God wanted human sacrifices for atonement of sin?

Jewjitzu

Well-known member
You will only understand it when you repent and become Born Again. Its that simple.
The idea of born again has been explained to you. You aren't in any sense.

There is a vail over your eyes that prevents you from seeing the Truth.
Torah is truth. BTW, if you read Exodus 34:17, you'll see that a god with a vail of flesh, masecah, a fusion of natures, is idolatrous.

Who was it that became flesh to dwell among us, the only begotten of the Father (John 3:16)?
Rotfl... begotten isn't eternal nor the God.

Who was it that John bore witness to? It was Jesus. Jesus existed in the beginning with God, and not just existing with God, but Jesus was God in the beginning! (He is still God today of course.
See above. God doesn't bleed nor die, nor worships another.

Do you have anything new?
 

DoctrinesofGraceBapt

Well-known member
Nothing but you asserting your uneducated opinion. Moving on.
Fact. The man died, decomposed and had an ossuary and family tomb.

Hello? Jesus' family tomb wouldn't have been in Jerusalem. Talk about being ignorant.

DoctrinesofGraceBapt said:
It was a 1000 years later and norms of how people talk change over a 1000 years.
The norms were in scripture. You can't change that. You're initial argument was that it didn't exist in the Greek 20CE, and it did. You lost that argument. Man up.
And BTW, the usage of kyrious for humans in the NT also solidifies my point. ;)

You can't change Scripture, but how people speak to each other changes all the time. Why can't you keep your categories straight?

DoctrinesofGraceBapt said:
I'm not talking about Jews changing their thinking. I'm talking about people changing the way words are used, which happens constantly all the time.
Words align with thinking, vice versa. Our tradition, culture, history, is all that matters when understanding scripture.

Again, word usage changes all the time. This is simply a fact of human language. It's amazing that you are arguing against such? I'm not talking about your tradition, culture, history; I'm talking about what words you use to convey tradition, culture, history, and those words change.

DoctrinesofGraceBapt said:
BTW, the Jews in David's day had no problem verbalizing YHWH as seen throughout the OT, but you don't dare speak the divine name, even while reading the Hebrew Scriptures in Synagogue.
Really? You heard David speak God's name? God has several names in Tanakh which we do pronounce.

I guess you never read a Psalm of David. Hello, they were to be sung in public, and they use YHWH. In Isaiah 6:5, Isaiah said "I am ruined! For I am a man of unclean lips, and I live among a people of unclean lips, and my eyes have seen the King, YHWH Almighty.” Did Isaiah say this or did Isaiah lie in Scripture while following your superstition of not speaking the name?

DoctrinesofGraceBapt said:
This is a change in how Jews use language over the same 1000 years.
No, we know the name, but accord sanctity to it. The meanings associated with it hasn't changed.
Desperate move on your part.

That according didn't exist in David's time. Therefore, this is a change in how Jews use language over the same 1000 years.

Again,
I'M NOT TALKING ABOUT A CHANGE IN MEANING. PAY ATTENTION FOR ONCE IN YOUR LIFE!!! I've said this like 5 times now. Learn how to listen.

DoctrinesofGraceBapt said:
The way people speak change over time. Personally, I think it was the reading of books like Isaiah in synagogue that might have changed usage so as to reserve God as a title for YHWH, so called false gods, or the like as opposed to a title for a normal human.
The term elohim isn't just used as a title, so nothing has changed.

Non-Sequitur. There is nothing in this response that interacts in any way with my comment. If elohim was regularly used as a title for a normal man, and then it stopped being regularly used as a title, then that's a change if nothing else whatsoever changes.

DoctrinesofGraceBapt said:
So again, Why do you think θεὸς is a title for a human with political or spiritual power in 20CE.?
Because that's how it was used in the past. You can't show our thinking has changed, and that's all that matters.

That is not a logical reason to think θεὸς is a title for a human with political or spiritual power in 20CE. Because, people at different times talk in different ways. Again, I'M NOT TALING ABOUT A CHANGE IN THINKING!!!

God Bless
 

Jewjitzu

Well-known member
Hello? Jesus' family tomb wouldn't have been in Jerusalem. Talk about being ignorant.
Rotfl... why not? He was reburied in the tomb purchased by a rich man. Talk about being ignorant of your own NT.

You can't change Scripture, but how people speak to each other changes all the time. Why can't you keep your categories straight?
Why can't you keep to your original argument that there was no support in the Greek 20CE for theos used for man?

Again, word usage changes all the time. This is simply a fact of human language. It's amazing that you are arguing against such? I'm not talking about your tradition, culture, history; I'm talking about what words you use to convey tradition, culture, history, and those words change.
You need to prove the Jewish stance changed. You can't.

