God wanted human sacrifices for atonement of sin?

Jewjitzu

Well-known member
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."
Jacob persevered with Laban, Esau, and this man. Jacob persevered with God starting from leaving his home with Isaac and Rebecca.

No where in the text is this man called, or named God. You're adding what isn't there in the text.

So, who is this God that struggled with Jacob? It's not a man called a god given the contrast with men.
See above in the text.

Why is seeing Esau in Gen 33:10 like seeing God, DOGB?

How about dealing with what the text says as opposed to repeating all the reasons why you can't read the text literally.
Yes, deal with the text. Show us where the man is called or named God in the text. You can't. That's made up dogma from your church fathers, and you.

So far, you continue to make up stuff.

When I ask a question, and it isn't answered. I tend to repeat myself.
It's unnecessary. Give it a rest. You're not gaining ground or points.

Did you realize I was summarizing the logic of our conversation? Did you even care?
Do you realize you make zero sense? At this point, I don't care for your repetitions.

And, Junior High Students "read" the books assigned to them also. Neither of you show any comprehension of the reading. Try reading what I'm writing in the future.
Rotfl... show us where the man is called or named God. Be specific. And while your at it, show us where the context says the man was being meek. ;)

The personal attacks crack me up. I guess you're defensive now and in need of tissue 🤧.

When your irrationality is expressed, attack the other to save face.
Rotfl... and you say this after your Junior High Students comment. ;)

I didn't deny men have the image of God, but there are all sorts of attributes of God that are not conferred to men by the term "image".
So, please tell us if your one being of persons share everything, why is it that Jesus admits he isn't Omniscient, Omnipotent, Omnipresent, and why only the Father is worshipped?

So, what term in Tanakh do you use for being? What tells you Jacob wrestled with one man vs. 3?

God Bless
Yes, He does.
 
Last edited:

DoctrinesofGraceBapt

Well-known member
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."
Jacob persevered with Laban, Esau, and this man. Jacob persevered with God starting from leaving his home with Isaac and Rebecca.
No where in the text is this man called, or named God. You're adding what isn't there in the text.

"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 has been delivered."” You can cut up the text all you want as to not see what it's saying, but the text is clear. In response to the wrestling match, the man says Jacob prevailed against God and men, and Jacob calls the place Peniel, saying, “For I have seen God face to face, and yet my life has been delivered.” So according to the text, Jacob prevailed against the Man, the Man says Jacob prevailed against God and men defining this use of God as not JUST being a man, and Jacob names the place the face of God because he saw God face to face. So, Jacob saw God face to face, and that use of God isn't just a man.

DoctrinesofGraceBapt said:
So, who is this God that struggled with Jacob? It's not a man called a god given the contrast with men.
See above in the text.

Reading the above, it looks like you think God in v28 is YHWH but God in v30 is this random man. Is that right?

Why is seeing Esau in Gen 33:10 like seeing God, DOGB?

In both cases, Jacob was full of fear; so Jacob compared the experiences.

DoctrinesofGraceBapt said:
How about dealing with what the text says as opposed to repeating all the reasons why you can't read the text literally.
Yes, deal with the text. Show us where the man is called or named God in the text. You can't. That's made up dogma from your church fathers, and you.
So far, you continue to make up stuff.

The man calls himself God in v28 and Jacob calls him God in v30, and you recognized this throughout our conversation so far claiming that the word god can apply to a man. So, why are you changing your tune? Is it that you just realized the excuses you've been using for months now doesn't hold water given the clear contrast between God and men in v28?


DoctrinesofGraceBapt said:
Did you realize I was summarizing the logic of our conversation? Did you even care?
Do you realize you make zero sense? At this point, I don't care for your repetitions.

Do you think I like repeating myself? Why won't you answer straight forward questions that are pertinent to the conversation? If you didn't understand my comments, you should have just said so as opposed to cutting them up and ranting on meekness which I didn't even bring up.

DoctrinesofGraceBapt said:
And, Junior High Students "read" the books assigned to them also. Neither of you show any comprehension of the reading. Try reading what I'm writing in the future.
Rotfl... show us where the man is called or named God. Be specific. And while your at it, show us where the context says the man was being meek. ;
The personal attacks crack me up. I guess you're defensive now and in need of tissue 🤧.

Nice job changing the topic as to save face. BTW, you've already said this man was called God countless times in this tread. I've already answered this above. So this time, you can answer this same question for yourself.

Truthful expressions of reading comprehension are not attacks. I'm exhorting you to do a better job. FYI, you just admitted to not understanding my statements: "Do you realize you make zero sense?" Look at that, we both have concluded that you are not comprehending what I'm saying. Maybe you should take more time to read what I'm writing. If something is confusing, you can ask clarifying questions as opposed to jumping to unfounded attacks like your normal modus operandi.

