God wanted human sacrifices for atonement of sin?

[Jewjitzu]

That the ECF used the terms differently from how you are using them means your argument doesn't apply.

Isaiah 43:13 From Eternity I am He...

So, before creation or any days, there was no plurality.

The ECFs got it all wrong.

 

[keiw]

So you would agree that arguing Jesus was sacrificed for us has zero merit.

Justice--All of Gods ways are justice-Deut 32:4= A perfect mortal rebelled and sinned losing a good standing for mortals with God and brought death to all mortals--A perfect mortal lived a sinless existence, yet paid the wages of sin he did not owe= the ransom sacrifice. Thus those brought through the tribulation and armageddon, may never taste death, even though they are sinners.

 

[DoctrinesofGraceBapt]

DoctrinesofGraceBapt said:
Is Jesus comparing himself to these wicked judges/gods who are being condemned in Psalm 82, or is Jesus comparing the wicked judgments of these judges/gods to the judgments of these Jews currently trying to stone him for blasphemy?

Neither. He just focuses on the fact that judges, men, are gods. That's exactly what he quoted.
BTW, don't forget that Jesus himself erroneously added a requirement for sinless witnesses to cast stones against an adulterers.

Intesting given that he barely referenced that they were called gods while questioning the judgement of those with stones in their hands. " If he called them gods to whom the word of God came (in judgement)—and Scripture cannot be broken—do you say of him whom the Father consecrated and sent into the world, ‘You are blaspheming,’ because I said, ‘I am the Son of God’?" John 10:35-36.

DoctrinesofGraceBapt said:
Do you really think a man who is about to be stoned would compare himself to evil judges who "nevertheless, like men you shall die, and fall like any prince.” Arise, O God, judge the earth; for you shall inherit all the nations!"? If that's your position, you didn't think it through.

You didn't focus on the verse he quoted. Jesus and the NT does this quote often just pulling verses out.

I was just presenting an reductio ad absurdum argument.
See above.

DoctrinesofGraceBapt said:
Seriously, you think you made a good point, refused to consider any response, and you think I need to admit I'm wrong. What hubris?

It wouldn't be the first your wrong here.

Still hubris, even if I am wrong. Why should anyone admit they are wrong when they are not convinced? And, how can anyone be convinced when their questions haven't been answered?

So, God doesn't listen to prayers?

Not in a sinful state.

Then, God never listens to prayers.

DoctrinesofGraceBapt said:
Corrupt and corruptible are not the same thing. Again, any argument that doesn't argue against our actual position is categorically invalid.

You've admitted to the body being corruptible already.

And, any argument that doesn't argue against our actual position is categorically invalid.

DoctrinesofGraceBapt said:
Nope. No quote marks means you are making up all these accusations. FYI, the duel natures of Christ doesn't mean humanity and divinity were inside a human.

They were with the human as the person has both. Anytime Jesus walks, bends, eats, he acts with both natures. I know, the idea of dual natures is silly.

Not relevant given the duel natures of Christ doesn't mean humanity and divinity were inside a human.

DoctrinesofGraceBapt said:
Can you provide a single example in modern everyday speech where some human is referred to as a god? And, figurative and ironic uses don't count.

I gave you 3 usages in the Greek 20CE. Even in Tanakh, the usages were figurative. Now, that you were proven wrong, you move the goal posts. Classic DOGB.

And yet, can you provide a single example in modern everyday speech where some human is referred to as a god?

DoctrinesofGraceBapt said:
It means receive. And? He received it, and when he realized what it was, he did not drink. Therefore, he didn't break his oath.

It means he drank voluntarily, and I gave the evidence for it. Even your translations say he drank.

He couldn't receive the drink with his hands. The only option is his mouth. He realized once he tasted it, drank it. By then, it's too late. Being that you think he's God, he should have known better.

Doing something voluntarily without knowledge doesn't break an oath.

I know; that's my point. He doesn't carefully read the text, and his refusal to write down his references is exasperating the problem. FYI, most of the time, he never, ever actually quotes a verse. The reference in context of this is just Romans 14. Am I suppose to guess what he is getting at from an entire chapter in a book?

You're something else. Romans 14:20
20Do not destroy the work of God for the sake of food. All food is clean, but it is wrong for a man to let his eating be a stumbling block.
I try avoiding putting whole verses and just the reference for space considerations. I'd figure you knew the verse in question. Compare the above with Lev 11.

Yes, under the new covenant all food is clean. No problem here. “What God has made clean, do not call common.” Acts 10:15.

God Bless

PS: I'm not responding to 6 comments with 6 replies.

 

[DoctrinesofGraceBapt]

It means receive. And? He received it, and when he realized what it was, he did not drink. Therefore, he didn't break his oath.

More evidence that Jesus drank and broke his vow. The same elaben used in the contexting of receiving and eating, drinking.
2983 lambánō (from the primitive root, lab-, meaning "actively lay hold of to take or receive," see NAS dictionary) – properly, to lay hold by aggressively (actively) accepting what is available (offered). 2983 /lambánō ("accept with initiative") emphasizes the volition (assertiveness) of the receiver.
...
to take in the mouth: something to eat, John 13:30; Acts 9:19; 1 Timothy 4:4; to take anything to drink, i. e. drink, swallow, ὕδωρ, Revelation 22:17; to drink, τό ὄξος, John 19:30.

Jesus knew what he did, voluntarily.

And, Jesus didn't do it after he knew what it was. No problem here.

So, God doesn't listen to prayers?

Proverbs 28:9
He that turneth away his ear from hearing the law, even his prayer is an abomination.

You're the one saying God never ever listens to any persons prayers ever.

That the ECF used the terms differently from how you are using them means your argument doesn't apply.

Isaiah 43:13 From Eternity I am He...
So, before creation or any days, there was no plurality.
The ECFs got it all wrong.

Non sequitur.

God Bless

 

[Jewjitzu]

Justice--All of Gods ways are justice-Deut 32:4= A perfect mortal rebelled and sinned losing a good standing for mortals with God and brought death to all mortals

False. Someone else's sins are not accounted to another, Ezekiel 18.

Ironically, your idea has sin passing down from Mary.

--A perfect mortal lived a sinless existence, yet paid the wages of sin he did not owe= the ransom sacrifice.

