God wanted human sacrifices for atonement of sin?

Because, you couldn't care less about what the text actually says. You only care about defending your dogma.
The text doesn't say Jacob wrestled with God. He wrestled with a man. The text also doesn't say God became a man. The text also doesn't say God is meek, etc. ;)

Hello? Everyone is limited to what they consider authoritative. I'm simply not as limited as you are. Therefore, your continued pressure to adhere to your limitations while justifying my theology is frankly just silly.
Well if that's the case, you're not limited by Tanakh because it doesn't teach what the NT does, frankly.

Define person and being, DOGB, using terms that Tanakh uses to refer to God. You've had ample opportunity but can't or won't. We both really know why you won't. ;)

Yes, Rome gave the orders to appease the Jews calling for Jesus' execution. Which is why I said "who had Rome execute Jesus". If the Jews executed Jesus personally, they would have likely just stoned him. But for some reason, the Sanhedrin choose to let Rome do it. And, Rome obliged to keep the peace.
Rome was going to do it anyway. That's how that dealt with wannabes.

BTW, the account before Pilate went like this:
Pilate said to them, “Then what shall I do with Jesus who is called Christ?” They all said, “Let him be crucified!” And he said, “Why? What evil has he done?” But they shouted all the more,“Let him be crucified!” So when Pilate saw that he was gaining nothing, but rather that a riot was beginning, he took water and washed his hands before the crowd, saying, “I am innocent of this man’s blood; see to it yourselves.” And all the people answered, “His blood be on us and on our children!” Matthew 27:22-25.
No Sanhedrin nor entire population mentioned, right? Read up on the historical Pilate.

This is the testimony from the first century. Again, my description is far, far more accurate that yours.
We don't know if this was a testimony or not.

Yes, with respect to the fall of the first temple, the faithful returned after being delivered from the sword and surviving the exile. With respect to the second temple, those Jews who stayed in Jerusalem in 70 ad were killed to the person. The Christians all fled recognizing Jesus' prophecy of the fall of Jerusalem found in Matthew 24. The Christians, mainly made up of Jews in first century Jerusalem, were delivered.
So, Jerusalem wasn't saved nor delivered by Jesus.

Are you that ignorant historic Jewish thought on the Messiah? Wow, go do some reading in the Talmud sometime.
Rotfl... yup, two different anointed, not one. The Talmud also says Jesus isn't who you think he is. ;)

But my point was find where is it said the same Messiah is killed, and comes a 2nd time?

Why don't you quote the passage and see how the Messiah is saved by God?
Rotfl... your own NT says Jesus needing saving. You can see from Luke 2:52 that Jesus grew in favor, grace, with God. Grace is undeserved favor granted to sinners.

You can also look at Hebrew 5:7, were Jesus is saved and he offers prayers of a penitent, prosenekas.

Ezekiel 45:22
On that day the prince shall provide a bull as a sin offering for himself and for all the people of the land.

The Messiah, anointed, the king, isn't sinless. Read Deut 17:14-20 which wasn't fulfilled by Jesus since he never reigned. Someone who has to learn to fear God and learn to carefully keep the law isn't perfect.


Oh yeah, you don't like reading, quoting or dealing with Scripture at all. Scripture is just some fancy thing that is placed in the place of honor in your synagogues. At least there are other Jews who care what Scripture says.
Shall I get you a box of tissue 🤧?

God Bless
He sure does.
 
Last edited:
Yes, and for some reason you're critiquing me as opposed to critiquing your fellow Jew. I wonder why? If you paid attention a little closer, you would realize all my words are to motivate Jewjitzu to actually seriously interact with what I saying. As you can see, he doesn't seem to be willing. If someone said that to me, I would take such rhetoric as the obvious challenge that it is. But, Jewjitzu's hubris won't allow him to see it as the challenge it is. He sees his responses as perfect, and that's his blind spot. Calling one out on obvious charter flaws like this isn't personal attacks or ad hominems. They are calls to do better.

God Bless
Rotfl... check your eye, DOGB.
 
Because, you couldn't care less about what the text actually says. You only care about defending your dogma.
The text doesn't say Jacob wrestled with God. He wrestled with a man. The text also doesn't say God became a man. The text also doesn't say God is meek, etc. ;)

But what does the text say? Oh yeah, you never bother to quote it or deal with the actual wording of the text.

DoctrinesofGraceBapt said:
Hello? Everyone is limited to what they consider authoritative. I'm simply not as limited as you are. Therefore, your continued pressure to adhere to your limitations while justifying my theology is frankly just silly.
Well if that's the case, you're not limited by Tanakh because it doesn't teach what the NT does, frankly.

More silliness. I have more Scripture. Why ignore the more and restrict myself to less? FYI, there is no conflict between the New and Old Testaments.

DoctrinesofGraceBapt said:
Yes, Rome gave the orders to appease the Jews calling for Jesus' execution. Which is why I said "who had Rome execute Jesus". If the Jews executed Jesus personally, they would have likely just stoned him. But for some reason, the Sanhedrin choose to let Rome do it. And, Rome obliged to keep the peace.
Rome was going to do it anyway. That's how that dealt with wannabes.

What evidence do you have for this opinion given that Jesus never had a negative interaction with Rome prior to the Sanhedrin turning him over and calling for his execution? Oh yeah, you just don't like looking at those times when Jews were the bad guys. Hint, hint, no one is perfect.

