God wanted human sacrifices for atonement of sin?

SPOKENWORD said:
But I thought the NT has no value to it. I see you use it when it benefits your theology. I love you enough to tell you the Truth. I would want someone to tell me if I was on the way to hell and didn,t even know it.
Click to expand...
What OpenHeart quoted is found in Tanakh, so there's nothing "new" that the NT presents.

You've been told before your involved in idolatry, so you can still change course.
 
SPOKENWORD said:
But I thought the NT has no value to it. I see you use it when it benefits your theology. I love you enough to tell you the Truth. I would want someone to tell me if I was on the way to hell and didn,t even know it.
Click to expand...
There is no such thing as a religion that has no truth in it whatsoever. The question is, which religion holds the most truth. For example, Islam teaches people to live good moral lives. That's great! But Muhammad is still not a prophet, and he is mistaken about a good many things. The NT is, for me, like the Quran. While it has some elements of truth in it, it's basic message of salvation via belief is simply wrong headed, and its notion that Jesus is the messiah is flat out incorrect.
 
Open Heart said:
No, it simply means that the Jews have the religion that holds the truth, that we better understand that nature of God and what he wants from us.
Click to expand...
You don't understand anything.
You follow umpteen different systems and have absolutely no clue what to expect after you die.
 
SPOKENWORD said:
Salvation can only come from the Savior not the Jewish people.
Click to expand...
God is my savior, not the messiah, and Jesus isn't the messiah to begin with.

When Jesus says salvation is from the Jews, he means that the Jewish people hold the answers to how to be saved. Christians today do not believe this.
 
Open Heart said:
God is my savior, not the messiah, and Jesus isn't the messiah to begin with.

When Jesus says salvation is from the Jews, he means that the Jewish people hold the answers to how to be saved. Christians today do not believe this.
Click to expand...
Jesus is the Jewish answer. Without Jesus as your Savior you will not enter Heaven. Doesn,t that concern you?
 
Jewjitzu said:
Response: It's utter nonsense to correlate God's power as God to the physical strength of his temporary human body. And, if you thought for two seconds about what I was actually saying, you would know that as opposed to claiming I hold to some Greek concept of a physical god.
Click to expand...
So, you have a weakling for a god. Got it. Let's see what else you got...
Click to expand...

Doubling down on your straw man? Sad, sad, sad.

Jewjitzu said:
DoctrinesofGraceBapt said:
The mocking of the ignorant, or willfully ignorant, doesn't phase me.
Click to expand...
So, your idea of God and that of Phil 2 isn't really the God. I get it. Moving on...
Click to expand...

Another nosequitr that ignores my actual position.

Jewjitzu said:
DoctrinesofGraceBapt said:
In reality, we read everything literally, according to the genre/literary stile. What literary justification do you have for change 13 uses of the divine name for an emissary of YHWH? It seems to me that desperate Jews in 1st-5th century created this absurd excuse as to deny Christianity, and you're just parroting it to me.
Click to expand...
No, it's apparent that at the revelation at Sinai, God said Himself He isn't physical in any form, Deut 4:9,12,15,35, and to teach that to our future generations of children. Moses wrote those verses too. So, when we balance scripture it's with this backdrop and understanding that emissaries act for God and are God before others. Otherwise, you run into your ridiculous bind above having a weakling for a god.

Why don't you think literally in John 20:17 or Mat 16:17?
Click to expand...

And, there is absolutely nothing I said that would deny that God, as God, doesn't have a physical form. You just refuse to think through my comments as to realize something this obvious.

Denying the declarations of Genesis 18-19 isn't balancing Scripture; it's a denial of Scripture. FYI, angels don't have physical forms either; yet, they walked the earth as men too in Genesis 18-19. You don't have a problem with that, so why are you having a problem with YHWH doing the same, especially when that is what the text says "And YHWH appeared to him by the oaks of Mamre".

Jewjitzu said:
DoctrinesofGraceBapt said:
Correct, God as God has no physical form. None of that is relevant at all to how he chooses to appear to men in time. As long as you refuse to think through what I'm saying, you're going to make silly arguments like the above that have no application to refute our position.
Click to expand...
Don't you see your dilemma? God as God has no physical form. So God is not man. That's why He uses emissaries in His place.
Click to expand...