Really? It wasn't required. That's the point of the OP.

Thus those brought through the tribulation and armageddon, may never taste death, even though they are sinners.

See above.

 

[Jewjitzu]

And, Jesus didn't do it after he knew what it was. No problem here.

Rotfl... after he drank it. He broke his vow. He should have known what it was since you claim he is God and not drunk it.

You're the one saying God never ever listens to any persons prayers ever.

False. But, ironically Jesus' prayers weren't heard at the cross. The Father abandoned him.

Non sequitur.

It's quite evident God exists as one Person, Being, before time or any day existed.

The ECFs admit Jesus was begotten from Eternity. Based on passages like that above, this is patently false. There's always a point of time before being begotten where Jesus didn't exist.

God Bless

Always

 

[Jewjitzu]

Intesting given that he barely referenced that they were called gods while questioning the judgement of those with stones in their hands. " If he called them gods to whom the word of God came (in judgement)—and Scripture cannot be broken—do you say of him whom the Father consecrated and sent into the world, ‘You are blaspheming,’ because I said, ‘I am the Son of God’?" John 10:35-36.

He was questioning them questioning he was God. That was the point, nothing else. His use of the verse is his acknowledgement that they are gods too like him.

You don't have a problem with Jesus changing the law regarding stoning, and you calling out evil judges. How hilarious ?.

I was just presenting an reductio ad absurdum argument.
See above.

You've failed on both counts.

Still hubris, even if I am wrong. Why should anyone admit they are wrong when they are not convinced? And, how can anyone be convinced when their questions haven't been answered?

They've all been answered, and you've been proven wrong several times. You just don't admit it.

Then, God never listens to prayers.

Maybe not yours. Jesus' prayers at the cross weren't heard.

And, any argument that doesn't argue against our actual position is categorically invalid.

Done. Your god was corruptible.

Not relevant given the duel natures of Christ doesn't mean humanity and divinity were inside a human.

I never said they were inside, but with. The one person Jesus has two natures that act together. It's evident.

And yet, can you provide a single example in modern everyday speech where some human is referred to as a god?

That was you goal post moving. You initially asked for examples in Greek 20CE. And you got it. Man up. BTW, the thoughts of the Greek in 20CE have no bearing on those of Jews of the time. That's what counts.

Post in thread 'God wanted human sacrifices for atonement of sin?' https://forums.carm.org/threads/god-wanted-human-sacrifices-for-atonement-of-sin.10667/post-937940

I proved my point. Man up.

Doing something voluntarily without knowledge doesn't break an oath.

It sure does. In his case, as God, Jesus should have known. There are sins of omission as well and best case for you, that's what occurred.

Yes, under the new covenant all food is clean. No problem here. “What God has made clean, do not call common.” Acts 10:15.

So you admit to abrogation. Another dishonest reply from you. Being that even your Jesus admits Torah is valid until the end Heaven and Earth, your own God proves you wrong. Not to mention that Lev 11 states what's unclean, clean, and that hasn't changed. Your reply is DOA.

 

[DoctrinesofGraceBapt]

And, Jesus didn't do it after he knew what it was. No problem here.

Rotfl... after he drank it. He broke his vow. He should have known what it was since you claim he is God and not drunk it.

That's not how vows work.

DoctrinesofGraceBapt said:
You're the one saying God never ever listens to any persons prayers ever.

False. But, ironically Jesus' prayers weren't heard at the cross. The Father abandoned him.

Sorry, that's what you said: "Divinity doesn't associate with the corrupt, sin." Therefore, once on is corrupt, there is no hope for God to ever listen to that person's prayer no matter what they do. One sin, one tiniest corruption, and damned without a hope according to Jewjitzu. Maybe, just maybe, you should be more careful with your wording.

Intesting given that he barely referenced that they were called gods while questioning the judgement of those with stones in their hands. "If he called them gods to whom the word of God came (in judgement)—and Scripture cannot be broken—do you say of him whom the Father consecrated and sent into the world, ‘You are blaspheming,’ because I said, ‘I am the Son of God’?" John 10:35-36.

He was questioning them questioning he was God. That was the point, nothing else. His use of the verse is his acknowledgement that they are gods too like him.

That's called questioning the judgment of these Jews, and given that the "gods" referenced in Psalm 83 were being condemned for false judgements, the reference was clearly being used to express how evil one can be when judging unjustly.


BTW, the passage doesn't apply the title god to Jesus as it was applied to these evil judges. Therefore, his use of the verse doesn't acknowledgement that they are gods too like him. Utterly false in every way.

You don't have a problem with Jesus changing the law regarding stoning, and you calling out evil judges. How hilarious ?.

Of course not, YHWH can do whatever he pleases.

FYI, I still don't believe the story of the woman caught in Adultery is in the Bible. Would it be fair for me to bring up the story of Daniel and the dragon as to attack the Jewish Bible? Nope. Good to know. Likewise, it's stilly for you to keep on bringing up this story.

DoctrinesofGraceBapt said:
Still hubris, even if I am wrong. Why should anyone admit they are wrong when they are not convinced? And, how can anyone be convinced when their questions haven't been answered?

They've all been answered, and you've been proven wrong several times. You just don't admit it.

You can lie to yourself all you want. You refuse to answer most of my questions.

DoctrinesofGraceBapt said:
Not relevant given the duel natures of Christ doesn't mean humanity and divinity were inside a human.

I never said they were inside, but with. The one person Jesus has two natures that act together. It's evident.

Where do you get this "that act together" trope? I didn't say that.

DoctrinesofGraceBapt said:
And yet, can you provide a single example in modern everyday speech where some human is referred to as a god?

That was you goal post moving. You initially asked for examples in Greek 20CE. And you got it. Man up. BTW, the thoughts of the Greek in 20CE have no bearing on those of Jews of the time. That's what counts.

Post in thread 'God wanted human sacrifices for atonement of sin?' https://forums.carm.org/threads/god-wanted-human-sacrifices-for-atonement-of-sin.10667/post-937940

I proved my point. Man up.

