God wanted human sacrifices for atonement of sin?

Carnal is outside of God's will. God created sex, but with your wife.

Abraham did not sin with Hagar.

So after Abram had been living in Canaan ten years, Sarai his wife took her Egyptian slave Hagar and gave her to her husband to be his wife. (Genesis 16:3)

So Ishmael and Isaac were both sons of Abraham through different wives.

Later, we see God say this about Abraham.

I will do this because Abraham listened to me and obeyed all my requirements, commands, decrees, and instructions (Genesis 26:5)

So Abraham never acted against God's will.

 
It depends on what you mean by "seen God". I would have seen Jesus. But, I wouldn't have see God in his glory.

If Jesus of Nazareth was God, then you would have seen God.

What does "God in His glory" even mean? Can God ever be out of His glory? Or are you saying Jesus was "God" but without his glory"?

Please explain.

You should have read John's prolog first: "No one has ever seen God; the only God, who is at the Father’s side, he has made him known." John 1:18. John's point in both passages is that no one has seen the Father, who is God; they saw the Son, who is the same God.

I was talking about 1John 4:12, where after spending 3+ years with Jesus as a disciple, John writes "no one has seen God". That shows John did not think Jesus was God in the flesh.

When it says "God" in the NT it's always a clear reference to the Father.

There is a distinction between seeing the Father in all of his glory, and seeing the Son in human flesh

The "Son in human flesh" is (according to mainstream Christianity) fully God. So it follows that any man or woman who saw Jesus 2000 years ago, literally saw God.

To illustrate, if I were see Joe Biden in his pajamas and slippers, it means I have seen the American president. The fact that I didn't see him in his full presidential attire is irrelevant. I have seen the president. Period.

Similarly, if you were to see Jesus (who you say God in the flesh), you have seen God. Him being in a body of flesh is irrelevant.


And? Do you think this helps your case or hurts your case? Our position is this Messenger from YHWH could also be YHWH. Your argument is only meaningful if the angel of YHWH isn't YHWH, but you don't know that. You're just grasping at an excuse as to reject the clear meaning of the text.

You don't know that the this Messenger from YHWH could also be YHWH.

The clear meaning of the text is that Hagar and Jacob were interacting with angels but they addressed them as if they were speaking to YHWH Himself. You're assuming the angel was YHWH. But the more obvious answer is that the angels were only called YHWH because God was speaking through them.

Why would God appear on earth as an angel?
 
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.

Some theologian think, just what you were stating.

Point .... the Jew's may have engageed in human sacrifices.

And that the passage you quoteed was a cover up.

Never thought of it???

Maybe thier non Jewish ancesters did it?

Maybe they did as well.

The fact remains it was a ypical practice in their ancient theology.

Yhwh and MLK ...... were not into it?

Post Jewish?

Either they were not?
 
Last edited:
Some theologian think, just what you were stating.

Point .... the Jew's may have engageed in human sacrifices.
Of course they did. But it's called out as idolatrous and associated with foreign gods.

And that the passage you quoteed was a cover up.

Never thought of it???
How so?

Maybe thier non Jewish ancesters did it?

Maybe they did as well.
Like who?

The fact remains it was a ypical practice in their ancient theology.
Not in Judaism.

Yhwh and MLK ...... were not into it?
Moloch, yes. YHWH, no.

Post Jewish?

Either they were not?
I'd like to understand any specific points you want to make. These little snippets don't help.
 
I didn't imply you agreed with. the JW stance.
  • JWs have a right to be wrong? Okay.
  • In reality, what you call "Christian inconsistencies" are really just expressions of your ignorance as I've pointed out countless times.
Rotfl... I've pointed out all of your inconsistencies countless times. Oh well.

You've pointed at things that are only inconsistent when one twists what we are saying. That's called you being ignorant or just bearing false witness. I'm choosing to believe you're ignorant as opposed to being willfully sinful.

DoctrinesofGraceBapt said:
Jesus was a man; but the only reason why you think he is only a man is because of theological biases that cause you to ignore all evidence to the contrary.
Theological biases work both ways. You've admitted above Jesus was a man. There's not much else to say. ;)

Correct. Given your wanton refusal to even interact with my actual arguments and your refusal to even read the passages of Scripture I bring up, your theological biases are clearly to blame in this situation.

