Abraham ate with Jesus.

  • Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.

    If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!

    To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.

towerwatchman

Junior Member
Mar 16, 2017
21
1
3
#1
Abraham ate with Jesus.

1. According to Jesus no has seen or heard the Father.
Jn 6:46 Not that anyone has seen the Father, except He who is from God; He has seen the Father.
Jn 5:37 And the Father Himself, who sent Me, has testified of Me. You have neither heard His voice at any time, nor seen His form.

2. God does not share His name. Note Lord translates from YHWH.
Is 42:8 I am the Lord, that is My name; And My glory I will not give to another, Nor My praise to carved images.

Main argument: Genesis chapter 18 Note vs 1,13,17,22 and 33“Lord” translates from “YHWH”. According to Moses YHWH appeared, ate, drank and conversed with Abraham by the terebinth trees of Mam’re. Who was it? Since reason will not dictate that the immutable essence of the Father be changed into human form, or that Moses would create such a story under the inspiration of God, who else could be described as appearing in human form but Jesus identified as YHWH.
 
K

kstout6

Guest
#2
Jesus did visit Moses at that time. Is it such a hard thing when He is omnipotent? Remember Psalms, "For our ways are not His ways." Yahweh is Jehovah, and Jehovah is God. Yaweh is literally translated as "I am". That is why it is stated in the Old Testament, when God spoke to Moses face to face, "I am that I am." Then who is Jehovah. Christ boldly declared this to the Pharisees, "Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am." This caused the crowd to want to stone him to death for blasphemy because of this bold declaration. It was a play of words, because "I am" means "Yahweh, or Jehovah".
 

Locutus

Senior Member
Feb 10, 2017
5,928
685
113
#3
Yes, Jesus was Yahweh in the flesh. He's not the father though.
 
K

kstout6

Guest
#4
That's correct.
 
D

Depleted

Guest
#6
I agree too, but we really have to stop this kind of stuff. I'm pretty sure everyone agreeing to anything on the BDF is wrong. I'm not sure why it's wrong, other than it's never happened before, so it has to be wrong.

Right? lol
 

Locutus

Senior Member
Feb 10, 2017
5,928
685
113
#7
It's alright to be wrong..:p
 
S

StanJ

Guest
#8
Abraham ate with Jesus.
1. According to Jesus no has seen or heard the Father.
Jn 6:46 Not that anyone has seen the Father, except He who is from God; He has seen the Father.
Jn 5:37 And the Father Himself, who sent Me, has testified of Me. You have neither heard His voice at any time, nor seen His form.
2. God does not share His name. Note Lord translates from YHWH.
Is 42:8 I am the Lord, that is My name; And My glory I will not give to another, Nor My praise to carved images.
Main argument: Genesis chapter 18 Note vs 1,13,17,22 and 33“Lord” translates from “YHWH”. According to Moses YHWH appeared, ate, drank and conversed with Abraham by the terebinth trees of Mam’re. Who was it? Since reason will not dictate that the immutable essence of the Father be changed into human form, or that Moses would create such a story under the inspiration of God, who else could be described as appearing in human form but Jesus identified as YHWH.
Abraham met a physical manifestation of the triune God as Gen 18:1-2 clearly depicts. God, The Word, and The Holy Spirit. This was a manifestation, NOT an incarnation, which only happened when Jesus was born.
Abram also met a preincarnate manifestation of God The Word in Melchizedek previously in Gen 1418-20.
 

Johnny_B

Senior Member
Mar 18, 2017
1,954
64
48
#9
Abraham met a physical manifestation of the triune God as Gen 18:1-2 clearly depicts. God, The Word, and The Holy Spirit. This was a manifestation, NOT an incarnation, which only happened when Jesus was born.
Abram also met a preincarnate manifestation of God The Word in Melchizedek previously in Gen 1418-20.
My Brother you are the only person I've read anything that agreed that Genesis 18 was a manifestation of the Triune God, I talked to Dr. Morey the author of a book on the Trinity and he said that it wasn't a manifestation of the Triune God. I've looked in many books as well and not found any to agree with this. But, why would God let speak angels speak when the Lord was being addressed, it clearly says and they said, they being the three men that appeared to Abram. There's no way that it's Jesus, Micheal and Gabriel as many have tried to tell me and I have read in some books.

