God wanted human sacrifices for atonement of sin?

Lee Magee

Member
There was no Judea when the Torah laws were first given. And given that Judaism is the religion of Jews today, I would not reduce them to "nothing but relics."

Gen 26:5
Because that Abraham obeyed my voice, and kept my charge, my commandments, my statutes, and my Torah (תורתי)

Well apparently, Abraham already had the Torah, long before Moses wrote it.
 

CharismaticLady

Well-known member
Actually, Jesus learned this from the Rabbis of the time. You need the details in Torah to know how to love God and man.

Yes, I refer back to the law to keep myself pure. That is why my ex-husband from 20 years ago is still the LAST man I kissed. I don't date. I just study the Word. And with God inside of me, I know what Isaiah 54:5 means first hand, so I wear my wedding rings.
 

Lee Magee

Member
ROFL. Like I said, we shall have to agree to disagree agreeably :) Moses is thought to have lived in the 14-15th century BCE. that's a mellenium before Xenophone.

The Canaanite language (including Aramaic, Hebrew, Phoenician) did not exist in the 14-15th century BCE, so what language would it be in? Its like saying Shakespeare wrote Hamlet in the 1st century.

Perhaps you were taught in a US School and they not teach basic history.
 

Jewjitzu

Well-known member
This is totally wrong. The part of God called the Word, emptied Himself of His deity to become implanted in Mary. She bore Jesus Christ.
So, your god was born, created.

The Word was not a created being. Because of the sin nature, there was no man that could give his life to reconcile us to God.
Human sacrifices were never required. So, this argument doesn't fly.

And the blood of bulls and goats couldn't even come close. It had to be repeated over and over.
That's because a sacrifice wasn't a blank ticket to cover all sins in the future. Just look at how Christians handle Jesus' blood.

Jesus' death for three days reconciled mankind to God, defeating Satan in those who accept His gift to us.
Ironically, Paul says Satan hasn't been defeated.

You don't believe in Him, so haven't received any of the promises. The freedom from sin results in resting in Christ, and our abiding in Him, and He in us is a Sabbath rest. Not just once a week, but every moment of every day.
Sorry, but I see you just as much a sinner as everyone else. I've seen it in this forum.
 

Jewjitzu

Well-known member
Yes, I refer back to the law to keep myself pure.
This is funny. You've said you don't need to memorize the law. It's automatic. You seem to have contradicted yourself.

That is why my ex-husband from 20 years ago is still the LAST man I kissed. I don't date. I just study the Word. And with God inside of me, I know what Isaiah 54:5 means first hand, so I wear my wedding rings.
That's really nice. If that makes you happy, that's great.
 

CharismaticLady

Well-known member
So, your god was born, created.
God is eternal having no beginning nor end. Jesus even said, "Before Abraham was, I AM.

Human sacrifices were never required. So, this argument doesn't fly.

Not in the Old Testament. There was no one sinless enough, until Jesus. The had to use bulls and goats and lambs, but that was just a temporary fix. Jesus made the ultimate forever sacrifice. It wasn't something taught in the Old Testament, so maybe it just never came up in your schooling.

That's because a sacrifice wasn't a blank ticket to cover all sins in the future. Just look at how Christians handle Jesus' blood.

Jesus blood covered all past sins, and only unintentional sin in the future. I see it being the same as the Old Testament, except His blood covered all past unrighteousness even murder. The whole sin nature was taken away and forgotten. In the Old Covenant nothing could take away the sin nature. That makes the New Covenant unique.

Ironically, Paul says Satan hasn't been defeated.

It seems John and Paul disagree then. But Paul did write some of his own opinions not inspired by God. Christians don't like to hear me say that. LOL

Sorry, but I see you just as much a sinner as everyone else. I've seen it in this forum.

There is a difference between lawlessness, and sin is lawlessness - sins unto death. If you've seen me sin on here, that is either a misunderstanding on your part, or unintentional on mine. So I'm good. My conscience is clear.

This is funny. You've said you don't need to memorize the law. It's automatic. You seem to have contradicted yourself.

I verified what I was feeling in my conscience with what was written about marriage and remarriage, and what the Spirit told me was right. One thing facinating in reading the Old Testament is we can see Jesus hidden throughout, especially in the temple and the feasts.

That's really nice. If that makes you happy, that's great.

Thanks. I finally found a husband worth sharing my life with!
 
Last edited:

Jewjitzu

Well-known member
God is eternal having no beginning nor end. Jesus even said, "Before Abraham was, I AM.
Yes, referring to God, not himself.

