God wanted human sacrifices for atonement of sin?

[Jewjitzu]

God turns His back, turns away, abandons, where there is sin.—Thus there is no opportunity for repentance.

Then you haven't read Tanakh. The big problem for you is that God turned his back, abandoned Jesus.

"It's evident"? What makes it evident? He quoted Psalm 22, and it includes "But you, O YHWH, do not be far off! O you my help, come quickly to my aid! Deliver my soul from the sword, my precious life from the power of the dog! Save me from the mouth of the lion! You have rescued me from the horns of the wild oxen!" Psalm 22 is a prayer for help when times are tough. It expresses confidence that God will save no matter how bad the situation is. That's the furthest thing from "it's evident the Father abandoned Jesus at the cross."

It's evident he was abandoned. He wouldn't have cried out in desperation otherwise.

He wasn't saved from the crucifixion, right? So much for salvation.

BTW, you're saying this Psalm 22 isn't a prophecy regarding Jesus?

In fact, the entire narrative of the entire NT is that God sent Jesus to die on the Cross. That's not abandonment, that's providence:

Jesus says he was abandoned, foresaken.

"for truly in this city there were gathered together against your holy servant Jesus, whom you anointed, both Herod and Pontius Pilate, along with the Gentiles and the peoples of Israel, to do whatever your hand and your plan had predestined to take place." Acts 4:27-28. If Jesus thought he was abandoned, why would it say "Then Jesus, calling out with a loud voice, said, “Father, into your hands I commit my spirit!” And having said this he breathed his last."

So he was predestined to be abandoned. Love your whataboutisms above. Rotfl...

According to you, he's just quoting a verse from the Bible somewhere like poetry.

Of course, it doesn't. You don't have a single example of any Jew in the last 3000 years with the given title god like these judges. That's the definition of not normative.

It was normative and used even after 3000 years. Rotfl...

I love how you change the argument. You crack me.

Yes, and? You too believe God is everywhere.

No, I believe God isn't physical and I don't speak of Him in those terms. Rather I say He is Omniscient and doesn't need to be anywhere when He knows it all.

So, don't speak about what I believe when you don't know.

Therefore, Jesus was with the Father always according to your understanding of omnipresence.

No he wasn't. He said so himself. Again, don't speak about my position when you don't know.

So, what is it getting at? It's expressing that in some way Jesus isn't with the Father, but not in every way. Therefore, no issue for us.

So you're admitting that Jesus isn't with the Father. Thus Jesus is limited and lacks a dual nature.

No, it does for you. Most Jews aren't that irrational.

Rotfl... you're such a whiner. You don't even know most Jews.

So when the Father abandoned Jesus, did Jesus' divine nature follow as well? Doesn't he follow and do everything he sees the Father do, John 5:19? Since the Father was never seen nor became flesh, why didn't Jesus follow Him on that?

Why don't you answer these questions, DOGB?

God Bless

Yep.

 

[DoctrinesofGraceBapt]

God turns His back, turns away, abandons, where there is sin.—Thus there is no opportunity for repentance.

Then you haven't read Tanakh. The big problem for you is that God turned his back, abandoned Jesus.

Silly Jewjitzu. I have read the Tanakh, that's why I reject: God turns His back, turns away, abandons, where there is sin. It contradicts the Tanakh. God turns His back, turns away, abandons, where there is sin means there is no opportunity for repentance, but the Tanakh says there is a possibility of repentance. Therefore, I reject your comment.

DoctrinesofGraceBapt said:
"It's evident"? What makes it evident? He quoted Psalm 22, and it includes "But you, O YHWH, do not be far off! O you my help, come quickly to my aid! Deliver my soul from the sword, my precious life from the power of the dog! Save me from the mouth of the lion! You have rescued me from the horns of the wild oxen!" Psalm 22 is a prayer for help when times are tough. It expresses confidence that God will save no matter how bad the situation is. That's the furthest thing from "it's evident the Father abandoned Jesus at the cross."

It's evident he was abandoned. He wouldn't have cried out in desperation otherwise.

It doesn't say he cried out in desperation. Jesus quoted a Psalm.

He wasn't saved from the crucifixion, right? So much for salvation.

Really? I say being raised from the dead three days latter counts,

BTW, you're saying this Psalm 22 isn't a prophecy regarding Jesus?

I never said that. Maybe you shouldn't jump to conclusions.

DoctrinesofGraceBapt said:
"for truly in this city there were gathered together against your holy servant Jesus, whom you anointed, both Herod and Pontius Pilate, along with the Gentiles and the peoples of Israel, to do whatever your hand and your plan had predestined to take place." Acts 4:27-28. If Jesus thought he was abandoned, why would it say "Then Jesus, calling out with a loud voice, said, “Father, into your hands I commit my spirit!” And having said this he breathed his last."

So he was predestined to be abandoned. Love your whataboutisms above. Rotfl...

Still not a whataboutism. God's plan was for him to die, so, Jesus dying cannot be an abandonment.

According to you, he's just quoting a verse from the Bible somewhere like poetry.