DoctrinesofGraceBapt said:
I didn't deny men have the image of God, but there are all sorts of attributes of God that are not conferred to men by the term "image".
So, please tell us if your one being of persons share everything, why is it that Jesus admits he isn't Omniscient, Omnipotent, Omnipresent, and why only the Father is worshipped?
So, what term in Tanakh do you use for being? What tells you Jacob wrestled with one man vs. 3?

Why are you changing the topic? You said multiple persons who are the same God is a contradiction, I asked you to justify this claim, and now you're fishing for specifics points in my theology to argue against. I don't care to play this game. If you think there is a contradiction in multiple persons who are the same God, then make your case. Otherwise, I'll just take it that you didn't have a reason to claim multiple persons who are the same God is a contradiction.

God Bless
 

Jewjitzu

Well-known member
"Jacob persevered with God..." oh, so your God is weak too? Look at how you switch back and forth.
Rotfl... Jacob persisted with God in getting his blessing. There wasn't a physical fight with God. You're stuck on the physical ideas.

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 has been delivered."” You can cut up the text all you want as to not see what it's saying, but the text is clear. In response to the wrestling match, the man says Jacob prevailed against God and men, and Jacob calls the place Peniel, saying, “For I have seen God face to face, and yet my life has been delivered.” So according to the text, Jacob prevailed against the Man, the Man says Jacob prevailed against God and men defining this use of God as not JUST being a man, and Jacob names the place the face of God because he saw God face to face. So, Jacob saw God face to face, and that use of God isn't just a man.
Again, as in Gen 33:10 and Jacob's encounter with Esau, receiving blessings is seeing the face of God. It isn't a physical face. No one called the man God in these verses. Nor did the man call himself God either.

Reading the above, it looks like you think God in v28 is YHWH but God in v30 is this random man. Is that right?
Genesis 28 speaks of Jacob encountering God, YHWH, in his dreams, at Bethel. Genesis 32 speaks of Jacob encountering a man at Machanaim.

In both cases, Jacob was full of fear; so Jacob compared the experiences.
Both experiences entail receiving blessings which are equated to see the face of God.

The man calls himself God in v28
False. Why are you making this up?

and Jacob calls him God in v30,
False. Why are you making this up?

and you recognized this throughout our conversation so far claiming that the word god can apply to a man.
Yes, in terms of the possibility of an angel or man being called God, in the sense of a representative of His, but not divine.

So, why are you changing your tune? Is it that you just realized the excuses you've been using for months now doesn't hold water given the clear contrast between God and men in v28?
No, you just don't understand.

Do you think I like repeating myself? Why won't you answer straight forward questions that are pertinent to the conversation? If you didn't understand my comments, you should have just said so as opposed to cutting them up and ranting on meekness which I didn't even bring up.
Rotfl... you did bring up meekness. Please stop whining.

Nice job changing the topic as to save face. BTW, you've already said this man was called God countless times in this tread. I've already answered this above. So this time, you can answer this same question for yourself.
See above.

Truthful expressions of reading comprehension are not attacks. I'm exhorting you to do a better job. FYI, you just admitted to not understanding my statements: "Do you realize you make zero sense?" Look at that, we both have concluded that you are not comprehending what I'm saying. Maybe you should take more time to read what I'm writing. If something is confusing, you can ask clarifying questions as opposed to jumping to unfounded attacks like your normal modus operandi.
I'm not confused.

Why are you changing the topic? You said multiple persons who are the same God is a contradiction, I asked you to justify this claim, and now you're fishing for specifics points in my theology to argue against. I don't care to play this game. If you think there is a contradiction in multiple persons who are the same God, then make your case. Otherwise, I'll just take it that you didn't have a reason to claim multiple persons who are the same God is a contradiction.
Rotfl... you brought up the point that multiple persons can be the same being. I've asked you to justify that using what we understand about grammar, and you don't want to answer the question because you know where that will lead. A simple question such as if we are dealing with one man or 3 should be easy to answer and why according to grammar. We can use that approach with respect to God as well. It isn't Unitarian bias.

I've asked you why the NT shows Jesus as less than Omniscient, Omnipresent, and Omnipotent, so as to challenge on your point that Jesus is the same being as God, but you don't want to answer. We both know why.

It's no change in topic. You brough the topic to begin with.

God Bless
He surely does.
 

