Why God isn't, can't become man?

[radvermin]

Why? He's said at least 3 times He isn't a man, and also said via Isaiah 40:18,25; 46:5, that He has no likeness to humans, ie. domeh/physicality, dam/blood, nor adam/man, and that He has no physical form, Deut 4:9,12,15,35. Did you read all of the verses?

Yes, the Son of God said these things to Isaiah and appeared to Moses without a human form. How does the Son of God talking to Moses without a form mean that 2000 years later the Son of God could not take on human form?
(All the verses you gave said basically the same thing as far as I could see, so if I missed something please draw my attention to it).

God isn't, man is. Jesus was less than perfect, grew in grace with God, Luke 2:52, and cried the prayers of a penitent, Heb 5:7. Besides, he donated to the temple funds used for sacrifices, broke his wine vow from the last supper, etc.

Total misrepresentation of those passages. Heb 5:7 literally says that Jesus was obedient, "... he was heard because of his reverent submission."
Jesus grew because he was a baby and got older (And Jesus grew in wisdom and stature, and in favor with God and men.), not because he was a sinner and became more holy.
He was like the wise person in Proverbs 3:3-4 who continues in love and faithfulness never leave him, and in that they win favor... in the sight of God and men.

Tanakh states clearly that only the Father created, and no one else, Deut 32:4-6, Mal 2:10, etc. Jesus was formed in the womb.

The Son of God created everything and he also is called Father in the Old Testament (Isaiah 9:6 For to us a child is born, to us a son is given, and the government will be on his shoulders. And he will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace). Why? Because, as Deut 32:6 indicates, Father relates to creation, Is he not your Father, your Creator, who made you and formed you? Hence why Jesus is also called Father in the Tanakh. It's not until the New Covenant that we have the revelation of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit as distinct names of the persons of the one true and only Elohim, YHWH. (<-- mouthful, I know, but trying to be exact).

But I do not want to lead you astray and say that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit were not together in creation, as Moses wrote, "Then God said, "Let us make man in our image, in our likeness..." Gen 1:26

Right verse.

Okay, that took me a bit to see how you were coming to that conclusion. Yes, God the Father is not flesh and blood. That's a completely different topic than talking about the Son of God taking on flesh.

Jesus never says he's the God. David and Solomon and all Davidic kings sit on YHWH's throne, 1 Chr 29:23.

Jesus worships another. You should worship only One.

David and Solomon did not sit on the Lord's throne in Heaven (which was the context of what I was responding to when you said "Jesus himself isn't in heaven.").

But, again, should I believe the words of Jesus?

 

[Jewjitzu]

Yes, the Son of God said these things to Isaiah and appeared to Moses without a human form.

Rotfl... did he also say no god would be formed before or after me, and yet formed himself as a human? Get real.

God showing on Sinai He has no form, commanding us to teach that to our children eliminates any other physical consideration, Deut 4:9,12,15,35.

How does the Son of God talking to Moses without a form mean that 2000 years later the Son of God could not take on human form?

Because Jesus wasn't talking to anyone as he wasn't born yet. Only the Father created, Deut 32:4-6, Mal 2:10, Isa 63:17, etc. There's zero support for the idea of Son of God, God the Son, in Tanakh.

(All the verses you gave said basically the same thing as far as I could see, so if I missed something please draw my attention to it).

You've missed a lot since you can't see the problems with a physical, limited mangod.

Total misrepresentation of those passages. Heb 5:7 literally says that Jesus was obedient, "... he was heard because of his reverent submission."

It says he offered prayers of a penitent, prosenekas, for salvation.

Jesus grew because he was a baby and got older (And Jesus grew in wisdom and stature, and in favor with God and men.), not because he was a sinner and became more holy.

Extending grace is the same for all men.

He was like the wise person in Proverbs 3:3-4 who continues in love and faithfulness never leave him, and in that they win favor... in the sight of God and men.

A wise person learns from their mistakes. You don't need favor otherwise.

The Son of God created everything and he also is called Father in the Old Testament (Isaiah 9:6 For to us a child is born, to us a son is given, and the government will be on his shoulders. And he will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace).