DoctrinesofGraceBapt said:
BTW, the account before Pilate went like this:
Pilate said to them, “Then what shall I do with Jesus who is called Christ?” They all said, “Let him be crucified!” And he said, “Why? What evil has he done?” But they shouted all the more,“Let him be crucified!” So when Pilate saw that he was gaining nothing, but rather that a riot was beginning, he took water and washed his hands before the crowd, saying, “I am innocent of this man’s blood; see to it yourselves.” And all the people answered, “His blood be on us and on our children!” Matthew 27:22-25.
No Sanhedrin nor entire population mentioned, right? Read up on the historical Pilate.
DoctrinesofGraceBapt said:
This is the testimony from the first century. Again, my description is far, far more accurate that yours.
We don't know if this was a testimony or not.

So, we should ignore the primary resources of the first century and go with your speculations based upon the character of Pilate.

DoctrinesofGraceBapt said:
Yes, with respect to the fall of the first temple, the faithful returned after being delivered from the sword and surviving the exile. With respect to the second temple, those Jews who stayed in Jerusalem in 70 ad were killed to the person. The Christians all fled recognizing Jesus' prophecy of the fall of Jerusalem found in Matthew 24. The Christians, mainly made up of Jews in first century Jerusalem, were delivered.
So, Jerusalem wasn't saved nor delivered by Jesus.

Yeah, because it needed to fall because of the evil of the Jews in 70ad. Jerusalem will be saved and delivered by Jesus at the right time.

DoctrinesofGraceBapt said:
Are you that ignorant historic Jewish thought on the Messiah? Wow, go do some reading in the Talmud sometime.
Rotfl... yup, two different anointed, not one. The Talmud also says Jesus isn't who you think he is. ;)
But my point was find where is it said the same Messiah is killed, and comes a 2nd time?

And, the NT answers this conundrum by saying the same anointed at two different times.

DoctrinesofGraceBapt said:
Why don't you quote the passage and see how the Messiah is saved by God?
Rotfl... your own NT says Jesus needing saving. You can see from Luke 2:52 that Jesus grew in favor, grace, with God. Grace is undeserved favor granted to sinners.

You can also look at Hebrew 5:7, were Jesus is saved and he offers prayers of a penitent, prosenekas.

Ezekiel 45:22
On that day the prince shall provide a bull as a sin offering for himself and for all the people of the land.

The Messiah, anointed, the king, isn't sinless. Read Deut 17:14-20 which wasn't fulfilled by Jesus since he never reigned. Someone who has to learn to fear God and learn to carefully keep the law isn't perfect.

So many words and no attempt to justify your claim "the Messiah is saved by God"? I'm not even saying your wrong; I'm just pointing out how you treat Scripture with contempt. Instead, you just decided to argue that the Messiah was a sinner.

DoctrinesofGraceBapt said:
Oh yeah, you don't like reading, quoting or dealing with Scripture at all. Scripture is just some fancy thing that is placed in the place of honor in your synagogues. At least there are other Jews who care what Scripture says.
Shall I get you a box of tissue 🤧?

Meaningful response; not. One with a conscience would take this to heart and show their devotion to God by going to God's word.

God Bless
 
But what does the text say? Oh yeah, you never bother to quote it or deal with the actual wording of the text.
The passage has been quoted in this room many times, but perhaps you missed it, so here it is again:

Genesis 32

22 That night Jacob got up and took his two wives, his two female servants and his eleven sons and crossed the ford of the Jabbok. 23 After he had sent them across the stream, he sent over all his possessions. 24 So Jacob was left alone, and a man wrestled with him till daybreak. 25 When the man saw that he could not overpower him, he touched the socket of Jacob’s hip so that his hip was wrenched as he wrestled with the man. 26 Then the man said, “Let me go, for it is daybreak.”

But Jacob replied, “I will not let you go unless you bless me.”

27 The man asked him, “What is your name?”

“Jacob,” he answered.

28 Then the man said, “Your name will no longer be Jacob, but Israel,[a] because you have struggled with God and with humans and have overcome.”

29 Jacob said, “Please tell me your name.”

But he replied, “Why do you ask my name?” Then he blessed him there.
 
The passage has been quoted in this room many times, but perhaps you missed it, so here it is again:

Genesis 32

22 That night Jacob got up and took his two wives, his two female servants and his eleven sons and crossed the ford of the Jabbok. 23 After he had sent them across the stream, he sent over all his possessions. 24 So Jacob was left alone, and a man wrestled with him till daybreak. 25 When the man saw that he could not overpower him, he touched the socket of Jacob’s hip so that his hip was wrenched as he wrestled with the man. 26 Then the man said, “Let me go, for it is daybreak.”

But Jacob replied, “I will not let you go unless you bless me.”

27 The man asked him, “What is your name?”

“Jacob,” he answered.

28 Then the man said, “Your name will no longer be Jacob, but Israel,[a] because you have struggled with God and with humans and have overcome.”

29 Jacob said, “Please tell me your name.”

But he replied, “Why do you ask my name?” Then he blessed him there.
Read on one more verse(30) and you will see that Jacob has seen God face to face in this encounter.
 
jacob is speaking figuratively. You are avoiding the fact that it says he fought a MAN. Deny deny deny. Excuses excuses excuses. Yaaawn.

And, what is the point of this figurative language? What's the point in naming the area "the face of God", if it's all figurative? Figurative language is always employed for a reason. What's the reason?

BTW, Isn't the claim "speaking figuratively" an excuse?


