First of all I am not playing "mind games" and in fact I take the Bible seriously on whatever the issue may be. None of this is a game to me. Furthermore, of all the topics in the Bible I know about this one (the angel of the Lord) and the Trinity doctrine more than any of them because I have studied them for well over 50 years now. I do not have any problems with the text of Scripture, the "CONTEXT" of Scripture, the looking up of words in their original language and how the same word can mean different things depending on the context. And in that vain your telling me I don't "understand Elizabethan English?"
The Bible was not written in Elizabethan English but was written in Hebrew and Greek. The Hebrew word for "angel" is the word "malak." That word can mean a real angel like Michael or Gabriel but it can mean simply a "messenger," depending on the context. For example at Malachi 3:1 it says, "Behold, I am going to send My "angel/malak," and he will clear the way before Me, and the Lord whom you seek, will suddenly come to His temple; and the "angel/malak" of the covenant, in whom you delight, behold, He is coming, says the Lord of hosts."
So stan, who is the "angel/malak" that prepared the way of the Lord? Here's a big hint for you? Please read Matthew 3:1-3 and you will discover that the angel/malak is none other than John the Baptist who prepared the way for the Lord God who is Jesus Christ. So stan, is John the Baptist an angel? No, remember the word "malak" can also mean messenger. In other words John the Baptist was a messenger of the Lord who annouced His coming. Even Malachi the prophet's name is from "malak" and means messenger.
And getting bact the Malachi 3:1 who do you think is the "angel/malak/messenger" of the covenant? And where in the Old Testament was that covenant made with Abraham? Check out Genesis 12:3, Genesis 15:18, Genesis 16:7-10, Genesis 17:1,2, Genesis 18 where the Lord God confirms His covenant at vs13,14 and "ESPECIALLY" Genesis 22.
What you fail to understand stan is the fact that God the Father HAS NO SEPARATE MANIFESTATION FROM THE SON. The Son is the ONLY manifestation and revelation of the Father. What is know of the Father is revealed through the Son. To see the Son is to see the essence of the Father. Please read John 1:1,18; John 10:30, John 12:45; Colossians 1:15; Hebrews 1:3 and especially 1 Timothy 3:16, "And by common confession great is the mystery of godliness; He/God was revealed in the flesh, was vindicated in the Spirit, Beheld by angels, Proclaimed among the nations, Believed on in the world, Taken up in glory."
So stan, do you believe that Jesus Christ is the only manifestation and revelation of God the Father because that is what the Scriputres say and teach? Now I'm going to throw you a "curve" and ask you if you know in Hebrew what is a "shilach?" It has to do with what you said about the men in Genesis 18 are representing God. In other words, the Jews call it the law of agnecy. This "shilach/agent" acts as someone who is authorized by a principal to act on behalf of that principal. To put it another way from the Talmud is that "a man's agent is as himself," i.e., that a man is bound by the acts of his duly representing a principal.
So what you said to me is that the men in Genesis 18 were acting or representing God (who is the principal) just like angels at times act on God's behalf. Now, you should know I have heard that reasoning thousands of times but what people forget is the fact that there are certain things a "shilach/agent" cannot do on behalf of a principal or in this case God. Let's see if you can figure it out by reading Genesis 22:11-18? The balls in your court stan.
IN HIM,
bluto