul, in spirit from his spirit. “For I am not yet ascended to the Father.” He ascends to the Father and comes to the disciples. Accordingly he ascends to the Father. Why? To receive back the deposit…

Before the resurrection the righteous man is with Christ and in his soul he lives with Christ. That is why it is better to depart and to be with Christ. But according to you who say that the soul remains in the tomb with the body, it has not left the body, it does not rest, it does not dwell in the paradise of God, it does not repose in the bosom of Abraham. According to you who maintain such absurd doctrines it would not be better to depart and to be with Christ. For one is not with Christ as soon as one departs if the soul is the blood. If the soul remains in the tombs, how can it be with Christ? But according to my view and that of the word of God, the soul which has departed from the troubles, the sweat, and the body, that which can say, “Lord now lettest thou thy servant depart in peace,”  is that which departs in peace and rests with Christ. It is thus that the soul of Abraham understood the words: “As for thee, thou shalt go in peace to thy fathers, having lived to a good old age.” He departed to his fathers. What fathers? Those of whom Paul says: “For this cause I bow my knees to the Father of whom all fatherhood is derived.”  In our view it was in this sense that Aaron was set free.  Also it is written in Ecclesiastes concerning the just man who has fought a good fight, who is departing from the fetter of the body, that “From the house of the prisoners he will go forth to be a king.” Thus I am persuaded to die for the truth, thus I readily despise what is called death. Bring wild beasts, bring crosses, bring fire, bring tortures. I know that as soon as I die, I come forth from the body, I rest with Christ.

Therefore let us struggle, therefore let us wrestle, let us groan being in the body, not as if we shall again be in the tombs in the body, because we shall be set free from it, and shall change our body to one which is more spiritual. Destined as we are to be with Christ, how we groan while we are in the body!

Bishop Philip came in, and Demetrius, another bishop, said: Brother Origen teaches that the soul is immortal.

Orig.: The remark of father Demetrius has given us the starting point for another problem. He asserted that we have said the soul is immortal. To this remark I will say that the soul is immortal and the soul is not immortal. Let us first define the meaning of the word “death,” and determine all its possible senses. I will try to show all its meanings not by appealing to the Greeks, but all its meanings as found in the divine Scripture. Perhaps one more learned than I will point out other senses also. But for the present I am aware of three kinds of death. What are these three kinds of death? According to the apostle, a man may live unto God and die unto sin. This death is a blessed thing. A man dies to sin. This death my Lord died. “For in that he died, he died unto sin.” I know also another sort of death, according to which a man dies to God; concerning this it was said: “The soul that sins, it shall die.” And I know of a third kind of death, according to which we commonly suppose that those who are separated from the body die. For “Adam lived nine hundred and thirty years and died.” There being, then, three kinds of death, let us see whether the human soul is immortal in respect of the three kinds of death, or if not in respect of the three, yet in respect of some of them. The death that is a matter of moral indifference all men die. It is that which we consider dissolution. No soul of man dies this death. For if it did so, it would not be punished after death. It is said: “Men shall seek for death and shall not find it.” In this sense every human soul is immortal. But in the other meanings, the soul in one sense is mortal, and blessed if it dies to sin.

It is of this death that Balaam spoke when he prophesied, praying by divine inspiration: “May my soul die among the souls of the just.” Concerning this death Balaam made his astonishing prophecy, and by the word of God he made for himself a splendid prayer. For he prayed that he might die to sin that he might live unto God. And this account he said: “May my soul die among the souls of the just and my posterity be like their posterity. There is another death in respect of which we are not immortal, although we have the power by exercising vigilance to avoid death. And perhaps that which is mortal in the soul is not for ever mortal. For in so far as it gives way to sin, so that the word is realized which says, “the soul that sins, it shall die,” the soul is mortal and dies a real death. But if it is found firmly established in blessedness so that it is inaccessible to death, because it has eternal life, it is no longer mortal but in this sense has even become immortal. How is it that the apostle says of God: “He who alone has immortality”? On investigation I find that Christ Jesus “died for all apart from God.” There you have the explanation how God alone has immortality.