FYI, Trinitarians are not avoiding the fact that he fought a man. The question is if this is just a man, an angle walking earth as a man, like in Genesis 19, or God Almighty walking earth as a man. You take it as either or; we take it as both and.


God Bless
 
But what does the text say? Oh yeah, you never bother to quote it or deal with the actual wording of the text.
It says he wrestled with a man. Did you read that?

More silliness. I have more Scripture. Why ignore the more and restrict myself to less? FYI, there is no conflict between the New and Old Testaments.
Of course there is conflict. Tanakh says the law is eternal. The NT says the law is abrogated. The later the position of false teachers and prophets.

Define person and being, DOGB, using terms that Tanakh uses to refer to God. You've had ample opportunities but can't or won't. We both really know why you won't. ;)

What evidence do you have for this opinion given that Jesus never had a negative interaction with Rome prior to the Sanhedrin turning him over and calling for his execution? Oh yeah, you just don't like looking at those times when Jews were the bad guys. Hint, hint, no one is perfect.
Claiming to be king is enough to cause consternation and concern within Rome.

So, we should ignore the primary resources of the first century and go with your speculations based upon the character of Pilate.
The NT isn't the primary resource for much.

Yeah, because it needed to fall because of the evil of the Jews in 70ad. Jerusalem will be saved and delivered by Jesus at the right time.
The destruction of Jerusalem had nothing to do with the rejection of Jesus. Tanakh doesn't support this notion.

And, the NT answers this conundrum by saying the same anointed at two different times.
It isn't a conundrum. Nothing in Tanakh supports that Messiah dies and fails to fulfill expectations only to be resurrected to try again.

So many words and no attempt to justify your claim "the Messiah is saved by God"? I'm not even saying your wrong; I'm just pointing out how you treat Scripture with contempt. Instead, you just decided to argue that the Messiah was a sinner.
Messiah is just a regular man. Given that Messiah is included in the body of Israel, and Israel requires sin offerings says the full story. Messiah is saved on so many levels. Look to David, anointed, mashiach.

No contempt on my part. It's just another example of you being proven wrong.

Meaningful response; not. One with a conscience would take this to heart and show their devotion to God by going to God's word.
I've shown you God's word throughout. If you can throw a punch, be ready to get one in return.
 
Last edited:
And, what is the point of this figurative language? What's the point in naming the area "the face of God", if it's all figurative? Figurative language is always employed for a reason. What's the reason?
Because as proven to you, seeing God's face is associated with His blessings, not a physical encounter. And, it's been proven God uses humans as messengers representation Him, and called God as well.

BTW, Isn't the claim "speaking figuratively" an excuse?
No. Tanakh speaks of God as having eagles wings, having eyes, ears, etc. You've admitted that God's essence isn't physical.

FYI, Trinitarians are not avoiding the fact that he fought a man. The question is if this is just a man, an angle walking earth as a man, like in Genesis 19, or God Almighty walking earth as a man. You take it as either or; we take it as both and.
Just men in His service acting as Him. God doesn't have a physical form.
 
Read on one more verse(30) and you will see that Jacob has seen God face to face in this encounter.
And in Gen 33:10, Jacob says seeing Esau is like seeing God's face in that he was received favorably. Do you understand now Gen 32:30? God appeared to Jacob at Bethel, Gen 28, 35:1-17, in a dream.
 
Last edited:
But what does the text say? Oh yeah, you never bother to quote it or deal with the actual wording of the text.
It says he wrestled with a man. Did you read that?

How does that prove it wasn't God walking earth as man? Oh yeah, it doesn't.

DoctrinesofGraceBapt said:
More silliness. I have more Scripture. Why ignore the more and restrict myself to less? FYI, there is no conflict between the New and Old Testaments.
Of course there is conflict. Tanakh says the law is eternal. The NT says the law is abrogated. The later the position of false teachers and prophets.

As if the NT says the law is abrogated.

DoctrinesofGraceBapt said:
What evidence do you have for this opinion given that Jesus never had a negative interaction with Rome prior to the Sanhedrin turning him over and calling for his execution? Oh yeah, you just don't like looking at those times when Jews were the bad guys. Hint, hint, no one is perfect.
Claiming to be king is enough to cause consternation and concern within Rome.

Yeah, and when questioned by Pilate, Jesus made it clear that his kingdom was not of this world, not a physical kingdom. To which Pilate found no fault in him. Epic failure on your part historically.

DoctrinesofGraceBapt said:
So, we should ignore the primary resources of the first century and go with your speculations based upon the character of Pilate.
The NT isn't the primary resource for muc

But, it is a primary source for information on the first century Judea. Not only that, it is generally recognized by historians as being an exemplary primary resource for that time and region.

DoctrinesofGraceBapt said:
Yeah, because it needed to fall because of the evil of the Jews in 70ad. Jerusalem will be saved and delivered by Jesus at the right time.
The destruction of Jerusalem had nothing to do with the rejection of Jesus. Tanakh doesn't support this notion.

A theological assertion justified by nothing but your dogmatic beliefs. On the other hand, we have a confirmed prophecy the lead to salvation of many.

DoctrinesofGraceBapt said:
So many words and no attempt to justify your claim "the Messiah is saved by God"? I'm not even saying your wrong; I'm just pointing out how you treat Scripture with contempt. Instead, you just decided to argue that the Messiah was a sinner.
Messiah is just a regular man. Given that Messiah is included in the body of Israel, and Israel requires sin offerings says the full story. Messiah is saved on so many levels. Look to David, anointed, mashiach.