Rotfl... the son can't be the Father. The son died and wasn't Eternal. Jesus was never called these names.

Why? Because, as Deut 32:6 indicates, Father relates to creation, Is he not your Father, your Creator, who made you and formed you?

And Jesus was created by the Father as Isaiah 44:24 says. A son doesn't father himself.

Hence why Jesus is also called Father in the Tanakh.

Debunked.

It's not until the New Covenant that we have the revelation of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit as distinct names of the persons of the one true and only Elohim, YHWH. (<-- mouthful, I know, but trying to be exact).

Tanakh is clear that that God alone created, in the singular, ie, Neh 9:6, etc. There aren't 3 persons. That would break the commandment to have more other gods before me. Two of the 3 is idolatrous.

But I do not want to lead you astray and say that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit were not together in creation, as Moses wrote, "Then God said, "Let us make man in our image, in our likeness..." Gen 1:26

Rotfl... only one as Gen 1:27 proves. Man has two images - the physical and spiritual. The physical came from nature, the same way that the rest of creation was made, Gen 1:1-25. Only man has God's image to rule as He does, Gen 1:27.

Okay, that took me a bit to see how you were coming to that conclusion. Yes, God the Father is not flesh and blood. That's a completely different topic than talking about the Son of God taking on flesh.

No. God's essence has nothing physical, nor does He change, nor add additional natures.

Jesus was created.

David and Solomon did not sit on the Lord's throne in Heaven (which was the context of what I was responding to when you said "Jesus himself isn't in heaven.").

Neither has Jesus. There's zero support for man reigning in heaven, only on earth. So, if divinity is based on sitting on God's throne, humans do that 9n earth and you must consider the Davidic line Gods too, Zech 12:8.

But, again, should I believe the words of Jesus?

No. If you think he's teaching he's God, divinity, he's false. Tanakh doesn't teach that.

Do you believe God when Moses wrote that judges, Abraham, Moses himself, angels, etc., are God?

 

[radvermin]

Rotfl... did he also say no god would be formed before or after me, and yet formed himself as a human? Get real.

Right. Christians are not Arians.
We are Trinitarians, all of us, Protestant, Catholic and Orthodox are Trinitarians and adhere to the 325 AD Council of Nicea on this matter. The trinitarian position was reached after studying Scripture (Genesis to Revelation), and so an individual who, guided by God (Pro 2:6), will not teach Arianism nor claim the Bible teaches Arian doctrine.

God showing on Sinai He has no form, commanding us to teach that to our children eliminates any other physical consideration, Deut 4:9,12,15,35.

And where does it say that the Son of God will never take on flesh in Deut 4:9-35?

Because Jesus wasn't talking to anyone as he wasn't born yet.

Christians are not Arians.

Only the Father created, Deut 32:4-6, Mal 2:10, Isa 63:17, etc. There's zero support for the idea of Son of God, God the Son, in Tanakh.

Proverbs 30:4

You've missed a lot since you can't see the problems with a physical, limited mangod.

Christians aren't Arians

It says he offered prayers of a penitent, prosenekas, for salvation.

Dude, the author of Hebrews literally said that Jesus was without sin not 5 sentences earlier.
4:15 For we do not have a high priest who cannot sympathize with our weaknesses, but One who has been tempted in all things as we are, yet without sin.
Prosenekas is also used in Hebrews 10:12, in which the high priest offers sacrifices for OTHERS sin.

Extending grace is the same for all men.

Even Adam before he fell and yet was given Eve?

A wise person learns from their mistakes. You don't need favor otherwise.

Even Hanna? Eli called her a daughter of Belial and yet she asked for favor when it was found out that she was innocent (1 Sam 1:18).

Rotfl... the son can't be the Father. The son died and wasn't Eternal. Jesus was never called these names.

Christians are not Arians. Also, you ignored my argument.

And Jesus was created by the Father as Isaiah 44:24 says. A son doesn't father himself.

Christians are not Arians.

Debunked.

Only because you ignored my argument above.

