God wanted human sacrifices for atonement of sin?

Actually the rich man said he had kept them.
So he thought and was wrong just like you are about Yeshua. The only possible way you will come to the Truth is if the Lord removes the scales that are in your eyes. So repent before its to late. Humble yourself. Do it know willingly or you will bow your knee before the Messiah and then it will be to late.
 
So he thought and was wrong just like you are about Yeshua.
Kind of like telling people not to bury their dead though that's a commandment.

The only possible way you will come to the Truth is if the Lord removes the scales that are in your eyes. So repent before its to late. Humble yourself. Do it know willingly or you will bow your knee before the Messiah and then it will be to late.
Ironically, Jesus has knees and a tongue that will confess the true God. ;)
 
Kind of like telling people not to bury their dead though that's a commandment.


Ironically, Jesus has knees and a tongue that will confess the true God. ;)
Yes and He will sit on the throne with bent knees and a tongue to say get away from here for I never knew you. That will be one sad day for you. "Every knee will bow every tongue will confess that Jesus Christ is Lord."(1 Thess 5:21) Repent of your sins before its to late!!!!
 
Yes and He will sit on the throne with bent knees and a tongue to say get away from here for I never knew you.
Rotfl... his knees will bend in adoration to the one true God. You can't escape this. He's done it before and he'll do it again. Such a good boy!

You forgot the workers of lawlessness part above. That applies to your teachers and church, and you. ;)

That will be one sad day for you. "Every knee will bow every tongue will confess that Jesus Christ is Lord."(1 Thess 5:21) Repent of your sins before its to late!!!!
Fortunately, the Tanakh contradicts the ridiculous of Paul's words.
 
Rotfl... his knees will bend in adoration to the one true God. You can't escape this. He's done it before and he'll do it again. Such a good boy!

You forgot the workers of lawlessness part above. That applies to your teachers and church, and you. ;)


Fortunately, the Tanakh contradicts the ridiculous of Paul's words.
Its not a contradiction.Its your lack of understanding that blinds you from the Truth of Gods Word.
 
So he thought and was wrong just like you are about Yeshua. The only possible way you will come to the Truth is if the Lord removes the scales that are in your eyes. So repent before its to late. Humble yourself. Do it know willingly or you will bow your knee before the Messiah and then it will be to late.
Jesus did not say to him, "You liar! You have NOT kept the commandments." Seems like Jesus aCCEPTED what he said.
 
So he thought and was wrong just like you are about Yeshua. The only possible way you will come to the Truth is if the Lord removes the scales that are in your eyes. So repent before its to late. Humble yourself. Do it know willingly or you will bow your knee before the Messiah and then it will be to late.
Can you tell me what commandment obligates someone to sell everything and give all to the poor? And as a result become poor yourself?
 
Genesis 32:30 isn't a metaphor or simile. It isn't found in a poetic/figurative genre. So, you're saying Jacob lied when he said "I have seen God face to face". Well, if that's how you justify your theology, nothing else can be said. You don't believe what Scripture proclaims.
Rotfl.... first off, there are no capitals in Hebrew, as well in Greek. As I think you know, or you should know, angels are called God too. Again, when men, prophets, kings, angels, judges, etc., act in place of God, they are God. It's not difficult to understand.
DoctrinesofGraceBapt said:
There is a category difference between saying "For I have seen God face to face, and yet my life has been delivered.”
How so? The term panai with respect to God is used to denote acceptance or favor/facing towards, or displeasure/facing away.
You just don't understand Jewish thought. No surprise.
DoctrinesofGraceBapt said:
and claiming to be a god to/before Pharaoh. Nothing Moses says in Exodus 7:1 was meant to imply something ontological about Moses.
You're showing your bias here. Nothing is implied ontological in your examples as well.
DoctrinesofGraceBapt said:
It's describing the relationship between Moses and Pharaoh.
It shows Moses was God. Moses wrote it that way.
DoctrinesofGraceBapt said:
However, Jacob's astonishment at still being alive alone demands the reader see Genesis 32:30 as making an ontological statement about the one with whom Jacob wrested.
No, you demand, the context doesn't. Again, your bias is shown. Do you really think the God can't out wrestle a mortal man? Rotfl...

First of all, read the entire paragraph before responding. Otherwise, you will simply condemn yourself all the more as the one who doesn't think before responding. Secondly, the context clearly does demand the reader see Genesis 32:30 as making an ontological statement about the one with whom Jacob wrested. You simply refuse to see it.

DoctrinesofGraceBapt said:
So, there are also other recognizable ways in which one can see God.
Yes, and it doesn't have to be physical. Rather it can't be.

Thanks for proving my point.

I've listed it for you countless times. If you refuse to recognize something that obvious, nothing else can be said.
Just having a verse say YHWH spoke doesn't say nor mean a man was called YHWH. Do you know the difference?
DoctrinesofGraceBapt said:
Abraham refers to one of these men as adonai, and Moses uses the divine name express who this man was in respondence.
No, the man spoke for YHWH. That's how emissaries work. In Genesis 18-19, they speak prophetically as well.
Do you want a link to Jewish emissaries for some background to help you out?

