Part II
Actually, your view is one of Torah abrogation as was his. So, there's no way Tanakh teaches that.
The Tanakh teaches something you do not want to ignore: The blessings of Abraham was ALSO unto all the nations of the world. Consider that this blessing has come on us: What would that look like? It's not abrogation, but extension. The Nazarenes, confronted with masses of Gentile converts had to struggle with exactly what you're objecting to. If you can see that, you can understand the struggle: What do you do with a Gentile who comes to you? Make him conform to an outward seal? Or teach him to subscribe to a deeper circumcision to which both Moses and Jeremiah subscribed? I hope you see that I'm not being casual or glibly disrespectful. And I'm not suggesting this is easy, neither that you are wrong. But you do seem more willing to understand.
But the concept of blessings and curses is found in the garden.
You keep talking concept. I'm talking specific lists....
No, we understand. God uses angels, people, prophets, kings, Israel, as His representative. That's why they are referred to as God, elohim, in the Hebrew, or as anointed, with His name on them. Blessings and prophetic revelations are shown as God being present, face to face, though He is not physically there.
Smiling...OK...and yet...I guess it's great to have all the answers. I will always prefer the experience of an encounter. Moses saw more than imagination pass by in the cleft of the Rock...
I've done this so many times that I haven't seen anything new.
Yet you continue...Jesus said, "The scribe instructed in the kingdom takes from the treasure of his storehouse something old and something new." I'm praying you'll see something new, just for the pleasure of the time you take in discussions like this.
The image isn't physical, that's for sure. You'd have to explain where Eve got her body from then. Exodus 34:6-7 talks to what the image entails.
Well...the "backside view" of the image. No one can look on the frontside view and live, so He has a front and a backside.
Sons of God are those that are obedient to His Spirit, His will, His commandments.
Agreed...those who take after their Father.
It doesn't say a hole was dug or left.
You're picking nits...which is fine. It's making me laugh. It says "He scooped up earth." Do me science experiment real quick. Go into your garden and scoop up enough earth to form a man-shape. What do you see where you scooped up the earth?
If it makes you happy, but your points aren't in the script.
Scoop up dirt...get back to me.
No, I just go by the text. I try to stay away from anything else.
If the text is a narrative, and you limit the narrative, you're not going by the text. "He scooped up dirt and left no hole," is actually adding to the narrative, not sticking to it.
Not really when God can create skins, or an animal be sheered for its fur. Again, no sacrifice is mentioned. Why add what's not there?
Are you seriously denying that animals died to cover the nakedness of Adam and Eve? I don't think right now you're picking your.fights wisely. In my view, this is the first time in the Bible shame is covered, and the very first time an animal proxy is used for that covering. Say what you want, but you're taking away from what is so clearly written.
Where does Tanakh say Moses followed a heavenly pattern? The NT might, but Tanakh doesn't.
Exodus 25:40 "…39The lampstand and all these utensils shall be made from a talent of pure gold. 40See to it that you make everything according to the pattern shown you on the mountain." Is this the first time you've seen this? Have you never wondered?
No, you're taking a literary license here.
No, actually, I'm not. And this is one of the points we will strongly disagree on, but the pattern of the blood spattered on the door was deliberately the top, and the two sides, and the angel of death passed over.
Sorry, but I'm not buying it.
Of course not. Do not apologize. I just answered your question according to the clarity of your own insights.
Not really. Whoever wrote it really pulled verses out of context and took many liberties.
...Or discerned the true intent. We represent the two sides of this debate.
Isaac, Israel are the seed. Like the stars, not just an individual.
Of course...and as Israel was not yet born, Isaac being but twelve years old, Isaac could not die. That's the point.
As you say. And Abraham foresaw the ram before the journey, and called the place YHWH Jireh.
That's what Abraham thought. God thought otherwise.
You missed my point: Please hear me. That is NOT what Abraham thought. Abraham had God's mind in this, because he KNEW otherwise, because of the promise that God cannot break.
And eternity was promised without the need for Jesus.
No...Eternity was never promised without the need for redemption. And redemption cannot come without a Price.
No, human sacrifice is not supported in the commandments. And Ezekiel 18 shows otherwise.
Isaiah says "...His Soul...". In death, says Ecclesiastes, the ruach returns to the Lord, the body to the dust, and the soul/nephesh to Sheol. The blood was required, and being sufficient, we have the resurrection.
I don't believe Jesus was sinless nor is that a requirement to be righteous. The righteous fall 7 times...
The lamb must be without blemish. You do not have to believe anything for it to be true. Jesus righteousness does not depend on your faith...yours depends on His.
Which Jeremiah 31:31-34 refutes as the same laws are written on the hearts and minds. Blood is only one means of atonement. It's in the law.
Jeremiah 31 buttresses the New Covenant...which you reject. Righteousness is a matter of the heart...from within, where the blood actually does its cleansing work. No blood functions from the outside in, that's only ever symbolic.
And it speaks highly of God's law and following it.
It's my favorite...bar none.
Parthenos has been shown to be ambiguous at best. Mary was married and impregnated by natural means or she was adulterous and gave birth to a mamzer. There is no way out of it.
I'm trying to say, "So what" politely: It's the word the LXX chose, and its an acceptable translation of your "young maiden" for virgin. You're stuck with the possibility that the translation is "virgin." We're encouraged by the fact that she was...and therefore we have better witness for a translation you can only guess at and argue over. And you're wrong about Mary, and stuck with your own surmise. I've explained to you how faith in the promise made her pregnant by promise. I
Leviticus 12:2 shows otherwise. Tazria, conceived with seed, sperm. And Mary brought sacrifices in accordance to the law as a result.
The seed was the word...No man knew her...and the sacrifices were accepted and the child was circumcised.
Isaiah 7:14 doesn't mention impregnation by God. It's made up.
No...and you're actually either being a bit harsh here, or you're denying obvious possibilities...If the word MUST be translated virgin, a virgin with child got pregnant, and the operative, powerful guide is the child's name, Immanuel. From Him all else falls into place.
No, Mary, if she was a good Jewess laid with her husband.
I tell Roman Catholics, who have been taught a perpetual virginity, this fact all the time. And she withheld herself, and Joseph from her, for the length of this extraordinary and anamalous pregnancy.
If you leave this discussion, I'm sure we'll meet again...BTW...if you've never seen the heavenly pattern, you've learned something from this, I would hope.