I'm talking about Moses calling a man who met with Abraham YHWH in Genesis 18-19. You are choosing to look at other passages that are not equalivant in any way given the use of the divine name in Genesis 18-19. Are you using this technique to hide your incompetence from the reader? Why don't you stick with the actual passage. Why don't you quote it? Answer: it is plain, and it condemns you. Good luck rejecting Scripture in light of the opinions of the men.
I'm talking about Moses and the other prophets calling themselves God, or others.

Yes, to dodge the clear teaching of Genesis 18-19 on YHWH appearing as a man to Abraham. It uses the divine name. Discussions of other uses of Elohim are simply irrelevant to the discussion at hand. Your simply trying to change the topic because you know how devastating Genesis 18-19 is for your perspective. It's better for you to simply ignore Genesis 18-19 and simply change the topic, like your doing above.

Can you tell me the difference?

Yes, I can tell the difference. That's why I didn't reference those verses. I recognize other uses of the term Elohim in the OT. How that's relevant to Moses calling a man YHWH is my question.

Show me where you think Moses called a man YHWH? Be very specific.

How many times must I quote Genesis 18-19 for you? Here you go again—Genesis 18:1-2, 10, 13, 17, 20, 22, 26, 33; 19:24. Moses said YHWH appeared to Abraham, and then said Abraham saw three men. As the three men talked with Abraham and Sarah, Moses kept on calling the one speaking YHWH. Seven times through the conversation, he called the man talking with Abraham YHWH. It says the men left, and Moses still talked longer with YHWH. But when we get back to the men, there are only two of them, called angels, who always referred to YHWH as another person as opposed to the discussion with Abraham where Moses says the one speaking was YHWH. And to end it off, "Then YHWH rained on Sodom and Gomorrah sulfur and fire from YHWH out of heaven." Everything about this narrative screams at the reader that YHWH appeared to Abraham as a man, and Abraham recognized him as such. This is clear and obvious to anyone reading the text. You just don't believe it for theological reasons. I suggest your theology is wrong; repent and let Scripture teach you what is true as opposed to Rabbis who only desire is not admit any validity to Christian claims.

God Bless
 
It depends on what you mean by "seen God". I would have seen Jesus. But, I wouldn't have see God in his glory.
If Jesus of Nazareth was God, then you would have seen God.
What does "God in His glory" even mean? Can God ever be out of His glory? Or are you saying Jesus was "God" but without his glory"?
Please explain.

God in his Glory: Transfiguration/Matthew 17:1-8 and Isaiah 6:1-5. vs Jesus as he normally looked as a man. In a way, one has seen God in either situation, but there is a difference.

Realize, God said to Moses
"But,” he said, “you cannot see my face, for man shall not see me and live.” Exodus 33:20. But, Jacob said "For I have seen God face to face, and yet my life has been delivered.” Genesis 32:30, and Isaiah said "In the year that King Uzziah died I saw the Lord sitting upon a throne, high and lifted up; and the train of his robe filled the temple." and "Woe is me! For I am lost; for I am a man of unclean lips, and I dwell in the midst of a people of unclean lips; for my eyes have seen the King, YHWH of hosts!” Isaiah 6:1, 5. Obviously, there is a sense in which one cannot see God; but there are also other recognizable ways in which one can see God, unless you want to call Jacob and Isaiah liars. That's all I'm getting at here.

You should have read John's prolog first: "No one has ever seen God; the only God, who is at the Father’s side, he has made him known." John 1:18. John's point in both passages is that no one has seen the Father, who is God; they saw the Son, who is the same God.
I was talking about 1John 4:12, where after spending 3+ years with Jesus as a disciple, John writes "no one has seen God". That shows John did not think Jesus was God in the flesh.
When it says "God" in the NT it's always a clear reference to the Father.

No, that simply ignores the clear distinction between the two who are both recognized as the same God set up in the preface to the Gospel of John—John 1:1-18. If you don't bother to read things in mass, then you are going to misunderstand what it's saying from time to time. John writes "no one has seen God", and no one has ever seen the Father. So, there is no issue with this passage. However looking at the situation deeper, John points out another who is God, who is seen and makes the Father known. In John 12:37-41, John even says Jesus is the one seen by Isaiah in Isaiah 6. In other words, Isaiah saw YHWH, but he didn't see the Father, he saw the Son, Jesus. That's the theological understanding of John; so when we read 1 John 4:12, the honest reader must see it in reference to the Father and not to the Son.