You don't think Melchizedek was a real person, since Hebrews says that Jesus is "after the order of Melchizedek" five times and Hebrews 7:15 "This becomes even more evident when another priest arises in the likeness of Melchizedek" When speaking of Jesus.
 
S

StanJ

Guest
#10
My Brother you are the only person I've read anything that agreed that Genesis 18 was a manifestation of the Triune God, I talked to Dr. Morey the author of a book on the Trinity and he said that it wasn't a manifestation of the Triune God. I've looked in many books as well and not found any to agree with this. But, why would God let speak angels speak when the Lord was being addressed, it clearly says and they said, they being the three men that appeared to Abram. There's no way that it's Jesus, Micheal and Gabriel as many have tried to tell me and I have read in some books.

You don't think Melchizedek was a real person, since Hebrews says that Jesus is "after the order of Melchizedek" five times and Hebrews 7:15 "This becomes even more evident when another priest arises in the likeness of Melchizedek" When speaking of Jesus.
I don't know who Dr. Morey is but I think the scripture is pretty clear as to who Abraham was talking to. Having a PhD doesn't always mean you're right when it comes to scripture, especially if you're predisposed to believe in something other than what the scripture says. I respect most Scholars but I don't always agree with them.
Many have a problem with separating who Jesus was after he was born with The Word that was incarnated in him as John 1:14 teaches. We have to remember that Jesus was a hypostatic union of God The Word and man and that before he was born he existed as The Word. John 1:1.

As far as Melchizedek is concerned, in Genesis 14 he is a physical manifestation of The Word and as you have rightly shown, in Hebrews 7 Jesus is the physical incarnation of The Word and thus our High Priest in the Order of Melchizedek. He wasn't a real person as you and I understand a real person to be but he was a physical manifestation in Gen 14. In Heb 7:1-3, Luke clearly spells out who Melchizedek was and is.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Johnny_B

Senior Member
Mar 18, 2017
1,954
64
48
#11
That's where I have a problem, after the order, because Jesus wasn't a High Priest after the order of Aaron like other priest. So it's hard for me to interpret some one being after the order, if they are/were that person. Aaron was never referred to as after the order of Aaron. My understanding is that Salem was a real place, he was the king and a high priest to the Most High. My problem is "after the order" meaning it's the same person. I've had this conversation many time with many pastors and the like. The commentaries I've looked at are more less slept on this. But it's not a doctrine of salvation so we'll just have to wait and see.
 
S

StanJ

Guest
#12
That's where I have a problem, after the order, because Jesus wasn't a High Priest after the order of Aaron like other priest. So it's hard for me to interpret some one being after the order, if they are/were that person. Aaron was never referred to as after the order of Aaron. My understanding is that Salem was a real place, he was the king and a high priest to the Most High. My problem is "after the order" meaning it's the same person. I've had this conversation many time with many pastors and the like. The commentaries I've looked at are more less slept on this. But it's not a doctrine of salvation so we'll just have to wait and see.
The tribe of Levi, of which Aaron and Moses were a part of, were not made priests until after Moses received the Ten Commandments. Moses was the prophet and Aaron was the priest. This was the beginning of the official priesthood under the Old Covenant as God appointed the tribe of Levi to minister in that regard and not to have any land in the Promised Land but to be supported by the people as priests in the temple. Under the old Covenant they were the mediators between God and man but under the New Covenant the only mediator between God and man is Jesus and as such there is no longer a priesthood other than we as individuals. 1 Peter 2:9.
I've been studying God's word for over 45 years and this is something that did not come to me overnight or in an instant it is something that the spirit made real after years of constantly reading the same thing. This is how God works by the Holy Spirit by his word. It's like anything else and that you have to study and grow in the knowledge of the entire Bible to see how it all fits together. I could give you a link or two about this but you're probably best to study it for yourself and see how it all fits.

