so that the priest....

I had asked to whom Abraham was talking in Genesis 17. Henry thinks that God Himself is talking to Abraham here. "God is showing some of His power here, but not Gods shape. God calls to live life in a manner that God can actually like it. This verse does not proof that God came to Abraham 'in the flesh.'" Even though I believe that this interpretation is to loose compared to the actual text I can understand his thoughts: Gods is showing Himself to Abraham and Abraham drops on his face. The place of God isn't literally defined, so this passage can be interpreted on a 'spiritual' way. This would indeed mean that God shows His strength or signs to Abraham. However, in chapter 18 this would be rather difficult. "Who does Abraham see in Genesis 18?" I interrupt Henry. "God the Creator Himself of course," he answers again. I am wondering, however, how Henry could defend this viewpoint, so I cite this passage before him: "And the LORD appeared unto him in the plains of Mamre: and he sat in the tent door in the heat of the day; And he lift up his eyes and looked, and, lo, three men stood by him: and when he saw them, he ran to meet them from the tent door, and bowed himself toward the ground, And said, My Lord, if now I have found favour in thy sight, pass not away, I pray thee, from thy servant." I explained this passage this way: "The Lord, in Hebrew: Elohim, appeared here to Abraham. He saw three men. I wonder how God can show up when he can;t be seen. How can this happen?" I ask Henry. He doesn't give an answer, so I move on.

"God shows up and Abraham sees Him. Abraham bows down 'before him.' How can Abraham bow before God after God appeared to him? I believe this cannot be interpreted on a symbolic manner. In verse 8 it even states that God ate. That is obviously against the tradition, as a spirit cannot eat. God is spirit (John 4,24)." Henry agrees that a spirit cannot eat. "In the gospel of Luke I can clearly see the thought that a spirit cannot eat (Luke 24:39-43). This thought appears rightly to me. I believe therefore that it where the angels that ate on this occasion." I did not agree with this explanation. "In Judges 13 an angel of God is offered food, but he refuses it. The food offered is better being used as a sacrifice to God. The angels would eat and God would not? That seems strange to me. There is a prominent thing in this passage. It seems like angel and God are used random here. Henry agrees. "I believe that when an angels speaks it is in fact God who speaks through the angel. The angels is no more than a medium." I answer Henry: I'd like to discuss this on a later moment, for now however I want to discuss Abraham first." Henry: That's al right."

"After eating Abraham walked together with the angels and God. I believe this must be taken literally. I do so because the other two falked further to Sodom(19,1) en God stands together with Abraham. After they talked the Lord God ent from Abraham. For me this appears to be strictly physical." Henry: As you say it there is something that makes some sense. However, I cannot understand how you can solve the problem that God is spirit (John 4,24) en no human (Hosea 10:9)" I wasn't yet finished with the explanation of the physical appeaeance of God on some occasions. I wanted to go by those first. I'm not sure Henry would agree, so I asked him.

1. ...So that the priests could not stand to minister by reason of the cloud: for the glory of the LORD had filled the house of God.

2 Chronicles 5:14

"As I believe the God has some properties. The bible teaches us that God is good, loving and gracious. Also do I believe that the bible teaches us that God is one (Deuteronomy 4,39 and others) and non-visible for the human eye (Exodus 33,20)." Henry agreed. "That's true. This only confirms to me that Jesus cannot be God." It is not difficult for me to follow his way of reasoning. It would certainly be mine. If Jesus is neither invisible nor almighty he cannot be God. "I must admit that Jesus was totally visible," was my reaction the Henry. "That's why he certainly cannot be God." "Exactly," Henry was happy with his certain theological victory. He had not expected that I would ever defend his viewpoint. I do so with the purpose to convince him it is wrong. That's why I continue with showing how invisible God is: "2 Chronicles 5, 13 and 14 teaches us what happens when only the glory of God enters the house of God. Not a single priest can stand and do his work. Only Gods glory is so huge that God himself can never be visible. We see the same in Exodus 40,34 and 35 and in exodus 33,20. Moses was shining when he was in the presence of God so much that he needed to wear a towel because the light was to bright for the Israeli people. But even Moses couldn't see God, if he would he would die."

"I really don't understand why you think it serves any need to confirm my viewpoint time after time," is Henry's opinion. "What is the purpose?" My answer on this comes down to one thing: "I want to show that seeing God has such an effect that it is not difficult to imagine that God is invisible, as we have seen in Exodus 33,20. It is certainly right that no man can see God?" I asked Henry. "Certainly," Henry replies. "This only confirms what I've already said before. It appears that you have come back from your error and your churchdogmatics," is his reaction. "The bible doesn't lie (Numbers 23,19)." I react quite sharply in this occasion. "I want to know if God really is the only God. It is the ultimate test whether you know the truth or not." Henry: "Surely God is the only God (Psalm 18,32). This was our conclusion before, it seems not neccesary to change this." Henry appears to get a little irritable. I think he is afraid to lose his certain victory now I am asking questions. Contrary I am starting to get irritable that he doesn't see the truth when it is right before his eyes. He has his viewpoints, but he has no doubts. There are no questions. I have questions. "Who was Abraham talking to in Genesis 17?" I cited this passage before him: "And when Abram was ninety years old and nine, the LORD appeared to Abram, and said unto him, I am the Almighty God; walk before me, and be thou perfect."