I guess you never read a Psalm of David. Hello, they were to be sung in public, and they use YHWH. In Isaiah 6:5, Isaiah said "I am ruined! For I am a man of unclean lips, and I live among a people of unclean lips, and my eyes have seen the King, YHWH Almighty.”
Did Isaiah say this or did Isaiah lie in Scripture while following your
Yes he did.

superstition of not speaking the name?
Superstition has nothing to do with it. We still can say it in greetings to each other.

That according didn't exist in David's time. Therefore, this is a change in how Jews use language over the same 1000 years.
No. The name hasn't changed nor the meanings.

Again, I'M NOT TALKING ABOUT A CHANGE IN MEANING. PAY ATTENTION FOR ONCE IN YOUR LIFE!!! I've said this like 5 times now. Learn how to listen.
Meaning is all that matters. That's been your whole point on theos.

Non-Sequitur. There is nothing in this response that interacts in any way with my comment. If elohim was regularly used as a title for a normal man, and then it stopped being regularly used as a title, then that's a change if nothing else whatsoever changes.
No. Kyrious is a name and title and was still in use in the Greek 20CE.

That is not a logical reason to think θεὸς is a title for a human with political or spiritual power in 20CE.
It sure is. See above. Don't you think the translation of YHWH would carry more weight and it is used for humans too?

Because, people at different times talk in different ways. Again, I'M NOT TALING ABOUT A CHANGE IN THINKING!!!
Then your argument falls flat.

God Bless
Of course.
 

DoctrinesofGraceBapt

Well-known member
Hello? Jesus' family tomb wouldn't have been in Jerusalem. Talk about being ignorant.
Rotfl... why not? He was reburied in the tomb purchased by a rich man. Talk about being ignorant of your own NT.

Because, he was only in Jerusalem for Passover. His family home is in Nazareth. If "He was reburied in the tomb purchased by a rich man.", then it wouldn't have been his family's tomb. Besides, none of the Jews in Jesus' day claimed he was still buried in the tomb of a rich man. The Jewish sources at the time said his body was stolen and buried in secret. You don't bury someone in secrete in your own family tomb.

DoctrinesofGraceBapt said:
You can't change Scripture, but how people speak to each other changes all the time. Why can't you keep your categories straight?
Why can't you keep to your original argument that there was no support in the Greek 20CE for theos used for man?

I didn't change my argument at all. I said there was no support, and your only response was nonsense accusing me of claiming that the Jews changed their theology. Your responses are inconsistent because you don't bother to think through what I'm saying.

DoctrinesofGraceBapt said:
Again, word usage changes all the time. This is simply a fact of human language. It's amazing that you are arguing against such? I'm not talking about your tradition, culture, history; I'm talking about what words you use to convey tradition, culture, history, and those words change.
You need to prove the Jewish stance changed. You can't.

Why? That's not my position? I'm not talking about a change in position, I'm talking about a change in word choice.

DoctrinesofGraceBapt said:
I guess you never read a Psalm of David. Hello, they were to be sung in public, and they use YHWH. In Isaiah 6:5, Isaiah said "I am ruined! For I am a man of unclean lips, and I live among a people of unclean lips, and my eyes have seen the King, YHWH Almighty.”
Did Isaiah say this or did Isaiah lie in Scripture while following your
Yes he did.
DoctrinesofGraceBapt said:
superstition of not speaking the name?
Superstition has nothing to do with it. We still can say it in greetings to each other.

A rule a community follows out of nothing but tradition when there is clear evidence that that tradition doesn't go back to the origins of that religion is definitionally a superstition. David and Isaiah sung and spoke the name YHWH, but you won't. Why? How can you pretend this isn't a change in word usage?

DoctrinesofGraceBapt said:
That according didn't exist in David's time. Therefore, this is a change in how Jews use language over the same 1000 years.
No. The name hasn't changed nor the meanings.

I didn't say that. Interact with my actual comment.

DoctrinesofGraceBapt said:
Again, I'M NOT TALKING ABOUT A CHANGE IN MEANING. PAY ATTENTION FOR ONCE IN YOUR LIFE!!! I've said this like 5 times now. Learn how to listen.
Meaning is all that matters. That's been your whole point on theos.

If that's what you think this discussion is about, you are either categorically irrational or haven't been listening because I've only been talking about word usage this whole time.

DoctrinesofGraceBapt said:
Non-Sequitur. There is nothing in this response that interacts in any way with my comment. If elohim was regularly used as a title for a normal man, and then it stopped being regularly used as a title, then that's a change if nothing else whatsoever changes.
No. Kyrious is a name and title and was still in use in the Greek 20CE.