1. I'm moving the goal posts closer to you to make your job easier.
2. You didn't give a single meaningful greek use. You simply changed to criterion to present references to Satan as the god of this world as meaningful.
3. Given the openendness of my challenge, the distinction between Greek thoughts and Jewish thoughts were rendered irrelevant. I'm asking for any evidence that god was used as a normative title in Greek for a human in the first century, without any supernatural implications (aka claims Alexander was a demigod.). I don't care who said it. I want evidence that someone, anyone, would refer to a person in power as a god in everyday life. To this end, so far, you failed epically.

DoctrinesofGraceBapt said:
Doing something voluntarily without knowledge doesn't break an oath.

It sure does. In his case, as God, Jesus should have known. There are sins of omission as well and best case for you, that's what occurred.

Sorry; again, that's not how oaths work.

DoctrinesofGraceBapt said:
Yes, under the new covenant all food is clean. No problem here. “What God has made clean, do not call common.” Acts 10:15.

So you admit to abrogation. Another dishonest reply from you. Being that even your Jesus admits Torah is valid until the end Heaven and Earth, your own God proves you wrong. Not to mention that Lev 11 states what's unclean, clean, and that hasn't changed. Your reply is DOA.

Nope, I admit that the old covenant has passed away and a new covenant has come. God's moral law has not changed. Some of the ceremonial requirement of the new covenant have. And, calling such abrogation is simply mislabeling a change in covenant. For example, the covenant before the fall was different from the covenant with Adam after the fall. The covenant with man changed again with Noah and with Abraham. And with Moses, with respect to the Hebrews, the covenant changed again. And, another one was promised by Jeremiah. Don't you follow the over arching narrative of the Tanahk?

God's written words and God's moral law are valid forever, but they don't undermine the fact that throughout time there were different contracts between man and God. Under your contract with God, you can't eat pork. Under my contract with God, I can. No problem here. It simply silly to say God changed a contract, abrogated, when he simply wrote a new contract for people no longer living in a theocratic kingdom.

God Bless

 

[Jewjitzu]

That's not how vows work.

Of course it does. The Greek usage of elaben clearly shows Jesus had intent and voluntarily drank. He was thirsty and broke his vow.

Sorry, that's what you said: "Divinity doesn't associate with the corrupt, sin." Therefore, once on is corrupt, there is no hope for God to ever listen to that person's prayer no matter what they do. One sin, one tiniest corruption, and damned without a hope according to Jewjitzu. Maybe, just maybe, you should be more careful with your wording.

Then you agree that God didn't associate with Jesus. He was after all, abandoned on the cross. What's laughable, is that you don't think that repentance can draw God near again. Maybe you should think before responding.

That's called questioning the judgment of these Jews, and given that the "gods" referenced in Psalm 83 were being condemned for false judgements, the reference was clearly being used to express how evil one can be when judging unjustly.

It's an acknowledgement that judges are God as in Ex 21:6, Ex 22:8-9. Again, another reference and usage that men are God too in the Greek 20CE and in modern times. Man up.

BTW, the passage doesn't apply the title god to Jesus as it was applied to these evil judges. Therefore, his use of the verse doesn't acknowledgement that they are gods too like him. Utterly false in every way.

Of course it does. Jesus was running around making judgements as well, and incorrectly added requirements to the judgement of those accusing the adulteress, requiring them to be sinless. He broke the law in doing so.

Of course not, YHWH can do whatever he pleases.

FYI, I still don't believe the story of the woman caught in Adultery is in the Bible. Would it be fair for me to bring up the story of Daniel and the dragon as to attack the Jewish Bible? Nope. Good to know. Likewise, it's stilly for you to keep on bringing up this story.

Rotfl... you have a fairy tale notion of what God can do. He can't do many things like sin, make misjudgments, etc. If you don't believe the adultery story in the NT, why do you believe the rest of the NT? As to language with imagery, the image of the dragon is used throughut the NT as well. Do you think those references are silly too?

You can lie to yourself all you want. You refuse to answer most of my questions.

You're looking in the mirror, I see.

Where do you get this "that act together" trope? I didn't say that.

Your one person walks with two natures. That's your problem. Limited in time, space, knowledge, etc., and he's supposed to be God? That's laughable.

1. I'm moving the goal posts closer to you to make your job easier.
2. You didn't give a single meaningful greek use. You simply changed to criterion to present references to Satan as the god of this world as meaningful.
3. Given the openendness of my challenge, the distinction between Greek thoughts and Jewish thoughts were rendered irrelevant. I'm asking for any evidence that god was used as a normative title in Greek for a human in the first century, without any supernatural implications (aka claims Alexander was a demigod.). I don't care who said it. I want evidence that someone, anyone, would refer to a person in power as a god in everyday life. To this end, so far, you failed epically.

Rotfl... you've been debunked with the Greek NT. Man up! Jewish thought is all that matters because Jewish and Hebrew ideas were transferred into the NT, or supposed to. I guess you fail to realize the influence Greek and Roman religions had on Christianity, including the idea of demigods.

Sorry; again, that's not how oaths work.

That's how they work. You make a vow, you keep it. He should have known better as the mangod. Man up!

Nope, I admit that the old covenant has passed away and a new covenant has come.

The law didn't change. And for that matter, rest of Tanakh testifies to the eternity of the law, ie, Psalm 111:7-9. And your own Jesus has admitted to this as well, Mat 5:17-20.

God's moral law has not changed. Some of the ceremonial requirement of the new covenant have. And, calling such abrogation is simply mislabeling a change in covenant.

Change is abrogation.

For example, the covenant before the fall was different from the covenant with Adam after the fall. The covenant with man changed again with Noah and with Abraham. And with Moses, with respect to the Hebrews, the covenant changed again. And, another one was promised by Jeremiah. Don't you follow the over arching narrative of the Tanahk?

Nothing has changed with the covenant. And Jesus said as much as well. Don't you follow his words?

God's written words and God's moral law are valid forever, but they don't undermine the fact that throughout time there were different contracts between man and God. Under your contract with God, you can't eat pork. Under my contract with God, I can. No problem here. It simply silly to say God changed a contract, abrogated, when he simply wrote a new contract for people no longer living in a theocratic kingdom.

See above.

God Bless

 

[DoctrinesofGraceBapt]

DoctrinesofGraceBapt said:
Sorry, that's what you said: "Divinity doesn't associate with the corrupt, sin." Therefore, once on is corrupt, there is no hope for God to ever listen to that person's prayer no matter what they do. One sin, one tiniest corruption, and damned without a hope according to Jewjitzu. Maybe, just maybe, you should be more careful with your wording.

