What leads me to believe that ONE of the men of Genesis 18 was the image of the invisible G-d, is John 8:54-59, in which Jesus indicated that he had met Abraham. When I put that along with the observations I made about the passage itself, it seems like this must be when Jesus met Abraham, although it is possible that a meeting could have happened in another instance that is unrecorded.

If Jesus met Abraham in Genesis 18, why aren't the gospels clear on this, or any of the early church fathers in their writings? This is pure speculation on your part. You may as well claim Melchizedek was Jesus and this is when he met Abraham. Neither the gospels or any church writings teach such a thing.

Maybe they don't teach such a thing because no one believed that back then, and there was no reason to try to prove that God could incarnate Himself in human form - and therefore show evidence for the 4th century Trinity contrivance.

The Pharisees were also very upset when the apostles started teaching the gentiles that they could have direct access to the kingdom of God (Acts 22:21-23).

How do you know non-believing Pharisees were upset in this situation? Looks to me that "believing" observant Jews were angry - and that this was a problem within the church, not a problem for outsider "non-believing" Jews.

I doubt that an additional teaching about the nature of God could have gotten them more riled than this verse of Acts indicates.

You doubt that idolatrous teachings would rile Jews up more than teaching about gentiles getting into the world to come? I know of no Jews who would be upset at the prospect of Noachides living on past this world. And it disturbs all faithful Jews very much when others are trying to entice Jews with idolatry.

How about 40 Jewish men taking a vow not to eat or drink until they killed Paul (Acts 23:21)? Yet they were unable to.

How do you know these guys were non-believers? Maybe they were believers who were "zealous" for the law.

There are a lot of possible explanations of how the apostles could escape death for so long other than your suggestion that the Jews simply did not want to kill them because their view of G-d was correct.

Seems like more libel and slander against Jews. If Jews wanted Paul, Peter, etc.., killed - it would have been easy to do so. Do you know that Josephus writes that all of Jerusalem was in an uproar over James' death? James was very much loved. How do you reconcile this with Jews trying to kill him? Obviously, he didn't teach idolatry. Here's Josephus on James, who you'd like to think along with Peter, was wanted dead by the Jews of that time:


Josephus on the Death of James brother of Jesus, in 62 C.E.
Josephus, Antiquities
Book 20: chapter 9



CONCERNING ALBINUS UNDER WHOSE PROCURATORSHIP JAMES WAS SLAIN; AS ALSO WHAT EDIFICES WERE BUILT BY AGRIPPA.

1. AND now Caesar, upon hearing the death of Festus, sent Albinus into Judea, as procurator. But the king deprived Joseph of the high priesthood, and bestowed the succession to that dignity on the son of Ananus, who was also himself called Ananus. Now the report goes that this eldest Ananus proved a most fortunate man; for he had five sons who had all performed the office of a high priest to God, and who had himself enjoyed that dignity a long time formerly, which had never happened to any other of our high priests. But this younger Ananus, who, as we have told you already, took the high priesthood, was a bold man in his temper, and very insolent; he was also of the sect of the Sadducees, who are very rigid in judging offenders, above all the rest of the Jews, as we have already observed; when, therefore, Ananus was of this disposition, he thought he had now a proper opportunity [to exercise his authority]. Festus was now dead, and Albinus was but upon the road; so he assembled the sanhedrin of judges, and brought before them the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James, and some others, [or, some of his companions]; and when he had formed an accusation against them as breakers of the law, he delivered them to be stoned: but as for those who seemed the most equitable of the citizens, and such as were the most uneasy at the breach of the laws, they disliked what was done; they also sent to the king [Agrippa], desiring him to send to Ananus that he should act so no more, for that what he had already done was not to be justified; nay, some of them went also to meet Albinus, as he was upon his journey from Alexandria, and informed him that it was not lawful for Ananus to assemble a sanhedrin without his consent. (24) Whereupon Albinus complied with what they said, and wrote in anger to Ananus, and threatened that he would bring him to punishment for what he had done; on which king Agrippa took the high priesthood from him, when he had ruled but three months, and made Jesus, the son of Damneus, high priest.


It makes no sense that non-believing practicing Jews were upset over James' death, according to your view.

When I read the portion of Josephus that you quote, I don't see such a strong case as you do for your point. Josephus, first of all, is upholding the national pride of the Jews, and is emphasizing the positive. Such a person might tend to leave out certain points of difference. In fact, he specifically mentions that the "Jews have avoided all discourses about God that any way contradict one another". This directly implies that there might be differences of opinion about certain aspects of God, but that such arguments are squelched to maintain unity. My point exactly about what happens to a Jew who might believe in Jesus. He suddenly is no longer a Jew, so "Jews all agree about Jesus". Second, his comments on the unanimous agreement about the nature of God specifically mention "providence over mankind", and "he sees all things". Why, any Christian theologian from the Pope to Martin Luther to Mike Huckabee would agree with those statements about God. Josephus is obviously offering a contrast of the Jews to the heathen philosophers and religious teachers such as Hindu gurus who even doubted those things. An argument over whether God did in fact reveal Himself in human form could well have been one of those discourses studiously avoided, and considered of little consequence to Josephus in his defense of the Jewish nation. He does not mention the idea of the complex or absolute unity of God and so you can't use this passage to support your claim that such an issue was not a point of consideration to Jews of his day. I can't use it for support for my view either, but then again I never set out to do so.

Josephus didn't state that Jews tried to avoid contradictory discourse on God. He stated clearly that unlike other nations and their diverse opinions on their own gods (like Christianity), Jews have a "wonderful agreement of minds" on the nature of God, with no differences. He states Jews had one discourse on God, conformable to the Torah.

Avoiding contradictory discourse like the gentiles doesn't mean avoiding it due to outside pressure to never stray from the norm. It just means it never happened. Like today. Christians fight amongst themselves just as Greeks and Romans then, about the nature of their gods. It's not like Jews today must avoid contrary discourse on God today due to pressure. If there's anything world Jewry agrees on, it's the nature of One, absolutely unified and radically monotheistic God of Israel. This is all Josephus is saying.

Josephus states positively that Jews were of one, wonderful accord on God and also on the following of Torah. The same is true today despite the different sects of observant Judaism (just as there were different sects then). The diversity within Judaism does nothing to take away from our uniformity, ie, the most fundamental aspects of our faith, such as the subject of God and the doing of the commandments.

-----------------

"He who saves one life... it is as if he saves an entire universe. He who destroys a life... it is as if he destroys an entire universe"

TALMUD - Sanhedrin 4:5

-----------------