God wanted human sacrifices for atonement of sin?

Ours as in belonging to the People of Israel, aka Hebrews, Israelites, Jews.

Jesus was not a Palestinian, he was a Jew. There were no people called Palestinians until the 20th century. The term applies to those Arabs who live in the West Bank and Gaza. Jesus was not an Arab -- arabs did not exist in his day.

The term for the Land in Jesus day was not Palestine, but was Judaea, Samaria, and Galilee.

Again, your ulterior motive of delegitimizing Israel is sooooo darn obvious.

Arabia did exist in the 1st century, Roman historians record Arabia and Arab. Palestine is the word that encompasses the region as a whole, although the meaning of Palestine is πάραλος γῆ the coast-land.

Palestinians on the other hand, are mostly of a West-Semitic stock, closely related to Syrians and Lebanese and DNA tests have proven they Phoenician blood, who are the indigenous people of the region. The blood of those people in the Bible flow through the Palestinians.
 
Palestine is the word that encompasses the region as a whole, although the meaning of Palestine is πάραλος γῆ the coast-land
Not until after the romans destroyed the Jewish state. Indeed, the reason the Roman's renamed the territory Palestine was to try to erase the memory of Jews from history. Sadly, you are being manipulated by that.
Palestinians on the other hand, are mostly of a West-Semitic stock, closely related to Syrians and Lebanese and DNA tests have proven they Phoenician blood, who are the indigenous people of the region. The blood of those people in the Bible flow through the Palestinians.
Palestinians are not Phoenicians ROFL They are ARABS.
 
Last edited:
The response of one who doesn't think through the other position before replying.
You don't have a response for your stance on a weakling as a god, right? If you think that your god was actually wrestling Jacob, then you have bigger issues in your ideology.

Response: It's utter nonsense to correlate God's power as God to the physical strength of his temporary human body. And, if you thought for two seconds about what I was actually saying, you would know that as opposed to claiming I hold to some Greek concept of a physical god.

So does this thinking fall in line with why Jesus wasn't fully God in Phil 2? I mean, your god loses in wrestling so he must have been weakened coming into the flesh, etc.?

The mocking of the ignorant, or willfully ignorant, doesn't phase me.

DoctrinesofGraceBapt said:
The phrase "And YHWH appeared to him by the oaks of Mamre" does not mean "And an emissary of YHWH appeared to him by the oaks of Mamre". Read things as they are written as opposed to what you want them to say.
The funny thing is, I know you don't read everything literally, because if you did, there would be no excuse given that Jesus acknowledges he has a God, God isn't flesh and blood, and other verses in the NT that acknowledges no one has seen God.

In reality, we read everything literally, according to the genre/literary stile. What literary justification do you have for change 13 uses of the divine name for an emissary of YHWH? It seems to me that desperate Jews in 1st-5th century created this absurd excuse as to deny Christianity, and you're just parroting it to me.

At the revelation at Sinai, God acknowledges has no form. You need to balance scripture. You're doing a poor job of it.

Correct, God as God has no physical form. None of that is relevant at all to how he chooses to appear to men in time. As long as you refuse to think through what I'm saying, you're going to make silly arguments like the above that have no application to refute our position.

DoctrinesofGraceBapt said:
You can continue to reject what Moses wrote all you want. You're only undermining your own position. Scriputure says "And YHWH appeared to him by the oaks of Mamre". It does not teach "And an emissary of YHWH appeared to him by the oaks of Mamre".
I don't reject anything. I also accept that Moses wrote that he is God, as well as Abraham, the house of David, angels, judges, etc.

You can lie to yourself all you want. It's not convincing anyone. Moses did not say "he is God'. He wrote "Then YHWH said to Moses, “See, I have made you like God to Pharaoh, and your brother Aaron will be your prophet." The difference is obvious. You just looking for an excuse to reject what Moses wrote in Genesis 18:1— "And YHWH appeared to him by the oaks of Mamre".

So, you must several divinities if you're going to be consistent.

As if there is any logical connection whatsoever between recognizing that God can appear as a man and recognizing others who were figuratively called god as divinities. If you're going to make an argument, try using logic.

FYI, recognizing figurative language as figurative is reading the text literally, aka according to its genre and usage. No one said anything about being woodenly literal as to eliminate all figurative language and patterns of speech. That's not my approach, and if your were honest in your response, you would know that. But, you stoop to treating me like a country bumpkin. Could it be that you know how weak your own position is and this wanted disregard for decorum is all you've got?

DoctrinesofGraceBapt said:
Seriously? You purposefully read my words out of context, and I need to grow up? You can't be serious.
Out of context? Hardly. So, do you accept the divinity of Moses and others?

No, because unlike you, I can read things in context and see the difference. You would know this if you bother to read what I say in CONTEXT.

DoctrinesofGraceBapt said:
It's not that I don't like it. I cannot accept absurdity. That's your argument, and all you are doing is undermining your position with this nonsense.
The only nonsense are your inconsistencies.

One must actually do more than claim an inconsistency. Scripture says "And YHWH appeared to him by the oaks of Mamre". And, you claim it means "And an emissary of YHWH appeared to him by the oaks of Mamre". Hello? It doesn't say that. That's nonsense. And, it simply doesn't matter what I say about other passages. No matter how inconsistent I am. Your rewriting of the passage is absurd on its face, and you know it. Hence, your continual shift of the blame as opposed to directly dealing with the charge.

God Bless
 
Not until after the romans destroyed the Jewish state. Indeed, the reason the Roman's renamed the territory Palestine was to try to erase the memory of Jews from history. Sadly, you are being manipulated by that.

Palestinians are not Phoenicians ROFL They are ARABS.

