God wanted human sacrifices for atonement of sin?

[DoctrinesofGraceBapt]

Congratulations on breaking up my response effectively as to not understand anything I said. But, that's what you do.

Ah poor, DOGB. Get some more tissue ?.

How does your obstinance in reading what others are saying effect me? You are the one missing out and acting the fool.

DoctrinesofGraceBapt said:
What analysis of Hebrew terms? If you think what you presented was "thorough" analysis, you don't have a clue what your talking about. Read a word study for goodness sake. This is just more silly talk. I think you know that, hense your refusal to think through my statements as to make meaningful comments.

Rotfl... just because evidence was presented that you didn't search or study thoroughly, is no reason for you to pout.

No, I'm pointing out your abysmal approach to word studies. It's like you don't care to be right. You only care about winning the argument.

DoctrinesofGraceBapt said:
Do you deny that is the common Jewish response? If you do, you could justify such. Correct me with information as opposed to mocking my purposeful hyperbole.

Rotfl... your pompous claim that every Jew on the planet acknowledges a spiritual being with Jacob was laughable. That's your problem. Own up to it and grow up.

No as I said, it was hyperbole. Have you never interacted with this kind of speech? It's commonly used to encourage others to seriously consider what they were saying. Like how you just throw things out there while justifying nothing. Why are you arguing that it's impossible for this to be spiritual being in the form of a man? This is when Jacob is named Israel. This is when the area was name Peniel, when Jacob said "For I have seen God face to face, and yet my life has been delivered.” But to you, Jacob just wrestled some guy. There seems to be a massive disconnect between the Scriptural narrative, it's relevant importance in the rest of the Tanahk, and your interpretation. To you, this is a meaningless factoid found in Genesis, but to the writers of Scripture, it seems far, far more important. Hosea interpreted this passage likewise: "He strove with the angel and prevailed; he wept and sought his favor. He met God at Bethel, and there God spoke with us—YHWH, the God of hosts, YHWH is his memorial name:" Hosea 12:4-5. But it doesn't matter what a Prophet said, it was just a man.

DoctrinesofGraceBapt said:
Hello, I'm asking why you favor struck over touch. Personally, I was just going with the ESV because it is a decent translation that is somewhat popular. If someone wished to disagree with that translation, okay. When you presented another translation, I asked if you had a reason for favoring struck over touch. That's all that going on here. So, why are you attacking me for asking a question? Sensitive much?

Because they were wresting. It's reasonable.

You do realize one doesn't dislocate a hip by striking it.

DoctrinesofGraceBapt said:
Is my point DOA because this listener has a heart of stone?

Well, you have been pretty stoney.

Hello, in this situation, I'm not the listener. You are. Again, is my point DOA because this listener has a heart of stone?

DoctrinesofGraceBapt said:
Because in my mind, they are the same. On the other hand, I didn't think you would ever maturely deal with that reality.

The ideas and terms are different. And that's why your switching because you're still coming up empty on support.

And? Both relate to not using all the power one has in a situation for some reason. Which was my whole point in referencing meekness.

FYI, you do realize that my motives for "switching", as you put it, have no relevance to the validity of my argument.

DoctrinesofGraceBapt said:
In reality, I didn't even try because it was a silly rabbit hole.

And what's hilarious, the rabbit hole was on your own doing. An unsupported claim.

The irrationality of this response deserves no response.

God Bless

 

[Jewjitzu]

How does your obstinance in reading what others are saying effect me? You are the one missing out and acting the fool.

I've read what you've said and it's ridiculous given the facts.

No, I'm pointing out your abysmal approach to word studies. It's like you don't care to be right. You only care about winning the argument.

Actually I've done both - I'm right and won the argument.

Your thorough search of terms was lame. Sorry.

No as I said, it was hyperbole. Have you never interacted with this kind of speech? It's commonly used to encourage others to seriously consider what they were saying. Like how you just throw things out there while justifying nothing. Why are you arguing that it's impossible for this to be spiritual being in the form of a man?

Because nothing says this man is a spiritual being. It's hilarious that you're arguing for what isn't specifically in the context. That shows how weak your argument is to rely on make-believe.