Ie. you believe Moses was lying in Genesis 18:1.

Jewjitzu said:
DoctrinesofGraceBapt said:
You can lie to yourself all you want. It's not convincing anyone. Moses did not say "he is God'. He wrote "Then YHWH said to Moses, “See, I have made you like God to Pharaoh, and your brother Aaron will be your prophet." The difference is obvious. You just looking for an excuse to reject what Moses wrote in Genesis 18:1— "And YHWH appeared to him by the oaks of Mamre".
Click to expand...
Exodus 7:1 says Moses was God before Pharaoh. You acknowledge Moses wrote this. There is no "like" in the Hebrew, DOGB. Have you looked at the other occurrences where it says God appeared???
Click to expand...

I quoted it to you. Why paraphrase when I just quoted the text? That you would translate it as a metaphor as opposed to a simile doesn't change much.

Jewjitzu said:
DoctrinesofGraceBapt said:
As if there is any logical connection whatsoever between recognizing that God can appear as a man and recognizing others who were figuratively called god as divinities. If you're going to make an argument, try using logic.
Click to expand...
There's no logic involved. Tanakh says other humans were God. Why don't you take this literally?
Click to expand...

Yes, and what does that have to do with YHWH appearing as a man? Absolutely nothing.

Jewjitzu said:
DoctrinesofGraceBapt said:
FYI, recognizing figurative language as figurative is reading the text literally...
Click to expand...
No, so why don't you take Gen 18 as figurative, DOGB?
Click to expand...

I would if there was anything in the text that would lead me to that conclusion. There isn't.

Jewjitzu said:
DoctrinesofGraceBapt said:
No, because unlike you, I can read things in context...
Click to expand...
Yes, context. But you don't take the other mention of humans as God as literal and in that context, right? You're very inconsistent.
Click to expand...

It isn't inconsistent if there is obvious clues in the immediate contexts of those verses that would lead one to take some passages figuratively and others more literally. You refuse to actually look at the texts of the particular passages to make any argument as to why it would be consistent for me to read Genesis 18 differently. You make the accusation without any argument.

Again, the fact that Genesis 18 uses the divine name and all these other passages use Elohim is enough to disregard your statements as irrelevant.

Jewjitzu said:
DoctrinesofGraceBapt said:
One must actually do more than claim an inconsistency....
Click to expand...
Let's review something here. You said you read all dictionaries and didn't find any reference to an emissary acting as the person sending them.
Click to expand...

I never said anything about dictionaries. I never said it's impossible to read a passage as an emissary acting as the person sending them. You're are clearly not reading what I'm saying.

I gave you just that proof in Jewish literature. You don't understand Jewish thinking, nor the cultural ideas of the time.
Click to expand...

What you claim as Jewish thinking is really just your theological persecutive. You need to have a reason besides your theology for thinking Genesis 18:1 is talking about an emissary. YOU DON'T HAVE ONE. Your entire argument boils down to an assertion that it's an emissary of YHWH as opposed to YHWH because that's what you believe. Dictionaries, literature, and culture only open up the possibility. None of them are an argument in favor of an emissary from the text. On the other hand, Genesis 18 doesn't say this once. It's repeated over and over and over agiain. Assuming a 50/50 chance from the before possibility, you are now at 1/256 that it's talking about an emissary. But, language doesn't work according to strict statistical models; that makes it worse. If one just works with the text, we are left with YHWH appeared. Anything else is an attempt to reject what was said.

On a side note, all of this Jewish thinking, Jewish literature, etc., what time period? Moses is 400 years before Solomon. Cultural arguments over such time periods are exorbitantly weak, and that's the entire basis for rejecting the straightforward reading of Genesis 18:1.

I've answered Gen 18, while you shy away from admitting that your idea of the God of the Universe wrestling and losing against a man is a pathetic mythology carried on from Greek and Roman times.
Click to expand...

No, you threw out an excuse, an extremely weak excuse, as to ignore what Genesis 18 says, and then threw out a straw man that only exists to mock the other side. Such acts only condemn you as desperate and immoral. How can you look at yourself in the mirror in light of this?

God Bless
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top