Melchizedek himself is a priest-king whose name means "King of Righteousness". He appears in the Book of Genesis. ... The Epistle to the Hebrews in the New Testament considers that this makes the order of Melchizedek superior to the priesthood of Aaron.
 

Johnny_B

Senior Member
Mar 18, 2017
1,954
64
48
#13
The tribe of Levi, of which Aaron and Moses were a part of, were not made priests until after Moses received the Ten Commandments. Moses was the prophet and Aaron was the priest. This was the beginning of the official priesthood under the Old Covenant as God appointed the tribe of Levi to minister in that regard and not to have any land in the Promised Land but to be supported by the people as priests in the temple. Under the old Covenant they were the mediators between God and man but under the New Covenant the only mediator between God and man is Jesus and as such there is no longer a priesthood other than we as individuals. 1 Peter 2:9.
I've been studying God's word for over 45 years and this is something that did not come to me overnight or in an instant it is something that the spirit made real after years of constantly reading the same thing. This is how God works by the Holy Spirit by his word. It's like anything else and that you have to study and grow in the knowledge of the entire Bible to see how it all fits together. I could give you a link or two about this but you're probably best to study it for yourself and see how it all fits.

Melchizedek himself is a priest-king whose name means "King of Righteousness". He appears in the Book of Genesis. ... The Epistle to the Hebrews in the New Testament considers that this makes the order of Melchizedek superior to the priesthood of Aaron.
I understand the Law coming with Moses and Aaron being the priest, that's why the promise can be to the Gentiles because it was before the Law, like Melchizedek was before the Law that's why Jesus is a high priest after his order, because Melchizedek was before the Law. The Lord appeared many times the Abram or Abraham and it clearly said that the Lord appeared to him that's why I don't understand why it doesn't just say and the Lord appeared to Abraham to receive tithes. It's something I'm settle with and it's not a doctrine for salvation or on the nature of God, so I don't think it matter either way, we'll know when we get there. Because of this, there are people that use this to prove that the Church needs to tithe, because Melchizedek was the Lord and before the Law so the Church should tithe, when there is no reference to tithing in the N.T. It just says the Lord loves a cheerful giver and believers gave beyond the needs at times.
 
S

StanJ

Guest
#14
I understand the Law coming with Moses and Aaron being the priest, that's why the promise can be to the Gentiles because it was before the Law, like Melchizedek was before the Law that's why Jesus is a high priest after his order, because Melchizedek was before the Law. The Lord appeared many times the Abram or Abraham and it clearly said that the Lord appeared to him that's why I don't understand why it doesn't just say and the Lord appeared to Abraham to receive tithes. It's something I'm settle with and it's not a doctrine for salvation or on the nature of God, so I don't think it matter either way, we'll know when we get there. Because of this, there are people that use this to prove that the Church needs to tithe, because Melchizedek was the Lord and before the Law so the Church should tithe, when there is no reference to tithing in the N.T. It just says the Lord loves a cheerful giver and believers gave beyond the needs at times.
The tithing thing shows where Abram's heart was. The New Covenant replaces the old Covenant but it does not necessarily replace the Covenants that existed before the old Covenant. Divine Law existed before Moses, namely, the Adamic covenant, the Noahic covenant, and the Abrahamic covenant. Abram knew about tithing, so it wasn't under his Covenant. It had to be under either the Adamic Covenant or the Noahic Covenant. An educated guess would be the latter. The minimum was always 10%, which I think would still be the norm today, but that is something that I personally believe in and is not set in stone. There is nothing I can find under the Noahide Laws either or that I know of.
 

JaumeJ

Senior Member
Jul 2, 2011
21,195
6,508
113
#15
Oh yes, he certainly did. It is wonderful that others recognize this. Now if they would only recognize Abraham is our Father...allegorically that is, but also spiritually......