I never said that. Maybe you shouldn't jump to conclusions. He said it to emphasized the fact that although he looks abandoned, as with the Psalm, he will be vindicated.

DoctrinesofGraceBapt said:
Of course, it doesn't. You don't have a single example of any Jew in the last 3000 years with the given title god like these judges. That's the definition of not normative.

It was normative and used even after 3000 years. Rotfl...
I love how you change the argument. You crack me.

Assertion isn't evidence. You still don't have a single example of any Jew in the last 3000 years with the given title god like these judges.

DoctrinesofGraceBapt said:
Yes, and? You too believe God is everywhere.

No, I believe God isn't physical and I don't speak of Him in those terms. Rather I say He is Omniscient and doesn't need to be anywhere when He knows it all.
So, don't speak about what I believe when you don't know.

Interesting because Psalm 139:7-10 says: Where shall I go from your Spirit? Or where shall I flee from your presence? If I ascend to heaven, you are there! If I make my bed in Sheol, you are there! If I take the wings of the morning and dwell in the uttermost parts of the sea, even there your hand shall lead me, and your right hand shall hold me.

DoctrinesofGraceBapt said:
So, what is it getting at? It's expressing that in some way Jesus isn't with the Father, but not in every way. Therefore, no issue for us.

So you're admitting that Jesus isn't with the Father. Thus Jesus is limited and lacks a dual nature.

As long as you refuse to think through my comments before replying, your statements will be vacuous, and you will remain ignorant.

God Bless

 

[Jewjitzu]

Silly Jewjitzu. I have read the Tanakh, that's why I reject: God turns His back, turns away, abandons, where there is sin. It contradicts the Tanakh. God turns His back, turns away, abandons, where there is sin means there is no opportunity for repentance, but the Tanakh says there is a possibility of repentance. Therefore, I reject your comment.

No, I explained to you what it means and Tanakh confirms it. You've inserted in "red" your opinion.

It doesn't say he cried out in desperation. Jesus quoted a Psalm.

So he didn't fulfill prophecy. Ok.

He was crying, groaning, according to the Hebrew. https://biblehub.com/hebrew/7581.htm
Even the NT admits this. https://biblehub.com/greek/1459.htm
He was left helpless. Why?

So throughout the NT he just quotes with zero application to himself. Just whistling Dixie.

Really? I say being raised from the dead three days latter counts,

Rotfl... he was beaten, bled, and died. That doesn't sound like salvation. He was abandoned, foresaken.

Have you read about the Talpiot tomb where his ossuary was found?

I never said that. Maybe you shouldn't jump to conclusions.

He must be because he's just quoting Psalm 22. You can't have it both ways.

Still not a whataboutism. God's plan was for him to die, so, Jesus dying cannot be an abandonment.

So you must admit he was abandoned, foresaken, because he died.

You crack me up with your whataboutisms.

I never said that. Maybe you shouldn't jump to conclusions. He said it to emphasized the fact that although he looks abandoned, as with the Psalm, he will be vindicated.

Rotfl... I love your contradictions here. He's quoting the Psalm that he was foresaken, but he wasn't, and yet the Psalm is still about him.

Assertion isn't evidence. You still don't have a single example of any Jew in the last 3000 years with the given title god like these judges.

Rotfl... it was asserted in the Greek 20CE. You've already admitted that. You erroneously think that these passages don't apply to judges even after 3000 years. Until Heaven and Earth...

Interesting because Psalm 139:7-10 says: Where shall I go from your Spirit? Or where shall I flee from your presence? If I ascend to heaven, you are there! If I make my bed in Sheol, you are there! If I take the wings of the morning and dwell in the uttermost parts of the sea, even there your hand shall lead me, and your right hand shall hold me.

Yes, all of creation speaks of the glory of God. God's will, desire, His spirit, is everywhere. Do you still not understand Peter?

Why don't you admit you jumped to conclusions with regards to my idea on omnipresence? Very dishonest on your part.

As long as you refuse to think through my comments before replying, your statements will be vacuous, and you will remain ignorant.

You still have a problem on your hands. Jesus admits he isn't God, and that he isn't everywhere. He also says he does all that the Father does, so he's forced to abandon himself and not take flesh ?.

You've already admitted, and I quote you, "It's expressing that in some way Jesus isn't with the Father, but not in every way. Therefore, no issue for us."

In some way means not all the way. He's less than God, and not with God.

God Bless

Always.

 

[DoctrinesofGraceBapt]

Silly Jewjitzu. I have read the Tanakh, that's why I reject: God turns His back, turns away, abandons, where there is sin. It contradicts the Tanakh. God turns His back, turns away, abandons, where there is sin means there is no opportunity for repentance, but the Tanakh says there is a possibility of repentance. Therefore, I reject your comment.

No, I explained to you what it means and Tanakh confirms it. You've inserted in "red" your opinion.

As long as you refuse to think through your comments or mine, there is no discussion to be had. If God abandons where there is sin, then God never listens to the prayer of a sinner. If God never listens to the prayers of a person, then how can they repent? God's not listening to their prayers. Therefore, there is no possibility of repentance for that person. Where's the problem with my thinking? I would agree if you said God never listens to the prayer of an unrepentant sinner. But you didn't say that.