Let us therefore take up eternal life. Let us take up that which depends upon our decision. God does not give it to us. He sets it before us. “Behold, I have set life before thy face.” It is in our power to stretch out our hand, to do good works, and to lay hold on life and deposit it in our soul. This life is the Christ who said: “I am the life.” This life is that which now is present in shadow, but then will be face to face. “For the spirit before our face is Christ of whom we may say, In his shadow we shall live among the nations.” If the mere shadow of life that is yours offers you so many good things, that shadow which Moses had when he prophesied, that shadow which Isaiah possessed when he saw the Lord Sabaoth sitting upon a throne high and lifted up, which Jeremiah had when he heard the words: “Before I formed thee in the womb, I knew thee, and before thou didst come forth from the womb I sanctified thee,” which Ezekiel had when he saw the Cherubim, when he saw the wheels, the  ineffable mysteries: what sort of life shall we live when we are no longer living under the shadow of life but are in life itself. For now “our life is hid with Christ; but when Christ, who is our life, shall appear, then shall we also appear with him in glory.”

Let us haste towards this life, groaning and grieving that we are in this tent, that we dwell in the body. So long as we are present in the body, we are absent from the Lord.  Let us long to be absent from the body and to be present with the Lord, that being present with him we may become one with the God of the universe and his only begotten Son, being saved in all things and becoming blessed, in Jesus Christ, to whom be the glory and the power for ever and ever. Amen.

Source: https://answeringislamblog.wordpress.com/2019/07/31/origen-dialog-with-heracleides/

IHS

Jewishness and the Trinity

 By Dr. Arnold Fruchtenbaum, Founder/Director of Ariel Ministries

“Shema Yisroel Adonai Elochenu Adonai Echad”

(Hear O Israel: The Lord our God is one Lord.)

Rabbi Stanley Greenberg of Temple Sinai in Philadelphia wrote:

“Christians are, of course, entitled to believe in a Trinitarian conception of God. but their effort to base this conception on the Hebrew Bible must fly in the face of the overwhelming testimony of that Bible. Hebrew Scriptures are clear and unequivocal on the oneness of God The Hebrew Bible affirms the one God with unmistakable clarity Monotheism, an uncompromising belief in one God, is the hallmark of the Hebrew Bible, the unwavering affirmation of Judaism and the unshakable faith of the Jew.”

Whether Christians are accused of being polytheists or tritheists and whether or not it is admitted that the Christian concept of the Tri-unity is a form of monotheism, one element always appears: one cannot believe in the Trinity and be Jewish. Even if what Christians believe is monotheistic, it still does not seem to be monotheistic enough to qualify as true Jewishness. Rabbi Greenberg’s article tends to reflect that thinking.

He went on to say, “… under no circumstances can a concept of a plurality of the Godhead or a trinity of the Godhead ever be based upon the Hebrew Bible.” It is perhaps best to begin with the very source of Jewish theology and the only means of testing it: Hebrew Scriptures. Since so much relies on Hebrew Scripture usage, then to the Hebrew we should turn.

GOD IS A PLURALITY

The Name Elohim

It is generally agreed that Elohim is a plural noun having the masculine plural ending “im.” The very word Elohim used of the true God in Genesis 1:1, “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth,” is also used in Exodus 20:3, “You shall have no other gods (Elohim) before Me,” and in Deuteronomy 13:2, “Let us go after other gods (Elohim)… .”While the use of the plural Elohim does not prove a Tri-unity, it certainly opens the door to a doctrine of plurality in the Godhead since it is the word that is used for the one true God as well as for the many false gods.

Plural Verbs Used With Elohim

Virtually all Hebrew scholars do recognize that the word Elohim, as it stands by itself, is a plural noun. Nevertheless, they wish to deny that it allows for any plurality in the Godhead whatsoever. Their line of reasoning usually goes like this: When “Elohim” is used of the true God, it is followed by a singular verb; when it is used of false gods, it is followed by the plural verb. Rabbi Greenberg states it as follows:

“But, in fact, the verb used in the opening verse of Genesis is “bara,” which means “he created” – singular. One need not be too profound a student of Hebrew to understand that the opening verse of Genesis clearly speaks of a singular God.”

The point made, of course, is generally true because the Bible does teach that God is only one God and, therefore, the general pattern is to have the plural noun followed by the singular verb when it speaks of the one true God. However, there are places where the word is used of the true God and yet it is followed by a plural verb:

Genesis 20:13: And it came to pass, when God (Elohim) caused me to wander (Literally: THEY caused me to wander) from my father’s house …

Genesis 35:7: … because there God (Elohim) appeared to him … (Literally: THEY appeared to him.)

2 Samuel 7:23: … God (Elohim) went … (Literally: THEY went.)

Psalm 58 Surely He is God who judges … (Literally: THEY judge.)