This is when Jacob is named Israel. This is when the area was name Peniel, when Jacob said "For I have seen God face to face, and yet my life has been delivered.” But to you, Jacob just wrestled some guy.

Yep, the man was just a man. That he's referred to as an angel as well, and angels and human beings are called God as well, should be clear to you by now, as well as Jacob saying seeing Esau is like seeing the face of God, Gen 33:10. You've been given the tools to understand.

There seems to be a massive disconnect between the Scriptural narrative, it's relevant importance in the rest of the Tanahk, and your interpretation. To you, this is a meaningless factoid found in Genesis, but to the writers of Scripture, it seems far, far more important. Hosea interpreted this passage likewise: "He strove with the angel and prevailed; he wept and sought his favor. He met God at Bethel, and there God spoke with us—YHWH, the God of hosts, YHWH is his memorial name:" Hosea 12:4-5. But it doesn't matter what a Prophet said, it was just a man.

Yep, just a man, a messenger, a malach, angel. Moses wrote that he was God before Pharaoh, as well as Abraham, judges, the house of David, etc., but you avoid that.

You do realize one doesn't dislocate a hip by striking it.

Rotfl... you do realize you don't dislocate a hip by touching it?

Hello, in this situation, I'm not the listener. You are. Again, is my point DOA because this listener has a heart of stone?

The problem is with your heart.

And? Both relate to not using all the power one has in a situation for some reason. Which was my whole point in referencing meekness.

Rotfl... two different terms, ideas, attributes, which are not the same. Just admit you're wrong because you still come up empty.

FYI, you do realize that my motives for "switching", as you put it, have no relevance to the validity of my argument.

Rotfl... you don't have a valid argument either.

The irrationality of this response deserves no response.

That's because your "meekness" argument is nowhere to be found in the context of this story. That's your problem.

God Bless

Always

 

[DoctrinesofGraceBapt]

How does your obstinance in reading what others are saying effect me? You are the one missing out and acting the fool.

I've read what you've said and it's ridiculous given the facts.

Given how you responded, you clearly didn't actually understand what you supposedly read.

DoctrinesofGraceBapt said:
No, I'm pointing out your abysmal approach to word studies. It's like you don't care to be right. You only care about winning the argument.

Actually I've done both - I'm right and won the argument.

An expression of hubris, and nothing more.

Your thorough search of terms was lame. Sorry.

I never claimed to do any word search in this discussion. I never even challenged your word search. So, what are you talking about?

DoctrinesofGraceBapt said:
No as I said, it was hyperbole. Have you never interacted with this kind of speech? It's commonly used to encourage others to seriously consider what they were saying. Like how you just throw things out there while justifying nothing. Why are you arguing that it's impossible for this to be spiritual being in the form of a man?

Because nothing says this man is a spiritual being. It's hilarious that you're arguing for what isn't specifically in the context. That shows how weak your argument is to rely on make-believe.

Except for Jacob saying he saw God face to face afterward. Except for the fact that he called the place Peniel. Except for what Hosea said about this meeting. Maybe, you should consider what these prophets said.

DoctrinesofGraceBapt said:
This is when Jacob is named Israel. This is when the area was name Peniel, when Jacob said "For I have seen God face to face, and yet my life has been delivered.” But to you, Jacob just wrestled some guy.

Yep, the man was just a man. That he's referred to as an angel as well, and angels and human beings are called God as well, should be clear to you by now, as well as Jacob saying seeing Esau is like seeing the face of God, Gen 33:10. You've been given the tools to understand

And, that's why I think you are being fundamentally irrational. Given your standards, what could have been said in Scripture to justify my understanding? Mind you, my concept is God appearing in a human body; it has nothing to do with seeing what Moses asked to see in Exodus.

What does Genesis 33:10 have to do with anything? That's an expression designed to tell the listener how much fear Jacob had in meeting Esau.

FYI, I understand what you're saying. I'm just rejecting it because it simply doesn't take seriously Genesis 32:30 nor Hosea 12:3-4.