Tanakh is clear that that God alone created, in the singular, ie, Neh 9:6, etc. There aren't 3 persons. That would break the commandment to have more other gods before me. Two of the 3 is idolatrous.

Christians are not Arians.

Rotfl... only one as Gen 1:27 proves. Man has two images - the physical and spiritual. The physical came from nature, the same way that the rest of creation was made, Gen 1:1-25. Only man has God's image to rule as He does, Gen 1:27.

That's an atheistic interpretation of Gen 1:1-25.

No. God's essence has nothing physical, nor does He change, nor add additional natures.

The hypostatic union addresses this.

Jesus was created.

Christians are not Arians.

Neither has Jesus. There's zero support for man reigning in heaven, only on earth. So, if divinity is based on sitting on God's throne, humans do that 9n earth and you must consider the Davidic line Gods too, Zech 12:8.

Zech 12:8 doesn't say that we will be David, but like David. It doesn't say that we will be god but like God. It doesn't say that we will be angels but like angels. So the question is how? And the answer has nothing to do with what we're talking about.

No. If you think he's teaching he's God, divinity, he's false. Tanakh doesn't teach that.

Do you believe God when Moses wrote that judges, Abraham, Moses himself, angels, etc., are God?

I believe what the Bible teaches. This means I don't twist, add, or take away from what the Bible says.
But you've several times brought forward Jesus' teachings as though I should believe what he says. So your answer of "no" contradicts what you've been saying.

 

[Jewjitzu]

Right. Christians are not Arians.
We are Trinitarians, all of us, Protestant, Catholic and Orthodox are Trinitarians and adhere to the 325 AD Council of Nicea on this matter. The trinitarian position was reached after studying Scripture (Genesis to Revelation), and so an individual who, guided by God (Pro 2:6), will not teach Arianism nor claim the Bible teaches Arian doctrine.

Jesus was formed after in the womb. He isn't God.

Jesus lacked wisdom, knowledge, etc. He didn't know the secret things.

So Jesus was begotten of the Father, correct?

And where does it say that the Son of God will never take on flesh in Deut 4:9-35?

Where does it say God is flesh? Nowhere. Where does it say there is a divine God the Son/Son of God? Nowhere.

That's what we are teach our children.

Christians are not Arians.

Just idolatrous.

Proverbs 30:4

Rotfl... doesn't say someone else created other than the Father. Only one alone did, Neh 9:6.

Christians aren't Arians

Just idolatrous.

Dude, the author of Hebrews literally said that Jesus was without sin not 5 sentences earlier.

Dude, you think Hebrews matters in light of Tanakh refuting it?

4:15 For we do not have a high priest who cannot sympathize with our weaknesses, but One who has been tempted in all things as we are, yet without sin.

Tempted are known sins. There are also unknown sins. Jesus wasn't perfect which is why he grew in grace, Luke 2:52.

Prosenekas is also used in Hebrews 10:12, in which the high priest offers sacrifices for OTHERS sin.

Heb 5:7 shows prosenekas used in the context of petition of a penitent, one with sins.

Even Adam before he fell and yet was given Eve?

Sure. God had grace in mind before the fall.

Even Hanna? Eli called her a daughter of Belial and yet she asked for favor when it was found out that she was innocent (1 Sam 1:18).

Why do you think people went to the Tabernacle to begin with?

Christians are not Arians. Also, you ignored my argument.

Just idolatrous. What argument?

Christians are not Arians.

Just idolatrous.

Only because you ignored my argument above.

What argument?

Christians are not Arians.

Just idolatrous.

That's an atheistic interpretation of Gen 1:1-25.

Rotfl... God spoke to creation, nature, and it was made.

The hypostatic union addresses this.

Doesn't exist.

Christians are not Arians.

Just idolatrous.

Zech 12:8 doesn't say that we will be David, but like David. It doesn't say that we will be god but like God. It doesn't say that we will be angels but like angels. So the question is how? And the answer has nothing to do with what we're talking about.

No, it says the house of David is like God, and like the angel of the Lord. Abraham, Moses, judges, angels, etc., are also God. Do you understand the usage of elohim and theos with humans?