Not in the Old Testament. There was no one sinless enough, until Jesus.
Who said he was sinless?

The had to use bulls and goats and lambs, but that was just a temporary fix. Jesus made the ultimate forever sacrifice. It wasn't something taught in the Old Testament, so maybe it just never came up in your schooling.
Maybe because we're told outright that human sacrifices are idolatrous and not needed. Micah 6:6-8.

Jesus blood covered all past sins, and only unintentional sin in the future. I see it being the same as the Old Testament, except His blood covered all past unrighteousness even murder. The whole sin nature was taken away and forgotten. In the Old Covenant nothing could take away the sin nature. That makes the New Covenant unique.
So, there are sins that require sacrifices and monetary payments combined. I don't recall Jesus making monetary payments for those sins, do you?

It seems John and Paul disagree then. But Paul did write some of his own opinions not inspired by God. Christians don't like to hear me say that. LOL
I don't care for the NT so it doesn't matter.

There is a difference between lawlessness, and sin is lawlessness - sins unto death. If you've seen me sin on here, that is either a misunderstanding on your part, or unintentional on mine. So I'm good. My conscience is clear.
But either way, you've still sinned.

I verified what I was feeling in my conscience with what was written about marriage and remarriage, and what the Spirit told me was right.
Great for you.

Thanks. I finally found a husband worth sharing my life with!
Mazal tov!
 

CharismaticLady

Well-known member
Yes, referring to God, not himself.
Jesus was who spoke in the burning bush, but as the Word of God.

Who said he was sinless?
The New Testament. "he was tempted in all thing, and yet without sin."

Maybe because we're told outright that human sacrifices are idolatrous and not needed. Micah 6:6-8.

The Old Testament saints didn't know.

So, there are sins that require sacrifices and monetary payments combined. I don't recall Jesus making monetary payments for those sins, do you?
His blood was enough.

Maybe it was the thirty pieces of silver that Judas returned. LOL

I don't care for the NT so it doesn't matter.

Your loss...

But either way, you've still sinned.

Are you and another witness willing to share? Or are you bearing false witness?
 

Jewjitzu

Well-known member
Jesus was who spoke in the burning bush, but as the Word of God.
No, the fire was an angel, Psalm 104:3-4, and God the Father spoke as He did at Sinai. Jesus wasn't born yet.

The New Testament. "he was tempted in all thing, and yet without sin."
As you've said, there's also sins of omission, unknowingly. Hebrews 5:7 points to his prayer as a penitent.

The Old Testament saints didn't know.
They did know. That's why only the idolatrous are said to have offered their children to Moloch, etc.

His blood was enough.
It didn't even make it to the right place, the altar. He even came up short on monetary payments required.

Maybe it was the thirty pieces of silver that Judas returned. LOL
That wouldn't make a dent on money owed.

Your loss...
No such thing.

Are you and another witness willing to share? Or are you bearing false witness?
No false witness on my part. You've already admitted to not keeping the true Sabbath, and worshipping a god our fathers didn't know.
 

CharismaticLady

Well-known member
No, the fire was an angel, Psalm 104:3-4, and God the Father spoke as He did at Sinai. Jesus wasn't born yet.

You don't get it, though I did explain it. Part of God that is the Word of God BECAME Jesus. That part of Jesus was eternal. The Word became flesh in order to be seen and to also die.

Jesus is seen throughout the Old Testament as "the Angel of the Lord." Note, no created angel of any rank will allow himself to be worshiped. But the "Angel of the Lord" will. Why? Because He is that part of God that became Jesus. He can be SEEN. The Father and the Spirit cannot be seen.

As you've said, there's also sins of omission, unknowingly. Hebrews 5:7 points to his prayer as a penitent.

Already gone over this with you.

They did know. That's why only the idolatrous are said to have offered their children to Moloch, etc.

Don't you know that Satan cannot create anything, only counterfeit, so that no one will believe in the true. He did a good job with you it seems if his ruse worked. It is the same with the gifts of the Spirit. Satan counterfeits all of them too so people are scared and believe they are "of the devil."

No false witness on my part. You've already admitted to not keeping the true Sabbath, and worshipping a god our fathers didn't know.

I keep the true meaning of the Sabbath. You don't know the spiritual aspect of the Sabbath, and therefore don't keep God inside of you. You are still just a man with a sin nature, trying your best to keep the letter of the law; but that won't make you truly righteous, and far from holy.
 

