Are שרפים (Seraphim) really different than כרבים (Cherubim)?

This is an interesting question because the majority view of commentators is that שרפים (Seraphim) and כרבים Cherubim are two different orders of angels.

However, this appears to me to be clearly incorrect. שרף (seraph) in the Hebrew simply means "burning", "a burning one", "a burner".

This is clear from Num 21:6

The LORD sent burning serpents (הנחשים השרפים haNachashim haSeraphim) among the people and they bit the people, so that many people of Israel died.

The "burning" serpent probably called thus because of their fiery red color or because of the burning inflammatory effect of their bite, or both.

and from Num 21:8-9:

Then the LORD said to Moses, "Make a burner (שרף seraph), and set it on a standard; and it shall come about, that everyone who is bitten, when he looks at it, he will live." Num 21:8

And Moses made a bronze serpent (נחש נחשת nachash nachashet) and set it on the standard; and it came about, that if a serpent bit any man, when he looked to the bronze serpent, he lived.

Note that God told Moses to make a Seraph and he made a Nachash--Moses certainly did not think God was asking him to make an angel...

The only use of (שרף seraph) as referring to angels is in Isaiah 6:

Seraphim (שרפים) stood above Him, each having six wings: with two he covered his face, and with two he covered his feet, and with two he flew. Isaiah 6:2

Then one of the seraphim (שרפים) flew to me with a hot coal in his hand, which he had taken from the altar with tongs. Isaiah 6:6

However, these two uses should simply be translated "Burning Ones" or "Burners." They are simply Cherubim, the same as described in Ezekiel chapters 1 and 10.

These Cherubim are "burning" probably in the same sense that the Angel of the Lord was in Exodus 3:2

The angel of the LORD appeared to him in a blazing fire from the midst of a bush; and he looked, and behold, the bush was burning with fire, yet the bush was not consumed.

and in Heb 1:7 (which is a quotation from Psalm 104:4):

And of the angels He says, "WHO MAKES HIS ANGELS WINDS, AND HIS MINISTERS A FLAME OF FIRE."

The connection between a Seraph (burning) Cherub and a Seraph (burning) Serpent is of course Satan, who is both a Cherub ("the annointed covering Cherub" Ezekiel 28:14) and a Serpent ("the Serpent of old who is the Devil and Satan" Rev 12:9) 

πρόσωπον πρὸς πρόσωπον (face to face) in 1 Cor 13:12 - What does it mean?

1 Cor 13:12 states:

For now we see in a mirror dimly, but then face to face (πρόσωπον πρὸς πρόσωπον prosopon pros prosopon); now I know in part, but then I will know fully just as I also have been fully known.

This is a very enigmatic verse, I think possibly one of the verses Peter had in mind when he said of Paul's Epsitles:

"...in which are some things hard to understand..." 2 Peter 3:16

My opinion is that the key to unlocking the passage is to understand what πρόσωπον πρὸς πρόσωπον (prosopon pros prosopon) means.

This phrase is a direct translation from the the Hebrew פנים אל־פנים (panim al panim) which occurs in these OT verses:

ויקרא יעקב שם המקום פניאל כי ראיתי אלהים פנים אל פנים ותנצל נפשי
So Jacob named the place Peniel (פניאל face of God), for he said, “I have seen God face to face (פנים אל פנים panim al panim), yet my life has been preserved Gen 32:30

וירא גדעון כי מלאך יהוה הוא ויאמר גדעון אהה אדני יהוה--כי על כן ראיתי מלאך יהוה פנים אל פנים
When Gideon saw that he was the angel of the LORD, he said, "Alas, O Lord GOD! For now I have seen the angel of the LORD face to face (פנים אל פנים panim al panim)." Judges 6:22

Thus πρόσωπον πρὸς πρόσωπον means "to see God face to face" i.e., to discern perfectly God's nature, will, and purposes (Thayer's Lexicon).

So how can we "discern perfectly God's nature, will, and purposes"?

The key is in the previous three verses of 1 Cor 13:

9Love never fails; but if there are gifts of prophecy, they will be done away; if there are tongues, they will cease; if there is knowledge, it will be done away. 9For we know in part and we prophesy in part; 10but when the perfect comes, the partial will be done away. 11When I was a child, I used to speak like a child, think like a child, reason like a child; when I became a man, I did away with childish things.

This passage means that the temporary spiritual gifts of prophecy, tongues, knowledge, etc. which were only needed to confirm the New Testament revelation (Heb 2:1-4) would be done away when "the perfect" comes. The perfect is the completed canon of scripture, Old Testament and New Testament.

Thus with the completed canon we have the potential to see God πρόσωπον πρὸς πρόσωπον (prosopon pros prosopon) פנים אל פנים (panim al panim) or face to face, to know him fully, just as fully as we have been known by Him (and He is omniscient)--because He has made full and complete revelation of Himself through his completed canon of scripture, the Bible.