DoctrinesofGraceBapt said:
It doesn't say he cried out in desperation. Jesus quoted a Psalm.

So he didn't fulfill prophecy. Ok.

He was crying, groaning, according to the Hebrew. https://biblehub.com/hebrew/7581.htm
Even the NT admits this. https://biblehub.com/greek/1459.htm
He was left helpless. Why?

So throughout the NT he just quotes with zero application to himself. Just whistling Dixie.

Interesting take. It isn't a meaningful critique, but it is interesting. I never said it was a direct prophecy. It's a psalm written by a man, inspired by God, expressing his torment and continued faith in God his deliverer. God included that Psalm in Scripture and inspired the writer to paint a typographical picture of the Crucification of the Christ. Both and, not either or. That the writer was crying out in desperation, doesn't mean Christ necessarily was. Psalm 22 is a type of the Crucification, not direct prophecy outlining exactly everything that happened to Christ.

You keep on jumping to all or nothing, when it's commonly both and.

DoctrinesofGraceBapt said:
Really? I say being raised from the dead three days latter counts,

Rotfl... he was beaten, bled, and died. That doesn't sound like salvation. He was abandoned, foresaken.

And, he was raised 3 days later. That does sound like salvation. All sorts of bad things happed to Jeremiah. Does that mean God abandoned him? No salvation for Jeremiah? No, not even close. But, Jeremiah sure felt that way while going through that hardship. Salvation doesn't mean no hardship or death.

Have you read about the Talpiot tomb where his ossuary was found?

If you think that ossuary find proves anything, I have some prime ocean front property to sell you in Utah. The name Jesus and Joseph were two of the most popular names at that time. Statistically speaking, you should find many, many such ossuaries.

DoctrinesofGraceBapt said:
Still not a whataboutism. God's plan was for him to die, so, Jesus dying cannot be an abandonment.

So you must admit he was abandoned, foresaken, because he died.
You crack me up with your whataboutisms.

You do know your misuse of terms only undermines your testimony.

DoctrinesofGraceBapt said:
I never said that. Maybe you shouldn't jump to conclusions. He said it to emphasized the fact that although he looks abandoned, as with the Psalm, he will be vindicated.

Rotfl... I love your contradictions here. He's quoting the Psalm that he was foresaken, but he wasn't, and yet the Psalm is still about him.

Do you know what a contradiction is?

DoctrinesofGraceBapt said:
Assertion isn't evidence. You still don't have a single example of any Jew in the last 3000 years with the given title god like these judges.

Rotfl... it was asserted in the Greek 20CE. You've already admitted that. You erroneously think that these passages don't apply to judges even after 3000 years. Until Heaven and Earth...

No, the use was referenced in 20CE. That's not evidence that it was normally used in 20CE. Do you understand what normal use means?

DoctrinesofGraceBapt said:
Interesting because Psalm 139:7-10 says: Where shall I go from your Spirit? Or where shall I flee from your presence? If I ascend to heaven, you are there! If I make my bed in Sheol, you are there! If I take the wings of the morning and dwell in the uttermost parts of the sea, even there your hand shall lead me, and your right hand shall hold me.

Yes, all of creation speaks of the glory of God. God's will, desire, His spirit, is everywhere. Do you still not understand Peter?
Why don't you admit you jumped to conclusions with regards to my idea on omnipresence? Very dishonest on your part.

"His spirit, is everywhere." and that's proof you believe in omnipresence, even if you don't like the word.

God Bless

 

[Jewjitzu]

As long as you refuse to think through your comments or mine, there is no discussion to be had. If God abandons where there is sin, then God never listens to the prayer of a sinner.

A repentant sinner, forgiven, isn't a sinner. The righteous fall seven times...

If God never listens to the prayers of a person, then how can they repent?

They repented. That's the difference.

God's not listening to their prayers.

Not while they are still wilfully sinning.

Therefore, there is no possibility of repentance for that person. Where's the problem with my thinking? I would agree if you said God never listens to the prayer of an unrepentant sinner. But you didn't say that.

You should have understood what I meant, especially after clarification. So please stop whining.

Interesting take. It isn't a meaningful critique, but it is interesting. I never said it was a direct prophecy. It's a psalm written by a man, inspired by God, expressing his torment and continued faith in God his deliverer. God included that Psalm in Scripture and inspired the writer to paint a typographical picture of the Crucification of the Christ. Both and, not either or. That the writer was crying out in desperation, doesn't mean Christ necessarily was. Psalm 22 is a type of the Crucification, not direct prophecy outlining exactly everything that happened to Christ.

You're in a minority view with your fellow Christians. Regardless, it is clear Jesus cried out he was abandoned on a personal note. Dying isn't being delivered.

You keep on jumping to all or nothing, when it's commonly both and.

He died and cried in desperation. That says it all.

And, he was raised 3 days later. That does sound like salvation. All sorts of bad things happed to Jeremiah. Does that mean God abandoned him? No salvation for Jeremiah? No, not even close. But, Jeremiah sure felt that way while going through that hardship. Salvation doesn't mean no hardship or death.