Jewjitzu

Well-known member
You don't get it, though I did explain it. Part of God that is the Word of God BECAME Jesus. That part of Jesus was eternal. The Word became flesh in order to be seen and to also die.
No, I get it. God doesn't have parts, He isn't physical. The Father spoke the words of creation as Tanakh shows. There wasn't a son involved.

The plan for Messiah has always been for him to be just human, physical descent from Abraham and David, from the male loins and seed.

Jesus is seen throughout the Old Testament as "the Angel of the Lord."
That isn't true. Jesus was born in the future.

Note, no created angel of any rank will allow himself to be worshiped. But the "Angel of the Lord" will. Why? Because He is that part of God that became Jesus. He can be SEEN. The Father and the Spirit cannot be seen.
Really? I haven't seen worship of an angel. We do see people bowing to kings, prophets, angels, etc.

Already gone over this with you.
And you haven't convinced me but been corrected.

Don't you know that Satan cannot create anything, only counterfeit, so that no one will believe in the true. He did a good job with you it seems if his ruse worked. It is the same with the gifts of the Spirit. Satan counterfeits all of them too so people are scared and believe they are "of the devil."
Again, God said flat out child sacrifices were idolatrous and never required.

I keep the true meaning of the Sabbath. You don't know the spiritual aspect of the Sabbath, and therefore don't keep God inside of you. You are still just a man with a sin nature, trying your best to keep the letter of the law; but that won't make you truly righteous, and far from holy.
You keep your own idea of the Sabbath, not what has been commanded. The spirit, will, desire, ruach, of the Sabbath is to keep it by resting and showing it is a sign with Israel. You're not there.
 

Lee Magee

Member
Jews are currently sacrificing Palestinian children, such as Jesus, the young Palestinian, who also lived in that occupied region.
 

DoctrinesofGraceBapt

Well-known member
"He only had one nature" is a theological claim unjustified by anything. Therefore, this response is vacuous.
Your response is vacuous. Even Jesus acknowledges he isn't God. Besides, if you die like a man, then you're a man.
DoctrinesofGraceBapt said:
I didn't say Abraham addressed anyone as YHWH. I told you that Moses called him YHWH. Try reading what I wrote next time.
Rotfl... Moses doesn't call anyone YHWH in these passages as he wasn't around. ;) What we do see are the angels acting and speaking in YHWH's name. Emissaries, as these men were, have the authority to do that. That's why Abraham doesn't call any of the men YHWH.

The response of one not reading the passage: "And YHWH appeared to him by the oaks of Mamre,...YHWH said...YHWH said to Abraham...YHWH said..." Genesis 18:1,10,13,17...

DoctrinesofGraceBapt said:
One of Jesus' natures died, but his God nature, the nature that is naturally being referred to when one says "a sacrifice of God", didn't die.
Then God's son didn't die and no sacrifice occurred. Figures.
DoctrinesofGraceBapt said:
How many category errors are you going to make?
None. Let me ask you something. Does a son share the same nature as his father?
DoctrinesofGraceBapt said:
Really?

Then YHWH said, “Because the outcry against Sodom and Gomorrah is great and their sin is very grave, I will go down to see whether they have done altogether according to the outcry that has come to me. And if not, I will know.” So the men turned from there and went toward Sodom, but Abraham still stood before YHWH. Genesis 18:20-22
Yes, so the men went away. Abraham was left standing before the LORD as we all do when we pray.
DoctrinesofGraceBapt said:
You do realize the topography of the region? Abraham and the men, YHWH and the two angels who are to visit Lot, were in the hill country while Sodom and Gomorrah were in the valley. Coming down relates to traveling down into the valley. Even this excuse fails to take into the consideration what Moses wrote. Do you even care what Scripture says?
Even with your answer, there are other cities as part of the Sodom and Gomorrah region. We aren't told where the other man went.

Is it fun not reading what others are saying? We are told where the other man went and who other man was: "Abraham still stood before YHWH."

DoctrinesofGraceBapt said:
If you ignore the meaningful nuances
Meaningful?
DoctrinesofGraceBapt said:
of our position when allegedly pointing out contradictions, how can anyone take you seriously? We did not say God ceased to be God. We didn't say God as God died—which is what (1) is referring to. So, that he died as man doesn't imply that God's divine nature died. So, no contradiction. (2) distinguishes God's nature from man's nature. It doesn't imply God can't take up a secondary nature. So, no contradiction. Need I go on?
Where do you get God can take up another nature, which in effect changes His original perfect nature?