I believe what the Bible teaches. This means I don't twist, add, or take away from what the Bible says.
But you've several times brought forward Jesus' teachings as though I should believe what he says. So your answer of "no" contradicts what you've been saying.

The NT isn't authoritative for me. You can believe it. I don't and for good reasons.

 

[radvermin]

Jesus was formed after in the womb. He isn't God.

Jesus lacked wisdom, knowledge, etc. He didn't know the secret things.

So Jesus was begotten of the Father, correct?

Not in the way you're understanding it which is Arian.

Where does it say God is flesh? Nowhere. Where does it say there is a divine God the Son/Son of God? Nowhere.

Hence the New Testament.

Just idolatrous.

I'll speak to this at the bottom

Rotfl... doesn't say someone else created other than the Father. Only one alone did, Neh 9:6.

That's not what you asked for.

Just idolatrous.

see below...

Dude, you think Hebrews matters in light of Tanakh refuting it?

You're the one who brought Hebrews up. If you don't like that we're talking about it, that's not my problem.

Tempted are known sins. There are also unknown sins. Jesus wasn't perfect which is why he grew in grace, Luke 2:52.

Grace doesn't mean only that. Most words have a semantic range that requires context to understand.
If it means that Jesus sinned, then what sins does Scripture say Jesus made between Luke 1 and 2:52? Give me some evidence.

Heb 5:7 shows prosenekas used in the context of petition of a penitent, one with sins.

No, and I already proved that this was untrue which you ignored, (eg when you replied to my evidence by saying Hebrews doesn't matter).

Sure. God had grace in mind before the fall.

That's not what you said above. You said that grace is extended to all men, not that God has grace in mind before they sinned. In short, you didn't answer my question.

Why do you think people went to the Tabernacle to begin with?

Many reasons that have nothing to do with 1 Samuel 1:18.

Just idolatrous. What argument?

The one about Jesus being the creator and, as you pointed out, Father refers to the creator. That you didn't get it makes sense in light of you not getting that Christians aren't Arians, though.

Just idolatrous.

see below

What argument?

Same as above.

Just idolatrous.

see blow

Rotfl... God spoke to creation, nature, and it was made.

Right, and I would say Father, Son, and Holy Spirit who are all the one true God spoke to creation, nature, and it was made. You started talking about 2 natures of man which had nothing to with what I was saying.

Doesn't exist.

Doesn't mean you shouldn't understand it since understanding, even your enemy, is the pathway to victory.

Just idolatrous.

... Idolatry refers to worshiping other gods. I do believe, in light of what I've read, that your view is that Christianity teaches there are three gods, god 1 called the father, god 2 called Jesus, and god 3 called the Holy Spirit.
That would mean that I'm idolatrous, in part, because I worship multiple gods. This, however, is Arianism: which means that even your accusation betrays your ignorance.
The other part is because you do not believe Jesus is God, however, this goes back to the whole multiple gods thing.
So, you need to really study the trinity because it makes even your accusations weak.

No, it says the house of David is like God, and like the angel of the Lord. Abraham, Moses, judges, angels, etc., are also God. Do you understand the usage of elohim and theos with humans?

You're the one who said "you must consider the Davidic line Gods too, Zech 12:8."
Yes, I understand that when Zech 12:8 talks about God, it doesn't mean these things will be actual gods. That's why I repeatedly said "like" in light of ke before elohim, David, and malak. (Please forgive my Hebrew transliteration where I err, and feel free to correct me.)
Which you should bear in mind, that even if Jesus said, "I'm God", you wouldn't believe him to be saying that he's God. Rather, look at everything, what he said about himself, what he did, what people said of him. We believe the New Testament is God breathed, just like the Tanakh, and so as the Tanakh teaches about Jesus, so does the New Testament which teaches Jesus is YHWH.

The NT isn't authoritative for me. You can believe it. I don't and for good reasons.

And we both agree that a good reason requires understanding of both sides of the issue. I plead with you to reconsider whether you have a good grasp of the difference between Trinitarianism and Arianism.