Jeremiah never quoted Psalm 22 where he says he was abandoned. Christianity teaches Jesus was abandoned because of the sins of the world.

If you think that ossuary find proves anything, I have some prime ocean front property to sell you in Utah.

There is Salt Lake.

The name Jesus and Joseph were two of the most popular names at that time. Statistically speaking, you should find many, many such ossuaries.

In actuality, that hasn't happened including finding the ossuary of James as well in the same tomb.

You do know your misuse of terms only undermines your testimony.

You do know foresaken, abandoned was said by Jesus and he died.

Do you know what a contradiction is?

Can you say foresaken?

No, the use was referenced in 20CE. That's not evidence that it was normally used in 20CE. Do you understand what normal use means?

Yes, you must prove that the normal usage by Jews with respect to the term elohim for God, men, angels, etc., has changed. You can't. Even your NT confirms it.

"His spirit, is everywhere." and that's proof you believe in omnipresence, even if you don't like the word.

Spirit is will, desire, prophecy, with respect to God. It doesn't denote a physical presence of God. Don't speak about what I think unless you understand me. You don't. Very dishonest on your part, DOGB. You're trying to save face and you look ridiculous. Just man up.

You still have a problem on your hands. Jesus admits he isn't God, and that he isn't everywhere, John 20:17. He also says he does all that the Father does, so he's forced to abandon himself and not take flesh ?, John 5:19.

You've already admitted, and I quote you, "It's expressing that in some way Jesus isn't with the Father, but not in every way. Therefore, no issue for us."

In some way means not all the way. He's less than God, and not with God.

God Bless

Always

 

[Open Heart]

A repentant sinner, forgiven, isn't a sinner. The righteous fall seven times...

This is the point they refuse to accept. The Tanakh understanding of who is righteous is in contradiction the NT definition, and for them, the NT trumps.

For me, the very fact that the Tanakh and NT contradict on this means that they can't both be right, and quite honestly, Christians depend on both being right. They cannot acknowledge the contradictions.

 

[Jewjitzu]

This is the point they refuse to accept. The Tanakh understanding of who is righteous is in contradiction the NT definition, and for them, the NT trumps.

For me, the very fact that the Tanakh and NT contradict on this means that they can't both be right, and quite honestly, Christians depend on both being right. They cannot acknowledge the contradictions.

Yep, we don't need Jesus as he's just a human being like the rest of us. And as the OP has proven, human sacrifices weren't required, nor commanded, but are idolatrous.

 

[DoctrinesofGraceBapt]

As long as you refuse to think through your comments or mine, there is no discussion to be had. If God abandons where there is sin, then God never listens to the prayer of a sinner.

A repentant sinner, forgiven, isn't a sinner. The righteous fall seven times...

DoctrinesofGraceBapt said:
If God never listens to the prayers of a person, then how can they repent?

They repented. That's the difference.

DoctrinesofGraceBapt said:
God's not listening to their prayers.

Not while they are still wilfully sinning.

DoctrinesofGraceBapt said:
Therefore, there is no possibility of repentance for that person. Where's the problem with my thinking? I would agree if you said God never listens to the prayer of an unrepentant sinner. But you didn't say that.

You should have understood what I meant, especially after clarification. So please stop whining.

Two things:
1. You previously made an unqualified false statement. You've now corrected that statement by qualifying it. You need to state your qualifications because people can't mind read.
2. Your statement "A repentant sinner, forgiven, isn't a sinner." is oxymoronic. A repentant sinner is a type of sinner. That's how the English language works.

DoctrinesofGraceBapt said:
Interesting take. It isn't a meaningful critique, but it is interesting. I never said it was a direct prophecy. It's a psalm written by a man, inspired by God, expressing his torment and continued faith in God his deliverer. God included that Psalm in Scripture and inspired the writer to paint a typographical picture of the Crucification of the Christ. Both and, not either or. That the writer was crying out in desperation, doesn't mean Christ necessarily was. Psalm 22 is a type of the Crucification, not direct prophecy outlining exactly everything that happened to Christ.

You're in a minority view with your fellow Christians.

Okay.

Regardless, it is clear Jesus cried out he was abandoned on a personal note. Dying isn't being delivered.

You do realize the fact that he was quoting a Psalm empties your statement of theological application. Being resurrected is being delivered.

DoctrinesofGraceBapt said:
You keep on jumping to all or nothing, when it's commonly both and.

He died and cried in desperation. That says it all.

He quoted a Psalm, died willfully as the Father commanded, and was raised again in victory over death.

DoctrinesofGraceBapt said:
And, he was raised 3 days later. That does sound like salvation. All sorts of bad things happed to Jeremiah. Does that mean God abandoned him? No salvation for Jeremiah? No, not even close. But, Jeremiah sure felt that way while going through that hardship. Salvation doesn't mean no hardship or death.

Jeremiah never quoted Psalm 22 where he says he was abandoned. Christianity teaches Jesus was abandoned because of the sins of the world.

