What was the appearance of the three [LORD,lords] who visited Abraham.

So, for you to say

oatmeal said:

I can see His works in and around my life with my physical eyes.

Click to expand...

is for you to say

oatmeal said:

I can see God

Click to expand...

(and vice versa)?

Yet, God's works are not God, right? And God is not His works, right? Why, then, would you bring up things that aren't God, saying that you can see them, when you are being questioned as to why you said both "I can see God" and "I cannot see God"? No one asked you if you can see things that aren't God.

Observe this irrelevant thing you wrote:

oatmeal said:

I am seeing God's handiwork

Click to expand...

You'd have actually had something to gripe about, had I only quoted this much of it:

oatmeal said:

I am seeing God

Click to expand...

and left off this bit of it:

oatmeal said:

's handiwork

Click to expand...

But I didn't do that.

Beyond the superficial commonality in the bare fact of my use of excerption, what I did do is not like that, and you have no right to complain about what I did do. What I did do is I excerpted this portion of your words:

oatmeal said:

I can see God

Click to expand...

from a little larger portion of your words:

oatmeal said:

I can see God by the works that He does.

Click to expand...

Contrary to your griping, nothing is wrong with my having done that.

Your griping about it is akin in its asininity to, if you had written

I went to the liquor store by a different route than I usually take.

Click to expand...

and I had quoted just this much of what you wrote

I went to the liquor store

Click to expand...

your griping about my having so quoted.

But, had you also written:

I've never gone to the liquor store.

Click to expand...

and I juxtaposed that to your other words:

I went to the liquor store

Click to expand...

how ridiculous it would be for you to imagine it could be somehow helpful to you to complain about my having not included your words "by a different route than I usually take" in my excerpt! Think how dumb it would sound for you to trot out the "context matters" slogans! Yet, it's the same situation with your whining about my having excerpted and juxtaposed together your two passages as I did:

oatmeal said:

I can see God

Click to expand...

oatmeal said:

I cannot see God

Click to expand...

The fact that you had added your words "by the works that He does" after your words "I can see God" does not make disappear the fact that you wrote both "I can see God" and "I cannot see God".

7djengo7 said:

So, for you to say

is for you to say

(and vice versa)?

Yet, God's works are not God, right? And God is not His works, right? Why, then, would you bring up things that aren't God, saying that you can see them, when you are being questioned as to why you said both "I can see God" and "I cannot see God"? No one asked you if you can see things that aren't God.

Click to expand...

That is right, God's works are not God.

oatmeal said:

That is right, God's works are not God.

Click to expand...

Then answer the question I asked you, weasel:

7djengo7 said:

Why, then, would you bring up things that aren't God, saying that you can see them, when you are being questioned as to why you said both "I can see God" and "I cannot see God"?

Click to expand...

Remember what you said to me, hypocrite:

oatmeal said:

Did you read all of what I posted.

No, obviously, you did not.

Click to expand...

I give you the benefit of the doubt, taking that to be you advertising that it is your policy to read all of what your critic/questioner has posted, pursuant to "And as ye would that men should do to you, do ye also to them likewise." So, I know you read that question to you that I posted:

7djengo7 said:

Yet, God's works are not God, right? And God is not His works, right? Why, then, would you bring up things that aren't God, saying that you can see them, when you are being questioned as to why you said both "I can see God" and "I cannot see God"? No one asked you if you can see things that aren't God.

Click to expand...

Please explain your failure to answer that question that you have read.

7djengo7 said:

Then answer the question I asked you, weasel:


Remember what you said to me, hypocrite:

I give you the benefit of the doubt, taking that to be you advertising that it is your policy to read all of what your critic/questioner has posted, pursuant to "And as ye would that men should do to you, do ye also to them likewise." So, I know you read that question to you that I posted:

Please explain your failure to answer that question that you have read.

Click to expand...

God's actions represent God 100% accurately. Without God's creation and works including His words, we do not know God whatsoever, let alone exist. We see God via his works and His word including the word in the flesh Jesus Christ. As Jesus Christ clearly stated, he who has seen me has seen the Father.

John 14:9
Jesus saith unto him, Have I been so long time with you, and yet hast thou not known me, Philip? he that hath seen me hath seen the Father; and how sayest thou then, Show us the Father?