Nice attempt to read your theology into the passage. Too bad it doesn't say that. The text says "And YHWH appeared to him by the oaks of Mamre".

DoctrinesofGraceBapt said:
I already admitted that Moses called himself God to Pharaoh. So, what's you point?
Then you must accept Moses is divine or you're biased in your thinking.
Moses also wrote that judges, kings, Abraham, angels, are God. Why do you avoid that? Because it doesn't fit your paradigm?

When did I ever hint that because the term elohim was used the one is divine in my thinking?

DoctrinesofGraceBapt said:
Oh yeah, you're simply trying to change the topic because you know how devastating Genesis 18-19 is for your perspective.
Rotfl... no, I'm showing a consistency which you don't.

It's consistent to ignore Scripture? That's a new one.

DoctrinesofGraceBapt said:
It's better for you to simply ignore Genesis 18-19 and change the topic, like your doing above.
No, I've addressed any issues you have. I really don't care that you don't like them.

No, you've ignored what the text says "And YHWH appeared to him by the oaks of Mamre".

DoctrinesofGraceBapt said:
He did call a man YHWH. Either YHWH appeared before Abraham in Genesis 18:1, or Moses lied.
I still don't see where a man is said to be named YHWH. What I do see is the agency of a shaliach, emissary, in action
So you agree Moses was God too. Did he lie in Exodus 7:1?

The text says "And YHWH appeared to him by the oaks of Mamre", and you reject it.

DoctrinesofGraceBapt said:
If you refuse to recognize something that obvious, nothing else can be said.
I've debunked your ideas. Nothing else left to be said.

No, you refused to accept what Scripture says "And YHWH appeared to him by the oaks of Mamre".

God Bless
 
Sure,You shall have no other gods before me. Money was his idol. You do know this was a parable.
The parable isn't worth much since there isn't an obligation to become poor yourself.

You do know that gods of flesh, Exodus 34:17, are prohibited as well? Study the Hebrew masecha. It deals with gods of fusion, gods with coverings as of vail of flesh.
 
First of all, read the entire paragraph before responding. Otherwise, you will simply condemn yourself all the more as the one who doesn't think before responding. Secondly, the context clearly does demand the reader see Genesis 32:30 as making an ontological statement about the one with whom Jacob wrested. You simply refuse to see it.
You're showing bias in your interpretation when you deny the same would apply to Moses and all the other examples I've given you.

It's pretty ridiculous that you think the God of the Universe was out wrestled by a mortal. That alone shows how idiotic your position is. Sorry.

Thanks for proving my point.
No, thanks for proving mine.

Nice attempt to read your theology into the passage. Too bad it doesn't say that. The text says "And YHWH appeared to him by the oaks of Mamre".
Yes, just as Moses was God before Pharaoh. Do you understand the mission of an emissary?

When did I ever hint that because the term elohim was used the one is divine in my thinking?
Then get consistent with your idea of Jacob above.

It's consistent to ignore Scripture? That's a new one.
Yeah, I don't know why you ignore them.

No, you've ignored what the text says "And YHWH appeared to him by the oaks of Mamre".
Not ignore, I understand the applications of an emissary. At least be consistent that Moses, Abraham, angels, kings, etc., are God too.

The text says "And YHWH appeared to him by the oaks of Mamre", and you reject it.
The text say Moses, etc., are God too, and you reject them. Why?

No, you refused to accept what Scripture says "And YHWH appeared to him by the oaks of Mamre".
See above. Be consistent. I am in my approach.

God Bless
He continues to.
 
First of all, read the entire paragraph before responding. Otherwise, you will simply condemn yourself all the more as the one who doesn't think before responding. Secondly, the context clearly does demand the reader see Genesis 32:30 as making an ontological statement about the one with whom Jacob wrested. You simply refuse to see it.
You're showing bias in your interpretation when you deny the same would apply to Moses and all the other examples I've given you.
It's pretty ridiculous that you think the God of the Universe was out wrestled by a mortal. That alone shows how idiotic your position is. Sorry.

Nope, when one reads things in context, bias is not necessary to see which is referring to ontology and which is referring to relationship.

DoctrinesofGraceBapt said:
Nice attempt to read your theology into the passage. Too bad it doesn't say that. The text says "And YHWH appeared to him by the oaks of Mamre".
Yes, just as Moses was God before Pharaoh. Do you understand the mission of an emissary?

Sending an emissary is not appearing to him. The text says "And YHWH appeared to him by the oaks of Mamre".

DoctrinesofGraceBapt said:
When did I ever hint that because the term elohim was used the one is divine in my thinking?
Then get consistent with your idea of Jacob above.

Not in the least because the divinity of the wrestler isn't established by the use of elohim; it's establish by the phrase "and yet my life has been delivered.” In the future, try reading the text for what it says as opposed to what your tradition says.

DoctrinesofGraceBapt said:
No, you've ignored what the text says "And YHWH appeared to him by the oaks of Mamre".
Not ignore, I understand the applications of an emissary. At least be consistent that Moses, Abraham, angels, kings, etc., are God too.