No contempt on my part. It's just another example of you being proven wrong.

Really? Then why is the messiah called "Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace." Isaiah 9:6. How about "Behold, the days are coming, declares YHWH, when I will raise up for David a righteous Branch, and he shall reign as king and deal wisely, and shall execute justice and righteousness in the land. In his days Judah will be saved, and Israel will dwell securely. And this is the name by which he will be called: ‘YHWH our righteousness.’" Jeremiah 23:5-6. Doesn't sound like a "regular guy".

DoctrinesofGraceBapt said:
Meaningful response; not. One with a conscience would take this to heart and show their devotion to God by going to God's word.
I've shown you God's word throughout. If you can throw a punch, be ready to get one in return.

No, you like to reference other passages while avoiding the passages in question like the plague.

And, what is the point of this figurative language? What's the point in naming the area "the face of God", if it's all figurative? Figurative language is always employed for a reason. What's the reason?
Because as proven to you, seeing God's face is associated with His blessings, not a physical encounter. And, it's been proven God uses humans as messengers representation Him, and called God as well.

Oh, so what's so great about this blessing compared to the others? After all, it's just some random guy according to you. Besides, saying “For I have seen God face to face, and yet my life has been delivered.” doesn't emphasize the blessing at all. It emphasized the personal connection between Jacob and this man and the shock at still being alive in light of what happened. But you still assert, it was just a man. A man, according to you, like the countless men he just ran into earlier in this very passage. Your claim may work for just calling the place Peniel. But it doesn't account for the face to face line. In fact, taking "face to face" as figurative language, it would emphasize that something more was going on that just getting blessed. It's emphasizing a profound meeting taking place in between this man and Jacob that far outclasses a simple blessing. This is the narrative were Jacob is renamed, but who cares about that. It was just a blessing.

FYI, that "God uses humans as messengers representation Him, and called God as well." doesn't prove that's the case here. Can doesn't imply does. Epic logical fail.

DoctrinesofGraceBapt said:
BTW, Isn't the claim "speaking figuratively" an excuse?
No. Tanakh speaks of God as having eagles wings, having eyes, ears, etc. You've admitted that God's essence isn't physical.

It's still an excuse. Make meaningful comments.

DoctrinesofGraceBapt said:
FYI, Trinitarians are not avoiding the fact that he fought a man. The question is if this is just a man, an angel walking earth as a man, like in Genesis 19, or God Almighty walking earth as a man. You take it as either or; we take it as both and.
Just men in His service acting as Him. God doesn't have a physical form.

When challenged, you revert to repeating your position. How is this meaningful?

God Bless
 
How does that prove it wasn't God walking earth as man? Oh yeah, it doesn't.
Rotfl... Because it says it was a man, and nothing mentions God was a man, nor walking as one. For someone who argued to focus on the text, you've done a miserable job.

As if the NT says the law is abrogated.
Rotfl... just look at Paul's writings, and how the church lives today.

Yeah, and when questioned by Pilate, Jesus made it clear that his kingdom was not of this world, not a physical kingdom. To which Pilate found no fault in him. Epic failure on your part historically.
Like Pilate really cared about Jesus' claim. Rotfl...

But, it is a primary source for information on the first century Judea. Not only that, it is generally recognized by historians as being an exemplary primary resource for that time and region.
Not my historians.

A theological assertion justified by nothing but your dogmatic beliefs. On the other hand, we have a confirmed prophecy the lead to salvation of many.
No, if you bothered reading Leviticus 28, Deut 28, and the curses, nothing is mentioned about rejecting Messiah.

What prophecy are you talking about, Isaiah 53? Do you know what an asham is?

Really? Then why is the messiah called "Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace." Isaiah 9:6.
Why are Daniel, Isaiah, Hezekiah, Adonijah, Elijah, etc., named with references to God in their names? Sorry, your response is juvenile.

Even in Christianity, Jesus is anything but the Father, and never called Mighty God. Especially considering that you think he lost a wrestling match. And he died and wasn't eternal.

How about "Behold, the days are coming, declares YHWH, when I will raise up for David a righteous Branch, and he shall reign as king and deal wisely, and shall execute justice and righteousness in the land. In his days Judah will be saved, and Israel will dwell securely.
Didn't happen with Jesus.

And this is the name by which he will be called: ‘YHWH our righteousness.’" Jeremiah 23:5-6. Doesn't sound like a "regular guy".
Rotfl... the city of Jerusalem is called by that name. Check the Hebrew. Hu can be it or he. Jerusalem is called this elsewhere.

No, you like to reference other passages while avoiding the passages in question like the plague.
Rotfl... that's funny because you brought up Hosea 12, and it proves that God appeared to Jacob in Gen 28, and 35, in Bethel, not Peniel. When I brought this up to you, you dropped it like your lame meek argument.

Oh, so what's so great about this blessing compared to the others? After all, it's just some random guy according to you. Besides, saying “For I have seen God face to face, and yet my life has been delivered.” doesn't emphasize the blessing at all. It emphasized the personal connection between Jacob and this man and the shock at still being alive in light of what happened. But you still assert, it was just a man. A man, according to you, like the countless men he just ran into earlier in this very passage. Your claim may work for just calling the place Peniel. But it doesn't account for the face to face line. In fact, taking "face to face" as figurative language, it would emphasize that something more was going on that just getting blessed. It's emphasizing a profound meeting taking place in between this man and Jacob that far outclasses a simple blessing. This is the narrative were Jacob is renamed, but who cares about that. It was just a blessing.
I've proven with scripture already that receiving blessings is seeing God's face. The narrative says clearly Jacob struggled with a man.