DoctrinesofGraceBapt

Well-known member
"Jacob persevered with God..." oh, so your God is weak too? Look at how you switch back and forth.
Rotfl... Jacob persisted with God in getting his blessing. There wasn't a physical fight with God. You're stuck on the physical ideas.

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 God. The God that is contrasted with men as to imply this man was not just a man but spiritual in some sense.

DoctrinesofGraceBapt said:
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 has been delivered."” You can cut up the text all you want as to not see what it's saying, but the text is clear. In response to the wrestling match, the man says Jacob prevailed against God and men, and Jacob calls the place Peniel, saying, “For I have seen God face to face, and yet my life has been delivered.” So according to the text, Jacob prevailed against the Man, the Man says Jacob prevailed against God and men defining this use of God as not JUST being a man, and Jacob names the place the face of God because he saw God face to face. So, Jacob saw God face to face, and that use of God isn't just a man.
Again, as in Gen 33:10 and Jacob's encounter with Esau, receiving blessings is seeing the face of God. It isn't a physical face.

Keep on ignoring the actual verbiage of text of Genesis 32:28-30 as to run to other verses that are clearly not relevant to the context of the primary passage. You're only undermining your position. Neither passages present "receiving blessings is seeing the face of God". In fact, I pretty sure you can't justify such from any passage in the tanakh. Seeing the face of God is a blessing, but blessings are no where associated exclusively with seeing God's face. Nothing in the priestly blessing applies that those blessed are seeing God's face. Again, other Jews are far, far more reasonable claiming this is just a spiritual angel in human form.

No one called the man God in these verses. Nor did the man call himself God either.

Interesting comment given all the times you brought up that God can apply to men in response to this passage.

DoctrinesofGraceBapt said:
Reading the above, it looks like you think God in v28 is YHWH but God in v30 is this random man. Is that right?
Genesis 28 speaks of Jacob encountering God, YHWH, in his dreams, at Bethel. Genesis 32 speaks of Jacob encountering a man at Machanaim.

Oh, so according to you, you think God in v28 is YHWH, but God in v30 is just a reference to being blessed? BTW, this face excuse would make more sense if the text said something like "So Jacob called the name of the place Peniel, saying, “For I have seen God's face.” But, it says so much more than that.

DoctrinesofGraceBapt said:
In both cases, Jacob was full of fear; so Jacob compared the experiences.
Both experiences entail receiving blessings which are equated to see the face of God.

Interesting take, especially given the actual wording of v30.

DoctrinesofGraceBapt said:
So, why are you changing your tune? Is it that you just realized the excuses you've been using for months now doesn't hold water given the clear contrast between God and men in v28?
No, you just don't understand.

What don't I understand? Does v28 not use God to refer to YHWH? Your previous comment about Genesis 28 implies God in 30:28 uses God to refer to YHWH. You've claimed that God in v30 doesn't refer to YHWH, just to receiving a blessing. If this is the case, how do you justify the change in just two verses in the same context? Even if your right in this claim, this position condemns Moses as writing Genesis so poorly that can easily read falsehood into the statement. It says "I have seen God face to face", not just "I have seen God's face". Again, most Jews just assert this man was a spiritual angel in the form of a man as to answer the Christian understanding without condemning Moses of writing Genesis poorly.

DoctrinesofGraceBapt said:
Do you think I like repeating myself? Why won't you answer straight forward questions that are pertinent to the conversation? If you didn't understand my comments, you should have just said so as opposed to cutting them up and ranting on meekness which I didn't even bring up.
Rotfl... you did bring up meekness. Please stop whining.

Why won't you answer straight forward questions that are pertinent to the conversation? This is a fair question, and you know it.

DoctrinesofGraceBapt said:
Truthful expressions of reading comprehension are not attacks...
I'm not confused.

If that is the case, you would justify such. I justified why I think you are confused: you said "Do you realize you make zero sense?" I've given you ample opportunities to express that you understood what I was saying. So, why do all I get is assertion without any evidence?

DoctrinesofGraceBapt said:
Why are you changing the topic?...
Rotfl... you brought up the point that multiple persons can be the same being. I've asked you to justify that using what we understand about grammar, and you don't want to answer the question because you know where that will lead. A simple question such as if we are dealing with one man or 3 should be easy to answer and why according to grammar. We can use that approach with respect to God as well. It isn't Unitarian bias.

I've asked you why the NT shows Jesus as less than Omniscient, Omnipresent, and Omnipotent, so as to challenge on your point that Jesus is the same being as God, but you don't want to answer. We both know why.

It's no change in topic. You brough the topic to begin with.