What does this have to do with the use of θεὸς as a title for a man with political/theological power in 20CE? FYI, the question is rhetorical. It has nothing to do with the topic at hand.

DoctrinesofGraceBapt said:
That is not a logical reason to think θεὸς is a title for a human with political or spiritual power in 20CE.
It sure is.

Not.

See above.

See what? You change the topic as to ignore everything I say?

Don't you think the translation of YHWH would carry more weight and it is used for humans too?

Yes, how is this relevant to θεὸς being used as a title for a human with political or spiritual power in 20CE? That's another rhetorical question. It has nothing to do with the topic at hand.

DoctrinesofGraceBapt said:
Because, people at different times talk in different ways. Again, I'M NOT TALING ABOUT A CHANGE IN THINKING!!!
Then your argument falls flat.

How? If you think my argument ever related to a change in thinking, then you haven't been reading my comments.

God Bless
 
I think it's obvious that Tanakh supports what I'm saying. You already knew the answer but were being stubborn about it.

I think you what the intent was. Stop whining.

Great. So Jesus was foresaken, abandoned.

You do realize being beaten, bleeding, dying, and going to the grave shows otherwise? Also the gospel accounts regarding the resurrection contradict each other, besides the evidence of the Talpiot tomb.

How long after death does the body start breaking down?

The evidence says otherwise.

Jeremiah never claimed to be God nor sinless.

In this grouping, not many have been found.

Yep. You need to prove that wasn't the case. Just like kyrious was used for Lord for either men or divinity. ;)

No, you need to prove Jews no longer think this way. BTW, see kyrious above. ;)

Yep, God's will, desire, before the creative acts to come.

Yep, the spirit of prophecy, which also denotes God's will. Just man up instead of trying to save face. You have no idea what I believe.

You still have a problem on your hands. Jesus admits he isn't God, and that he isn't everywhere, John 20:17. He also says he does all that the Father does, so he's forced to abandon himself and not take flesh 😏, John 5:19.

You've already admitted, and I quote you, "It's expressing that in some way Jesus isn't with the Father, but not in every way. Therefore, no issue for us."

In some way means not all the way. ;) He's less than God, and not with God.

Yep.

... Also the gospel accounts regarding the resurrection contradict each other, ....

No, they don't. The Key of David illustrates the 100% Holy Spirit "inspired" chronology of the passion, death, burial, and glorious Resurrection of our Lord and Saviour, Jesus Christ, "on earth", "according to the Scriptures". (i.e. no contradiction)


In Messiah’s (Christ’s) service,
David Behrens
Soli Deo Gloria!
Bringing Christian harmony to all the world
 
Then you haven't read Tanakh. The big problem for you is that God turned his back, abandoned Jesus. ;)

It's evident he was abandoned. He wouldn't have cried out in desperation otherwise. ;)

He wasn't saved from the crucifixion, right? ;) So much for salvation.

BTW, you're saying this Psalm 22 isn't a prophecy regarding Jesus?

Jesus says he was abandoned, foresaken.

So he was predestined to be abandoned. Love your whataboutisms above. Rotfl...

According to you, he's just quoting a verse from the Bible somewhere like poetry. ;)

It was normative and used even after 3000 years. Rotfl...

I love how you change the argument. You crack me. ;)

No, I believe God isn't physical and I don't speak of Him in those terms. Rather I say He is Omniscient and doesn't need to be anywhere when He knows it all.

So, don't speak about what I believe when you don't know.

No he wasn't. He said so himself. Again, don't speak about my position when you don't know.

So you're admitting that Jesus isn't with the Father. Thus Jesus is limited and lacks a dual nature. ;)

Rotfl... you're such a whiner. You don't even know most Jews. ;)

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?

Why don't you answer these questions, DOGB?

Yep.

...
It's evident he was abandoned. He wouldn't have cried out in desperation otherwise. ;)
...
No, I believe God isn't physical and I don't speak of Him in those terms. Rather I say He is Omniscient and doesn't need to be anywhere when He knows it all.
...