 

[Open Heart]

Hence the New Testament.

What do Jews have to do with the New Testament? Absolutely nothing. You might as well have said "Hence the Quran" or "Hence the Book of Mormon."

 

[radvermin]

What do Jews have to do with the New Testament? Absolutely nothing. You might as well have said "Hence the Quran" or "Hence the Book of Mormon."

Yup, I know what you mean. What can I say but that it was an honest response to a non-answer. :/

A little alteration, however. The New Testament was written by Jews, about a Jew, and for Jews (either in part or in whole depending on the book).
There are also Messianic Jews (as well as secular Jews, I'm aware, but I'm sure you get my meaning).
I know what you mean, but really Jews have a lot to do with the New Testament. That's why I'm trying to learn as much as I can about the Tanakh. Currently, specifically I've been reading as much as I can on 1+2 Samuel and spent the last 3 years trying to commit Proverbs to memory. It's not as much as a Rabbi, but it's the best that I can do.

Thanks for the good reply.

 

[Open Heart]

Yup, I know what you mean. What can I say but that it was an honest response to a non-answer. :/

A little alteration, however. The New Testament was written by Jews, about a Jew, and for Jews (either in part or in whole depending on the book).
There are also Messianic Jews (as well as secular Jews, I'm aware, but I'm sure you get my meaning).
I know what you mean, but really Jews have a lot to do with the New Testament. That's why I'm trying to learn as much as I can about the Tanakh. Currently, specifically I've been reading as much as I can on 1+2 Samuel and spent the last 3 years trying to commit Proverbs to memory. It's not as much as a Rabbi, but it's the best that I can do.

Thanks for the good reply.

Except for the pauline letters, and James, I think the New Testament was written by non-Jews. A Jew would never put down Jews the way the NT does.

It's always refreshing to find a Christian who will actually read the Tanakh. Glad to meet you.

 

[Jewjitzu]

Not in the way you're understanding it which is Arian.

He was begotten. Anyway you think of it, he ain't eternal.

Hence the New Testament.

Which is null.

I'll speak to this at the bottom

Ok.

That's not what you asked for.

That's all that matters.

see below...

Ok.

You're the one who brought Hebrews up. If you don't like that we're talking about it, that's not my problem.

Ok. Heb 5:7 shows he fell short.

Grace doesn't mean only that. Most words have a semantic range that requires context to understand.
If it means that Jesus sinned, then what sins does Scripture say Jesus made between Luke 1 and 2:52? Give me some evidence.

It doesn't say he didn't sin. Then says he needed grace.

No, and I already proved that this was untrue which you ignored, (eg when you replied to my evidence by saying Hebrews doesn't matter).

For Jews it doesn't. But you think it is. See above.

That's not what you said above. You said that grace is extended to all men, not that God has grace in mind before they sinned. In short, you didn't answer my question.

I did.

Many reasons that have nothing to do with 1 Samuel 1:18.

Hannah wasn't perfect unless you can show otherwise.

The one about Jesus being the creator and, as you pointed out, Father refers to the creator. That you didn't get it makes sense in light of you not getting that Christians aren't Arians, though.

Well, being that it's clear the Father did, and not the Son, pretty much clears things, as well as the Son being begotten.

see below

Same as above.

see blow

Still idolatrous ideas.

Right, and I would say Father, Son, and Holy Spirit who are all the one true God spoke to creation, nature, and it was made.

But, Tanakh doesn't support that. A casual glance at Neh 9:6, and the Hebrew for alone, shows it's singular as in exclusively one, not three. The same is true for anywhere else in Tanakh that alone is used.

You started talking about 2 natures of man which had nothing to with what I was saying.

2 natures of Jesus.

Doesn't mean you shouldn't understand it since understanding, even your enemy, is the pathway to victory.

What don't I understand?

... Idolatry refers to worshiping other gods. I do believe, in light of what I've read, that your view is that Christianity teaches there are three gods, god 1 called the father, god 2 called Jesus, and god 3 called the Holy Spirit.
That would mean that I'm idolatrous, in part, because I worship multiple gods. This, however, is Arianism: which means that even your accusation betrays your ignorance.
The other part is because you do not believe Jesus is God, however, this goes back to the whole multiple gods thing.
So, you need to really study the trinity because it makes even your accusations weak.