DoctrinesofGraceBapt said:
There seems to be a massive disconnect between the Scriptural narrative, it's relevant importance in the rest of the Tanahk, and your interpretation. To you, this is a meaningless factoid found in Genesis, but to the writers of Scripture, it seems far, far more important. Hosea interpreted this passage likewise: "He strove with the angel and prevailed; he wept and sought his favor. He met God at Bethel, and there God spoke with us—YHWH, the God of hosts, YHWH is his memorial name:" Hosea 12:4-5. But it doesn't matter what a Prophet said, it was just a man.

Yep, just a man, a messenger, a malach, angel. Moses wrote that he was God before Pharaoh, as well as Abraham, judges, the house of David, etc., but you avoid that.

Your rejection of Hosea is quite telling: "He met God at Bethel, and there God spoke with us—YHWH, the God of hosts, YHWH is his memorial name".

DoctrinesofGraceBapt said:
You do realize one doesn't dislocate a hip by striking it.

Rotfl... you do realize you don't dislocate a hip by touching it?

Incorrect. I'm working with a supernatural assumption. Therefore, if an angel can strike men with blindness, then an angel can dislocate a hip with a touch. But, lets not assume the supernatural. One can dislocate a hip in a wrestling match by grasping onto a leg, aka touching it, and applying leverage. The only thing one would do with a strike is bruise muscles or break bones. So again, why do you think it should be translated strike?

DoctrinesofGraceBapt said:
Hello, in this situation, I'm not the listener. You are. Again, is my point DOA because this listener has a heart of stone?

The problem is with your heart.

I'm still wondering why you keep on confusing who is the questioner and who is the listener? I asked is my point DOA because this listener has a heart of stone? Are you going to answer my question, or are you just going to play this word game?

DoctrinesofGraceBapt said:
And? Both relate to not using all the power one has in a situation for some reason. Which was my whole point in referencing meekness.

Rotfl... two different terms, ideas, attributes, which are not the same. Just admit you're wrong because you still come up empty.

Either way, it is within God's nature to not always use all the power he has in a given situation. So, why do you think this man must be fighting in earnest? Could he just not want to seriously hurt Jacob? Wouldn't this change then dynamics of this battle?

DoctrinesofGraceBapt said:
FYI, you do realize that my motives for "switching", as you put it, have no relevance to the validity of my argument.

Rotfl... you don't have a valid argument either.

Given your reading skills, I don't give your assessment any weight.

God Bless

 

[Open Heart]

Given how you responded, you clearly didn't actually understand what you supposedly read.

See that is where you are mistaken. The truth is, a person can read what you write, and understand what you are saying, and still disagree with you. You should think about asking him WHY he disagrees with you, and then listen when he answers. It would help you prepare better quality answers. Right now, the discussion is basically one of "you're an idiot," "No, YOU are an idiot.' and so on. It accomplishes nothing.

 

[DoctrinesofGraceBapt]

Given how you responded, you clearly didn't actually understand what you supposedly read.

See that is where you are mistaken. The truth is, a person can read what you write, and understand what you are saying, and still disagree with you. You should think about asking him WHY he disagrees with you, and then listen when he answers. It would help you prepare better quality answers. Right now, the discussion is basically one of "you're an idiot," "No, YOU are an idiot.' and so on. It accomplishes nothing.

What in the following expresses that Jewjitzu understood what I was talking about? Here is then context:

Logic man; logic. You need to present logical arguments.

I've just used what's there. You on the other hand just pulled meekness out of nowhere, and then said that's fact and logic. That isn't logic.

DoctrinesofGraceBapt said:
You rejected my straightforward reading of Genesis 32:30 because you claimed God would never be so weak.

Straightforward would say meekness. The verses don't say that.

DoctrinesofGraceBapt said:
I presented a reason why God might not use all his power in that wrestling match to win.

The verses say nothing of meekness. You've utterly failed.

DoctrinesofGraceBapt said:
No matter what reason I gave, I answered your reason to reject my biblical argument. You may not believe said reason, but that doesn't change the fact that your response was answered in full. The only logical response would be 1) to argue against my reason via Scripture or 2) come up with another reason why my straightforward reading of Genesis 32:30 shouldn't be read in that way. Adding demands on me is neither rational nor reasonable. And, everything you presented above makes this abundantly clear. Stooping to mockery simply expresses that you are not reasonable and that you know my argument is sound.