FYI, that "God uses humans as messengers representation Him, and called God as well." doesn't prove that's the case here. Can doesn't imply does. Epic logical fail.
If you're going to argue that then neither does your argument that God became man and was walking and lost a fight. Epic failure. Rotfl... man, you're not doing good. ;)

It's still an excuse. Make meaningful comments.
Not at all. And I don't really care that you don't like it. Are you going to deny you said God isn't physical?

When challenged, you revert to repeating your position. How is this meaningful?
But it's true. God said so that He isn't a man nor has physical form. This is ironic given your whimper when asked to define persons and being in the context of the Hebrew in Tanakh.

God Bless
Always
 
Last edited:
How does that prove it wasn't God walking earth as man? Oh yeah, it doesn't.
Rotfl... Because it says it was a man, and nothing mentions God was a man, nor walking as one. For someone who argued to focus on the text, you've done a miserable job.

Nice job not answering my question. Again, how does it saying it was a man prove it wasn't God walking earth as man? Oh yeah, it doesn't.

"nothing mentions God was a man" except for the fact that Jacob equated to seeing this man as seeing God face to face and yet still being alive.

"nor walking as one" Ever read Genesis 3:8 "And they heard the sound of YHWH God walking in the garden in the cool of the day"? How about Genesis 5:22-24 "Enoch walked with God after he fathered Methuselah 300 years and had other sons and daughters. Thus all the days of Enoch were 365 years. Enoch walked with God, and he was not, for God took him."? Need I go on? Notice, I just reading the text and taking it at face value.

DoctrinesofGraceBapt said:
As if the NT says the law is abrogated.
Rotfl... just look at Paul's writings, and how the church lives today.

What about Paul's writings say the Law was abrogated?

DoctrinesofGraceBapt said:
Yeah, and when questioned by Pilate, Jesus made it clear that his kingdom was not of this world, not a physical kingdom. To which Pilate found no fault in him. Epic failure on your part historically.
Like Pilate really cared about Jesus' claim. Rotfl...

Nice job mind reading across 2000 years to reject what was recorded at the time.

DoctrinesofGraceBapt said:
But, it is a primary source for information on the first century Judea. Not only that, it is generally recognized by historians as being an exemplary primary resource for that time and region.
Not my historians.

I know. Your historians allow their theological bias to trump history. Your rejection of the consistence of historians for theological reasons is quite telling.

DoctrinesofGraceBapt said:
A theological assertion justified by nothing but your dogmatic beliefs. On the other hand, we have a confirmed prophecy the lead to salvation of many.
No, if you bothered reading Leviticus 28, Deut 28, and the curses, nothing is mentioned about rejecting Messiah.
What prophecy are you talking about, Isaiah 53? Do you know what an asham is?

As if God is limited to Leviticus 28 and Deuteronomy 28 as justification for judgement.

DoctrinesofGraceBapt said:
Really? Then why is the messiah called "Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace." Isaiah 9:6.
Why are Daniel, Isaiah, Hezekiah, Adonijah, Elijah, etc., named with references to God in their names? Sorry, your response is juvenile.

There is a categorical difference between referencing God in a name and applying divine names to the Messiah.

DoctrinesofGraceBapt said:
How about "Behold, the days are coming, declares YHWH, when I will raise up for David a righteous Branch, and he shall reign as king and deal wisely, and shall execute justice and righteousness in the land. In his days Judah will be saved, and Israel will dwell securely.
Didn't happen with Jesus.
DoctrinesofGraceBapt said:
And this is the name by which he will be called: ‘YHWH our righteousness.’" Jeremiah 23:5-6. Doesn't sound like a "regular guy".
Rotfl... the city of Jerusalem is called by that name. Check the Hebrew. Hu can be it or he. Jerusalem is called this elsewhere.

"Jerusalem is called this elsewhere." And? This name is the given to the Messiah by Jeremiah. Maybe, you should take it seriously. Maybe, just maybe, recognizing the Messiah as more than just a "regular guy".

DoctrinesofGraceBapt said:
No, you like to reference other passages while avoiding the passages in question like the plague.
Rotfl... that's funny because you brought up Hosea 12, and it proves that God appeared to Jacob in Gen 28, and 35, in Bethel, not Peniel. When I brought this up to you, you dropped it like your lame meek argument.

How does this whataboutism let you off the hook for how you treat Scripture?

DoctrinesofGraceBapt said:
Oh, so what's so great about this blessing compared to the others? After all, it's just some random guy according to you. Besides, saying “For I have seen God face to face, and yet my life has been delivered.” doesn't emphasize the blessing at all. It emphasized the personal connection between Jacob and this man and the shock at still being alive in light of what happened. But you still assert, it was just a man. A man, according to you, like the countless men he just ran into earlier in this very passage. Your claim may work for just calling the place Peniel. But it doesn't account for the face to face line. In fact, taking "face to face" as figurative language, it would emphasize that something more was going on that just getting blessed. It's emphasizing a profound meeting taking place in between this man and Jacob that far outclasses a simple blessing. This is the narrative were Jacob is renamed, but who cares about that. It was just a blessing.
I've proven with scripture already that receiving blessings is seeing God's face. The narrative says clearly Jacob struggled with a man.