Then you agree that God didn't associate with Jesus. He was after all, abandoned on the cross. What's laughable, is that you don't think that repentance can draw God near again. Maybe you should think before responding.

No, I reject your claim: "Divinity doesn't associate with the corrupt, sin.", and I don't even think you believe it. You are not careful enough with your wording to even assess if such is true.

DoctrinesofGraceBapt said:
BTW, the passage doesn't apply the title god to Jesus as it was applied to these evil judges. Therefore, his use of the verse doesn't acknowledgement that they are gods too like him. Utterly false in every way.

Of course it does. Jesus was running around making judgements as well, and incorrectly added requirements to the judgement of those accusing the adulteress, requiring them to be sinless. He broke the law in doing so.

Hello? If I parallel my opponents judgements with an evil judge, how does that parallel my own judgements to that evil judge?

DoctrinesofGraceBapt said:
Of course not, YHWH can do whatever he pleases.

FYI, I still don't believe the story of the woman caught in Adultery is in the Bible. Would it be fair for me to bring up the story of Daniel and the dragon as to attack the Jewish Bible? Nope. Good to know. Likewise, it's stilly for you to keep on bringing up this story.

Rotfl... you have a fairy tale notion of what God can do. He can't do many things like sin, make misjudgments, etc.

Your assessment of my religion has no bearing on the internal consistency of my religion. You do realize My God only sins, make misjudgments, etc in your mind and not in reality.

If you don't believe the adultery story in the NT, why do you believe the rest of the NT?

If you don't believe Daniel and the dragon is in the Tanakh, why do you believe the rest of the Tanakh?

As to language with imagery, the image of the dragon is used throughut the NT as well. Do you think those references are silly too?

Hello? The Story of Daniel and the Dragon is recognized by Jews as apocryphal. Likewise, the story of the woman caught in adultery is apocryphal. Why do you think it's not okay for me to attack you for what is in the Jewish apocrypha, but it is okay for you to attack me based upon what's in the NT apocrypha?

DoctrinesofGraceBapt said:
Where do you get this "that act together" trope? I didn't say that.

Your one person walks with two natures. That's your problem. Limited in time, space, knowledge, etc., and he's supposed to be God? That's laughable.

Where do you get this "walks with two natures."? I didn't say that. Your projection isn't my problem.

DoctrinesofGraceBapt said:
1. I'm moving the goal posts closer to you to make your job easier.
2. You didn't give a single meaningful greek use. You simply changed to criterion to present references to Satan as the god of this world as meaningful.
3. Given the openendness of my challenge, the distinction between Greek thoughts and Jewish thoughts were rendered irrelevant. I'm asking for any evidence that god was used as a normative title in Greek for a human in the first century, without any supernatural implications (aka claims Alexander was a demigod.). I don't care who said it. I want evidence that someone, anyone, would refer to a person in power as a god in everyday life. To this end, so far, you failed epically.

Rotfl... you've been debunked with the Greek NT. Man up! Jewish thought is all that matters because Jewish and Hebrew ideas were transferred into the NT, or supposed to. I guess you fail to realize the influence Greek and Roman religions had on Christianity, including the idea of demigods.

An utter nonresponse. You have no evidence that god was a normative title in the NT. You just like to assert things.

DoctrinesofGraceBapt said:
Nope, I admit that the old covenant has passed away and a new covenant has come.

The law didn't change. And for that matter, rest of Tanakh testifies to the eternity of the law, ie, Psalm 111:7-9. And your own Jesus has admitted to this as well, Mat 5:17-20.

DoctrinesofGraceBapt said:
God's moral law has not changed. Some of the ceremonial requirement of the new covenant have. And, calling such abrogation is simply mislabeling a change in covenant.

Change is abrogation.

An utter non-response. Read better.

DoctrinesofGraceBapt said:
For example, the covenant before the fall was different from the covenant with Adam after the fall. The covenant with man changed again with Noah and with Abraham. And with Moses, with respect to the Hebrews, the covenant changed again. And, another one was promised by Jeremiah. Don't you follow the over arching narrative of the Tanahk?

Nothing has changed with the covenant. And Jesus said as much as well. Don't you follow his words?

"Not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished." How does this have any relevance to those not held under the Jewish contract? The law hasn't changed. I have a different contract, a new contract.

DoctrinesofGraceBapt said:
God's written words and God's moral law are valid forever, but they don't undermine the fact that throughout time there were different contracts between man and God. Under your contract with God, you can't eat pork. Under my contract with God, I can. No problem here. It simply silly to say God changed a contract, abrogated, when he simply wrote a new contract for people no longer living in a theocratic kingdom.

See above.

See what? Nothing you said interacted with anything I said in this paragraph?

God Bless

 

[Jewjitzu]

No, I reject your claim: "Divinity doesn't associate with the corrupt, sin.", and I don't even think you believe it. You are not careful enough with your wording to even assess if such is true.

I've proven it. Jesus was abandoned at the cross because of sin, whether you believe the sins belonged to world or not, but he took them on himself and was rejected.

You don't know your own NT. That's a shame.

So when the Father abandoned Jesus, did Jesus' divine nature follow as well? Doesn't he follow and do everything he sees the Father do, John 5:19?

BTW, since the Father was never seen nor became flesh, why didn't Jesus follow Him on that?

Hello? If I parallel my opponents judgements with an evil judge, how does that parallel my own judgements to that evil judge?

In either case, judges are called gods. Jesus already made misjudgements himself.

Your assessment of my religion has no bearing on the internal consistency of my religion. You do realize My God only sins, make misjudgments, etc in your mind and not in reality.

You realize your god can't do everything then.

If you don't believe Daniel and the dragon is in the Tanakh, why do you believe the rest of the Tanakh?

The beast is. Why do you believe the NT and it's usage of dragons?

Hello? The Story of Daniel and the Dragon is recognized by Jews as apocryphal.

We don't accept the Apocrypha. So next.

Likewise, the story of the woman caught in adultery is apocryphal.

It's in your NT. So, the whole NT is apocryphal? We don't accept it either. Who besides yourself believes this story is apocryphal? Are you saying this because your caught in a bind?