Because I have seen Jesus Christ through God's recorded words, ie., scripture. I can genuinely say that I have seen Jesus Christ. I have seen him through the words that God authored to describe his character, his words, his actions. If you cannot know Jesus Christ through the knowledge of God's word, then we are of all men most miserable.

The Word was God.

oatmeal said:

Did you read all of what I posted.

No, obviously, you did not.

To sum up:

I explained myself quite thoroughly.. I cannot see God with my physical eyes, but I can see His works in and around my life with my physical eyes. God, being spirit, is invisible to the physical eyes, but His works are not invisible. Since I can see His works. I am seeing God's handiwork

Click to expand...

Hi Oatmeal, I once asked how can God's being invisible and yet LORD God being seen is also true. The answer came: Mankind may be limited but don't limit God. This is how it works: The ONE God is an invisible Spirit; yet, Genesis 1 tells us he had an image. The image is not God but is like a living visible tool used by God to reveal himself unto mankind. Where mankind has a bodily image he can only used it once. He has not poere to manifest it in multiples. God is not limited. Most Christians believe in the three personages of the Godhead; so, I accept that the ONE God is willing and able to manifest his ONE image in triplicate. When Abraham saw the ONE God he was looking at the bodily form created by God manifested in triplicate. Since there is only ONE image for the ONE invisible God then the Lords who appeared to Abraham looked alike! The fact that God can manifest his ONE image simultaneously as multiple is why Jesus [being God as the Savior] could correctly say: When you have seen me, you have seen the Father [God]. Jesus was God not only because he bore the image created by the invisible God but because he was ONE with God Spiritually. The invisible God associated himself with the Savior he sent into the world and imparted what ever Jesus needed to know. The body was not God but the Spirit associated with Jesus was just as much God as was the Father who preceded him.

Isaiah 43:11 I, [God the invisible Spirit], even I, AM the LORD; beside me [being God the Spirit plus the visible presence of the LORD] there is no Savior. The Spirit + the super-natural presence created by God as the Father LORD God +the presence of our Lord Jesus [ The three while ONE]

Key to help anyone understand is this: An invisible God created a visible walking talking living image for his personal use. He then used it to appear as the OT super-natural visible Father and gave his presence A NAME! KJV - LORD/YHWH/Jehovah/ All of these represent the ONE God appearing unto mankind. The came the Savior ... still the ONE God as Isaiah 43:11 states and also appearing in the likeness of the ONE God's ONE image. The main differences which stand out to me, are the Father was seen as a supernatural eternal entity / with angelic abilities. Because he could speak audibly with a mouth he brought messages from the ONE God unto mankind. He also performed works in his day. Then came God the Son ... who was also seen bearing God's one image. He also audibly spoke the WORDs of God through his mouth. He was just as much the WORD of God as was the Father. Yet his presence was in mortal flesh for the purpose of sacrifice as the Savior. It took the blood and body of Jesus, who was God, to provide salvation for mankind.

Jesus explained it well: When you have seen me you have seen the Father. We are ONE.
Scripture adds another nuance besides in appearance ... he was spiritually one with the Father ... for Jesus, whom God has sent, speaketh the words of God: for God giveth not the Spirit by measure unto him. The Father loveth the Son, and hath given ALL THING into his hand. John 3:34-35

Ps82 said:

Now, what did the three identical Lords look like when they appeared to Abraham?
La
Now, what did the three identical Lords look like when they appeared to Abraham?
Lamentations 4 ... Over view: Discusses the captivity of the Kingdom of Judah due to the sins of the people with death, hunger, and ruin. God brought this on them. Verses 6-8 bring up the visit with Abraham by the three Lords.
Watch:
6 For the punishment of the iniquity of the daughter of my people is greater than the punishment of the sin of Sodom, that was overthrown as in a moment, and no hands stayed on her.

7 Her [Sodom's] Nazarites [the three who delivered judgement] were purer than snow [sinless], they were whiter [skin] than milk, they were more ruddy in body than rubies [a red head's bodily characteristics], and their polishing [shiny eyes] was of sapphire .

Now how do I know verse 7 is talking about the physical appearance of the three Lords? Look at verse 8. The appearance in verse 7 of the three perfect Nazarites, who went into town and who delivered judgment, is contrasted to the horrible appearance of the people of Sodom after judgement fell upon them.