Rotfl... you have at least 2 gods sitting on 2 separate thrones. That ain't one being nor one god. You shall have no gods before me.

You're the one who said "you must consider the Davidic line Gods too, Zech 12:8."
Yes, I understand that when Zech 12:8 talks about God, it doesn't mean these things will be actual gods. That's why I repeatedly said "like" in light of ke before elohim, David, and malak. (Please forgive my Hebrew transliteration where I err, and feel free to correct me.)
Which you should bear in mind, that even if Jesus said, "I'm God", you wouldn't believe him to be saying that he's God. Rather, look at everything, what he said about himself, what he did, what people said of him. We believe the New Testament is God breathed, just like the Tanakh, and so as the Tanakh teaches about Jesus, so does the New Testament which teaches Jesus is YHWH.

We don't believe the NT is authoritative.

And we both agree that a good reason requires understanding of both sides of the issue. I plead with you to reconsider whether you have a good grasp of the difference between Trinitarianism and Arianism.

The Christian trinity is all idolatrous.

 

[radvermin]

Except for the pauline letters, and James, I think the New Testament was written by non-Jews. A Jew would never put down Jews the way the NT does.

It's always refreshing to find a Christian who will actually read the Tanakh. Glad to meet you.

Wow... thank you for your honesty.
Curious question. How do you see it putting Jews down in a way that the Tanakh doesn't?

[I was going to just ask how you see it putting Jews down, but I thought that wouldn't be as educational
If you want to share how you feel it puts Jews down I'd be glad to read it, even if it's multiple posts.]

 

[radvermin]

Hannah wasn't perfect unless you can show otherwise.

I wasn't saying that she was perfect, none are perfect, except Jesus. However, she wasn't asking for favor because she sinned, rather it's out of humility. I believe we are at an impasse, though. I understand "hen" to have a wider semantic range than just showing grace due to sin, but that it can also refer to kindness, or favor to one who is of a lesser status. I don't know if I can dislodge your thinking, though, because all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God. This is why we all need a perfect sacrifice, who is Jesus.


So, I'm dropping the whole Hebrews argument because there's an impasse here as well. You're looking at the word to define the context, I'm looking at the context to define the word.
I think we've both brought the best that we could offer because all that we'll bring is just what we've said before, hence why it can be dropped.


Now, for everything else I've compacted the arguments because they seem to fall into 3 main issues that keep coming up.
I first would like to apologize as I feel like I'm to blame for making each sentence an item to debate instead of keeping them together. I don't like it when people do that to me so I apologize.

What I've done below is written what I think you'd say to me. And after I've given a short response.
If you disagree with my response, then there's nothing more I can say. However, I do want to say that I'm trying to be as cordial as possible. Where I haven't, I'm sorry for that too.

God Bless you with insight and discernment so you can come to a full knowledge of the Truth.

Well, being that it's clear the Father did, and not the Son, pretty much clears things, as well as the Son being begotten.

1. "You believe that Jesus is begotten. Begotten means born and requires a starting point."
Reply: The term begotten in reference to the Son of God in Christian scholarly circles refers to eternally begotten. Eternal, as opposed to everlasting, has no starting point.

Still idolatrous ideas.


But, Tanakh doesn't support that. A casual glance at Neh 9:6, and the Hebrew for alone, shows it's singular as in exclusively one, not three. The same is true for anywhere else in Tanakh that alone is used.

2. "You believe in at least 2 gods"
Reply: Christians believe in only 1 God.

2 natures of Jesus.

3. "You believe that Jesus began to exist when he was born of Mary"
Reply: Jesus's existence is not tied to the flesh. He existed before he was born. Hence why John 12 says that Isaiah saw him, and why Jesus said that he saw Abraham in John 8:56-57.

 

[Jewjitzu]

I wasn't saying that she was perfect, none are perfect, except Jesus.