The Name Eloah

If the plural form Elohim was the only form available for a reference to God, then conceivably the argument might be made that the writers of the Hebrew Scriptures had no other alternative but to use the word Elohim for both the one true God and the many false gods. However, the singular form for Elohim (Eloah) exists and is used in such passages as Deuteronomy 32:15-17 and Habakkuk 3:3. This singular form could easily have been used consistently. Yet it is only used 250 times, while the plural form is used 2,500 times. The far greater use of the plural form again turns the argument in favor of plurality in the Godhead rather than against it.

Plural Pronouns

Another case in point regarding Hebrew grammar is that often when God speaks of himself, he clearly uses the plural pronoun:

Genesis 1:26: Then God (Elohim) said, “Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness …”

He could hardly have made reference to angels since man was created in the image of God and not of angels. The Midrash Rabbah on Genesis recognizes the strength of this passage and comments as follows:

Rabbi Samuel Bar Hanman in the name of Rabbi Jonathan said, that at the time when Moses wrote the Torah, writing a portion of it daily, when he came to the verse which says, “And Elohim said, let us make man in our image after our likeness,” Moses said, “Master of the universe, why do you give here with an excuse to the sectarians (who believe in the Tri-unity of God)” God answered Moses, “You write and whoever wants to err, let him err.” (Midrash Rabbah on Genesis 1:26 [New York NOP Press, N.D.])

It is obvious that the Midrash Rabbah is simply trying to get around the problem and fails to answer adequately why God refers to himself in the plural.

The use of the plural pronoun can also be seen In the following:

Genesis 3:22: Then the LORD God (YHVH Elohim) said, “Behold, the man has become like one of Us”

Genesis 11:7: “Come, let Us go down and there confuse their language.”

Isaiah 6:8: Also I heard the voice of the Lord, saying: “Whom shall I send, and who will go for Us?”

This last passage would appear contradictory with the singular “I” and the plural “us” except as viewed as a plurality (us) in a unity (I).

Plural Descriptions of God

Another point that also comes out of Hebrew is the fact that often nouns and adjectives used in speaking of God are plural. Some examples are as follows:

Ecclesiastes 12:1: Remember now your Creator … (Literally: CREATORS.)

Psalm 149:2: Let Israel rejoice in their Maker. (Literally: MAKERS.)

Joshua 24:19: … holy God … (Literally: HOLY GODS.)

Isaiah 54:5: For your Maker is your husband. (Literally: MAKERS, HUSBANDS.)

Everything we have said so far rests firmly on the Hebrew language of the Scriptures. If we are to base our theology on the Scriptures alone, we have to say that on the one hand they affirm God’s unity, while at the same time they tend towards the concept of a compound unity allowing for a plurality in the Godhead.

The Shema

Deuteronomy 6:4: Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God, the LORD is one!

Deuteronomy 6:4, known as the SHEMA, has always been Israel’s great confession. It is this verse more than any other that is used to affirm the fact that God is one and is often used to contradict the concept of plurality in the Godhead. But is it a valid use of this verse?

On the one hand it should be noted that the very words “our God” are in the plural in the Hebrew text and literally mean “our Gods.” However, the main argument lies in the word “one,” which is the Hebrew word, ECHAD. A glance through the Hebrew text where the word is used elsewhere can quickly show that the word echad does not mean an absolute “one” but a compound “one.”

For instance, in Genesis 1:5 the combination of evening and morning comprise one (echad) day. In Genesis 2:24 a man and a woman come together in marriage and the two “shall become one (echad) flesh.” In Ezra 2:64 we are told that the whole assembly was as one (echad), though, of course, it was composed of numerous people. Ezekiel 37:17 provides a rather striking example where two sticks are combined to become one (echad). Thus, use of the word echad in Scripture shows it to be a compound and not an absolute unity.

There is a Hebrew word that does mean an absolute unity and that is YACHID, which is found in many Scripture passages, (Genesis 22:2,12; Judges 11:34; Psalm 22:21: 25:16; Proverbs 4:3; Jeremiah 6:26; Amos 8:10; Zechariah 12:10) the emphasis being on the meaning of “only.” If Moses intended to teach God’s absolute oneness as over against a compound unity, this would have been a far more appropriate word. In fact, Maimonides noted the strength of “yachid’ and chose to use that word in his “Thirteen Articles of Faith” in place of echad. However, Deuteronomy 6:4 (the Shema) does not use “yachid” in reference to God.