Arab means "from Arabia" and the Palestinians do not live in Arabia, therefore are not Arabs. This is basic geography. In fact Scientists have long suspected that modern day Palestinians are not Arab, but actually descendants of European (and mainly pre-Greek) settlers in the region.

Before the creation of Israel, the Jews in that region considered themselves Palestinians.
 
Arab means "from Arabia" and the Palestinians do not live in Arabia, therefore are not Arabs. This is basic geography. In fact Scientists have long suspected that modern day Palestinians are not Arab, but actually descendants of European (and mainly pre-Greek) settlers in the region.

Before the creation of Israel, the Jews in that region considered themselves Palestinians.
Middle Eastern History 101: Muslims from Arabia expanded their territory into the Levant in the 7th century. The Palestinians are the descendants of these Arabs.

No one before the advent of Israel's creation called themselves Palestinians. Jews called themselves Jews, and the Arabs called themselves Arabs.
 
Middle Eastern History 101: Muslims from Arabia expanded their territory into the Levant in the 7th century. The Palestinians are the descendants of these Arabs.

No one before the advent of Israel's creation called themselves Palestinians. Jews called themselves Jews, and the Arabs called themselves Arabs.

So you are erasing the history of Jews who have lived in Palestinian, long before the Polish occupation of Palestine?
 
So you are erasing the history of Jews who have lived in Palestinian, long before the Polish occupation of Palestine
I just said that the Jews that lived there called themselves Jews, and the Arabs that lived there called themselves Arabs. What about that is so hard to understand?

I know I'm going to regret asking this, but when did Poland occupy the territory of Palestine?
 
I just said that the Jews that lived there called themselves Jews, and the Arabs that lived there called themselves Arabs. What about that is so hard to understand?

I know I'm going to regret asking this, but when did Poland occupy the territory of Palestine?

Do Arab Jews exist? or is European a requirement for a Jew?
 
Do Arab Jews exist? or is European a requirement for a Jew?
There are rare former Arabs who become converts to Judaism, and are thus adopted into Israel. But no, Mizrahi Jews (who live in Arab countries) are not Arabs. But generally speaking, the idea of the "Arab Jew" is just another idea from those who try to delegitimize Israel. Given your track record, I'm not suprised you brought it up.

So no date on when Poland occupied Israel? Got it.
 
Last edited:
In Greek mythology, Europa was a Phoenician princess, the continent of Europe is named after her and more than 90 percent of the genetic ancestry of the Lebanese population comes from the ancient people.

These the real people of the Levant.
 
We should all learn from the Psalms. Try 119.
Boy did that one go right over your head. Try reading Psalm 2, Psalm 22, Isaiah 9 ,Isaiah 53,Zechariah 9,9. How many prophecies do you need to see how blind you have been that Jesus is the Messiah. Repent and acknowledge that Jesus is your Savior. Its the only way you will ever enter Heaven. Its time for you to humble yourself. The King did when He rode on a donkey.
 
Last edited:
As a Jew, He apparently could just make an honest effort to obey everything, repent if ness. , and everything be all good Lawwise
should we cut Him the same slack Jews today cut for themselves?

"Jesus drinking wine when he shouldn't have, nor applying blood on the altar like he should have"
Well, since your cutting Jesus some slack, then it applies to all. As a result, you admit we don't need Jesus then. ;)
 
Who are these "Ours" ?

In the New Testament, Jesus is presented as a young Palestinian living in occupied territories and Bethlehem is a Palestinian city in the central West Bank, so if Jesus were to return, reborn from a Palestinian women, then he be in that situation.
Palestinian? Hardly. There's no reason to try and paint a Jewish lineage if that was the case.
 
Yes, vinegar. Everyone knows it was vinegar. Get over it.
Yes, wine vinegar. That comes from grapes, wine.. And we know that all derivatives of wine would be excluded as a result, Numbers 6:2-4. I guess you don't bother reading. Remaining wilfully ignorant doesn't change the facts.

If you want to try and keep biblical feasts like the Passover, etc., then learn the background. It's pretty ignorant doing otherwise.
 
Boy did that one go right over your head.
Rotfl... you didn't think I'd know what ridiculous "proofs" you'd offer? Give me a break.

Try reading Psalm 2,
The nations, gentiles, fight against the anointed, v1-2. V7, the son is mortal, created and not eternal. Study the Hebrew yulad.

Psalm 22,
The context shows the person in question requires salvation, and isn't God.

Hezekiah is the person in context. Godly names don't imply divinity or we'd have many gods on our hands.

,Isaiah 53
Israel is the servant. The chapters preceeding show this. Of great importance is the asham, offering, which only covers limited sins, not wilfull. You need to study this before using this chapter.

,Zechariah 9,9.
Rotfl... compare Zech 9:9-10 to Mat 21:1-7, and Luke 19:29-35, which shows Zech contradicti g what the NT is saying.

How many prophecies do you need to see how blind you have been that Jesus is the Messiah. Repent and acknowledge that Jesus is your Savior. Its the only way you will ever enter Heaven. Its time for you to humble yourself. The King did when He rode on a donkey.
Well for one thing, you've failed with every verse you supplied. It only takes one fail to disprove your position. ;)
 
Yes, wine vinegar. That comes from grapes, wine.. And we know that all derivatives of wine would be excluded as a result, Numbers 6:2-4. I guess you don't bother reading. Remaining wilfully ignorant doesn't change the facts.

If you want to try and keep biblical feasts like the Passover, etc., then learn the background. It's pretty ignorant doing otherwise.
It's ignorant of you to deliberately twist scripture to say that Jesus "drank wine." He did not. He said he was thirsty and had a nasty vinegar concoction shoved into his mouth on a sponge.
In your ignorant hatred, you attempt to defame him.
 
Back
Top