The arrogance expressed if your laughter only undermines your position and bolsters mine. You missed the fact that you called multiple persons who are the same God a contradiction. There is no point is justifying a claim when the other person sees it as fundamentally illogical. So, I'm not going to move onto justifying such Scripturally until we move beyond the rationality part of the conversation. I've also told you multiple times that the full revelation of the Trinity wasn't given until the incarnation of Christ. Given that you reject such out of hand, I see no reason to get into it. It's better to stick with working out your logical claims of contradiction.

God Bless
 

Jewjitzu

Well-known member
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 God. The God that is contrasted with men as to imply this man was not just a man but spiritual in some sense.
Starting from Gen 28 discusses and even before with the encounters with Laben, the passages describe how Jacob constantly persisted in getting reassurances from God that he would be blessed. Maybe should look at all that happened along the way. As mentioned previously, human beings can give and do give blessings on behalf of God, are in the role of God, but not divine. Your ideas of spiritual are different than mine.

Keep on ignoring the actual verbiage of text of Genesis 32:28-30 as to run to other verses that are clearly not relevant to the context of the primary passage. You're only undermining your position. Neither passages present "receiving blessings is seeing the face of God".
Gen 33:10... For to see your face is like seeing the face of God, now that you have received me favorably.
Psalm 67:1... May God be gracious to us and bless us and make his face shine on us.

It's clear for one that searches that the connection with God's face and His favor and blessings are clear.

In fact, I pretty sure you can't justify such from any passage in the tanakh. Seeing the face of God is a blessing, but blessings are no where associated exclusively with seeing God's face. Nothing in the priestly blessing applies that those blessed are seeing God's face.
See above and check Numbers 6:24-26 again. You have no idea what you're talking about.

Again, other Jews are far, far more reasonable claiming this is just a spiritual angel in human form.
And there are other Christians who don't believe in the trinity nor that Jesus is God. So, your statement was useless.

Interesting comment given all the times you brought up that God can apply to men in response to this passage.
Yes, men act in the service of God as do angels, but they aren't divine.

Oh, so according to you, you think God in v28 is YHWH, but God in v30 is just a reference to being blessed?
No, I never said YHWH is referred to in Gen 32:28 nor 30. I said Jacob encountered YHWH in a dream in Gen 28.

BTW, this face excuse would make more sense if the text said something like "So Jacob called the name of the place Peniel, saying, “For I have seen God's face.” But, it says so much more than that.
It's clear to me.

Interesting take, especially given the actual wording of v30.
Yep, the wording in v30 doesn't say the man is named or called God.

What don't I understand? Does v28 not use God to refer to YHWH? Your previous comment about Genesis 28 implies God in 30:28 uses God to refer to YHWH. You've claimed that God in v30 doesn't refer to YHWH, just to receiving a blessing.
God, YHWH, doesn't have a physical face.

If this is the case, how do you justify the change in just two verses in the same context? Even if your right in this claim, this position condemns Moses as writing Genesis so poorly that can easily read falsehood into the statement. It says "I have seen God face to face", not just "I have seen God's face". Again, most Jews just assert this man was a spiritual angel in the form of a man as to answer the Christian understanding without condemning Moses of writing Genesis poorly.
No one is condemning Moses. You just don't understand that blessings are associated with seeing God's face, not a physical face or encounter.

Why won't you answer straight forward questions that are pertinent to the conversation? This is a fair question, and you know it.
I do. You just don't like my answers.

If that is the case, you would justify such. I justified why I think you are confused: you said "Do you realize you make zero sense?" I've given you ample opportunities to express that you understood what I was saying. So, why do all I get is assertion without any evidence?
It's there if you look.

The arrogance expressed if your laughter only undermines your position and bolsters mine. You missed the fact that you called multiple persons who are the same God a contradiction.
It is. And you're avoiding answering the question because you know its true.

There is no point is justifying a claim when the other person sees it as fundamentally illogical.
That's running away because I don't agree with you.

So, I'm not going to move onto justifying such Scripturally until we move beyond the rationality part of the conversation. I've also told you multiple times that the full revelation of the Trinity wasn't given until the incarnation of Christ.
The trinity isn't supported in Tanakh which is all that matters.

Given that you reject such out of hand, I see no reason to get into it. It's better to stick with working out your logical claims of contradiction.
Because you know that grammatically, you don't have a case. If you're being sincere, you know that grammar makes clear how to distinguish between male, female, singular, plural.

God Bless
He continues.
 

DoctrinesofGraceBapt

Well-known member
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 God. The God that is contrasted with men as to imply this man was not just a man but spiritual in some sense.
Starting from Gen 28 discusses and even before with the encounters with Laben,

I.E. ignoring the passage in question...

the passages describe how Jacob constantly persisted in getting reassurances from God that he would be blessed. Maybe should look at all that happened along the way. As mentioned previously, human beings can give and do give blessings on behalf of God, are in the role of God, but not divine. Your ideas of spiritual are different than mine.