8 Their [the people of Sodom's] visage [appearance] is blacker than a coal; they are not known in the streets [unidentifiable]: their skin cleaveth to their bones; it is withered, it is become like a [I suggest a burned] stick.

These three Lords all had white complexations, with a ruddy red head appearance, and blue eyes. Because they all looked alike the men of the town that night knew to go to Lot's house to get the other two and run then all out of town. They were the angriest with THE ONE fellow, who stayed in the streets that night, looking around and judging them. In fact, they were roughing him up and shoving him against Lot's door but he blinded them so they no longer saw him and so they wandered away. The three Lords then finished their mission.

BTW, wasn't this what Lord Jesus, being God the Savior, did when the mob of Jews were trying to kill him. He spiritually blinded them and they could no longer see him even though he had just been in their midst? He walked out of their midst and they soon left.
that was overthrown as in a moment, and no hands stayed on her.

7 Her [Sodom's] Nazarites [the three who delivered judgement] were purer than snow [sinless], they were whiter [skin] than milk, they were more ruddy in body than rubies [a red head's bodily characteristics], and their polishing [shiny eyes] was of sapphire blue.

Now how do I know verse 7 is talking about the physical appearance of the three Lords? Look at verse 8. The appearance in verse 7 of the three perfect Nazarites, who went into town and who delivered judgment, is contrasted to the horrible appearance of the people of Sodom after judgement fell upon them.

8 Their [the people of Sodom's] visage [appearance] is blacker than a coal; they are not known in the streets [unidentifiable]: their skin cleaveth to their bones; it is withered, it is become like a [I suggest a burned] stick.

These three Lords all had white complexations, with a ruddy red head appearance, and blue eyes. Because they all looked alike the men of the town that night knew to go to Lot's house to get the other two and run then all out of town. They were the angriest with THE ONE fellow, who stayed in the streets that night, looking around and judging them. In fact, they were roughing him up and shoving him against Lot's door but he blinded them so they no longer saw him and so they wandered away. The three Lords then finished their mission.

BTW, wasn't this what Lord Jesus, being God the Savior, did when the mob of Jews were trying to kill him. He spiritually blinded them and they could no longer see him even though he had just been in their midst? He walked out of their midst and they soon left.

Click to expand...

JudgeRightly said:

BB codes

The list of BB codes you can use to spice up the look of your messages. This page shows a list of all BB codes that are available.

theologyonline.com

Click to expand...

Well, I apologize for the way my post shows up repetitiously. I don't know why I or even how I managed that. ??? I'm still not sure about the mistake I used in the codes ... but thanks for the info and I just won't use color codes again. ???

oatmeal said:

Angels, ie, messengers from God to man

Click to expand...

This was an important part of my conclusions about which we disagree. I believe God manifested his created image in identical multiples. Why should we limit God to doing such a thing. God proved he could do it. Example: He created an IMAGE for himself ... and then used his IMAGE again to give Adam the likeness of HIS IMAGE. That is twice he manifested his image. First time 'super-natural.' Second time a 'body natural' to mankind.
There is a third time a likeness of God's image was said to have appeared: It was when Seith was born to Adam and Eve. It is said that Seith looked like his Father Adam ... who had looked like his Father The LORD. Three look-a-likes ... One super-natural, one of a natural human essence and one of corrupted mortal flesh.

And let's not forget all the times the invisible God manifested his form/image with in dream and visions. In those cases of the essence of which dreams are formed. I guess that is within human thoughts.

oatmeal said:

Well, I appreciate you sharing your opinion.

There are lords many and gods many.

1 Corinthians 8:5
For though there be that are called gods, whether in heaven or in earth, (as there be gods many, and lords many,)

Calling someone LORD is simply acknowledging their superiority and authority to act and command or demand.

Are angels superior to man? Yes, in some ways they are. However, we have Christ in us. Colossians 1:27, which angels do not. Jesus have power over the angels because the Jesus Christ was superior to them, being the son of God.

God is spirit and no man has seen God, literally with the physical eyes, at any time. So God sends angels in human form to communicate to men at times

Click to expand...