No, you asserted, without any proof, "receiving blessings is seeing God's face." In reality, the only verse you mentioned was the high priestly blessing. But in it, having "God's face shine upon you" is the blessing, not seeing God's face.

DoctrinesofGraceBapt said:
FYI, that "God uses humans as messengers representation Him, and called God as well." doesn't prove that's the case here. Can doesn't imply does. Epic logical fail.
If you're going to argue that then neither does your argument that God became man and was walking and lost a fight. Epic failure. Rotfl... man, you're not doing good. ;)

Really? Given your refusal to interact with my actual argument justifying such, or even expressing any knowledge of them, how would you know?

DoctrinesofGraceBapt said:
When challenged, you revert to repeating your position. How is this meaningful?
But it's true. God said so that He isn't a man nor has physical form. This is ironic given your whimper when asked to define persons and being in the context of the Hebrew in Tanakh.

True? How would anyone know? Your entire argument is based upon nothing but assertion.

God bless
 
Nice job not answering my question. Again, how does it saying it was a man prove it wasn't God walking earth as man? Oh yeah, it doesn't.
Rotfl... because it says clearly it was a man. Can't you focus on the text?

"nothing mentions God was a man" except for the fact that Jacob equated to seeing this man as seeing God face to face and yet still being alive.
Actually, Jacob didn't say seeing this man's face was seeing God face to face. You've added that. But, even if you want to believe that, it has been explained several times that men, messengers, malachim, angels, acting for God in His place, are actual called God in several places. The man can give blessings in the place of God, and there's no issue. But, you forget that you introduced Hosea 12:4-5 to support your notion that God was at Peniel, and Hosea, Gen 28, and Gen 35 are clear that God appeared to Jacob in Bethel, which blows away your argument. And don't forget that Jacob himself mentions that seeing Esau with a good reception is like seeing God's face. You have zero excuse.

"nor walking as one" Ever read Genesis 3:8 "And they heard the sound of YHWH God walking in the garden in the cool of the day"?
Yep, God's voice was traveling through the Garden similar to God's voice being heard on Mt. Sinai, with no physical form. In fact, the revelation was prior to the writing of anything by Moses and is the standard by which to understand things. We see from Deut 4:9,12,15,35, that God spoke and there was no physical form. He told us to teach that to our children and were shown this as proof that he isn't physical.

How about Genesis 5:22-24 "Enoch walked with God after he fathered Methuselah 300 years and had other sons and daughters. Thus all the days of Enoch were 365 years. Enoch walked with God, and he was not, for God took him."? Need I go on? Notice, I just reading the text and taking it at face value.
Yep, euphemism for Enoch followed God's ways. We speak like that today too, and even say we pray before God, but we don't think God is physically here or visible. Besides, seeing the evidence above is all we need. I have to point out how hypocritical you are with stating you take things at face value. You don't. When confronted with verses from the NT clearly showing Jesus says he isn't God nor the Father, John 20:17, and that God isn't flesh and blood, I get nothing but a whimper from you.

We see from Isaiah 40:18,25; 46:5, that the Hebrew for likeness comes from damah, which is used for physicality/domeh, blood/dam, and man/adam. Jesus is acknowledging what Isaiah says. We also know that God acknowledges He isn't a man in at least 3 places.

We also know that God is perfect and not corruptible, and has no sin with Him, Deut 32:2-5. Taking on sin as you believe Jesus as God did is a contradiction, as well as taking on a corruptible form of a human.

And we also know that idolatry entails worshipping a physical form. If you've bothered studying the Hebrew behind Ex 34:17, you'd see that molten, masecah, is associated with idols of fusion, vails, coverings. Jesus has a covering of flesh, vail of flesh. There's nothing else I need to say. Your idea of God is idolatrous. Sorry.

What about Paul's writings say the Law was abrogated?
Declaring all foods are clean, eating foods sacrificed to idols, etc.

Nice job mind reading across 2000 years to reject what was recorded at the time.
It's fact. You have to understand that argument from authority only works when both parties accept that authority. The NT isn't an authority for me.

I know. Your historians allow their theological bias to trump history. Your rejection of the consistence of historians for theological reasons is quite telling.
Rotfl... all historians don't follow the Christian drum.

As if God is limited to Leviticus 28 and Deuteronomy 28 as justification for judgement.
It's the prophecy of what would happen. You got burned so just acknowledge the fact you were wrong.

There is a categorical difference between referencing God in a name and applying divine names to the Messiah.
No difference. In fact, we don't see Jesus called any of those names in the NT.

"Jerusalem is called this elsewhere." And? This name is the given to the Messiah by Jeremiah. Maybe, you should take it seriously. Maybe, just maybe, recognizing the Messiah as more than just a "regular guy".
It has nothing to do with messiah. Your messiah, Jesus, depended on his parents righteousness for circumcision, redemption, and consecration. He's anything but perfect, and even the NT in Luke 2:52 acknowledges that Jesus grew in grace with God, something that people who are less than perfect need.

How does this whataboutism let you off the hook for how you treat Scripture?
Rotfl... if you look above, you'll see how you have added other verses to justify whataboutism for God is walking on earth. You hypocrite.

No, you asserted, without any proof, "receiving blessings is seeing God's face." In reality, the only verse you mentioned was the high priestly blessing. But in it, having "God's face shine upon you" is the blessing, not seeing God's face.
I've proven this showing God's face is equated with blessings several times. I'm going to repeat it here. Not just one verse.