Why do you think it's not okay for me to attack you for what is in the Jewish apocrypha, but it is okay for you to attack me based upon what's in the NT apocrypha?

See above.

Where do you get this "walks with two natures."? I didn't say that. Your projection isn't my problem.

Doesn't both natures go wherever Jesus goes? If not, then he ain't godman. Think.

An utter nonresponse. You have no evidence that god was a normative title in the NT. You just like to assert things.

Rotfl... I've proven it with your Greek 20CE NT words.

An utter non-response. Read better.

Rotfl... what a whiner. Eternal and until Heaven and Earth are pretty clear. I'll get your tissue.

"Not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished." How does this have any relevance to those not held under the Jewish contract? The law hasn't changed. I have a different contract, a new contract.

Rotfl... we were talking about the new covenant in Jeremiah 31:31-34 which is exclusive to the houses of Israel and Judah. If a gentile is grafted, it applies to them as well. One law for the native and stranger.

So the law and covenant hasn't changed for Israel. That's all that matters.

I gotta laugh with your goal posts maneuvers.

See what? Nothing you said interacted with anything I said in this paragraph?

Rotfl... see above.

God Bless

Yup.

 

[DoctrinesofGraceBapt]

No, I reject your claim: "Divinity doesn't associate with the corrupt, sin.", and I don't even think you believe it. You are not careful enough with your wording to even assess if such is true.

I've proven it. Jesus was abandoned at the cross because of sin, whether you believe the sins belonged to world or not, but he took them on himself and was rejected.

No, you quoted a verse that doesn't even come close to saying "Divinity doesn't associate with the corrupt, sin." Proverbs 28:9 says "He that turneth away his ear from hearing the law, even his prayer is an abomination." Not, he that has any corruption, or sin, his prayer is an abomination. Follow what Scripture says, not what you think it says.

DoctrinesofGraceBapt said:
Hello? If I parallel my opponents judgements with an evil judge, how does that parallel my own judgements to that evil judge?

In either case, judges are called gods. Jesus already made misjudgements himself.

And, that proves god used for politically powerful men was normative when that Psalm was written, but it proves nothing about how god was used in Jesus' day.

DoctrinesofGraceBapt said:
If you don't believe Daniel and the dragon is in the Tanakh, why do you believe the rest of the Tanakh?

The beast is. Why do you believe the NT and it's usage of dragons?

Such is irrelevant. My point relates to what is apocryphal and what is not.

DoctrinesofGraceBapt said:
Hello? The Story of Daniel and the Dragon is recognized by Jews as apocryphal.

We don't accept the Apocrypha. So next.

DoctrinesofGraceBapt said:
Likewise, the story of the woman caught in adultery is apocryphal.

It's in your NT.

Really? Have you checked? Every modern Bible has a note like "THE EARLIEST MANUSCRIPTS DO NOT INCLUDE 7:53–8:11." because it wasn't original. Just like how people added stories into Daniel that were not original, someone added this story. So maybe, just maybe, it's kind of silly to use that story to attack my position when I don't recognize it as Scripture.

So, the whole NT is apocryphal? We don't accept it either.

And?

Who besides yourself believes this story is apocryphal? Are you saying this because your caught in a bind?

Most Christians today. Save some fundamentalist KJO people, and those who never really looked into it, basically all Christians recognize John 7:53-8:11 and Mark 16:9-20 as not being original.

DoctrinesofGraceBapt said:
Where do you get this "walks with two natures."? I didn't say that. Your projection isn't my problem.

Doesn't both natures go wherever Jesus goes? If not, then he ain't godman. Think.

None of this is relevant to the doctrine of the duel natures of Christ.

DoctrinesofGraceBapt said:
An utter nonresponse. You have no evidence that god was a normative title in the NT. You just like to assert things.

Rotfl... I've proven it with your Greek 20CE NT words.

We've already been through this. You didn't show any evidence that god was a normative title in the NT. You just like to assert things.

DoctrinesofGraceBapt said:
"Not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished." How does this have any relevance to those not held under the Jewish contract? The law hasn't changed. I have a different contract, a new contract.

Rotfl... we were talking about the new covenant in Jeremiah 31:31-34 which is exclusive to the houses of Israel and Judah. If a gentile is grafted, it applies to them as well. One law for the native and stranger.

You claim it's "exclusive". It doesn't say that, but you like making things up.

God Bless

 

[Jewjitzu]

No, you quoted a verse that doesn't even come close to saying "Divinity doesn't associate with the corrupt, sin." Proverbs 28:9 says "He that turneth away his ear from hearing the law, even his prayer is an abomination." Not, he that has any corruption, or sin, his prayer is an abomination. Follow what Scripture says, not what you think it says.

Actually, you're mixing up my responses. My reply was based on listening to prayers of sinners. That's one point. The others is that sin corrupts humans, and God doesn't associate with an unrepentant.

2 Chr 15:2
And he went out to meet Asa, and said to him: “Hear me, Asa, and all Judah and Benjamin. The LORD is with you while you are with Him. If you seek Him, He will be found by you; but if you forsake Him, He will forsake you.

So when the Father abandoned Jesus, did Jesus' divine nature follow as well? Doesn't he follow and do everything he sees the Father do, John 5:19?

BTW, since the Father was never seen nor became flesh, why didn't Jesus follow Him on that?

And, that proves god used for politically powerful men was normative when that Psalm was written, but it proves nothing about how god was used in Jesus' day.

Jesus used it in his day day application. Man up.

Such is irrelevant. My point relates to what is apocryphal and what is not.

Of course it's relevant. We don't accept apocryphal sources. Apparently you do.

Really? Have you checked? Every modern Bible has a note like "THE EARLIEST MANUSCRIPTS DO NOT INCLUDE 7:53–8:11." because it wasn't original. Just like how people added stories into Daniel that were not original, someone added this story.

The book of Daniel doesn't have what you're quoting. Daniel is written mostly in Aramaic. Big difference.

What else in your NT do you consider apocryphal? I've never heard a Christian call disputed verses by that term. Is the Nazarene prophecy apocryphal as well? It's a non supported prophecy.

So maybe, just maybe, it's kind of silly to use that story to attack my position when I don't recognize it as Scripture.