Thank you, oatmeal, for engaging in conversation. Yes, lords and gods do not refer to our our God and LORD. In fact, I've realized that these lesser forms of words were probably confiscated by pompous humanity in order to add credence and superiority to their importance among human beings. Things like Lord this and Lady that ... duke and duchess and etc. are all elitist words. But their creation does not take away from the fact that God gave His IMAGE as particular name. Now, the Jews became afraid of using God's chosen name so they made up other terms. Sort of caused people like the Greeks and English etc to know the real pronunciation and spelling of the proper Chosen name, but what is important is that the invisible God gave His IMAGE a name. I call him LORD because I study the KIJE Bible. Some like to say YHAW Yahwah is the real pronunciation. I don't care as long as I know when he is being spoken of in scripture. As in The [visible] angel of The LORD... The LORD ...LORD God ...The [visible] LORD Father ... and when I perceive the differentiation when things like Elohiym ... or The Spirit ... etc are used to mention his invisible essence.

oatmeal said:

Being referred to as lord does not make that lord, the Lord God or any other lord in particular. God sends angels to men to inform, warn, etc. These angels are considered superior to men because they have abilities that men do not have..

We read that Sarah called Abraham, lord. That does not make Abraham to be the Lord God or the lord Jesus Christ or an angel, it is simply a show of respect of a wife to her husband.

1 Peter 3:6
Even as Sara obeyed Abraham, calling him lord: whose daughters ye are, as long as ye do well, and are not afraid with any amazement.

Click to expand...

Well, Jesus seemed to think calling him Lord Lord was important? Jesus once asked an individual this question: And why call ye me [who is God, Lord and Savior - Isaiah 43:11], Lord, Lord, and do not the things which I say?
IOW if I Am the LORD why don't you obey me?

I happen to believe by the time Jesus arrived as Emanuel that the name chosen by God had been lost and the terms of elitism had become part of one's current vocabulary ... certainly by the KJEV had been written for us... The person speaking to Jesus used the stolen term casually to address him with out know what he was saying. He spoke the truth ... Jesus was the Father LORD ... so Jesus conveyed the truth with his question: Why do you call me Lord Lord but do not obey me as your LORD? I say people should not use the name LORD in vain for vanity purposes ... but learn the truth and use it to glorify and obey HIM as LORD of all.

oatmeal said:

Well, sorry to disappoint you. God refers to himself in many ways, Lord, Rock Shepherd. High tower, fortress, but not once, not once, does he refer to himself as a trinity. Why don't you stick with scripture, instead of fantasizing?

Click to expand...

Well, the old non use of the word trinity in the Bible. I give you that ... but it is a good English word for mentioning that we know the invisible God as three individuals working among man to complete our salvation. Not that the three we know are such individuals that they are God. I like to describe what I perceive this way: God is an invisible spirit. He created an image and he can associate his spiritual essence with his IMAGE. This means that The Father had access to the essence of the ONE spiritual God and creator when he appeared and worked among men and angels. The same process worked with Jesus of flesh. When the ONE spiritual God wanted Jesus to know or say or do something it was imparted unto him.

Jesus might be compared to the ambassador of a country who says and does what his country wants of him at any given time. Scripture says that Jesus had access to the Spirit of God without measure. A prophet might have access in certain limited amounts but Jesus had total access ACCORDING TO GOD'S WILL. IOW, Jesus might not have known the 'time of the End' ... where only the Father already knew. This manner of imparting information was imparted according to God plans for the times. While the Father and the Son were simultaneously privy to all access to the Spirit they were given what was meant to be known as needed. (John 3:34)

oatmeal said:

Jesus said what? Did he say, "I and my Father are God?" No, he did not. He said "I and my Father are one"

Are you suggesting that the word "one" always refers to "God"?

You might want to check on scripture for that one.

Click to expand...

ONE is a term used to describe - there is only ONE God and 'The Spirit, The Father LORD, and our Lord Savior are that ONE God.' Isaiah 43:11 makes that clear in just one sentence. I (God the Spirit), even I, AM The LORD (who appears to mankind) beside me (who being is Spirit with my manifested presence) there is no Savior.
IOW, our Savior is equal to being ONE with the Spirit and the Father. He thought it not robbery to be equal with God.

In what ways was he like the Spirit of God and the Father LORD? God gave the Spirit unto him without measure. When one had seen him in bodily form they had seen the presence of the Father - while manifested in flesh. Why would people call him Lord Lord and then not obey him?

oatmeal said:

Jesus is the word of God as much as scripture is the word of God.

Word, ie, logos, means message, it does not mean God.

The scripture is the word, the message of God in written form

Jesus Christ is the word, the message of God in the flesh.