Except for the fact, that nothing in this passage presents this man as giving a blessing on behalf of God.

DoctrinesofGraceBapt said:
Keep on ignoring the actual verbiage of text of Genesis 32:28-30 as to run to other verses that are clearly not relevant to the context of the primary passage. You're only undermining your position. Neither passages present "receiving blessings is seeing the face of God".
Gen 33:10... For to see your face is like seeing the face of God, now that you have received me favorably.
Psalm 67:1... May God be gracious to us and bless us and make his face shine on us.
It's clear for one that searches that the connection with God's face and His favor and blessings are clear.

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 context of the primary passage. Genesis 32:30 doesn't talk about God's face. It says "I have seen God face to face." Deal with the actual words of Scripture.

DoctrinesofGraceBapt said:
Again, other Jews are far, far more reasonable claiming this is just a spiritual angel in human form.
And there are other Christians who don't believe in the trinity nor that Jesus is God. So, your statement was useless.

Are you calling these Jews heretics? Because there are no Christians who deny the Trinity. They are all heretics. The Doctrine of the Trinity is definitional to Christianity. Besides, to the best of my knowledge, this is the majority opinion among Scripture following Jews on this topic.

DoctrinesofGraceBapt said:
Interesting comment given all the times you brought up that God can apply to men in response to this passage.
Yes, men act in the service of God as do angels, but they aren't divine.

Are you going to admit that you changed your position on Genesis 32:30, explain yourself, or continue to play this game?

DoctrinesofGraceBapt said:
Oh, so according to you, you think God in v28 is YHWH, but God in v30 is just a reference to being blessed?
No, I never said YHWH is referred to in Gen 32:28 nor 30. I said Jacob encountered YHWH in a dream in Gen 28

How do you interpret God in v28 given the clear contrast with men?

DoctrinesofGraceBapt said:
Interesting take, especially given the actual wording of v30.
Yep, the wording in v30 doesn't say the man is named or called God.

Why are you employing two explanations for the same passage?

DoctrinesofGraceBapt said:
What don't I understand? Does v28 not use God to refer to YHWH? Your previous comment about Genesis 28 implies God in 30:28 uses God to refer to YHWH. You've claimed that God in v30 doesn't refer to YHWH, just to receiving a blessing.
God, YHWH, doesn't have a physical face.

I don't believe, and never claimed God, YHWH, has a physical face. So again, what don't I understand?

DoctrinesofGraceBapt said:
Why won't you answer straight forward questions that are pertinent to the conversation? This is a fair question, and you know it.
I do. You just don't like my answers

You rarely giving answers. Something like 80% of the questions I asked are ignored without response.

DoctrinesofGraceBapt said:
If that is the case, you would justify such. I justified why I think you are confused: you said "Do you realize you make zero sense?" I've given you ample opportunities to express that you understood what I was saying. So, why do all I get is assertion without any evidence?
It's there if you look.

In other words, you claim you understand even though all evidence presented says otherwise while you refuse to present any evidence for your own claim of understanding.

DoctrinesofGraceBapt said:
The arrogance expressed in your laughter only undermines your position and bolsters mine. You missed the fact that you called multiple persons who are the same God a contradiction.
It is. And you're avoiding answering the question because you know its true.

Justify said claim. Why is it a contradiction?

God Bless
 

Jewjitzu

Well-known member
I.E. ignoring the passage in question...
No, I've already dealt with it. YHWH isn't a man, nor is the one physically wrestling Jacob, that's a man. We see in the opening of Gen 32 as I showed you, that Jacob met malachim, angels, and sent them to Esau. Men.

We also know, and has been proven that YHWH, God, has men represent Him in many cases. But, these men aren't divine.

BTW, you've said below that you don't believe YHWH has a physical face. So, I don't understand why you continue to argue your points?

Except for the fact, that nothing in this passage presents this man as giving a blessing on behalf of God.
That's what a representative of God can do. Just like Moses can deliver plagues, judges judge, kings reign, prophets speak, all for God.

Nothing in this passage names the man God or calls him God either. Nothing says Jacob called out, hey God, right?

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 context of the primary passage. Genesis 32:30 doesn't talk about God's face. It says "I have seen God face to face." Deal with the actual words of Scripture.
I have dealt with it. And nowhere is the man called YHWH God. You're still searching for that evidence. ;)

What's funny is that you challenged the notion that Tanakh associates God's face with blessings. You were proven wrong and have failed to acknowledge the fact. That's become commonplace in our discussions.