I don't get that God can from anywhere. I simply accept the divine revelation that he did. Here's the real question: Why would you think God taking up another nature would effect changes on his original nature?

Have you ever interacted with the concept of the Hypostatic union? In Christianity, Jesus had two distinct natures: God and man. As God, he was always God and cannot die. In time, Jesus took up a secondary nature as man.
Which is false because there is no real union in this Hypostasic idea.
DoctrinesofGraceBapt said:
As man, Jesus was not God because he was man. As God, Jesus was God. By one nature, Jesus is God; by the other nature, Jesus was man, not God. We are not talking about some blending of the two natures.
So, what's interesting is that you've admitted that God's nature can't die, i.e, bleed, etc. by implication. So, neither did His nature walk on earth then.
DoctrinesofGraceBapt said:
One person with two natures. This may be weird to some; it might make no sense, but there is nothing illogical about this.
Of course it is. And the NT contradicts itself below.

The responses of one who refuses to think before replying.

DoctrinesofGraceBapt said:
And, this is exactly what Paul teaches in Philipians 2:6-7: "who, though he was in form God, did not count equality with God a thing to be held onto, but emptied himself, by taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men."
This is the funny thing about your theology. You flat out point out that Jesus isn't God in these passages, ie., he's limited, etc.

If you understood Jewish thought, what is being taught was that Jesus was born king according to the gospel, and as such had certain rights associated with this. Kings are associated with God, like God, Zechariah 12:8, and Jesus set this aside to be a servant temporarily. You'll find that the terms elohim, theos, kyrioa, are associated with men, judges, angels, kings, etc., and don't imply divinity.

If you thought about what we are saying before bearing false witness against us, you would be embarrassed by these silly comments.

God Bless
 

DoctrinesofGraceBapt

Well-known member
So, you choose to ignore Scripture and assert dogma.
Moses was God before Pharaoh, Exodus 7:1, as are judges, Exodus 21:6, 22:8-9; Psalm 82:6, angels, Psalm 8:5; Abraham as God, Genesis 23:6; the house of David like God and the angel of YHWH, Zechariah 12:8, etc.

Do you accept these cases involve divinity?

I'm talking about Moses calling a man who met with Abraham YHWH in Genesis 18-19. You are choosing to look at other passages that are not equalivant in any way given the use of the divine name in Genesis 18-19. Are you using this technique to hide your incompetence from the reader? Why don't you stick with the actual passage. Why don't you quote it? Answer: it is plain, and it condemns you. Good luck rejecting Scripture in light of the opinions of the men.

God Bless
 

DoctrinesofGraceBapt

Well-known member
Have you ever interacted with the concept of the Hypostatic union? In Christianity, Jesus had two distinct natures:
The concepts of the Hypostatic union and Jesus having 2 natures are theories put forward by trinitarians to explain the trinity and Jesus' divinity. Jesus himself never expounded those ideas.
I have a simple question. If you travelled 2000 years back in time and saw Jesus face to face, would you say you have seen God?

It depends on what you mean by "seen God". I would have seen Jesus. But, I wouldn't have see God in his glory. Outside of the transfiguration, I wouldn't have seen what Isaiah saw in Isaiah 6. But, I would have seen as much of YHWH as Abraham did in Genesis 18:1, or Jacob did in Genesis 32:30, or Joshua in Joshua 5:14.

Because if John writes "no one has seen God" (1John 4:12) it automatically follows that the Jesus he saw face to face was not God.

You should have read John's prolog first: "No one has ever seen God; the only God, who is at the Father’s side, he has made him known." John 1:18. John's point in both passages is that no one has seen the Father, who is God; they saw the Son, who is the same God.

I know you'll quote that verse from Philippians again, but Paul also writes that no one has seen or can see God.
- which God will bring about in his own time—God, the blessed and only Ruler, the King of kings and Lord of lords, 16 who alone is immortal and who lives in unapproachable light, whom no one has seen or can see. To him be honor and might forever. Amen (1Timothy 6:15-16)

There is a distinction between seeing the Father in all of his glory, and seeing the Son in human flesh. The same challenges must be considered when dealing with passages like Genesis 18:1; 32:30; Joshua 5:14; or Isaiah 6:1-5.