Sending an emissary is not appearing to him. The text says "And YHWH appeared to him by the oaks of Mamre".

DoctrinesofGraceBapt said:
The text says "And YHWH appeared to him by the oaks of Mamre", and you reject it.
The text say Moses, etc., are God too, and you reject them. Why?

Because, I can read. "God" is a generic word that can be used figuratively. YHWH is a name. Categorically different situation. Again, the text says "And YHWH appeared to him by the oaks of Mamre", and you reject it.

God Bless
 
Nope, when one reads things in context, bias is not necessary to see which is referring to ontology and which is referring to relationship.
One reads with an understanding of the customs of the times, an understanding of how emissaries play a role in conveying messages.

Your reading leaves you with a weakling for a god. That's the ontology you want?

Sending an emissary is not appearing to him. The text says "And YHWH appeared to him by the oaks of Mamre".
It sure is. The emissary acts as God, is God for all intent purposes. You can't grasp this?

Not in the least because the divinity of the wrestler isn't established by the use of elohim; it's establish by the phrase "and yet my life has been delivered.” In the future, try reading the text for what it says as opposed to what your tradition says.
Rotfl... a man can deliver another man just as well. Your reply was pretty ridiculous. Try thinking things through. Your idea of god has it being defeated by a mortal. Try reading the text with some basic reasoning.

Sending an emissary is not appearing to him. The text says "And YHWH appeared to him by the oaks of Mamre".
It sure is. No different than Moses being God to Pharaoh and appearing, walking, talking, etc., to him.

Because, I can read. "God" is a generic word that can be used figuratively. YHWH is a name. Categorically different situation. Again, the text says "And YHWH appeared to him by the oaks of Mamre", and you reject it.
Rotfl... there is no other true God but YHWH. If you haven't figured that out, I can't help you.

Why don't you tell us all how Moses can write that he is God, as well as others, and you fluff that off?

Be consistent.

God Bless
Always.
 
That's true. But if they want to be grafted and part of Israel, then they follow Isaiah 56:1-8.

One law for the native and stranger.
What's the difference?
If a Gentile would choose to be a God-fearer and observe Noachide Law as opposed to following Isaiah 56:1-8, how would that change their eternity?
 
Nope, when one reads things in context, bias is not necessary to see which is referring to ontology and which is referring to relationship.
One reads with an understanding of the customs of the times, an understanding of how emissaries play a role in conveying messages.
Your reading leaves you with a weakling for a god. That's the ontology you want?

A response that completely ignores the argument I made. Epic failure.

DoctrinesofGraceBapt said:
Sending an emissary is not appearing to him. The text says "And YHWH appeared to him by the oaks of Mamre".
It sure is. The emissary acts as God, is God for all intent purposes. You can't grasp this?

No it isn't. Under every definition of the word emissary, sending an emissary is not appearing to him. Under every definition of the word appeared, sending an emissary is not appearing to him. The text says "And YHWH appeared to him by the oaks of Mamre". It's utterly amazing how desperate you are. Now, you are flat out rejecting the meaning of ordinary words to protect your theology.

DoctrinesofGraceBapt said:
Not in the least because the divinity of the wrestler isn't established by the use of elohim; it's establish by the phrase "and yet my life has been delivered.” In the future, try reading the text for what it says as opposed to what your tradition says.
Rotfl... a man can deliver another man just as well. Your reply was pretty ridiculous. Try thinking things through. Your idea of god has it being defeated by a mortal. Try reading the text with some basic reasoning.

The only thing ridiculous about my comment is that you reject it only out of theological bias. READ THINGS IN CONTEXT!!!

DoctrinesofGraceBapt said:
Sending an emissary is not appearing to him. The text says "And YHWH appeared to him by the oaks of Mamre".
It sure is. No different than Moses being God to Pharaoh and appearing, walking, talking, etc., to him.

No it isn't. Under every definition of the word emissary, sending an emissary is not appearing to him. Under every definition of the word appeared, sending an emissary is not appearing to him.The text says "And YHWH appeared to him by the oaks of Mamre". It's utterly amazing how desperate you are. Now, you are flat out rejecting the meaning of ordinary words to protect your theology.

DoctrinesofGraceBapt said:
Because, I can read. "God" is a generic word that can be used figuratively. YHWH is a name. Categorically different situation. Again, the text says "And YHWH appeared to him by the oaks of Mamre", and you reject it.
Rotfl... there is no other true God but YHWH. If you haven't figured that out, I can't help you.
Why don't you tell us all how Moses can write that he is God, as well as others, and you fluff that off?

Be consistent.

I am being consistent. There is only one true God; yet, the psalmist calls evil judges gods. Was that figurative or literal? Figurative, otherwise it would contradict there only being one true God. Therefore, "God" is a generic word that can be used figuratively. My first point has been established. YHWH is a name. No argument there. My second point has been established. There is a difference between names and ordinary nouns. That's basic linguistics 101. So, my third point has been established: Categorically different situation. So, why are you changing the topic as to ignore Scripture? Again, the text says "And YHWH appeared to him by the oaks of Mamre", and you reject it.

God Bless
 
Back
Top