He wasn't either. That's why he donated to the temple funds for maintenance and personal sacrifices. He broke his wine vow from the last supper, etc.

However, she wasn't asking for favor because she sinned, rather it's out of humility.

No, even then there's always a concern over something hidden.

I believe we are at an impasse, though. I understand "hen" to have a wider semantic range than just showing grace due to sin, but that it can also refer to kindness, or favor to one who is of a lesser status. I don't know if I can dislodge your thinking, though, because all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God. This is why we all need a perfect sacrifice, who is Jesus.

He wasn't perfect as even the NT shows.

So, I'm dropping the whole Hebrews argument because there's an impasse here as well. You're looking at the word to define the context, I'm looking at the context to define the word.

Prosenekas is used in the context of sacrifices, or petition of a sinner. Not much room to move from there.

I think we've both brought the best that we could offer because all that we'll bring is just what we've said before, hence why it can be dropped.

Ok.

Now, for everything else I've compacted the arguments because they seem to fall into 3 main issues that keep coming up.
I first would like to apologize as I feel like I'm to blame for making each sentence an item to debate instead of keeping them together. I don't like it when people do that to me so I apologize.

Ok.

What I've done below is written what I think you'd say to me. And after I've given a short response.
If you disagree with my response, then there's nothing more I can say. However, I do want to say that I'm trying to be as cordial as possible. Where I haven't, I'm sorry for that too.

Ok.

God Bless you with insight and discernment so you can come to a full knowledge of the Truth.

Why do you assume I don't have the truth?

1. "You believe that Jesus is begotten. Begotten means born and requires a starting point."
Reply: The term begotten in reference to the Son of God in Christian scholarly circles refers to eternally begotten. Eternal, as opposed to everlasting, has no starting point.

Wrong. At some point even in eternity he was begotten, so he isn't eternal. Decide when he was begotten. Eternity is before that.

2. "You believe in at least 2 gods"
Reply: Christians believe in only 1 God.

False, two persons in two different places aren't the same.

3. "You believe that Jesus began to exist when he was born of Mary"
Reply: Jesus's existence is not tied to the flesh.

The name is tied to his birth, not before.

He existed before he was born.

False, as he was begotten.

Hence why John 12 says that Isaiah saw him,

It doesn't say anything about Jesus being the God.

and why Jesus said that he saw Abraham in John 8:56-57.

It says Abraham saw his day, not him. Abraham was promised kings would come from his loins. Ex 3:14 points to God sending Moses as Jesus thought he was sent as well.

I'm sorry, but I've heard all of this before.

 

[radvermin]

He wasn't either. That's why he donated to the temple funds for maintenance and personal sacrifices. He broke his wine vow from the last supper, etc.


No, even then there's always a concern over something hidden.


He wasn't perfect as even the NT shows.


Prosenekas is used in the context of sacrifices, or petition of a sinner. Not much room to move from there.


Ok.


Ok.


Ok.


Why do you assume I don't have the truth?


Wrong. At some point even in eternity he was begotten, so he isn't eternal. Decide when he was begotten. Eternity is before that.


False, two persons in two different places aren't the same.


The name is tied to his birth, not before.


False, as he was begotten.


It doesn't say anything about Jesus being the God.


It says Abraham saw his day, not him. Abraham was promised kings would come from his loins. Ex 3:14 points to God sending Moses as Jesus thought he was sent as well.

I'm sorry, but I've heard all of this before.

"The hardest thing to know is that which we don't know we don't know." Saying modified from Donald Rumsfeld
Shalom and goodbye

 

[Open Heart]

Wow... thank you for your honesty.
Curious question. How do you see it putting Jews down in a way that the Tanakh doesn't?

[I was going to just ask how you see it putting Jews down, but I thought that wouldn't be as educational
If you want to share how you feel it puts Jews down I'd be glad to read it, even if it's multiple posts.]