Are you calling these Jews heretics? Because there are no Christians who deny the Trinity. They are all heretics.
Anyone believing in the trinity is a heretic. You should check the forums for Unitarians and others that see Jesus as just a man. After all, he is created.

There's zero room for 3 persons to be worshiped when God says He alone should be worshiped. It's idolatry.

The Doctrine of the Trinity is definitional to Christianity. Besides, to the best of my knowledge, this is the majority opinion among Scripture following Jews on this topic.
Again, a majority opinion doesn't convince me. I believe a majority of Christians, RCC, believe Mary is the mother of god.

Are you going to admit that you changed your position on Genesis 32:30, explain yourself, or continue to play this game?
I've always said the man, angel, isn't God, but angels can represent God.

How do you interpret God in v28 given the clear contrast with men?
A reference to Genesis 28, or the man representing God.

Why are you employing two explanations for the same passage?
I don't think I have. But if I did, there can be multiple explanations at times.

I don't believe, and never claimed God, YHWH, has a physical face. So again, what don't I understand?
Great. So, you agree Jacob isn't saying he physically saw God, His face, while wrestling with Him. So, you've debunked your whole argument, don't you think?

You rarely giving answers. Something like 80% of the questions I asked are ignored without response.
No, you just don't like the answers.

In other words, you claim you understand even though all evidence presented says otherwise while you refuse to present any evidence for your own claim of understanding.
I understand you don't understand nor want to accept what I have to say. I mean, you did lose the meek argument and dropped it, right? It took awhile for you to do so.

Justify said claim. Why is it a contradiction?
Answer the previous questions I asked you on the topic. Define your terms of "persons" and "Being" with Hebrew terms from Tanakh. Start there.

God Bless
Always.
 
Last edited:

DoctrinesofGraceBapt

Well-known member
I.E. ignoring the passage in question...
No, I've already dealt with it. YHWH isn't a man, nor is the one physically wrestling Jacob, that's a man. We see in the opening of Gen 32 as I showed you, that Jacob met malachim, angels, and sent them to Esau. Men.

We also know, and has been proven that YHWH, God, has men represent Him in many cases. But, these men aren't divine.

BTW, you've said below that you don't believe YHWH has a physical face. So, I don't understand why you continue to argue your points

Still ignoring the passage in question I see.

DoctrinesofGraceBapt said:
Except for the fact, that nothing in this passage presents this man as giving a blessing on behalf of God.
That's what a representative of God can do. Just like Moses can deliver plagues, judges judge, kings reign, prophets speak, all for God.

And? "Can" doesn't imply anything. That's not what the text says.

Nothing in this passage names the man God or calls him God either. Nothing says Jacob called out, hey God, right?

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?

DoctrinesofGraceBapt said:
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 context of the primary passage. Genesis 32:30 doesn't talk about God's face. It says "I have seen God face to face." Deal with the actual words of Scripture.
I have dealt with it. And nowhere is the man called YHWH God. You're still searching for that evidence. ;)
What's funny is that you challenged the notion that Tanakh associates God's face with blessings. You were proven wrong and have failed to acknowledge the fact. That's become commonplace in our discussions.

This is running away from the actual text of Genesis 32:28-30 as opposed to dealing with it.

DoctrinesofGraceBapt said:
The Doctrine of the Trinity is definitional to Christianity. Besides, to the best of my knowledge, this is the majority opinion among Scripture following Jews on this topic.
Again, a majority opinion doesn't convince me. I believe a majority of Christians, RCC, believe Mary is the mother of god.

Fair, but you should at least interact with major opinions as opposed to ignoring their existence.

DoctrinesofGraceBapt said:
Are you going to admit that you changed your position on Genesis 32:30, explain yourself, or continue to play this game?
I've always said the man, angel, isn't God, but angels can represent God.

You've interpreted the Genesis 32:30 two ways.
Interpretation 1: The man is just a man who represents God. Therefore, when Jacob said he saw God face to face, it means he saw this man who can be called God face to face.
Interpretation 2: Seeing God's face means being blessed. Therefore, when Jacob said he saw God face to face, it just means he was blessed by God.
Are you going to admit you changed your position, explain yourself or continue to play the game?

DoctrinesofGraceBapt said:
How do you interpret God in v28 given the clear contrast with men?
A reference to Genesis 28, or the man representing God.

First: If it is "A reference to Genesis 28", then Genesis 32:28 means "you have striven with YHWH and with men, and have prevailed." Which implies “For I have seen God face to face, and yet my life has been delivered.” means "For I have seen YHWH face to face, and yet my life has been delivered.” That's my interpretation of the passage.