You want to see what living the word, the message of God looks like when a human is doing it? Look to Jesus Christ, he is our living example and the word, the message in the flesh

Click to expand...

Praise our God and Savior. Amen. I so believe Jesus was The WORD! How?
God is an invisible Spirit ... a living creator. Scripture says God is LIFE! He imparts LIFE and other things from within his essence unto his creations. If we start naming things we have learned of his essence then we can say that they are alive since He is LIFE. If we list mercy and love and power then they are alive ... If we say his WORD then it is God and it is alive and it is with God and is God. (John 1:1-4)

What is God's WORD? It is the way he communicates. If we consider humanity then His Word would be the way he communicates with us. And in scripture I see him taking in languages and lots of times in audible voices. Whether is be sound that shakes mountains or through the mouth of our LORD who appears to someone like Abraham ... or as a still small voice within a spirit filled Christian. God tells us that the WORD was Him and with Him and that His voice took part in the creation of all things. What God thought to create he communicated and commanded and it was so. Amazing!

oatmeal said:

What is the message? God is the message.

Click to expand...

Yes, especially the part that he established the way to show humanity mercy. Mercy through a plan of salvation. Jesus is our salvation delivered. Salvation has come for Jesus being God seen as God's son for the first time ever in flesh has accomplished his work in his day.

Now, a few questions for another topic: If Jesus was a success ... why hasn't all suffering ended? Why isn't his kingdom here already? Why do we still wait?

I enjoyed your questions:

oatmeal said:

Isaiah 43:11 is the truth.

I, even I, am the Lord; and beside me there is no saviour.

I is referring to God, not to His son or the many other saviors that the Bible refers to.

God is the ultimate and only source of salvation.

However, since salvation is one of the businesses of God, and God employs others to carry out His will, we have people, human beings that do the work of God in leading others by making available salvation to others.

Click to expand...

People do not save anyone. God has been generous to use us to share the gospel and we will receive rewards for the times we participate in glorifying our Lord among men ... but it is God who saves... and His plan is the gospel. I learned this lesson the hard way. I shared the gospel with a person through a ministry... It was the first time I had anyone pray the prayer with me. I came away saying to my fellow volunteers that - I had just saved someone. They laughed and I immediately got their point. I was being braggadocious. I cannot save anyone... nor can an angel or a prophet or a preacher ... nor a priest or a pope. There are no other saviors; so, I don't understand your comment.

oatmeal said:

We see that God appointed saviours to Israel for instance.

Nehemiah 9:27 Therefore thou deliveredst them into the hand of their enemies, who vexed them: and in the time of their trouble, when they cried unto thee, thou heardest them from heaven; and according to thy manifold mercies thou gavest them saviours, who saved them out of the hand of their enemies.


Before you retort with they saved them out of the hand of their enemies. Yes, they did, at God's direction. They are saviors nonetheless.

Peter told the multitude that asked Peter and the rest of the apostles, "Men and brethren, what shall we do?"

Acts 2:40 And with many other words did he testify and exhort, saying, Save yourselves from this untoward generation.

Thus we have the ability to save ourselves according to Peter. Was Peter wrong?

Now, we ask, how do we save ourselves?

Acts 2:41 Then they that gladly received his word were baptized: and the same day there were added unto them about three thousand souls.

Thus we save ourselves by receiving the word of God that teaches us how to be saved.

How do we save ourselves? What word of God do we need to receive and do to receive salvation?

Click to expand...

I just don't believe we save ourselves. God calls and God saves. People share the truth to glorify our God and Savior. I will agree with this point ... We do have freewill. We can reject the call ... we can choose to continue in the ways of our sinful nature and make Satan our god. We have a choice.

oatmeal said:

Romans 10:9 That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.

Click to expand...

Yes ... glorify Christ as our LORD/Lord and follow him with a sincere heart. He gives us the gift of the Spirit to help us while we wait on the completion of all things.

oatmeal said:

Of course, Jesus Christ did his Father's business in providing the gift of salvation through Jesus' completed works including the giving of the gift of holy spirit on the day of Pentecost.

Thus we see that although God alone is the sole source of salvation, God employs people to make know that access to salvation

Click to expand...

Amen...

Nick M said:

Watching Ray Comfort videos has made me decide to think more on the specific command to not say his name in vain, and what it meas to do it. It means to do it without a good reason. He isn't your next door neighbor, he is the creator of the universe and we owe him divine respect in all ways.