Additionally, this is the same thought Peter is expressing here:

For by these He has granted to us His precious and magnificent promises, so that by them you may become partakers of the divine nature... (2 Peter 1:4) 

Why Islam must be rejected

Yet another reason to reject Islam:

And on the Day when He will gather them together and that which they worship besides Allah [idols, angels, pious men, saints, 'Iesa (Jesus) - son of Maryam (Mary), etc.]. He will say: "Was it you who misled these My slaves or did they (themselves) stray from the (Right) Path?" Surah 25:17 (Muhsin Khan)

Jesus accepted worship:

Matthew 14:33 “Then those who were in the boat worshiped him (Jesus), saying, “Truly you are the Son of God.”

John 9:38 “Then the man said, ‘Lord Jesus, I believe,’ and he worshiped him.”

Jesus never corrected these people

The three wise men also worshipped Jesus at his birth:

After coming into the house they saw the Child with Mary His mother; and they fell to the ground and worshiped Him. Matt 2:11

This is protrayed as a righteous act.

 

If you carefully study the Bible, OT and NT, you will see that Jesus is God, the Son, the second member of the Trinity, who became flesh, died for our sins, and then ascended back to heaven and is seated on His throne at the right hand of the Father. This is the only possible conclusion. Islam says that Jesus is just a prophet. This is simply incorrect. The Biblical data do not bear this out. This is why Islam must be rejected.

Plural of Intensification in Hebrew

[quote=ooTRAV1Soo;57297579]The Hebrew word "Eloh'im" is the word most often translated to "God" in the English bible. The ending "im" in Hebrew is a masculine majestic pluralization of words, meaning not to say that a word is plural literally in numbers, i.e 2, 3 or more gods, but pluralization to show respect to God.[/quote]

There is no difference in form between plural of number and plural of intensification (this is the more correct term in Hebrew--but same concept that you are stating). It's simply a matter of subjective interpretation to determine whether a plural of number or a plural of intensification is in view.

Let's take an example and then move to אלהים (Elohim).

His grave was assigned with wicked men, Yet He was with a rich man in His death (במתיו bemotav), Because He had done no violence, Nor was there any deceit in His mouth. Isaiah 53:9

In this verse מות (mavet) is plural (construct state) but is translated as singular because "deaths" would not make sense in the context. The plural is being used to intensify the word death.

However, with אלהים (Elohim), you certainly cannot make the assumption that this is plural of intensification. God revealed himself as a singularity that is also a plurality in the Old Testament (see this paper for an excellent presentation of the Doctrine of the Trinity in the Old Testament: The Doctrine of the Trinity in the Old Testament By Nathan Kassulke).

Thus to me, it is much better to take אלהים (Elohim) as a plural of number. Thus, the very beginning of God's self revelation in the Bible: בראשית ברא אלהים (bereshet bara elohim) presents God via a plural noun אלהים (Elohim) used with a singular verb ברא (bara) because God is a Singularity that is also a Plurality.

Linguistic reasons for the Trinity

Gorgoll2 wrote: Thank you, JW. But, wouldn´t speaking about more than one god wouldn´t be polytheism?

From a linguistic standpoint (since this is a language forum) I find that the only way to accurately categorize the Biblical data is via the Doctrine of the Trinity. This is because the data say that God is a plurality but also a singularity.

For example, John 1:1 says that the Word was πρὸς τὸν θεόν (pros ton theon) "with God" i.e., distinct from God but also that θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος (theos en o logos) "the Word was God" i.e., one and the same with God.

Another example is that in John 10:30 Jesus said:

ἐγὼ καὶ ὁ πατὴρ ἕν ἐσμεν (ego kai ho pater hen esmen)
I and the Father are one

On the surface, this appears to conflict with the Great Shema of the Jews in Deut 6:4:

שמע ישראל יהוה אלהינו יהוה ׀ אחד ׃(shema yisrael Yahweh eloheinu Yahweh echad)

Hear, O Israel! The LORD is our God, the LORD is one

and this apparent contradiction, God being one yet more than one, is why the Jews were outraged at Jesus' statement:

31The Jews picked up stones again to stone Him.
32Jesus answered them, “I showed you many good works from the Father; for which of them are you stoning Me?”
33The Jews answered Him, “For a good work we do not stone You, but for blasphemy; and because You, being a man, make Yourself out to be God.”