Rotfl... you're still failing utterly. There isn't any mention of meekness in the context. Try a flying pink pig.

This was one paragraph cut into four pieces and not one word from Jewjitzu expressing that he understood what I was saying. Need I say more?

Nothing I said implies I expect people to agree with me if they only understand or listen. My point was that Jewjitzu won't ever try to understand what I'm saying as to allow for a meaningful conversation. I've asked him countless times why he disagrees with me. He responds with word games and hubris. The only thing anyone can't charge me with is not listening to his answers. I understand his responses. I think they are absurd given Scripture. He refuses to understand what I'm saying only to double down all the more with mockery. Hence, it devolves.

God Bless

 

[Jewjitzu]

FYI, I understand what you're saying. I'm just rejecting it because it simply doesn't take seriously Genesis 32:30 nor Hosea 12:3-4.

Two different accounts. Genesis 28 discusses when Jacob encountered God in a dream at Bethel, Genesis 32:30 when he wrestled with a man.

Your rejection of Hosea is quite telling: "He met God at Bethel, and there God spoke with us—YHWH, the God of hosts, YHWH is his memorial name".

See above.

Given your reading skills, I don't give your assessment any weight.

I'm doing fine. Maybe check the beam in your eye.

God Bless

He always does.

 

[Jewjitzu]

What in the following expresses that Jewjitzu understood what I was talking about? Here is then context:



This was one paragraph cut into four pieces and not one word from Jewjitzu expressing that he understood what I was saying. Need I say more?

Nothing I said implies I expect people to agree with me if they only understand or listen. My point was that Jewjitzu won't ever try to understand what I'm saying as to allow for a meaningful conversation. I've asked him countless times why he disagrees with me. He responds with word games and hubris. The only thing anyone can't charge me with is not listening to his answers. I understand his responses. I think they are absurd given Scripture. He refuses to understand what I'm saying only to double down all the more with mockery. Hence, it devolves.

God Bless

What's wrong? Each aspect of your point had problems.

 

[DoctrinesofGraceBapt]

FYI, I understand what you're saying. I'm just rejecting it because it simply doesn't take seriously Genesis 32:30 nor Hosea 12:3-4.

Two different accounts. Genesis 28 discusses when Jacob encountered God in a dream at Bethel, Genesis 32:30 when he wrestled with a man.

Interesting take on Hosea 12:3-4. Now you can't even call the man an angel. Just some random dude that Jacob called God, face to face with God, renaming the area because he wrestled some dude. You're still not taking Genesis 32:30 seriously.

DoctrinesofGraceBapt said:
Your rejection of Hosea is quite telling: "He met God at Bethel, and there God spoke with us—YHWH, the God of hosts, YHWH is his memorial name".

See above.

It's still interesting that Hosea said Jacob met YHWH, when you deny anything supernatural took place.

What in the following expresses that Jewjitzu understood what I was talking about? Here is then context:

Logic man; logic. You need to present logical arguments.

I've just used what's there. You on the other hand just pulled meekness out of nowhere, and then said that's fact and logic. That isn't logic.

DoctrinesofGraceBapt said:
You rejected my straightforward reading of Genesis 32:30 because you claimed God would never be so weak.

Straightforward would say meekness. The verses don't say that.

DoctrinesofGraceBapt said:
I presented a reason why God might not use all his power in that wrestling match to win.

The verses say nothing of meekness. You've utterly failed.

DoctrinesofGraceBapt said:
No matter what reason I gave, I answered your reason to reject my biblical argument. You may not believe said reason, but that doesn't change the fact that your response was answered in full. The only logical response would be 1) to argue against my reason via Scripture or 2) come up with another reason why my straightforward reading of Genesis 32:30 shouldn't be read in that way. Adding demands on me is neither rational nor reasonable. And, everything you presented above makes this abundantly clear. Stooping to mockery simply expresses that you are not reasonable and that you know my argument is sound.

Rotfl... you're still failing utterly. There isn't any mention of meekness in the context. Try a flying pink pig.

This was one paragraph cut into four pieces and not one word from Jewjitzu expressing that he understood what I was saying. Need I say more?