Really? Given your refusal to interact with my actual argument justifying such, or even expressing any knowledge of them, how would you know?
See above. The problem is you don't like my answers or anyone not playing in your paradigm.

True? How would anyone know? Your entire argument is based upon nothing but assertion.
See above. Acknowledge you're making assumptions that aren't in the verses with respect to Jacob wrestling God. Why don't you define "person" and "being" for us in the context of Tanakh?

Anyway DOGB, I've pretty much said what I need to say. I'm not gaining anything from repeating myself to you or hearing your same arguments.

God bless
Always
 
Nice job not answering my question. Again, how does it saying it was a man prove it wasn't God walking earth as man? Oh yeah, it doesn't.
Rotfl... because it says clearly it was a man. Can't you focus on the text?

Again, how does it saying clearly it was a man prove it wasn't God walking earth as man?

DoctrinesofGraceBapt said:
"nothing mentions God was a man" except for the fact that Jacob equated to seeing this man as seeing God face to face and yet still being alive.
Actually, Jacob didn't say seeing this man's face was seeing God face to face.

Did he see this man face to face? Yep
What did he do in light of this meeting? He named the place Peniel.
Why did he call this place Peniel? Because, he said he saw God face to face and yet survived.
Therefore, Jacob equated seeing this man as seeing God face to face and yet still being alive.


You've added that. But, even if you want to believe that, it has been explained several times that men, messengers, malachim, angels, acting for God in His place, are actual called God in several places.

And? That's an excuse that needs to be justified in this context. You can repeat that men, messengers, malachim, angels, acting for God in His place until your blue in your face, and it will never prove anything with respect to Genesis 32:30. You have to go to this text and make your case there.

DoctrinesofGraceBapt said:
"nor walking as one" Ever read Genesis 3:8 "And they heard the sound of YHWH God walking in the garden in the cool of the day"?
Yep, God's voice was traveling through the Garden similar to God's voice being heard on Mt. Sinai, with no physical form. In fact, the revelation was prior to the writing of anything by Moses and is the standard by which to understand things. We see from Deut 4:9,12,15,35, that God spoke and there was no physical form. He told us to teach that to our children and were shown this as proof that he isn't physical.

The text says "they heard the sound of YHWH God walking", not "God's voice was traveling..." Nice job ignoring Scripture.

DoctrinesofGraceBapt said:
How about Genesis 5:22-24 "Enoch walked with God after he fathered Methuselah 300 years and had other sons and daughters. Thus all the days of Enoch were 365 years. Enoch walked with God, and he was not, for God took him."? Need I go on? Notice, I just reading the text and taking it at face value.
Yep, euphemism for Enoch followed God's ways.

You may be right, but I'm just pointing out how shortsighted your "nothing mentions God was a man, nor walking as one." comment was. You statement is blatantly false even if it is said as a euphemism. You are not thinking deeply before replying.

DoctrinesofGraceBapt said:
What about Paul's writings say the Law was abrogated?
Declaring all foods are clean, eating foods sacrificed to idols, etc.

That wasn't Paul. And, you are clearly missing the point of those restrictions.

DoctrinesofGraceBapt said:
Nice job mind reading across 2000 years to reject what was recorded at the time.
It's fact. You have to understand that argument from authority only works when both parties accept that authority. The NT isn't an authority for me.

So, your imagination trumps everything. I wasn't referring to it as Scripture, but as the most reliable resource we have for this topic. And, it is the most reliable resource we have on the topic. The only meaningful response you could give to it is I don't buy it, or I'm not convinced. Presenting your mind reading as an argument is absurdity on display.

DoctrinesofGraceBapt said:
I know. Your historians allow their theological bias to trump history. Your rejection of the consistence of historians for theological reasons is quite telling.
Rotfl... all historians don't follow the Christian drum.

I know, the vast majority non-Christians agree with the Christians on the general reliability of the NT texts with respect to such topics. The NT just got to many things right too many times.

DoctrinesofGraceBapt said:
There is a categorical difference between referencing God in a name and applying divine names to the Messiah.
No difference. In fact, we don't see Jesus called any of those names in the NT.

There couldn't be a wider gap. How many humans in the OT were named YHWH? Just wondering? And if there is no difference, why didn't all sorts of people name their children YHWH? Because there is a difference between naming a child Joel or Elijah which means "YHWH is God" and naming a child YHWH. If your son named his kid YHWH, how upset would you be? And compare that to your son naming him Joel.

DoctrinesofGraceBapt said:
"Jerusalem is called this elsewhere." And? This name is the given to the Messiah by Jeremiah. Maybe, you should take it seriously. Maybe, just maybe, recognizing the Messiah as more than just a "regular guy".
It has nothing to do with messiah. Your messiah, Jesus, depended on his parents righteousness for circumcision, redemption, and consecration. He's anything but perfect, and even the NT in Luke 2:52 acknowledges that Jesus grew in grace with God, something that people who are less than perfect need.

Let's go on another rant to distract the reader from what's really going on. The name "YHWH our righteousness" was the given to the Messiah by Jeremiah. Maybe, you should take it seriously. Maybe, just maybe, recognizing the Messiah as more than just a "regular guy".

DoctrinesofGraceBapt said:
No, you asserted, without any proof, "receiving blessings is seeing God's face." In reality, the only verse you mentioned was the high priestly blessing. But in it, having "God's face shine upon you" is the blessing, not seeing God's face.
I've proven this showing God's face is equated with blessings several times. I'm going to repeat it here. Not just one verse.