Listen to what others say before replying. Jeremiah went through all kinds of hardship before finding his salvation, as did Jesus. Jesus just died and was raised again as part of his hardship followed by salvation narrative.

DoctrinesofGraceBapt said:
The name Jesus and Joseph were two of the most popular names at that time. Statistically speaking, you should find many, many such ossuaries.

In actuality, that hasn't happened including finding the ossuary of James as well in the same tomb.

Really? You found a couple of ossuaries with the names Joshua, Jacob, and Joseph on them? Wow, not.

DoctrinesofGraceBapt said:
No, the use was referenced in 20CE. That's not evidence that it was normally used in 20CE. Do you understand what normal use means?

Yes, you must prove that the normal usage by Jews with respect to the term elohim for God, men, angels, etc., has changed. You can't. Even your NT confirms it.

No, you're the one making a positive claim that a usage in 1000BC was still normally being used in 20CE in order to interpret certain passages in the NT in a particular way. And, we also know for a fact that the way people speak generally change over time. So, I expressed doubt in your application of this usage that has no evidence of been normally used since that time. Therefore, the burden of proof is on you, not me, to show that θεὸς is a title or a human with political or spiritual power in 20CE.

DoctrinesofGraceBapt said:
"His spirit, is everywhere." and that's proof you believe in omnipresence, even if you don't like the word.

Spirit is will, desire, prophecy, with respect to God. It doesn't denote a physical presence of God. Don't speak about what I think unless you understand me. You don't. Very dishonest on your part, DOGB. You're trying to save face and you look ridiculous. Just man up.

Nice expression of human philosophy. Scripture teaches the opposite, but keep on asserting things: "And the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters." Genesis 1:2. "And as he spoke to me, the Spirit entered into me and set me on my feet, and I heard him speaking to me." Ezekiel 2:2. The Spirit of God isn't physical, but the Spirit is present and active in the physical world.

God Bless

 

[Jewjitzu]

Two things:
1. You previously made an unqualified false statement. You've now corrected that statement by qualifying it. You need to state your qualifications because people can't mind read.

I think it's obvious that Tanakh supports what I'm saying. You already knew the answer but were being stubborn about it.

2. Your statement "A repentant sinner, forgiven, isn't a sinner." is oxymoronic. A repentant sinner is a type of sinner. That's how the English language works.

I think you what the intent was. Stop whining.

Okay.

Great. So Jesus was foresaken, abandoned.

You do realize the fact that he was quoting a Psalm empties your statement of theological application. Being resurrected is being delivered.

You do realize being beaten, bleeding, dying, and going to the grave shows otherwise? Also the gospel accounts regarding the resurrection contradict each other, besides the evidence of the Talpiot tomb.

How long after death does the body start breaking down?

He quoted a Psalm, died willfully as the Father commanded, and was raised again in victory over death.

The evidence says otherwise.

Listen to what others say before replying. Jeremiah went through all kinds of hardship before finding his salvation, as did Jesus. Jesus just died and was raised again as part of his hardship followed by salvation narrative.

Jeremiah never claimed to be God nor sinless.

Really? You found a couple of ossuaries with the names Joshua, Jacob, and Joseph on them? Wow, not.

In this grouping, not many have been found.

No, you're the one making a positive claim that a usage in 1000BC was still normally being used in 20CE in order to interpret certain passages in the NT in a particular way.

Yep. You need to prove that wasn't the case. Just like kyrious was used for Lord for either men or divinity.

And, we also know for a fact that the way people speak generally change over time. So, I expressed doubt in your application of this usage that has no evidence of been normally used since that time. Therefore, the burden of proof is on you, not me, to show that θεὸς is a title or a human with political or spiritual power in 20CE.

No, you need to prove Jews no longer think this way. BTW, see kyrious above.

Nice expression of human philosophy. Scripture teaches the opposite, but keep on asserting things: "And the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters." Genesis 1:2.

Yep, God's will, desire, before the creative acts to come.

"And as he spoke to me, the Spirit entered into me and set me on my feet, and I heard him speaking to me." Ezekiel 2:2. The Spirit of God isn't physical, but the Spirit is present and active in the physical world.

Yep, the spirit of prophecy, which also denotes God's will. Just man up instead of trying to save face. You have no idea what I believe.

You still have a problem on your hands. Jesus admits he isn't God, and that he isn't everywhere, John 20:17. He also says he does all that the Father does, so he's forced to abandon himself and not take flesh ?, John 5:19.

You've already admitted, and I quote you, "It's expressing that in some way Jesus isn't with the Father, but not in every way. Therefore, no issue for us."

In some way means not all the way. He's less than God, and not with God.

God Bless

Yep.

 

[Open Heart]

2. Your statement "A repentant sinner, forgiven, isn't a sinner." is oxymoronic. A repentant sinner is a type of sinner. That's how the English language works.

No, that's not true. I realize that in Christian theology you think that, but it's not what the Tanakh actually teaches. Jewjitzu quoted Proverbs 24:16 For a righteous man falleth seven times, and riseth up again, But the wicked stumble under adversity. Clearly, a repentant sinner is RIGHTEOUS, not a sinner. A sinner is someone who is lost in the ways of sin, and that is not someone who repents.