Ok. So the original Nazarenes rejected the whole gospels and Paul's epistles, except for the gospel according to the Hebrews. Maybe it's silly that you believe the NT.

And?

It's useless.

Most Christians today. Save some fundamentalist KJO people, and those who never really looked into it, basically all Christians recognize John 7:53-8:11 and Mark 16:9-20 as not being original.

The Nazarenes rejected it all.

None of this is relevant to the doctrine of the duel natures of Christ.

It goes to the fact that natures are limited to where the body is. Jesus acknowledges he wasn't in heaven with the Father.

Besides, as an obedient son, he should have rejected himself as the Father did. That would only leave one nature, DOGB.

We've already been through this. You didn't show any evidence that god was a normative title in the NT. You just like to assert things.

Ask Jesus. He asserted it.

You claim it's "exclusive". It doesn't say that, but you like making things up.

What does the house of Israel and Judah mean to you? No one else is mentioned.

God Bless

Yep.

 

[DoctrinesofGraceBapt]

No, you quoted a verse that doesn't even come close to saying "Divinity doesn't associate with the corrupt, sin." Proverbs 28:9 says "He that turneth away his ear from hearing the law, even his prayer is an abomination." Not, he that has any corruption, or sin, his prayer is an abomination. Follow what Scripture says, not what you think it says.

Actually, you're mixing up my responses. My reply was based on listening to prayers of sinners. That's one point. The others is that sin corrupts humans, and God doesn't associate with an unrepentant.

2 Chr 15:2
And he went out to meet Asa, and said to him: “Hear me, Asa, and all Judah and Benjamin. The LORD is with you while you are with Him. If you seek Him, He will be found by you; but if you forsake Him, He will forsake you.

So, you are modifying your comment "Divinity doesn't associate with the corrupt, sin." to "God doesn't associate with an unrepentant." At least the 2nd comment is reasonable. Are you going to admit your previous misstatement?

So when the Father abandoned Jesus, did Jesus' divine nature follow as well? Doesn't he follow and do everything he sees the Father do, John 5:19?
BTW, since the Father was never seen nor became flesh, why didn't Jesus follow Him on that?

I already told you that I ignore whataboutisms.

DoctrinesofGraceBapt said:
And, that proves god used for politically powerful men was normative when that Psalm was written, but it proves nothing about how god was used in Jesus' day.

Jesus used it in his day day application. Man up.

No, Jesus referenced an old usage. Such can't be an example of normative use in his day.

DoctrinesofGraceBapt said:
So maybe, just maybe, it's kind of silly to use that story to attack my position when I don't recognize it as Scripture.

Ok. So the original Nazarenes rejected the whole gospels and Paul's epistles, except for the gospel according to the Hebrews. Maybe it's silly that you believe the NT.

I already told you that I ignore whataboutisms.

DoctrinesofGraceBapt said:
None of this is relevant to the doctrine of the duel natures of Christ.

It goes to the fact that natures are limited to where the body is. Jesus acknowledges he wasn't in heaven with the Father.

Besides, as an obedient son, he should have rejected himself as the Father did. That would only leave one nature, DOGB.

Jesus' divine nature was not limited to where the body is. That's not the doctrine of the duel nature of Christ.

DoctrinesofGraceBapt said:
We've already been through this. You didn't show any evidence that god was a normative title in the NT. You just like to assert things.

Ask Jesus. He asserted it.

No, Jesus referenced a Psalm to make a point. Such does not establish god was a normative title for a human in the NT.

DoctrinesofGraceBapt said:
You claim it's "exclusive". It doesn't say that, but you like making things up.

What does the house of Israel and Judah mean to you? No one else is mentioned.

Hello, you even reject that it's exclusive given some are graphed in.

God Bless

 

[Jewjitzu]

So, you are modifying your comment "Divinity doesn't associate with the corrupt, sin." to "God doesn't associate with an unrepentant." At least the 2nd comment is reasonable. Are you going to admit your previous misstatement?

No. It's always been obvious that a repentant sinner forgiven by God is no longer a sinner. The additional remarks were to help you out.

I already told you that I ignore whataboutisms.

Rotfl... even if they were, you've employed whataboutisms all over the forum. The questions are on point with the discussions. If they're too difficult to answer, just say that they are. Here they are again.

So when the Father abandoned Jesus, did Jesus' divine nature follow as well? Doesn't he follow and do everything he sees the Father do, John 5:19?
BTW, since the Father was never seen nor became flesh, why didn't Jesus follow Him on that?

No, Jesus referenced an old usage. Such can't be an example of normative use in his day.

Which was still used in his day.

I already told you that I ignore whataboutisms.

It's relevant to the question you asked.

Jesus' divine nature was not limited to where the body is. That's not the doctrine of the duel nature of Christ.

Well, his divine nature wasnt in heaven with the Father in John 20:17. He said so. If he acted like the Father, he would have abandoned himself at the cross.

BTW, duel means fighting, competing. I think you mean dual.

No, Jesus referenced a Psalm to make a point. Such does not establish god was a normative title for a human in the NT.

It sure does.

Hello, you even reject that it's exclusive given some are graphed in.

No, I've told you before how gentiles are grafted in, Isaiah 56:1-8. Not according to your rules. You must be part of Israel. You ain't.

God Bless

Always.

 

[DoctrinesofGraceBapt]

So, you are modifying your comment "Divinity doesn't associate with the corrupt, sin." to "God doesn't associate with an unrepentant." At least the 2nd comment is reasonable. Are you going to admit your previous misstatement?

No. It's always been obvious that a repentant sinner forgiven by God is no longer a sinner. The additional remarks were to help you out.

How can one repent when God does associate with them? You previous comment cut people off from even repentance.

DoctrinesofGraceBapt said:
I already told you that I ignore whataboutisms.

Rotfl... even if they were, you've employed whataboutisms all over the forum.

Not.

The questions are on point with the discussions.

Not.

If they're too difficult to answer, just say that they are. Here they are again.

So when the Father abandoned Jesus, did Jesus' divine nature follow as well? Doesn't he follow and do everything he sees the Father do, John 5:19?
BTW, since the Father was never seen nor became flesh, why didn't Jesus follow Him on that?

Who said "the Father abandoned Jesus"? Jesus was quoting Psalm 22.