Translate the name, it speaks volumes to the soul.


Abraham ate with Jesus.

1. According to Jesus no has seen or heard the Father.
Jn 6:46 Not that anyone has seen the Father, except He who is from God; He has seen the Father.
Jn 5:37 And the Father Himself, who sent Me, has testified of Me. You have neither heard His voice at any time, nor seen His form.

2. God does not share His name. Note Lord translates from YHWH.
Is 42:8 I am the Lord, that is My name; And My glory I will not give to another, Nor My praise to carved images.

Main argument: Genesis chapter 18 Note vs 1,13,17,22 and 33“Lord” translates from “YHWH”. According to Moses YHWH appeared, ate, drank and conversed with Abraham by the terebinth trees of Mam’re. Who was it? Since reason will not dictate that the immutable essence of the Father be changed into human form, or that Moses would create such a story under the inspiration of God, who else could be described as appearing in human form but Jesus identified as YHWH.
 

Zmouth

Senior Member
Nov 21, 2012
3,391
134
63
#16
Did Abraham eat with Jesus or did Abraham eat Jesus?

John 13:18
John 6:57-58
 

JaumeJ

Senior Member
Jul 2, 2011
21,195
6,508
113
#17
Abraham received the ospel of Jesus Christ long before Jesus came for mankind. He believe od, and this was imputed to him as righteousness..........

o eat His lesh and to drink His Blood means to live on His Life and eachings....... Abraham was one who practiced this.
 

Adstar

Senior Member
Jul 24, 2016
7,417
3,468
113
#18
Abraham ate with Jesus.

1. According to Jesus no has seen or heard the Father.
Jn 6:46 Not that anyone has seen the Father, except He who is from God; He has seen the Father.
Jn 5:37 And the Father Himself, who sent Me, has testified of Me. You have neither heard His voice at any time, nor seen His form.

2. God does not share His name. Note Lord translates from YHWH.
Is 42:8 I am the Lord, that is My name; And My glory I will not give to another, Nor My praise to carved images.

Main argument: Genesis chapter 18 Note vs 1,13,17,22 and 33“Lord” translates from “YHWH”. According to Moses YHWH appeared, ate, drank and conversed with Abraham by the terebinth trees of Mam’re. Who was it? Since reason will not dictate that the immutable essence of the Father be changed into human form, or that Moses would create such a story under the inspiration of God, who else could be described as appearing in human form but Jesus identified as YHWH.
Both scriptures are right.. No one has seen God as He is in His eternal form... God manifested in the flesh as Jesus and so to can God manifest as the one who ate with Abraham... See the Bible is the inspired word of God and thus Abraham was no liar and the account was and is right and good.. If one seeks to discredit the account of Abraham then one is denying the Word of God because their limited human mind cannot understand how scripture can be true..

It's a case of if i don't understand it then it is impossible.... Faith is Trust and trusting God..
 
S

StanJ

Guest
#19
Abraham received the ospel of Jesus Christ long before Jesus came for mankind. He believe od, and this was imputed to him as righteousness..........
To eat His flesh and to drink His Blood means to live on His Life and teachings....... Abraham was one who practiced this.
The Abrahamic Covenant is not the same as the new covenant, it is a price of the new covenant. Messiah was foretold in the old Covenant but it did not happen until Jesus was born and brought in the New Covenant.
Abraham believed and it was credited to him as righteousness.
 
D

Depleted

Guest
#20
Abraham met a physical manifestation of the triune God as Gen 18:1-2 clearly depicts. God, The Word, and The Holy Spirit. This was a manifestation, NOT an incarnation, which only happened when Jesus was born.
Abram also met a preincarnate manifestation of God The Word in Melchizedek previously in Gen 1418-20.
Whew! Good thing you're here to do the disagreeing part. It was feeling uncomfortable for so much agreement.

(Yes. Sarcasm. Did it show?)