Click to expand...

I'll add: Do not say God will do certain things when God has not told you personally what is going to happen. That's a definition of a 'false prophet' who is using his name in vain.

Also I wonder about this: Humanity confiscated the name of God ... in this manner. The English began using a term called LORD/Lord to identify their royalty. Did they steal God's name??? OR ... In their language LORD/Lord was the highest and most elite word they knew to identify people of power and authority over others. Therefore, when they interpreted scripture they used that English word to associated it with the unspoken name of the ONE True God and Savior. The fact the Jews wouldn't say the name of God out loud due to fear which didn't help matters. It resulted in the English not knowing what name to write ... the interpreters used the words LORD and Lord to write about God in English. I often wonder if they have disrespected God by giving HIM a name that is really a human invention. Just wondering. I guess the Greeks did the same sort of thing.

oatmeal said:

John 1:18
No man hath seen God at any time, the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.

By the way, since people saw Jesus, it is conclusive that Jesus is not God.


1 John 4:12
No man hath seen God at any time. If we love one another, God dwelleth in us, and his love is perfected in us.

1 Timothy 1:17
Now unto the King eternal, immortal, invisible, the only wise God, be honour and glory for ever and ever. Amen.

Since people saw Jesus Christ, that passage is referring to God, not to his son.

Click to expand...

Oatmeal, within your response to someone else. You have used one of my favorite verses! John 1:18. I've even diagrammed the KJV sentence to make clear what it is saying.

It is not saying that no one has ever seen God ... even thought that is true for no one has ever seen God the invisible Spirit! But verse 18 is saying that no one had ever seen God the begotten Son!!!

Obvious to OT scripture people saw God as The super-natural LORD Father. He appeared out right to many and within dream and open eyed visions to others. So people had seen God manifested with his created image. Moses saw him face to face as a friend.

But the wonderful verse 18 makes it clear that God himself had appeared as his own Son in flesh. No human being had ever seen God in flesh as his own begotten Son until Jesus came into the world. People did not recognize him for several reasons: He did not look like The LORD God the Father and that is who they were expecting to come. He had no super-natural glory about him. Most people in Jesus's day had never seen the Father's shape of heard his voice so they did not recognize The LORD when they saw him as the Lord Savior?

Who identified our Lord to the world? John 1 goes on to tell what John the Baptist taught about Jesus. It was was John the Baptist who identified who Jesus really was as God the Son. Here is my version of John 1:18

No man hath at any time seen God the only begotten Son, which/who is in the bosom of the Father (by this time), he (John the Baptist) hath declared him (correctly as God the Son).

My conclusion remains: ONE invisible God created ONE image to represent his ONENESS. Yet, God is not limited as humans are - We have one image and cannot manifest it identically more than once. Even what we call identical triplets are not really identical. Yet God can do such things and this allows him to manifest his shape and voice in many ways, of difference essences and within different realms. Out right Earthly or in dreams and open eyed visions. In the instance of Abraham ... God came as three identical visible persons baring God's one visible image. People saw the two Lords who went into town earlier and who went home with Lot. Later people saw The LORD (the one distinguished as to having stayed behind to talk with Abraham) who came into Sodom that evening and acted as their judge. They knew he was with the first two for they looked alike! The three looked like God's one visible created image. Each one representing the ONE invisible spiritual creator and judge.

Both Abraham and Lot worshiped the three by bowing down to the ground before them and calling them by the only name they knew to call him which identified him, which, BTW, was not KJE LORD/Lords nor was it some substitution which the Jews created like Jehovah. Guess his real name still remains a mystery.

The name Abraham and Lot probably called him simply described who he was. Most likely one that Abraham designed.

I write from a KJE Bible which points out the important truth that God at some point gave his presence a name.
Exodus 6:3 And I (the once invisible God) appeared unto Abraham, unto Isaac, and unto Jacob, by the name of God Almighty, but by my name JEHOVAH (a substitution for his real name) was I not known to them.

Just wow. It was the ONE God, with his manifested one presence, who appeared to Abraham and Lot as three! Hmmm... did the three represent God and his plans... as The Spirit, The Father and the Son or perhaps as The Creator, the Judge, the Savior or even as The Father, The Savior, The gift of the Holy Spirit in us? God's manifest plan of Salvation?