If I could give an analogy, everyone lies, but some people are just LIARS. In the same way, everyone sins, but SOME people are just lost in sin.

 

[DoctrinesofGraceBapt]

Two things:
1. You previously made an unqualified false statement. You've now corrected that statement by qualifying it. You need to state your qualifications because people can't mind read.

I think it's obvious that Tanakh supports what I'm saying. You already knew the answer but were being stubborn about it.

My statement related to your rhetorical skills, not you're theology. Can you try to keep your categories straight?

DoctrinesofGraceBapt said:
2. Your statement "A repentant sinner, forgiven, isn't a sinner." is oxymoronic. A repentant sinner is a type of sinner. That's how the English language works.

I think you what the intent was. Stop whining.

Do you not like it when your nonsense is called out?

DoctrinesofGraceBapt said:
You do realize the fact that he was quoting a Psalm empties your statement of theological application. Being resurrected is being delivered.

You do realize being beaten, bleeding, dying, and going to the grave shows otherwise? Also the gospel accounts regarding the resurrection contradict each other, besides the evidence of the Talpiot tomb.

How long after death does the body start breaking down?

Nothing but whataboutisms.
"... going to the grave shows otherwise"—yet, being resurrected is being delivered.
"Also the gospel accounts..."—Different topic utterly irrelevant to whether or not Jesus was delivered.
"Talpoit tomb"—Come on man, even the archeologies who studied it admit there is practically zero chance that it's the tomb of the Jesus of the NT.
"the body start breaking down"—How is this relevant to anything?

In the end, you simply repeated yourself, ignored my theological point, and argued against the existence of the resurrection. Talk about striving to hide the fact that you didn't directly answer my theological statement.

DoctrinesofGraceBapt said:
Listen to what others say before replying. Jeremiah went through all kinds of hardship before finding his salvation, as did Jesus. Jesus just died and was raised again as part of his hardship followed by salvation narrative.

Jeremiah never claimed to be God nor sinless.

Non sequitur.

DoctrinesofGraceBapt said:
No, you're the one making a positive claim that a usage in 1000BC was still normally being used in 20CE in order to interpret certain passages in the NT in a particular way.

Yep. You need to prove that wasn't the case. Just like kyrious was used for Lord for either men or divinity.

DoctrinesofGraceBapt said:
And, we also know for a fact that the way people speak generally change over time. So, I expressed doubt in your application of this usage that has no evidence of been normally used since that time. Therefore, the burden of proof is on you, not me, to show that θεὸς is a title for a human with political or spiritual power in 20CE.

No, you need to prove Jews no longer think this way. BTW, see kyrious above.

Lack of use is more than enough evidence to doubt its normative use in the NT. Why do you think θεὸς is a title for a human with political or spiritual power in 20CE.?

DoctrinesofGraceBapt said:
Nice expression of human philosophy. Scripture teaches the opposite, but keep on asserting things: "And the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters."Genesis 1:2.

Yep, God's will, desire, before the creative acts to come.

DoctrinesofGraceBapt said:
"And as he spoke to me, the Spirit entered into me and set me on my feet, and I heard him speaking to me." Ezekiel 2:2. The Spirit of God isn't physical, but the Spirit is present and active in the physical world.

Yep, the spirit of prophecy, which also denotes God's will. Just man up instead of trying to save face. You have no idea what I believe.

Nice job not interacting with a thing I said.

God Bless

 

[DoctrinesofGraceBapt]

2. Your statement "A repentant sinner, forgiven, isn't a sinner." is oxymoronic. A repentant sinner is a type of sinner. That's how the English language works.

No, that's not true. I realize that in Christian theology you think that, but it's not what the Tanakh actually teaches. Jewjitzu quoted Proverbs 24:16 For a righteous man falleth seven times, and riseth up again, But the wicked stumble under adversity. Clearly, a repentant sinner is RIGHTEOUS, not a sinner. A sinner is someone who is lost in the ways of sin, and that is not someone who repents.

If I could give an analogy, everyone lies, but some people are just LIARS. In the same way, everyone sins, but SOME people are just lost in sin.

My statement relates to the logic of the wording, not to any theological perspective. In the phase "repentant sinner", repentant is modifying sinner, expressing a kind of sinner. Therefore, the sentence is saying a kind of sinner isn't is sinner: oxymoronic. He should have said "A repentant person, forgiven, isn't a sinner." But, Jewjitzu is not careful with his wording.

God Bless

 

[Open Heart]

My statement relates to the logic of the wording, not to any theological perspective. In the phase "repentant sinner", repentant is modifying sinner, expressing a kind of sinner. Therefore, the sentence is saying a kind of sinner isn't is sinner: oxymoronic. He should have said "A repentant person, forgiven, isn't a sinner." But, Jewjitzu is not careful with his wording.

God Bless

Let's make sure we are both using the word sinner correctly. Let me give an analogy.

Everyone lies. But you don't call everyone a liar. There are some people who make it such a habit to lie that you just look at them and say, "LIAR!" So there IS a difference in how much a person lies before you apply the word.