When Moses himself says YHWH appeared to Abraham, I believe YHWH appeared before Abraham.
Moses also says YHWH appeared to Hagar in Genesis 16. But the text establishes that it was the "angel of the Lord" that spoke to Hagar.
The angel of the Lord found Hagar near a spring in the desert... (Genesis 16:7)
She gave this name to the Lord who spoke to her: “You are the God who sees me,” for she said, “I have now seen the One who sees me.” (Genesis 16:13)
Same thing with Jacob when he wrestles a man/angel but then says he saw "God".
All that's happening is that the angel sent by YHWH is addressed as YHWH for whatever reason. So it's the same thing in Abraham's case. He saw 3 men/angels and God was not among them, because "no one can see God".

And? Do you think this helps your case or hurts your case? Our position is this Messenger from YHWH could also be YHWH. Your argument is only meaningful if the angel of YHWH isn't YHWH, but you don't know that. You're just grasping at an excuse as to reject the clear meaning of the text. Either YHWH appeared to Abraham in Genesis 18, or others in other passages, or Moses is a false prophet for saying they saw YHWH. Make your choice.

There is evidence that some Jews in the early first century considered YHWH, the Memra of YHWH, and the Spirit of YHWH as being distinct while still being the one God YHWH based solely on their studies of the Tanakh. It couldn't be that such concepts were excised from Jewish thought after the emergence of Christianity?

God Bless
 

Lee Magee

Member
In Exodus 7:1 , אלהים is probably the same as θεῖος; of heroes . ~ ἥρων

Homer's Odyssey 2.224 Ὀδυσσῆος θείοιο λαῶν "divine Odysseus of the people"
*Levi (לוי) = λαϊκός “of the people
 

CharismaticLady

Well-known member
The Father spoke the words of creation as Tanakh shows. There wasn't a son involved.

He wasn't called the son in the Old Testament. He was God's Word and was part of God. And through God's Word creation came forth.

Then God said, “Let there be light”; and there was light." God doesn't have a physical mouth, but His words were part of His, just as Jesus as a human was.

That isn't true. Jesus was born in the future.

Right, but the Word of God existed then, and the Angel of the Lord could be seen. The Father cannot. The Angel of the Lord allowed them to worship Him, whereas no created angel would, or did that fact get past you. Now you know. LOL

Really? I haven't seen worship of an angel. We do see people bowing to kings, prophets, angels, etc.

2 And the Angel of the Lord appeared to him in a flame of fire from the midst of a bush. So he looked, and behold, the bush was burning with fire, but the bush was not consumed. 3 Then Moses said, “I will now turn aside and see this great sight, why the bush does not burn.”

4 So when the Lord saw that he turned aside to look, God called to him from the midst of the bush and said, “Moses, Moses!”

And he said, “Here I am.”

5 Then He said, “Do not draw near this place. Take your sandals off your feet, for the place where you stand is holy ground.” 6 Moreover He said, “I am the God of your father—the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob.” And Moses hid his face, for he was afraid to look upon God.

Jewijitzu, the Angel of the Lord was that part of God that was put into Mary and produced Jesus. He wasn't a created being, neither the angel, nor part of Jesus. The human Jesus was who God called His Son. Before, the Word was just the tangible part of God. And it was Jesus who proclaimed the New Covenant through His words.

Again, God said flat out child sacrifices were idolatrous and never required.

I agree. But God sacrificed HIMSELF. He gave His life through Jesus - the Word.

"There are three who bear witness in heaven: The Father, the Word, and the Spirit; and these three are one."

You keep your own idea of the Sabbath, not what has been commanded. The spirit, will, desire, ruach, of the Sabbath is to keep it by resting and showing it is a sign with Israel. You're not there.

This is why the Old Law was of the flesh, just as Abraham's son Ishmael was of his carnal nature. Isaac was the son of promise. This is why Israel was from Isaac's line. And Jesus was through King David's line. It is amazing how God is in the details. And I appreciate your saying that Jesus blood was not on the altar. But Jesus died for the sins of the whole world, not just Israel. His blood spilled on the earth. See, God is still in the details.

The true Sabbath:

Jesus: Take My yoke upon you and learn from Me, for I am gentle and lowly in heart, and you will find rest for your souls.
 
Last edited:

Jewjitzu

Well-known member
He wasn't called the son in the Old Testament. He was God's Word and was part of God. And through God's Word creation came forth.
Even the Tanakh never uses "word" as a person. It's only the Father that created, Deut 32:6.

Then God said, “Let there be light”; and there was light." God doesn't have a physical mouth, but His words were part of His, just as Jesus as a human was.
God has a mind and can just think the words. Either way, Tanakh is clear the Father created.