Secondly: If it is "the man representing God", then Genesis 32:28 means "you have striven with men and with men, and have prevailed." Which implies “For I have seen God face to face, and yet my life has been delivered.” means "For I have seen some guy face to face, and yet my life has been delivered.” Which doesn't make a lot of sense.

So, pick your poison. Is Genesis 32:28 a reference to Genesis 28, or the man representing God?

DoctrinesofGraceBapt said:
I don't believe, and never claimed God, YHWH, has a physical face. So again, what don't I understand?
Great. So, you agree Jacob isn't saying he physically saw God, His face, while wrestling with Him. So, you've debunked your whole argument, don't you think?

I've only told you this like 15 times. Are you going to remember this time?

FYI, if you think I've debunked myself, you are not listening. God took up a human form to walk on earth. The human form wasn't God, but the human form was used by God's spirit to walk on earth.

DoctrinesofGraceBapt said:
Justify said claim. Why is it a contradiction?
Answer the previous questions I asked you on the topic. Define your terms of "persons" and "Being" with Hebrew terms from Tanakh. Start there.

You don't need me to answer any questions to justify your slanderous claim of contradiction. Justify said claim. Why is it a contradiction?

God Bless
 

Jewjitzu

Well-known member
Still ignoring the passage in question I see.
You still don't like the answers I see.

And? "Can" doesn't imply anything. That's not what the text says.
It doesn't say the man was called God either.

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?
Then you don't have much to stand on.

This is running away from the actual text of Genesis 32:28-30 as opposed to dealing with it.
No, it shows you're running away from your failures. Acknowledge you were wrong when the evidence in Tanakh was presented.

Fair, but you should at least interact with major opinions as opposed to ignoring their existence.
Opinions are a dime a dozen.

You've interpreted the Genesis 32:30 two ways.
Interpretation 1: The man is just a man who represents God. Therefore, when Jacob said he saw God face to face, it means he saw this man who can be called God face to face.
Interpretation 2: Seeing God's face means being blessed. Therefore, when Jacob said he saw God face to face, it just means he was blessed by God.
Are you going to admit you changed your position, explain yourself or continue to play the game?
No changes. Angels and men are called God as well. I've said that from the beginning.

First: If it is "A reference to Genesis 28", then Genesis 32:28 means "you have striven with YHWH and with men, and have prevailed." Which implies “For I have seen God face to face, and yet my life has been delivered.” means "For I have seen YHWH face to face, and yet my life has been delivered.” That's my interpretation of the passage.
Chapter 28, not verse 28. You didn't read well what I had to say. The striving wasn't a physical one but Jacob's unrelenting prayers to get the blessings.

Secondly: If it is "the man representing God", then Genesis 32:28 means "you have striven with men and with men, and have prevailed." Which implies “For I have seen God face to face, and yet my life has been delivered.” means "For I have seen some guy face to face, and yet my life has been delivered.” Which doesn't make a lot of sense.
Makes sense to me. Genesis 32 opening verses show how the angels are the camps of God, including the men that Jacob met and sent. So, angels are included as God.

So, pick your poison. Is Genesis 32:28 a reference to Genesis 28, or the man representing God?
Either one is tasty. ;)

I've only told you this like 15 times. Are you going to remember this time?
Great, so remember that when you try to allocate physicality to God.

FYI, if you think I've debunked myself, you are not listening. God took up a human form to walk on earth. The human form wasn't God, but the human form was used by God's spirit to walk on earth.
Rotfl... if God isn't physical as you've agreed to, you're contradicting yourself above.


You don't need me to answer any questions to justify your slanderous claim of contradiction.
Of course you do. Define for us the terms "person" and "being" using our basis for discussion, Tanakh. You're wasting our time otherwise and just acknowledging the weakness of your claims.

Justify said claim. Why is it a contradiction?
Justify yours. See above. Here's your claim: 3 persons can be one being. Define these terms using Tanakh and then prove it.

I know you can't do it. ;)

God Bless
Always.

So, I'll be out thru mid next week for Rosh Hashana starting tonight.
 

Jewjitzu

Well-known member
I've only told you this like 15 times. Are you going to remember this time?

FYI, if you think I've debunked myself, you are not listening. God took up a human form to walk on earth. The human form wasn't God, but the human form was used by God's spirit to walk on earth.
BTW, the context doesn't say anywhere that God took on human form. Why would you use that unsupported argument?
 