There is a big difference between self criticism, and criticism from others. The Tanakh contains self criticism, which is a way of Jews taking responsibility for those times we have fallen short. Criticism from the outside is almost always hypocritical, because it assumes that the Jews (in this case) are guilty of things that the outsiders are not guilty of, and that is almost never true. Take for example the phrase "a stiff necked people." When the Tanakh uses this phrase, it is Jews taking responsibility for our own failings. But we get Christians coming into this forum calling Jews a stiff necked people, AS IF CHRISTIANS ARE NOT. That's the hypocrisy.

In addition to this, there is a tendency in the New Testament to treat the Jews with a broad brush when in fact Jewish behavior cannot be narrowed down to one thing. Basically, the gospels use the phrase "The Jews" quite often in its description of the enemies of Jesus, despite the fact that Jesus himself was also a Jew, as well as all his disciples. And lets face it, most of the Jews in Jesus day were simply living their lives, working, being with their families, and totally uninvolved with Jesus' ministry.

Perhaps the worst example of this is Matthew 27:25 "All the people answered, “His blood is on us and on our children!”" This is an attempt by the author of Matthew to place the blame for Jesus' death on the Jews rather than the Romans. How likely do you think it is that anyone in real life would actually curse themselves like this? For 2000 years, the church used this verse to indicate that Jews are a cursed people, deserving of all the ill that has befallen us. Uncounted Jews have been abused and killed for the crime of deicide.

 

[Jewjitzu]

"The hardest thing to know is that which we don't know we don't know." Saying modified from Donald Rumsfeld
Shalom and goodbye

Bye ?.

 

[Jewjitzu]

Uncounted Jews have been abused and killed for the crime of deicide.

And right there is the hypocrisy. With both ends of their mouths we hear - God isn't a man, but he took their nature; God can't die, but he bled for us; God isn't created, but he can be formed and born from a womb. The list is endless...

 

[radvermin]

There is a big difference between self criticism, and criticism from others. The Tanakh contains self criticism, which is a way of Jews taking responsibility for those times we have fallen short. Criticism from the outside is almost always hypocritical, because it assumes that the Jews (in this case) are guilty of things that the outsiders are not guilty of, and that is almost never true. Take for example the phrase "a stiff necked people." When the Tanakh uses this phrase, it is Jews taking responsibility for our own failings. But we get Christians coming into this forum calling Jews a stiff necked people, AS IF CHRISTIANS ARE NOT. That's the hypocrisy.

In addition to this, there is a tendency in the New Testament to treat the Jews with a broad brush when in fact Jewish behavior cannot be narrowed down to one thing. Basically, the gospels use the phrase "The Jews" quite often in its description of the enemies of Jesus, despite the fact that Jesus himself was also a Jew, as well as all his disciples. And lets face it, most of the Jews in Jesus day were simply living their lives, working, being with their families, and totally uninvolved with Jesus' ministry.

Thank you for letting me know.

Perhaps the worst example of this is Matthew 27:25 "All the people answered, “His blood is on us and on our children!”" This is an attempt by the author of Matthew to place the blame for Jesus' death on the Jews rather than the Romans. How likely do you think it is that anyone in real life would actually curse themselves like this? For 2000 years, the church used this verse to indicate that Jews are a cursed people, deserving of all the ill that has befallen us. Uncounted Jews have been abused and killed for the crime of deicide.

I have a question. I was studying 2 Samuel 21, where David makes reconciliation with the Gibeonites for what Saul did. Is there anything that you could suggest that I do personally to make reconciliation for what was done?

 

[Open Heart]

Thank you for letting me know.


I have a question. I was studying 2 Samuel 21, where David makes reconciliation with the Gibeonites for what Saul did. Is there anything that you could suggest that I do personally to make reconciliation for what was done?

Why would you have to personally do anything?

 

[radvermin]

Why would you have to personally do anything?

I dunno. I just feel like there's this overall lingering pain that hasn't been resolved.
Like I said, I was studying 2 Samuel 21 and that came to mind.

If there's nothing, that's something to learn from this too.

 

[Open Heart]

I dunno. I just feel like there's this overall lingering pain that hasn't been resolved.
Like I said, I was studying 2 Samuel 21 and that came to mind.

If there's nothing, that's something to learn from this too.

There is nothing that you or I can do about things that happened thousands of years ago.