GOD IS AT LEAST TWO

Elohim and YHVH Applied to Two Personalities

As if to make the case for plurality even stronger. there are situations in the Hebrew Scriptures where the term Elohim is applied to two personalities in the same verse. One example is Psalm 45:6-7:

“Your throne, O God, is forever and ever: A scepter of righteousness is the scepter of Your kingdom. You love righteousness and hate wickedness; Therefore God, Your God, has anointed You with the oil of gladness more than Your companions.”

It should be noted that the first Elohim is being addressed and the second Elohim is the God of the first Elohim. And so God’s God has anointed him with the oil of gladness.

A second example is Hosea 1:7:

“Yet I will have mercy on the house of Judah, will save them by the LORD their God, and will not save them by bow, nor by sword or battle, by horses or horsemen.”

The speaker is Elohim who says he will have mercy on the house of Judah and will save them by the instrumentality of YHVH, their Elohim. So Elohim number one will save Israel by means of Elohim number two.

Not only is Elohim applied to two personalities in the same verse, but so is the very name of God. One example is Genesis 19:24:

“Then he LORD rained brimstone and fire on Sodom and Gomorrah from the LORD out of the heavens.”

Clearly we have YHVH number one raining fire and brimstone from a second YHVH who is in heaven, the first one being on earth.

A second example is Zechariah 2:8-9:

“For thus says the LORD of hosts: “He sent Me after glory, to the nations which plunder you; for he who touches you touches the apple of His eye. For surely I will shake My hand against them, and they shall become spoil for their servants. Then you will know that the LORD of hosts has sent Me.”

Again, we have one YHVH sending another YHVH to perform a specific task.

The author of the Zohar sensed plurality in the Tetragrammaton (1) and wrote:

“Come and see the mystery of the word YHVH: there are three steps, each existing by itself: nevertheless they are One, and so united that one cannot be separated from the other. The Ancient Holy One is revealed with three heads, which are united into one, and that head is three exalted. The Ancient One is described as being three: because the other lights emanating from him are included in the three. But how can three names be one? Are they really one because we call them one? How three can be one can only be known through the revelation of the Holy Spirit .” (Zohar, Vol III, 288; Vol II, 43, Hebrew editions. (See also Sonclno Press edition, Vol III, 134.)

GOD IS THREE

How Many Persons are There?

If the Hebrew Scriptures truly do point to plurality, the question arises, how many personalities exist in the Godhead? We have already seen the names of God applied to at least two different personalities. Going through the Hebrew Scriptures we find that three, and only three, distinct personalities are ever considered divine.

1. First, there are the numerous times when there is a reference to the Lord YHVH. This usage is so frequent that there is no need to devote space to it.

2. A second personality is referred to as the Angel of YHVH. This individual is always considered distinct from all other angels and is unique. In almost every passage where he is found he is referred to as both the Angel of YHVH and YHVH himself. For instance in Genesis 16:7 he is referred to as the Angel of YHVH, but then in 16:13 as YHVH himself. In Genesis 22:11 he is the Angel of YHVH, but God himself in 22:12. Other examples could be given. (2)

A very interesting passage is Exodus 23:20-23 where this angel has the power to pardon sin because God’s own name YHVH is in him, and, therefore, he is to be obeyed without question. This can hardly be said of any ordinary angel. But the very fact that God’s own name is in this angel shows his divine status.

3. A third major personality that comes through is the Spirit of God, often referred to simply as the Ruach Ha-kodesh. There are a good number of references to the Spirit of God among which are Genesis 1:2; 6:3; Job 33:4; Psalm 51:11; 139:7; Isaiah 11:2; 63:10,14. The Holy Spirit cannot be a mere emanation because he has all the characteristics of personality (intellect, emotion and will) and is considered divine.

So then, from various sections of the Hebrew Scriptures there is a clear showing that three personalities are referred to as divine and as being God: the Lord YHVH, the Angel of YHVH and the Spirit of God.

The Three Personalities in the Same Passage

In the Hebrew Scriptures you will also find all three personalities of the Godhead referred to in single passages. Two examples are Isaiah 48:12-16 and 63:7-14.

Because of the significance of the first passage, it will be quoted:

“Listen to Me, O Jacob, and Israel, My called: I am He, I am the First, I am also the Last. Indeed My hand has laid the foundation of the earth, and My right hand has stretched out the heavens; when I call to them, they stand up together. All of you, assemble yourselves, and hear! Who among them has declared these things? The LORD loves him; he shall do His pleasure on Babylon, and His arm shall be against the Chaldeans. I, even I, have spoken; yes, I have called him, I have brought him, and his way will prosper. Come near to Me, hear this: I have not spoken in secret from the beginning; from the time that it was, I was there. And now the Lord GOD and His Spirit have sent Me.”