Right, but the Word of God existed then, and the Angel of the Lord could be seen. The Father cannot. The Angel of the Lord allowed them to worship Him, whereas no created angel would, or did that fact get past you. Now you know. LOL
No angel has been worshipped. Bowing isn't exclusively worship. I guess David was worshipped when people bowed to him. He should have stopped it?

2 And the Angel of the Lord appeared to him in a flame of fire from the midst of a bush. So he looked, and behold, the bush was burning with fire, but the bush was not consumed. 3 Then Moses said, “I will now turn aside and see this great sight, why the bush does not burn.”

4 So when the Lord saw that he turned aside to look, God called to him from the midst of the bush and said, “Moses, Moses!”

And he said, “Here I am.”

5 Then He said, “Do not draw near this place. Take your sandals off your feet, for the place where you stand is holy ground.” 6 Moreover He said, “I am the God of your father—the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob.” And Moses hid his face, for he was afraid to look upon God.
Moses bowed at God's voice, not at the fire angel.

Jewijitzu, the Angel of the Lord was that part of God that was put into Mary and produced Jesus. He wasn't a created being, neither the angel, nor part of Jesus. The human Jesus was who God called His Son. Before, the Word was just the tangible part of God. And it was Jesus who proclaimed the New Covenant through His words.
No mention of the angel being Jesus. You have an active imagination.

I agree. But God sacrificed HIMSELF. He gave His life through Jesus - the Word.
No, even Jesus says God isn't flesh and blood, Mat 16:17.

"There are three who bear witness in heaven: The Father, the Word, and the Spirit; and these three are one."
Actually, God has said He swears, singularly, by Himself. There aren't 3.

This is why the Old Law was of the flesh, just as Abraham's son Ishmael was of his carnal nature. Isaac was the son of promise.
Isaac was flesh.

This is why Israel was from Isaac's line. And Jesus was through King David's line. It is amazing how God is in the details. And I appreciate your saying that Jesus blood was not on the altar. But Jesus died for the sins of the whole world, not just Israel. His blood spilled on the earth. See, God is still in the details.
Then he didn't fulfill the commandments regarding sacrifices.

The true Sabbath:

Jesus: Take My yoke upon you and learn from Me, for I am gentle and lowly in heart, and you will find rest for your souls.
The 7th seventh day is the only true Sabbath.
 

CharismaticLady

Well-known member
Even the Tanakh never uses "word" as a person. It's only the Father that created, Deut 32:6.

Yes, that distinction is only in the New Covenant. It is also part of the Trinity: The Father, The Word, and The Holy Spirit. You obviously won't accept that and I don't expect you to, but that is just one of the mysteries revealed in the New Covenant.

God has a mind and can just think the words. Either way, Tanakh is clear the Father created.

Yes, and man is made in Their Image as a triune being. We have a body (which correlates to Jesus), a mind (which is the Father) and a heart/conscience (The Holy Spirit.). Just as I am one person. They are one God. Seeing as Jesus was the Word of God, He is just as much God as the Holy Spirit.

No angel has been worshipped. Bowing isn't exclusively worship. I guess David was worshipped when people bowed to him. He should have stopped it?

We are just talking about angels, and yes, no angel has been worshiped, and that is the reason why the Angel of the Lord is not a created being. We only find out in the New Testament that the Angel of the Lord, which angels are messengers, was the Word, and then Jesus.

I know you won't believe that, but I just want you to have that knowledge.

Moses bowed at God's voice, not at the fire angel.

Even though it was the Angel of the Lord, it was holy ground, because the Angel of the Lord is God, just as the Word is God and so is the Holy Spirit.

No mention of the angel being Jesus. You have an active imagination.

It is called a theophany.

No, even Jesus says God isn't flesh and blood, Mat 16:17.
Exactly, so He had to put part of Himself into Mary to produce a being/human that could die.

Isaac was flesh.

Different kind of flesh. Ishamael was from a carnal relationship. Isaac was from his wife based on a promise.

Then he didn't fulfill the commandments regarding sacrifices.

There were no bulls or goats sacrificed to cover the sins of Gentiles, only Israel. This was a much more powerful sacrifice to cove the whole world and had no precedent for in the past.

The 7th seventh day is the only true Sabbath.

As far as the letter of the law, I agree. Sunday is not the Sabbath. In fact a command to worship and on which day is not part of the New Covenant. It is all about wanting to with our heart. And Sunday is resurrection day, without which His sacrifice wouldn't have been ratified.

Jesus being accepted as the spotless lamb of God is proof He never sinned.
 
Last edited:
Top