Search results

  1. D

    God wanted human sacrifices for atonement of sin?

    Yep, but again, I never said that. Still not listening I see. You don't even know why I believe this man was YHWH even when I told you directly like 50 times. So, you choose to continue the game. Never say what you actually think the text is saying as to wiggle out of any refutations. So...
  2. D

    God wanted human sacrifices for atonement of sin?

    Still ignoring the passage in question I see. And? "Can" doesn't imply anything. That's not what the text says. Then it's a good think I never said "this passage names the man God or calls him God." When are you going to make meaningful comments? This is running away from the actual text...
  3. D

    God wanted human sacrifices for atonement of sin?

    I.E. ignoring the passage in question... Except for the fact, that nothing in this passage presents this man as giving a blessing on behalf of God. There you go again ignoring the actual verbiage of text of Genesis 32:28-30 as to run to other verses that are clearly not relevant to the...
  4. D

    God wanted human sacrifices for atonement of sin?

    The text says "you have striven with God and with men, and have prevailed." Maybe you should stick with what Scripture says. BTW, given that this man gave the blessing, the statement "Jacob persisted with God in getting his blessing." implies in the context of Genesis 32:28-30 that this man was...
  5. D

    God wanted human sacrifices for atonement of sin?

    "Jacob persevered with God..." oh, so your God is weak too? Look at how you switch back and forth. The text says "you have striven with God and with men, and have prevailed." The text says "So Jacob called the name of the place Peniel, saying, “For I have seen God face to face, and yet my life...
  6. D

    God wanted human sacrifices for atonement of sin?

    A position literally held by like 2 billion people alive today being described using the normal words used to describe it in the most used language on the planet cannot be said to be unusual. FYI, none of this is evidence for it's truth, I'm just saying I'm not odd, and you attacks are more...
  7. D

    God wanted human sacrifices for atonement of sin?

    Again, the text makes a purposeful distinction between men and this one called God by saying: "Your name shall no longer be called Jacob, but Israel, for you have striven with God and with men, and have prevailed." So, who is this God that struggled with Jacob? It's not a man called a god given...
  8. D

    God wanted human sacrifices for atonement of sin?

    The text says "Your name shall no longer be called Jacob, but Israel, for you have striven with God and with men, and have prevailed." I'm just letting the text speak for itself. So, If it wasn't YHWH, or a spiritual angel made flesh, who he prevailed against, then he was called Israel because...
  9. D

    God wanted human sacrifices for atonement of sin?

    That's you being culturally closed-minded. It's not like my position or wording is unusual. God Bless
  10. D

    God wanted human sacrifices for atonement of sin?

    Rebuttals that don't interact with the actual wording of the text are not rebuttals. So, he called the place Paniel because he met some guy. He was called Israel because he struggled with men and men. And for some reason, Jacob thought just wrestling with a random dude is a reason to be...
  11. D

    God wanted human sacrifices for atonement of sin?

    Again, I described one person who is God being a messenger for another person who is that same God. That's the framework. The malakh was God, but the malakh was not the person who sent the message. That was another person who is that same God. God Bless
  12. D

    God wanted human sacrifices for atonement of sin?

    What? I did not describe a being being God and a messenger of God. I described one person who is God being a messenger for another person who is that same God. God Bless
  13. D

    God wanted human sacrifices for atonement of sin?

    You are not listening. What part of "That men can be angels" didn't you understand? Did you? Not once did you even quote the passage. You're not taking it seriously. You are just excusing its existence and attacking me. Try arguing for your dogma as opposed to arguing it's possible and just...
  14. D

    God wanted human sacrifices for atonement of sin?

    I'm applying your definition of Malakh onto my understanding of Genesis 32:30 to show that this definition doesn't hurt Trinitarianism. Such is the wider context. Then why did you say "In the case of who wrestled with Jacob, it was a man." as to imply this man was not also a Spiritual being...
  15. D

    God wanted human sacrifices for atonement of sin?

    Exactly, so there is nothing in the use of the word Malakh that would deny this man as being the second person of the Trinity delivering a message from the first person of the Trinity to Jacob in the form of a man. Why? Do you think the heavenly host can never take up a body and walk on earth...
  16. D

    God wanted human sacrifices for atonement of sin?

    It seems I did misunderstand him. Although from what he said, my misunderstanding was understandable. And, if this man was one of the heavenly hosts, would have Hosea said anything different? Nope. If this man was the second person of the Trinity delivering a message from the first person of the...
  17. D

    God wanted human sacrifices for atonement of sin?

    Hello? That men can be angels doesn't imply any particular person should be recognized as an angel. Why are you arguing that can imples does above? This is you claiming to take Genesis 32:30 seriously while doing all you can not to interact with what Genesis 32:30 actually says, aka you are...
  18. D

    God wanted human sacrifices for atonement of sin?

    I agree. But without Hosea, Jewjitzu doesn't even have the word malakh applied to the guy Jacob wrestled. Are you disagreeing that how one interprets a passage has ramifications? Jewjitzu said Hosea 12:3-4 doesn't apply to Genesis 32 at all. Therefore, you can't call the man Jacob wrestled a...
  19. D

    God wanted human sacrifices for atonement of sin?

    Interesting take on Hosea 12:3-4. Now you can't even call the man an angel. Just some random dude that Jacob called God, face to face with God, renaming the area because he wrestled some dude. You're still not taking Genesis 32:30 seriously. It's still interesting that Hosea said Jacob met...
  20. D

    God wanted human sacrifices for atonement of sin?

    What in the following expresses that Jewjitzu understood what I was talking about? Here is then context: This was one paragraph cut into four pieces and not one word from Jewjitzu expressing that he understood what I was saying. Need I say more? Nothing I said implies I expect people to...
Top