There is a distinction between seeing the Father in all of his glory, and seeing the Son in human flesh
The "Son in human flesh" is (according to mainstream Christianity) fully God. So it follows that any man or woman who saw Jesus 2000 years ago, literally saw God.
To illustrate, if I were see Joe Biden in his pajamas and slippers, it means I have seen the American president. The fact that I didn't see him in his full presidential attire is irrelevant. I have seen the president. Period.
Similarly, if you were to see Jesus (who you say God in the flesh), you have seen God. Him being in a body of flesh is irrelevant.

You're not wrong, but you ignoring the context of those statements as misunderstand what is being said. No Christian has ever used the phrase "fully God" to deny that Jesus was also fully man. Seeing Jesus is seeing God in that the person walking as a man is also God. Seeing Jesus is not seeing God in that by nature God is invisible and no man can see God and live. Both are true, and there is no contradiction given what is being said in both situations are different.

And? Do you think this helps your case or hurts your case? Our position is this Messenger from YHWH could also be YHWH. Your argument is only meaningful if the angel of YHWH isn't YHWH, but you don't know that. You're just grasping at an excuse as to reject the clear meaning of the text.
You don't know that the this Messenger from YHWH could also be YHWH.

Given the revelation of the NT, we do know this messenger from YHWH could also be YHWH. Without said revelation, one must assume something to come to a conclusion on this. But given that the one who wrestled with Jacob was recognized as the true God by Jacob and was regnoized as a angel by the prophet Hosea, the idea of an angel of YHWH also being YHWH is not out of the question; save theological bias.

The clear meaning of the text is that Hagar and Jacob were interacting with angels but they addressed them as if they were speaking to YHWH Himself. You're assuming the angel was YHWH. But the more obvious answer is that the angels were only called YHWH because God was speaking through them.
Why would God appear on earth as an angel?

Or, these angels of YHWH were also YHWH. Logically, both are possible. Angels are just being called YHWH, or these Angels are YHWH. I believe the later in light of NT revelation. You believe the former because that's your theological tradition. But, there is no logical reason to favor your position over mine. Both are faithful to the text as written with respect to Hagar and Jacob, but this excuse simply doesn't work with respect to Genesis 18-19. One has to be quoting Psalms on their head while juggling knives to deal with the narrative in that passage. Either YHWH appeared as a man to Abraham in Genesis 18, or Moses was a false prophet for saying YHWH appeared to Abraham in 18:1.

God Bless
 
If Jesus of Nazareth was God, then you would have seen God.

What does "God in His glory" even mean? Can God ever be out of His glory? Or are you saying Jesus was "God" but without his glory"?



John 14:9​

9 Jesus said to him, “Have I been with you so long, and yet you have not known Me, Philip? He who has seen Me has seen the Father; so how can you say, ‘Show us the Father’? 10 Do you not believe that I am in the Father, and the Father in Me? The words that I speak to you I do not speak on My own authority; but the Father who dwells in Me does the works. 11 Believe Me that I am in the Father and the Father in Me, or else believe Me for the sake of the works themselves.
Read full chapter
 
Well, your god bled and died. That isn't much of a god to brag about. ;)


Start with God said He isn't a man. That's pretty simple.
If Jeshua would not been that perfect sacrifice we would not have eternal life. His life for mine. How about you? The gift of salvation is offered to you. Repent!!! Become Born Again. Its the only way you will ever see Heaven. There is no other way.
 
If Jeshua would not been that perfect sacrifice we would not have eternal life.
Who said you have eternal life? If you want life, keep the commandments.

His life for mine. How about you?
Sorry, it doesn't work that way. Ezekiel 18.

The gift of salvation is offered to you.
Yes, and God has already provided that to Israel via the commandments. Choose life!

Repent!!! Become Born Again. Its the only way you will ever see Heaven.
Been there, done that.

There is no other way.
You're right, Torah is the way.
 
Back
Top