"God's face shine upon you" is equated with blessings, not "seeing God's face". But then again, being precise with your words isn't really your thing.

DoctrinesofGraceBapt said:
Really? Given your refusal to interact with my actual argument justifying such, or even expressing any knowledge of them, how would you know?
See above. The problem is you don't like my answers or anyone not playing in your paradigm.

No, you don't even know my position of these passages, because you don't care. I know your positions because I'm listening. FYI, pointing out faults in your reasoning isn't just not liking someone's answers. That's nonsense. In the future, make better arguments.

God Bless
 
Again, how does it saying clearly it was a man prove it wasn't God walking earth as man?
I don't know why this is so hard for you to understand. There is no such thing as God walking as a man. The Tanakh teaches FOUR TIMES that God is not a man. It is a problem that Chrsitians have no answer for.


“God is not a man… or a son of man”- Num. 23:19;
“… For he is not a man, that he should repent”-1 Sam. 15:29
“He is not a mere mortal like me that I might answer him, that we might confront each other in court." Job 9:32
"For I am God, and not a man— the Holy One among you." Hosea 11:9
 
Again, how does it saying clearly it was a man prove it wasn't God walking earth as man?
I don't know why this is so hard for you to understand. There is no such thing as God walking as a man.

And, that's your whole "argument": asserting "There is no such thing as God walking as a man." It doesn't matter what Scripture says because you assert "There is no such thing as God walking as a man." In Genesis 18-19, Moses calls one of the three who met with Abraham YHWH over and over again, but you assert "There is no such thing as God walking as a man." In Genesis 32:30, Jacob equated wresting a man as "seeing God face to face", yet you assert "There is no such thing as God walking as a man." In Joshua 5, Joshua meets the Commander of the Armies of YHWH, and takes off his shoes, like at the burning bush, bows down and worships, yet you assert "There is no such thing as God walking as a man." Clearly, it doesn't matter what Scripture says because your guiding principle is "There is no such thing as God walking as a man."

The Tanakh teaches FOUR TIMES that God is not a man. It is a problem that Chrsitians have no answer for.
“God is not a man… or a son of man”- Num. 23:19;
“… For he is not a man, that he should repent”-1 Sam. 15:29
“He is not a mere mortal like me that I might answer him, that we might confront each other in court." Job 9:32
"For I am God, and not a man— the Holy One among you." Hosea 11:9

You know why why we don't argue against these passages? Because our answer is: Amen. Why are you equivocating God is a man with God is walking earth as a man? Those statements are not the same thing. One is talking about God's nature being man, the other is talking about how God chooses to appear in time. Until you interact with this distinction, you will be proving nothing and condemning Scripture for just disagreeing with your rabbis.

God Bless
 
And, that's your whole "argument": asserting "There is no such thing as God walking as a man."
First, let's deal with a little problem with terminology. That there is no such thing as God walking as a man is a statement, not an argument. In my earlier post, I did argue for this, quoting the four times this is taught in the Tanakh. These four verses are the four arguments for my statement. Since you seem to have missed them, I will quote them again:

“God is not a man… or a son of man”- Num. 23:19;
“… For he is not a man, that he should repent”-1 Sam. 15:29
“He is not a mere mortal like me that I might answer him, that we might confront each other in court." Job 9:32
"For I am God, and not a man— the Holy One among you." Hosea 11:9

Now let's deal with your own so-called evidences against:
It doesn't matter what Scripture says because you assert "There is no such thing as God walking as a man." In Genesis 18-19, Moses calls one of the three who met with Abraham YHWH over and over again,
So you say, but you have not quoted where this happens exactly. You need to quote. It is not my responsibility to search through to chapters to try and figure out what you are talking about. In general, Abraham met with three malakhim, aka messengers, who were men. One of those men spoke on behalf of God. It doesn't make the man God.
In Genesis 32:30, Jacob equated wresting a man as "seeing God face to face"
Again, let's look at the actual text:
24 So Jacob was left alone, and a man wrestled with him till daybreak. 25 When the man saw that he could not overpower him, he touched the socket of Jacob’s hip so that his hip was wrenched as he wrestled with the man. 26 Then the man said, “Let me go, for it is daybreak.”
But Jacob replied, “I will not let you go unless you bless me.”
27 The man asked him, “What is your name?”
“Jacob,” he answered.
28 Then the man said, “Your name will no longer be Jacob, but Israel,[a] because you have struggled with God and with humans and have overcome.”
29 Jacob said, “Please tell me your name.”
But he replied, “Why do you ask my name?” Then he blessed him there

Over and over the person is call a man.

As to verse 30, where Jacob said, "I have seen God face to face," Jacob is speaking figuratively. No one can see God face to face. He doens't have a body with a face to see. Exodus 33:20 But,” he said, “you cannot see my face, for no one may see me and live.”


In Joshua 5, Joshua meets the Commander of the Armies of YHWH, and takes off his shoes, like at the burning bush, bows down and worships
One word: MAN
Joshua took off his sandles because the PLACE was holy.
15 The commander of the Lord’s army replied, “Take off your sandals, for the place where you are standing is holy.” And Joshua did so.
Clearly, it doesn't matter what Scripture says because your guiding principle is "There is no such thing as God walking as a man."
What is clear is that you have a hard time understanding what scripture clearly says.

Sooo... I have dealt with your arguments. Now you need to address mine, the four verses that state point blank that God is not a man.
 
Back
Top