To be continued.

A theism part 1 preface part 2

'Our next appointment was once again in Deventer, in a park near to the IJssel. I was a sunny day and there where many people around. Because this park isn't directly laying next to the IJssel there where a little less people than next to the IJssel, many people like to sit next to the water on warm days like these. On a small bench we started to talk. "You appear to have some arguments against the fact that Jesus cannot be God." Henry asked me to tell him why. "Indeed I disagree with this and I do so because it appears wrongly to me." Henry: "Why?" I had an answer for this. "Jeremia 17,5 teaches us that he who trusts on a human is cursed. When we claim that Jesus is a man out of men we bring ourselves under this curse by our denial that Jesus is truly God." Though this was the first argument that I brought up Henry thought that this was my only argument. "It tells me a lot about your faith that you use the old testament to deny the gospel." "Henry," I replied, "without the old testament the new testament has not a single foundation."

Almost all the things that Jesus said are from the old testament our directly connected to it. Dozens prophecies in the old testament are fullfiled in Jesus and the new testament. Often hundreds are mentioned. Even if it would be only fifty. Even than I believe it cannot be claimed that the new testament could excist without the old. Certainly, looking to the many times the old testament is cited in the new testament prooves to me that they are a strong unity.

Besides that, The fact that there is a new covenant prooves that there has been a old covenant. The old covenant tells us a lot about the new covenant. Looking at the length of the old testament, the Tanakh, makes me believe this part is a crucial part of the bible. This makes clear to me that the unity between the old and the new coventant cannot be broken. "Also the old testament is true," was the opinion of Henry, "but the new testament came as a substitution for the old, which was obsolete. That is why we must not focus to much on the old testament but aim our attention to the words that Jesus said." I believe myself that the new testament explains the meaning of the old and can both testament not live without each other. That is why I do not believe that we would have to keep the Torah entirely, law for law and stealing the joy that came with the law by doing so. But in our argument about the Godness of Jesus the prophecies and the history can be a remarkable help for us to understand the bible. Not so much the law itself. On the contrary Jesus claims to be the fullfilling of the law. The law learns us some about this subject too. I believe that with the fullfilling of the law Jesus thought also about the prophecies. Jesus himself talks about the law when he cites a psalm (Psalm 82,6, John 10,34). I believe that the entire Tanakh wil be prophetical and directs us to the new. That is why I would like to first investigate the old testament and ground the ideas that are availeble in it with the new testament. I told Henry about my plans and he agreed. Then I started my explanation.

A Theism part 1 Preface

This study started a while ago with doubt. This doubt was not found in a lack of knowledge, but in uncertainty about the right interpretation. This doubt was growing as some ignorant people where proclaiming that I was denying the gospel. It is this gospel that I do love so much. When I write these things here I find it important that the things which I write are looked after carefully, because I think of myself being honest and trustworthy and not spreading dogmatic error but truth. Henry now rejected me and my viewpoint even before he knew it’s content. He was proclaiming that Jesus cannot be God. Nevertheless he proclaimed also that we should honour and worship Jesus. This appeared to me to be a strange viewpoint. Shortly I had read Jeremiah 17,5: ‘Thus says Yahweh: Cursed is the man who trusts in man, and makes flesh his arm, and whose heart departs from Yahweh.’ I cited this passage before him. According to Henry it is telling a lot about my faith that I use the old testament to deny the gospel. Once again there was doubt. However, I had really been seeking the truth and I was assuming that I had gotten close towards the truth. Now I wasn’t so sure that I did not deny the gospel. So I was hoping to learn some from Henry. But he refused me.

I do believe. Also do I believe in the power of the gospel. Not because the gospel has been forced this power upon, but because it is the truth. The truth is out and from God, the God of the Tanakh, the God who has sends His word out to create the heavens and the earth. The God also of Jesus. In this sense I find out that the old and the new covenant are in fact a unity. A unity that’s been confirmed in the numerous prophecies in the old testament that are being confirmed in the new testament. Those are more than two hundred.

The teachings of the old covenant are far longer than those of the new covenant. The time it excists is also much longer. As Jesus already has said no jot nor tittle of the law will be passed before the end of this world (Matthew 5:18). In the next dialogue you will learn that the old covenant, the Tanakh (which is the entire old testament) will show us most about whether Jesus is a God or not. Even though I have redactionaly adapted the words they have the same content as the dialogue that I've had back then.

It was calm that day along the rivershore of the IJssel, next to Deventer. On many summernights many people are sitting next to this river, even until late. Not today. It had been raining and the gras was wet. I did not care. For me it was a great opportunity to seek contemplation and to be alone. I was studying there for a little while. Then a young man walked by. After a polite salute he walked further. When I was walking towards the station I met him once again. Once again I saluted and for some reason we started to talk. He told me that he had a website on which he explained the gospel. I promissed him to look after it. The same night I looked up the website. The websites design seemed pretty simple to me, but the content was very interesting. What did strike me was that Henry, which appeared to be his name, told that Jesus on no occasion could be God, but we do have to honor him. We made an appointment to talk about this any further later on. On this moment we had already discussed Jeremiah 17,5. Though I was hurt by his words, when he accused me of denying the gospel I was happy that I got the opportunity to explain my motives and my study.