It is evident to me that Jesus cried out (i.e. Psalm 22 - O My God, I cry in the daytime, but You do not hear;
And in the night season, and am not silent) to guide me in the understanding of the Key of David. Jesus' cries were demarcation points that fulfilled Messianic prophesy. (i.e. Psalm 22; Amos 8:7-10; Job 9:7)

The prophet Zechariah spoke of God in those terms.
(i.e. https://biblehub.com/text/zechariah/9-9.htm)
(i.e https://biblehub.com/text/zechariah/14-9.htm)

In Messiah’s (Christ’s) service,
David Behrens
Soli Deo Gloria!
Bringing Christian harmony to all the world
 

Jewjitzu

Well-known member
No, they don't. The Key of David illustrates the 100% Holy Spirit "inspired" chronology of the passion, death, burial, and glorious Resurrection of our Lord and Saviour, Jesus Christ, "on earth", "according to the Scriptures". (i.e. no contradiction)
The genealogies in Mat and Luke contradict each others for starters. It's downhill from there.

In Messiah’s (Christ’s) service,
David Behrens
Soli Deo Gloria!
Bringing Christian harmony to all the world
Serve God, not man
 

Jewjitzu

Well-known member
It is evident to me that Jesus cried out (i.e. Psalm 22 - O My God, I cry in the daytime, but You do not hear;
And in the night season, and am not silent) to guide me in the understanding of the Key of David. Jesus' cries were demarcation points that fulfilled Messianic prophesy. (i.e. Psalm 22; Amos 8:7-10; Job 9:7)
Did you have a point here? Messiah is nowhere said to be the God.

Is there a point above? You do understand Jesus has knees and tongue that has and will bow and confess the true God, and it ain't Jesus.

In Messiah’s (Christ’s) service,
David Behrens
Soli Deo Gloria!
Bringing Christian harmony to all the world
Serve God.
 

Shilohsfoal

Active member
Someone has argued with me that God's intent, desire, was for humans to offer human sacrifices as atonement for sins.

Animal sacrifices were only a substitute for what God really desired, according to the poster.

As evidence for this, they point to Abraham and the ram substitute for Isaac. But is this really true?

We find throughout Tanakh that human sacrifices were deemed idolatrous and associated with false gods, ie Molech, Leviticus 18:21, 2 Chronicles 28:3, etc.

But ironically, we find the following fascinating verses in Micah 6:6-8 regarding offering our own children, human sacrifices for atonement:

6With what shall I come before the LORD when I bow before the God on high? Should I come to Him with burnt offerings, with year-old calves?

7Would the LORD be pleased with thousands of rams, with ten thousand rivers of oil? Shall I present my firstborn for my transgression, the fruit of my body for the sin of my soul?

8He has shown you, O man, what is good. And what does the LORD require of you but to act justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God.

Any thoughts of human a sacrifices is repudiated with these verses. It's just plain silly.



If I'm not mistaken ,God asked Abraham to sacrifice is son as a test.
Then God provided his own son born of a virgin whom God had formed in the womb himself to fulfill that which God did not require of Abraham.
 

Shilohsfoal

Active member
Someone has argued with me that God's intent, desire, was for humans to offer human sacrifices as atonement for sins.

Animal sacrifices were only a substitute for what God really desired, according to the poster.

As evidence for this, they point to Abraham and the ram substitute for Isaac. But is this really true?

We find throughout Tanakh that human sacrifices were deemed idolatrous and associated with false gods, ie Molech, Leviticus 18:21, 2 Chronicles 28:3, etc.

But ironically, we find the following fascinating verses in Micah 6:6-8 regarding offering our own children, human sacrifices for atonement:

6With what shall I come before the LORD when I bow before the God on high? Should I come to Him with burnt offerings, with year-old calves?

7Would the LORD be pleased with thousands of rams, with ten thousand rivers of oil? Shall I present my firstborn for my transgression, the fruit of my body for the sin of my soul?

8He has shown you, O man, what is good. And what does the LORD require of you but to act justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God.

Any thoughts of human a sacrifices is repudiated with these verses. It's just plain silly.



I believe Isaiah is qualified to answer your question.But the real question is ,who believes his report?

Isaiah 53​

King James Version​

53 Who hath believed our report? and to whom is the arm of the Lord revealed?
2 For he shall grow up before him as a tender plant, and as a root out of a dry ground: he hath no form nor comeliness; and when we shall see him, there is no beauty that we should desire him.
3 He is despised and rejected of men; a man of sorrows, and acquainted with grief: and we hid as it were our faces from him; he was despised, and we esteemed him not.
4 Surely he hath borne our griefs, and carried our sorrows: yet we did esteem him stricken, smitten of God, and afflicted.
5 But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed.
6 All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way; and the Lord hath laid on him the iniquity of us all.
7 He was oppressed, and he was afflicted, yet he opened not his mouth: he is brought as a lamb to the slaughter, and as a sheep before her shearers is dumb, so he openeth not his mouth.
8 He was taken from prison and from judgment: and who shall declare his generation? for he was cut off out of the land of the living: for the transgression of my people was he stricken.
9 And he made his grave with the wicked, and with the rich in his death; because he had done no violence, neither was any deceit in his mouth.
10 Yet it pleased the Lord to bruise him; he hath put him to grief: when thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin, he shall see his seed, he shall prolong his days, and the pleasure of the Lord shall prosper in his hand.
11 He shall see of the travail of his soul, and shall be satisfied: by his knowledge shall my righteous servant justify many; for he shall bear their iniquities.
12 Therefore will I divide him a portion with the great, and he shall divide the spoil with the strong; because he hath poured out his soul unto death: and he was numbered with the transgressors; and he bare the sin of many, and made intercession for the transgressors.
 