In the same way, everyone sins. But you don't call everyone a sinner. That word is reserved for those who are simply given over to sin. If a person is the sort to repent when they sin, then that means they are not given over. Thus, there is no such thing as a repentant sinner; like Jewjitzu said, the phrase is oxymoronic. If a person repents, then they are no longer a sinner--they are righteous.

Whether Jewjitzu is or is not careful with his wording is something you can address directly with him. My comments are only meant to address this Christian notion that everyone is a sinner.

 

[DoctrinesofGraceBapt]

My statement relates to the logic of the wording, not to any theological perspective. In the phase "repentant sinner", repentant is modifying sinner, expressing a kind of sinner. Therefore, the sentence is saying a kind of sinner isn't is sinner: oxymoronic. He should have said "A repentant person, forgiven, isn't a sinner." But, Jewjitzu is not careful with his wording.

Let's make sure we are both using the word sinner correctly. Let me give an analogy.

Everyone lies. But you don't call everyone a liar. There are some people who make it such a habit to lie that you just look at them and say, "LIAR!" So there IS a difference in how much a person lies before you apply the word.

In the same way, everyone sins. But you don't call everyone a sinner. That word is reserved for those who are simply given over to sin. If a person is the sort to repent when they sin, then that means they are not given over. Thus, there is no such thing as a repentant sinner; like Jewjitzu said, the phrase is oxymoronic. If a person repents, then they are no longer a sinner--they are righteous.

I understand what you are saying, and I have no issue with your use; but Christians simply use a different definition for sinner. Theologically speaking, Christians define a sinner as one who has committed a sin. Therefore, everyone is a sinner. Under this definition, a repentant sinner isn't oxymoronic. However, Jewjitzu didn't say "a repentant person isn't a sinner". He said "a repentant sinner, forgiven, isn't a sinner." Therefore, under both definitions the word sinner, the phrase is oxymoronic as you admitted.

Whether Jewjitzu is or is not careful with his wording is something you can address directly with him. My comments are only meant to address this Christian notion that everyone is a sinner.

Which is what I was doing. That's the whole point the comment in question. I wasn't questioning the validity of your or Jewjitzu's definition of sinner.

God Bless

 

[Open Heart]

I understand what you are saying, and I have no issue with your use; but Christians simply use a different definition for sinner. Theologically speaking, Christians define a sinner as one who has committed a sin. Therefore, everyone is a sinner.

Yes, this is the problem linguists have with a great many religions -- the use of words in highly idiosyncratic ways. I have no problem if you want to use the word sinner idiosyncratically if you are speaking to your fellow Christians who similarly use it idiosyncratically. However, when you are talking to a Jew, you need to not insist that a Jew adopt the esoteric definition used only by your religious group.

 

[DoctrinesofGraceBapt]

I understand what you are saying, and I have no issue with your use; but Christians simply use a different definition for sinner. Theologically speaking, Christians define a sinner as one who has committed a sin. Therefore, everyone is a sinner.

Yes, this is the problem linguists have with a great many religions -- the use of words in highly idiosyncratic ways. I have no problem if you want to use the word sinner idiosyncratically if you are speaking to your fellow Christians who similarly use it idiosyncratically. However, when you are talking to a Jew, you need to not insist that a Jew adopt the esoteric definition used only by your religious group.

Given that it is the definition used by over 2 billion Christians, I don't think idiosyncratic is a meaningful description. BTW, I didn't insist that anyone use it that way. Use it however you want, just define your terms. I figured that Jewjitzu was using a different definition, and I couldn't care less that he did. I was simply trying to understand what he was saying because he rarely defines anything. He just makes sweeping statements without any care to differences in perspective.

God Bless

 

[Jewjitzu]

My statement related to your rhetorical skills, not you're theology. Can you try to keep your categories straight?

You still have it wrong.

Do you not like it when your nonsense is called out?

Do you like it when you're wrong constantly?

Nothing but whataboutisms.
"... going to the grave shows otherwise"—yet, being resurrected is being delivered.

And yet he wasn't. That's what Talpiot is about.

"Also the gospel accounts..."—Different topic utterly irrelevant to whether or not Jesus was delivered.

He died. What kind of deliverance is that?

"Talpoit tomb"—Come on man, even the archeologies who studied it admit there is practically zero chance that it's the tomb of the Jesus of the NT.
"the body start breaking down"—How is this relevant to anything?

This is false. Go back and read about. Jesus body starting decomposing almost immediately.

In the end, you simply repeated yourself, ignored my theological point, and argued against the existence of the resurrection. Talk about striving to hide the fact that you didn't directly answer my theological statement.

Everything has been answered.

Non sequitur.

Oh but it does.

Lack of use is more than enough evidence to doubt its normative use in the NT. Why do you think θεὸς is a title for a human with political or spiritual power in 20CE.?

Why do you think the norm changed? Where's your evidence that Jews changed their thinking? I haven't.

Nice job not interacting with a thing I said.

Shall I get some cheese for your whine? You still have no idea what I believe nor understand that God isn't physical means even His spirit isn't physical, though you say with words that you believe He isn't. Don't you understand Timothy?