DoctrinesofGraceBapt said:
No, Jesus referenced an old usage. Such can't be an example of normative use in his day.

Which was still used in his day.

Which was not still in normative use in his day. You literally brought up John 10:35-6 to prove it was normative. Talk about a circular reasoning.

DoctrinesofGraceBapt said:
Jesus' divine nature was not limited to where the body is. That's not the doctrine of the duel nature of Christ.

Well, his divine nature wasnt in heaven with the Father in John 20:17. He said so. If he acted like the Father, he would have abandoned himself at the cross.
BTW, duel means fighting, competing. I think you mean dual.

John 20:17 doesn't say that.

DoctrinesofGraceBapt said:
No, Jesus referenced a Psalm to make a point. Such does not establish god was a normative title for a human in the NT.

It sure does.

Absurdity. Are you really that desperate to save face?

DoctrinesofGraceBapt said:
Hello, you even reject that it's exclusive given some are graphed in.

No, I've told you before how gentiles are grafted in, Isaiah 56:1-8. Not according to your rules. You must be part of Israel. You ain't.

Yet, that gentiles can be grafted in proves it's not exclusive.

Here is a new topic: If you wan't to have a meaningful conversation, comment on Romans 3:19-31/

Now we know that whatever the law says it speaks to those who are under the law, so that every mouth may be stopped, and the whole world may be held accountable to God. For by works of the law no human being will be justified in his sight, since through the law comes knowledge of sin.​

​

But now the righteousness of God has been manifested apart from the law, although the Law and the Prophets bear witness to it—the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all who believe. For there is no distinction: for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and are justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, whom God put forward as a propitiation by his blood, to be received by faith. This was to show God’s righteousness, because in his divine forbearance he had passed over former sins. It was to show his righteousness at the present time, so that he might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus.​

​

Then what becomes of our boasting? It is excluded. By what kind of law? By a law ofworks? No, but by the law of faith. For we hold that one is justified by faith apart from works of the law. Or is God the God of Jews only? Is he not the God of Gentiles also? Yes, of Gentiles also, since God is one—who will justify the circumcised by faith and the uncircumcised through faith. Do we then overthrow the law by this faith? By no means! On the contrary, we uphold the law.​

God Bless

 

[Jewjitzu]

How can one repent when God does associate with them? You previous comment cut people off from even repentance.

God turns His back, turns away, abandons, where there is sin. Repentance brings a person back to God. It's throughout Tanakh.

Not.

It's your MO. What's the deal?

Not.

They sure are. We've been discussing the dual nature of Jesus, your idea that God is everywhere, etc.

Who said "the Father abandoned Jesus"? Jesus was quoting Psalm 22.

Jesus said himself that he was abandoned using Psalm 22. Why are you being dishonest? https://biblehub.com/hebrew/5800.htm

Which was not still in normative use in his day. You literally brought up John 10:35-6 to prove it was normative. Talk about a circular reasoning.

I also brought up the other usages with Satan and men. Those were normative too and still are.

John 20:17 doesn't say that.

It sure does. There's no reason to say return to the Father when he's there, everywhere already.

Absurdity. Are you really that desperate to save face?

I'm not the one running away from its usage by Jesus or in the rest of the NT as shown above.

Yet, that gentiles can be grafted in proves it's not exclusive.

It proves it only applies to Israel and not the Church, or non-grafted gentiles as yourself.

Here is a new topic: If you wan't to have a meaningful conversation, comment on Romans 3:19-31/

Now we know that whatever the law says it speaks to those who are under the law, so that every mouth may be stopped, and the whole world may be held accountable to God. For by works of the law no human being will be justified in his sight, since through the law comes knowledge of sin.​

​

But now the righteousness of God has been manifested apart from the law, although the Law and the Prophets bear witness to it—the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all who believe. For there is no distinction: for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and are justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, whom God put forward as a propitiation by his blood, to be received by faith. This was to show God’s righteousness, because in his divine forbearance he had passed over former sins. It was to show his righteousness at the present time, so that he might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus.​

​

Then what becomes of our boasting? It is excluded. By what kind of law? By a law ofworks? No, but by the law of faith. For we hold that one is justified by faith apart from works of the law. Or is God the God of Jews only? Is he not the God of Gentiles also? Yes, of Gentiles also, since God is one—who will justify the circumcised by faith and the uncircumcised through faith. Do we then overthrow the law by this faith? By no means! On the contrary, we uphold the law.​

I'm waiting for you to comment to the points/questions I asked earlier. I guess you were saving face not answering?

So when the Father abandoned Jesus, did Jesus' divine nature follow as well? Doesn't he follow and do everything he sees the Father do, John 5:19? Since the Father was never seen nor became flesh, why didn't Jesus follow Him on that?

God Bless

Always

 

[DoctrinesofGraceBapt]

How can one repent when God does associate with them? You previous comment cut people off from even repentance.

God turns His back, turns away, abandons, where there is sin. Repentance brings a person back to God. It's throughout Tanakh.

God turns His back, turns away, abandons, where there is sin.—Thus there is no opportunity for repentance.

DoctrinesofGraceBapt said:
Who said "the Father abandoned Jesus"? Jesus was quoting Psalm 22.

Jesus said himself that he was abandoned using Psalm 22. Why are you being dishonest? https://biblehub.com/hebrew/5800.htm

So, every time you read Psalm 22, the Father abandons you? I would never believe such, but you believe weird things.

DoctrinesofGraceBapt said:
Which was not still in normative use in his day. You literally brought up John 10:35-6 to prove it was normative. Talk about a circular reasoning.

I also brought up the other usages with Satan and men. Those were normative too and still are.

Neither of which use god as a normative title for men with political power in Jesus' day.

DoctrinesofGraceBapt said:
John 20:17 doesn't say that.

It sure does. There's no reason to say return to the Father when he's there, everywhere already.

John 20:17 still doesn't say that no matter how much you claim.

DoctrinesofGraceBapt said:

No, Jesus referenced a Psalm to make a point. Such does not establish god was a normative title for a human in the NT.

It sure does.
Absurdity. Are you really that desperate to save face?

I'm not the one running away from its usage by Jesus or in the rest of the NT as shown above.