It should be noted that the speaker refers to himself as the one who is responsible for the creation of the heavens and the earth. It is clear that he cannot be speaking of anyone other than God. But then in verse 16, the speaker refers to himself using the pronouns of “I” and “me” and then distinguishes himself from two other personalities. He distinguishes himself from the Lord YHVH and then from the Spirit of God. Here is the Tri-unity as clearly defined as the Hebrew Scriptures make it.

In the second passage, there is a reflection back to the time of the Exodus where all three personalities were present and active. The Lord YHVH is referred to in verse seven, the Angel of YHVH in verse nine and the Spirit of God in verses 10, 11 and 14. While often throughout the Hebrew Scriptures God refers to himself as being the one solely responsible for Israel’s redemption from Egypt, in this passage three personalities are given credit for it. Yet no contradiction is seen since all three comprise the unity of the one Godhead.

Conclusion

The teaching of the Hebrew Scriptures, then is that there is a plurality of the Godhead. The first person is consistently called YHVH, while the second person is given the names of YHVH, the Angel of YHVH and the Servant of YHVH. Consistently and without fail, the second person is sent by the first person. The third person is referred to as the Spirit of YHVH or the Spirit of God or the Holy Spirit. He, too, is sent by the first person but is continually related to the ministry of the second person.

If the concept of the Tri-unity of God is not Jewish according to modern rabbis, then neither are the Hebrew Scriptures. Jewish Christians cannot be accused of having slipped into paganism when they hold to the fact that Jesus is the divine Son of God. He is the same one of whom Moses wrote when the Lord said:

“Behold, I send an Angel before you to keep you in the way and to bring you into the place which I have prepared. Beware of Him and obey His voice; do not provoke Him, for He will not pardon your transgressions; for My name is in Him. But if you indeed obey His voice and do all that I speak, then I will be an enemy to your enemies and an adversary to your adversaries For My Angel will go before you and bring you in to the Amorites and the Hittites and the Perizzites and the Canaanites and the Hivites and the Jebusites; and I will cut them off” (Exodus 23:20-23).

New Testament Light

In keeping with the teachings of the Hebrew Scriptures, the New Testament clearly recognizes that there are three persons in the Godhead, although it becomes quite a bit more specific. The first person is called the Father while the second person is called the Son. The New Testament answers the question of Proverbs 30:4: “What is His name, and what is His Son’s name If you know?” His Son’s name is Yeshua (Jesus). In accordance with the Hebrew Scriptures, he is sent by God to be the Messiah, but this time as a man instead of as an angel.

Furthermore, he is sent for a specific purpose: to die for our sins. In essence, what happened is that God became a man (not that man became God) in order to accomplish the work of atonement.

The New Testament calls the third person of the Godhead the Holy Spirit. Throughout the New Testament He is related to the work of the second person, in keeping with the teaching of the Hebrew Scriptures. We see, then, that there is a continuous body of teaching in both the Hebrew Scriptures and the New Testament relating to the Tri-unity of God.

(1) “Personal Name of God of Israel,” written in Hebrew Bible with the four consonants YHWH. Pronunciation of name has been avoided since at least 3rd c. B.C.E.; initial substitute was “Adonai” (“the Lord”), itself later replaced by “ha-Shem” (the Name). The name Jehovah is a hybrid misreading of the original Hebrew letters with the vowels of “Adonai.” Encyclopedia Dictionary of Judaica, 593.

2) In Genesis 31 he is the Angel of God in verse 11, but then he is the God of Bethel in verse 13. In Exodus 3 he is the Angel of YHVH in verse two and he is both YHVH and God in verse four. In Judges 6 he is the Angel of YHVH in verses 11,12, 20 and 21, but is YHVH himself in verses 14, 16, 22 and 23. Then in Judges 13:3 and 21 he is the Angel of YHVH but is referred to as God himself in verse 22.

Copyright © 1997, Ariel Ministries. All Rights Reserved
Visit the Ariel Ministries Website:  
www.Ariel.org

Ariel Ministries
P.O. Box 792507,  San Antonio, TX 78279
Tel: 210-344-7707

Source: https://answeringislamblog.wordpress.com/2019/07/29/jewishness-and-the-trinity/

IHS