DoctrinesofGraceBapt

Well-known member
DoctrinesofGraceBapt said:
And? "Can" doesn't imply anything. That's not what the text says.
It doesn't say the man was called God either.

Yep, but again, I never said that.

DoctrinesofGraceBapt said:
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?
Then you don't have much to stand on.

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.

DoctrinesofGraceBapt said:
You've interpreted the Genesis 32:30 two ways.
Interpretation 1: The man is just a man who represents God. Therefore, when Jacob said he saw God face to face, it means he saw this man who can be called God face to face.
Interpretation 2: Seeing God's face means being blessed. Therefore, when Jacob said he saw God face to face, it just means he was blessed by God.
Are you going to admit you changed your position, explain yourself or continue to play the game?
No changes. Angels and men are called God as well. I've said that from the beginning.

So, you choose to continue the game. Never say what you actually think the text is saying as to wiggle out of any refutations.

DoctrinesofGraceBapt said:
First: If it is "A reference to Genesis 28", then Genesis 32:28 means "you have striven with YHWH and with men, and have prevailed." Which implies “For I have seen God face to face, and yet my life has been delivered.” means "For I have seen YHWH face to face, and yet my life has been delivered.” That's my interpretation of the passage.
Chapter 28, not verse 28. You didn't read well what I had to say. The striving wasn't a physical one but Jacob's unrelenting prayers to get the blessings.
DoctrinesofGraceBapt said:
Secondly: If it is "the man representing God", then Genesis 32:28 means "you have striven with men and with men, and have prevailed." Which implies “For I have seen God face to face, and yet my life has been delivered.” means "For I have seen some guy face to face, and yet my life has been delivered.” Which doesn't make a lot of sense.
Makes sense to me. Genesis 32 opening verses show how the angels are the camps of God, including the men that Jacob met and sent. So, angels are included as God.

So, you believe the Bible makes incoherent statements that mean nothing. Good to know.

DoctrinesofGraceBapt said:
So, pick your poison. Is Genesis 32:28 a reference to Genesis 28, or the man representing God?
Either one is tasty. ;)

Another noncommittal. Do you ever read the text as to understand what it says?

DoctrinesofGraceBapt said:
FYI, if you think I've debunked myself, you are not listening. God took up a human form to walk on earth. The human form wasn't God, but the human form was used by God's spirit to walk on earth.
Rotfl... if God isn't physical as you've agreed to, you're contradicting yourself above.

How am I contradicting myself? You like to throw out that word, but you don't seem to understand what it means.

DoctrinesofGraceBapt said:
You don't need me to answer any questions to justify your slanderous claim of contradiction.
Of course you do. Define for us the terms "person" and "being" using our basis for discussion, Tanakh. You're wasting our time otherwise and just acknowledging the weakness of your claims.

You accused me without said knowledge; therefore, you can justify your accusation without said knowledge.

DoctrinesofGraceBapt said:
Justify said claim. Why is it a contradiction?
Justify yours. See above. Here's your claim: 3 persons can be one being. Define these terms using Tanakh and then prove it.
I know you can't do it. ;)

I need not justify anything. You're the one accusing me of being in error. Prove your case. On the other hand, what's the point is justifying a perspective when the other already admitted to closing their mind to any evidence?

I've only told you this like 15 times. Are you going to remember this time?

FYI, if you think I've debunked myself, you are not listening. God took up a human form to walk on earth. The human form wasn't God, but the human form was used by God's spirit to walk on earth.
BTW, the context doesn't say anywhere that God took on human form. Why would you use that unsupported argument?

Correct, that statement is inferred from what the text does say.

God Bless
 

Jewjitzu

Well-known member
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, you believe the Bible makes incoherent statements that mean nothing. Good to know.



Another noncommittal. Do you ever read the text as to understand what it says?



How am I contradicting myself? You like to throw out that word, but you don't seem to understand what it means.



You accused me without said knowledge; therefore, you can justify your accusation without said knowledge.




I need not justify anything. You're the one accusing me of being in error. Prove your case. On the other hand, what's the point is justifying a perspective when the other already admitted to closing their mind to any evidence?



Correct, that statement is inferred from what the text does say.

God Bless
So, you've posted nothing new.

Can you define your terms of "person" and "being" with regards to your statement:

3 persons can be a being.

If your idea is valid at all, you should be able to use Hebrew terms found in Tanakh.
 

DoctrinesofGraceBapt

Well-known member
So, you've posted nothing new.

Can you define your terms of "person" and "being" with regards to your statement:

3 persons can be a being.

If your idea is valid at all, you should be able to use Hebrew terms found in Tanakh.

So when all of your games have been called out, you change the topic again. Typical.

God Bless
 
Top