You still have a problem on your hands. Jesus admits he isn't God, and that he isn't everywhere, John 20:17. He also says he does all that the Father does, so he's forced to abandon himself and not take flesh ?, John 5:19.

You've already admitted, and I quote you, "It's expressing that in some way Jesus isn't with the Father, but not in every way. Therefore, no issue for us."

In some way means not all the way. He's less than God, and not with God.

God Bless

Yep.

 

[DoctrinesofGraceBapt]

DoctrinesofGraceBapt said:
Nothing but whataboutisms.
"... going to the grave shows otherwise"—yet, being resurrected is being delivered.

And yet he wasn't. That's what Talpiot is about.

DoctrinesofGraceBapt said:
"Also the gospel accounts..."—Different topic utterly irrelevant to whether or not Jesus was delivered.

He died. What kind of deliverance is that?

DoctrinesofGraceBapt said:
"Talpoit tomb"—Come on man, even the archeologies who studied it admit there is practically zero chance that it's the tomb of the Jesus of the NT.
"the body start breaking down"—How is this relevant to anything?

This is false. Go back and read about. Jesus body starting decomposing almost immediately.

Nothing but you asserting your uneducated opinion. Moving on.

DoctrinesofGraceBapt said:
Lack of use is more than enough evidence to doubt its normative use in the NT. Why do you think θεὸς is a title for a human with political or spiritual power in 20CE.?

Why do you think the norm changed? Where's your evidence that Jews changed their thinking? I haven't.

It was a 1000 years later and norms of how people talk change over a 1000 years. I'm not talking about Jews changing their thinking. I'm talking about people changing the way words are used, which happens constantly all the time.

BTW, the Jews in David's day had no problem verbalizing YHWH as seen throughout the OT, but you don't dare speak the divine name, even while reading the Hebrew Scriptures in Synagogue. This is a change in how Jews use language over the same 1000 years. The way people speak change over time. Personally, I think it was the reading of books like Isaiah in synagogue that might have changed usage so as to reserve God as a title for YHWH, so called false gods, or the like as opposed to a title for a normal human.

So again, Why do you think θεὸς is a title for a human with political or spiritual power in 20CE.?

FYI, I deleted all your other comments because of your immature responses.

God Bless

 

[Jewjitzu]

Nothing but you asserting your uneducated opinion. Moving on.

Fact. The man died, decomposed and had an ossuary and family tomb.

It was a 1000 years later and norms of how people talk change over a 1000 years.

The norms were in scripture. You can't change that. You're initial argument was that it didn't exist in the Greek 20CE, and it did. You lost that argument. Man up.

And BTW, the usage of kyrious for humans in the NT also solidifies my point.

I'm not talking about Jews changing their thinking. I'm talking about people changing the way words are used, which happens constantly all the time.

Words align with thinking, vice versa. Our tradition, culture, history, is all that matters when understanding scripture.

BTW, the Jews in David's day had no problem verbalizing YHWH as seen throughout the OT, but you don't dare speak the divine name, even while reading the Hebrew Scriptures in Synagogue.

Really? You heard David speak God's name? God has several names in Tanakh which we do pronounce.

This is a change in how Jews use language over the same 1000 years.

No, we know the name, but accord sanctity to it. The meanings associated with it hasn't changed.

Desperate move on your part.

The way people speak change over time. Personally, I think it was the reading of books like Isaiah in synagogue that might have changed usage so as to reserve God as a title for YHWH, so called false gods, or the like as opposed to a title for a normal human.

The term elohim isn't just used as a title, so nothing has changed.

So again, Why do you think θεὸς is a title for a human with political or spiritual power in 20CE.?

Because that's how it was used in the past. You can't show our thinking has changed, and that's all that matters.

FYI, I deleted all your other comments because of your immature responses.

The best thing you can do is admit you have no idea how I think on many matters. It's very evident you've dropped many points because I've exposed your errors on them. Again, you need to remove the beam from your eyes before you speak, DOGB.

You still have a problem on your hands. Jesus admits he isn't God, and that he isn't everywhere, John 20:17. He also says he does all that the Father does, so he's forced to abandon himself and not take flesh ?, John 5:19.

You've already admitted, and I quote you, "It's expressing that in some way Jesus isn't with the Father, but not in every way. Therefore, no issue for us."

In some way means not all the way. He's less than God, and not with God.

The chink in your armor gets bigger.

God Bless

Yes

 

[SPOKENWORD]

You still have a problem on your hands. Jesus admits he isn't God, and that he isn't everywhere, John 20:17. He also says he does all that the Father does, so he's forced to abandon himself and not take flesh ?, John 5:19.


The chink in your armor gets bigger.

You will only understand it when you repent and become Born Again. Its that simple. There is a vail over your eyes that prevents you from seeing the Truth.Who was it that became flesh to dwell among us, the only begotten of the Father (John 3:16)? Who was it that John bore witness to? It was Jesus. Jesus existed in the beginning with God, and not just existing with God, but Jesus was God in the beginning! (He is still God today of course.