Running away? Clarifying that the verse you cite don't justify what you claim isn't running away from anything. Jesus referenced a Psalm to make a point. Such categorically, under every possible standard, does not establish god was a normative title for a human in the NT.

DoctrinesofGraceBapt said:
Yet, that gentiles can be grafted in proves it's not exclusive.

It proves it only applies to Israel and not the Church, or non-grafted gentiles as yourself.

Do you like contradicting yourself?

DoctrinesofGraceBapt said:
Here is a new topic: If you wan't to have a meaningful conversation, comment on Romans 3:19-31:

Now we know that whatever the law says it speaks to those who are under the law, so that every mouth may be stopped, and the whole world may be held accountable to God. For by works of the law no human being will be justified in his sight, since through the law comes knowledge of sin.

But now the righteousness of God has been manifested apart from the law, although the Law and the Prophets bear witness to it—the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all who believe. For there is no distinction: for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and are justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, whom God put forward as a propitiation by his blood, to be received by faith. This was to show God’s righteousness, because in his divine forbearance he had passed over former sins. It was to show his righteousness at the present time, so that he might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus.

Then what becomes of our boasting? It is excluded. By what kind of law? By a law ofworks? No, but by the law of faith. For we hold that one is justified by faith apart from works of the law. Or is God the God of Jews only? Is he not the God of Gentiles also? Yes, of Gentiles also, since God is one—who will justify the circumcised by faith and the uncircumcised through faith. Do we then overthrow the law by this faith? By no means! On the contrary, we uphold the law.

I'm waiting for you to comment to the points/questions I asked earlier. I guess you were saving face not answering?

So when the Father abandoned Jesus, did Jesus' divine nature follow as well? Doesn't he follow and do everything he sees the Father do, John 5:19? Since the Father was never seen nor became flesh, why didn't Jesus follow Him on that?

I guess you don't want to talk about serious things. You would rather just assert things and attack what you don't understand.

God Bless

 

[Jewjitzu]

God turns His back, turns away, abandons, where there is sin.—Thus there is no opportunity for repentance.

Not while we're unrepentant. It's all throughout Tanakh.

So, every time you read Psalm 22, the Father abandons you? I would never believe such, but you believe weird things.

Rotfl... it's evident the Father abandoned Jesus at the cross. I would think you know that this Psalm is used as a prophecy concerning Jesus. Christianity teaches this at-large, so just man up.

BTW, your excuse is the most lame you've had to date. I guess all the other times Jesus, you, and the NT reference verses it's merely for the purposes of poetry reading. Rotfl...

Neither of which use god as a normative title for men with political power in Jesus' day.

Of course it is. What matters is how Jews historically used it, not gentiles.

Judges have religio-political power, DOGB.

John 20:17 still doesn't say that no matter how much you claim.

It says Jesus is returning to the Father, which shows he isn't with the Father. It's crystal.

Running away? Clarifying that the verse you cite don't justify what you claim isn't running away from anything. Jesus referenced a Psalm to make a point. Such categorically, under every possible standard, does not establish god was a normative title for a human in the NT.

Rotfl... it does for Jews and that's all that matters.

Do you like contradicting yourself?

Do you like whining? You have no share in the new covenant.

I guess you don't want to talk about serious things.

Nope. I created this OP for that purposes, and specific topic.

You would rather just assert things and attack what you don't understand.

What's serious is you know you have a problem that Jesus isn't doing what the Father does. Man up.

God Bless

Yep.

 

[DoctrinesofGraceBapt]

God turns His back, turns away, abandons, where there is sin.—Thus there is no opportunity for repentance.

Not while we're unrepentant. It's all throughout Tanakh.

God turns His back, turns away, abandons, where there is sin.—Thus there is no opportunity for repentance.

DoctrinesofGraceBapt said:
So, every time you read Psalm 22, the Father abandons you? I would never believe such, but you believe weird things.

Rotfl... it's evident the Father abandoned Jesus at the cross. I would think you know that this Psalm is used as a prophecy concerning Jesus. Christianity teaches this at-large, so just man up.

BTW, your excuse is the most lame you've had to date. I guess all the other times Jesus, you, and the NT reference verses it's merely for the purposes of poetry reading. Rotfl...

"It's evident"? What makes it evident? He quoted Psalm 22, and it includes "But you, O YHWH, do not be far off! O you my help, come quickly to my aid! Deliver my soul from the sword, my precious life from the power of the dog! Save me from the mouth of the lion! You have rescued me from the horns of the wild oxen!" Psalm 22 is a prayer for help when times are tough. It expresses confidence that God will save no matter how bad the situation is. That's the furthest thing from "it's evident the Father abandoned Jesus at the cross." In fact, the entire narrative of the entire NT is that God sent Jesus to die on the Cross. That's not abandonment, that's providence: "for truly in this city there were gathered together against your holy servant Jesus, whom you anointed, both Herod and Pontius Pilate, along with the Gentiles and the peoples of Israel, to do whatever your hand and your plan had predestined to take place." Acts 4:27-28. If Jesus thought he was abandoned, why would it say "Then Jesus, calling out with a loud voice, said, “Father, into your hands I commit my spirit!” And having said this he breathed his last." Luke 23:46.

DoctrinesofGraceBapt said:
Neither of which use god as a normative title for men with political power in Jesus' day.

Of course it is. What matters is how Jews historically used it, not gentiles.
Judges have religio-political power, DOGB.

Of course, it doesn't. You don't have a single example of any Jew in the last 3000 years with the given title god like these judges. That's the definition of not normative.

DoctrinesofGraceBapt said:
John 20:17 still doesn't say that no matter how much you claim.

It says Jesus is returning to the Father, which shows he isn't with the Father. It's crystal.

Yes, and? You too believe God is everywhere. Therefore, Jesus was with the Father always according to your understanding of omnipresence. So, what is it getting at? It's expressing that in some way Jesus isn't with the Father, but not in every way. Therefore, no issue for us.

DoctrinesofGraceBapt said:
Running away? Clarifying that the verse you cite don't justify what you claim isn't running away from anything. Jesus referenced a Psalm to make a point. Such categorically, under every possible standard, does not establish god was a normative title for a human in the NT.

Rotfl... it does for Jews and that's all that matters.

No, it does for you. Most Jews aren't that irrational.

God Bless