Jewjitzu

Well-known member
If I'm not mistaken ,God asked Abraham to sacrifice is son as a test.
A sacrifice isn't mentioned. An offering is, just to bring up Isaac. The proof is in the fact that God stopped Abraham from what he mistakenly understood.

Then God provided his own son born of a virgin whom God had formed in the womb himself to fulfill that which God did not require of Abraham.
God isn't physical, so He can't sacrifice Himself. But besides that, human sacrifices just aren't accepted. It's all been discussed in the OP already.
 

Shilohsfoal

Active member
A sacrifice isn't mentioned. An offering is, just to bring up Isaac. The proof is in the fact that God stopped Abraham from what he mistakenly understood.


God isn't physical, so He can't sacrifice Himself. But besides that, human sacrifices just aren't accepted. It's all been discussed in the OP already.
So you believe Abraham was willing to offer what?

Who said anything about God sacrificing himself?
 

Jewjitzu

Well-known member
I believe Isaiah is qualified to answer your question.But the real question is ,who believes his report?
Ok. Let's see if you understand some important issues below.

BTW, Israel is the servant.

5 But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed.
So, punishment can pay for our sins.

10 Yet it pleased the Lord to bruise him; he hath put him to grief: when thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin, he shall see his seed, he shall prolong his days, and the pleasure of the Lord shall prosper in his hand.
See above. An asham, offering above, is specific to sins of omission or misuse of holy things. A monetary payment is associated with them.

So, all sins aren't covered here, and the ones that are require monetary compensation.
 

Shilohsfoal

Active member
Ok. Let's see if you understand some important issues below.

BTW, Israel is the servant.


So, punishment can pay for our sins.


See above. An asham, offering above, is specific to sins of omission or misuse of holy things. A monetary payment is associated with them.

So, all sins aren't covered here, and the ones that are require monetary compensation.
So you believe God needs money?
What sort of money do you believe God requires?The American dollar or the Russian ruble?
 

Shilohsfoal

Active member
What ever God provided. Abraham mentioned that as he was walking with Isaac... the Lord will provide. ;)


Isn't that what you believe?
Yes the Lord did provide.Thats what I had said before.My words were

Then God provided his own son born of a virgin whom God had formed in the womb himself to fulfill that which God did not require of Abraham.
 

Open Heart

Well-known member
If I'm not mistaken ,God asked Abraham to sacrifice is son as a test.
Then God provided his own son born of a virgin whom God had formed in the womb himself to fulfill that which God did not require of Abraham.
Yes, but God did step in and stop it before Isaac was killed. Why? Because God does NOT want human sacrifices. There are sooooo many scriptures about how evil it is to offer your child to Molech. I mean, this is not even debatable.
 

Jewjitzu

Well-known member
Yes the Lord did provide.Thats what I had said before.My words were
The Ram was provided there. It wasn't a man.

Then God provided his own son born
God isn't physical so you're DOA.

of a virgin whom
Not according to Luke 2:24-26, Lev 12:1-8, and the fact that Mary conceived via seed/sperm, tazria in Lev 12:2. Virgins don't give birth, nor are they a sign different from a pregnant non-virgin, nor is almah in Isa 7:14 clearly a virgin.

God had formed in the womb himself to fulfill that which God did not require of Abraham.
Not according to the info above. Besides the requirements to descend from Abraham and David, preclude a virgin since the Messiah descends from their physical loins, and seed, Gen 15:4-5, Psalm 132:11, Isaiah 11:1.

Ironically, if God wanted another human sacrifice on Abraham's altar instead of Isaac, why is it that Jesus was not sacrificed on the altar in Jerusalem and his blood put on the altar as commanded in Lev 17:11?
 

Shilohsfoal

Active member
Did I say that? Regardless, some sins require monetary payments and Jesus didn't pay those debts. ;)


See above. Stick to the issue, and get some tissue 🤧.
I'm not sure God requires money.
I'm not sure how your going to get it to him if he does and what currency he uses.
 
Top