They simply did not understand how the "one" in John 10:30 could be reconciled with the "one" in Deut 6:4. This is because this truth, God as "a singularity that is also a plurality" was a μυστήριον (mysterion - mystery) in the Old Testament--it was there but not understood--until it was fully explained in the New Testament, the clearest statement of which is Matt 28:19:

πορευθέντες οὖν μαθητεύσατε πάντα τὰ ἔθνη, βαπτίζοντες αὐτοὺς εἰς τὸ ὄνομα τοῦ πατρὸς καὶ τοῦ υἱοῦ καὶ τοῦ ἁγίου πνεύματος,

Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit,

This is how I see the Biblical data on the subject coming together from a linguistic standpoint. Of course others with strong linguistic skills in the Greek and Hebrew would (and have) disagree(d) with me but they seem, at least to me, to be engaging in eisegesis rather than exegesis, i.e., they are letting their theology influence their hermaneutic, rather than simply interpreting from the Hebrew and Greek based on linguistic consideration alone.

After all. the very first verse of the Bible starts out representing God linguistically as a "singularity that is also a plurality" via a plural noun with a singular verb:

בראשית ברא אלהים
bereshit bara elohim
In the beginning God created

Elohim is a plural noun
bara is in the singular

La Naturaleza Pecadora

Amerykanka wrote:

No nego lo que la corazon humana puede volverse muy perversa. Hay muchos ejemplos de esto en la Biblia. Solo digo que la alma no es intrinsecamente mala. Cuando Dios estuvo a punto de crear a Adan, dijo, "Hagamos al hombre a Nuestra imagen, conforme a Nuestra semejanza." (Genesis 1:26) Si estamos hechos a la imagen de Dios, no podemos ser intrinsecamente malos, porque Dios es bueno. Dios dijo esto antes de la Caida, pero el pecado de Adan no destruyo esta semejanza, todavia la desfiguro. Vivimos en un estado caido, pero no estamos privados de todo lo bueno.

Dios mismo crea cada alma. Las almas no pueden venir de nuestros padres. Dios no puede y no quiere crear nada que es malo, asi que nuestras almas no son intrinsecamente malas.
*********************************************************************************
El problema con el hombre no es el alma sino la naturaleza pecadora:

Porque así como en Adam todos mueren 1 Corintios 15:22

Porque como por la desobediencia de un hombre los muchos fueron constituídos pecadores Romanos 5:19

Entre los cuales todos nosotros también vivimos en otro tiempo en los deseos de nuestra carne, haciendo la voluntad de la carne y de los pensamientos; y éramos por naturaleza hijos de ira, también como los demás. Efesios 2:3

Y es esta naturaleza pecadora que es heredado de nuestros padres (y no el alma como has correctamente dicho tu).

En este respecto:

Thantophobia wrote:

Los humanos son malos. Si hay algo malo que puede ser hecho, es hecho.
******************************************************************************
Malos como:

..adulterio, fornicación, inmundicia, disolución, idolatría, hechicerías, enemistades, pleitos, celos, iras, contiendas, disensiones, herejías, envidias, homicidios, borracheras, banqueteos, y cosas semejantes á éstas. Gálatas 5:19-21

los malos pensamientos, muertes, adulterios, fornicaciones, hurtos, falsos testimonios, blasfemias. Mateo 15:19

fornicación, inmundicia, molicie, mala concupiscencia, y avaricia, que es idolatría Colosenses 3:5

Por eso, la declaración de Jeremías:

Engañoso es el corazón más que todas las cosas, y perverso; ¿quién lo conocerá?
Jeremías 17:9

Tatoo Marks

JW, this is striking to see indeed. But what does the Hebrew mean? Something with tattoo? Obviously in Hebrew "to tattoo" is meaning also "to destroy, ruin." Were you speaking of this ambiguity?

It's from Leviticus and it is a prohibition against tattoos. Very clever, JW.

________________________________________________________________________

Yes, it is specifically from Leviticus 19:28 which reads: ושרט לנפש לא תתנו בבשרכם וכתבת קעקע לא תתנו בכם אני יהוה

You shall not make any cuts in your body for the dead nor make any tattoo marks on yourselves: I am the LORD.


כתבת (ketobet) is another hapax legomenon in the Hebrew Bible which means: an impression, inscription, mark. The Septuagint translators rendered this as γράμμα meaning letters or writing.

Thus כתבת קעקע (ketobet qaqa) = tatoo marks. There are two reasons for the prohibition:

1. In the ancient world, such tatoo marks were used in the worship of idols with the symbol and/or the name of the idol imprinted on the body.

2. This was considered as a disfigurement of the body, and thus of God's workmanship, since Man was created in the image of God.

I find it generally very useful to drill down on fashions and trends and investigate their origins. Many of them go back to ancient times and often have links to practices with which I do not wish to be associated.קעקע (qaqa) is a hapax legomenon (a word occurring only once) in the Hebrew Bible which means: a mark branded in the skin, incision, imprint, tatoo, mark. The Bilingual Jewish Elders tranlsated this word as στίγμα (stigma) in the Greek of the Septuagint and this word has been taken directly into English "stigma."