Nothing I said implies I expect people to agree with me if they only understand or listen. My point was that Jewjitzu won't ever try to understand what I'm saying as to allow for a meaningful conversation. I've asked him countless times why he disagrees with me. He responds with word games and hubris. The only thing anyone can't charge me with is not listening to his answers. I understand his responses. I think they are absurd given Scripture. He refuses to understand what I'm saying only to double down all the more with mockery. Hence, it devolves.

What's wrong? Each aspect of your point had problems.

You weren't talking about aspects of my comment. You just keep talking about meekness when I didn't even bring it up. Did you even realize I was summarizing the logic of our conversation? Did you even care? If you haven't realized it, I moved on the meekness argument because I don't think you are not mature enough to interact with said conversation. And this response, proves my case.

God Bless

 

[Open Heart]

Interesting take on Hosea 12:3-4. Now you can't even call the man an angel. Just some random dude that Jacob called God, face to face with God, renaming the area because he wrestled some dude.

the word in question is malakh, which translates literally as messenger. Such a messenger can be human or angelic.

 

[DoctrinesofGraceBapt]

Interesting take on Hosea 12:3-4. Now you can't even call the man an angel. Just some random dude that Jacob called God, face to face with God, renaming the area because he wrestled some dude.

the word in question is malakh, which translates literally as messenger. Such a messenger can be human or angelic.

I agree. But without Hosea, Jewjitzu doesn't even have the word malakh applied to the guy Jacob wrestled. Are you disagreeing that how one interprets a passage has ramifications? Jewjitzu said Hosea 12:3-4 doesn't apply to Genesis 32 at all. Therefore, you can't call the man Jacob wrestled a malakh.

God Bless

 

[Jewjitzu]

Interesting take on Hosea 12:3-4. Now you can't even call the man an angel.

But the man was an angel. Men are messengers too. Why can't you grasp that the Hebrew associates malach with men, besides supernatural forces of nature, ie, Psalm 104:3-4?

Just some random dude that Jacob called God, face to face with God, renaming the area because he wrestled some dude. You're still not taking Genesis 32:30 seriously.

Of course I am. I also take seriously that Moses wrote he is God before Pharaoh, as well as Abraham, judges, kings, altars, angels, etc. But, you don't..

I also take serious that Jacob seeing Esau's face was like seeing God in Genesis 33:10 -

But Jacob insisted, “No, please! If I have found favor in your sight, then receive this gift from my hand. For indeed, I have seen your face, and it is like seeing the face of God, since you have received me favorably.

You can see that receiving approval, blessings, is seeing God's face. That's all that happened in Gen 32:30. Jacob received God's approval blessing that he had been struggling with all along as I told you before.

We also see this idea in the Priestly Blessing in Numbers 6:24-26:

May the LORD bless you and keep you; may the LORD cause His face to shine upon you and be gracious to you; may the LORD lift up His countenance toward you and give you peace.

When God's turns His face away, His providence, then we are cursed, punished, etc.

It's still interesting that Hosea said Jacob met YHWH, when you deny anything supernatural took place.

He met Him in a dream in Genesis 28, not at Gen 32:30. Look at the passages again. I think you still forget that angels, men, represent those that sent them.

You weren't talking about aspects of my comment. You just keep talking about meekness when I didn't even bring it up.

Meekness was the basis of your argument, and it is unfounded and unsupported. You still have failed to find any support.

Did you even realize I was summarizing the logic of our conversation? Did you even care? If you haven't realized it, I moved on the meekness argument because I don't think you are not mature enough to interact with said conversation. And this response, proves my case.

You moved on because you lost your case. Now, you want to bring in another argument which isn't do well either.

God Bless

As He always does.

 

[Jewjitzu]

I agree. But without Hosea, Jewjitzu doesn't even have the word malakh applied to the guy Jacob wrestled. Are you disagreeing that how one interprets a passage has ramifications? Jewjitzu said Hosea 12:3-4 doesn't apply to Genesis 32 at all. Therefore, you can't call the man Jacob wrestled a malakh.

God Bless

Your assessment is false. As I tried to say before, Hosea 12:3-4 discusses Jacob's journey regarding his encounter with YHWH in a dream in Genesis 28 wanting to receive reassurance of His blessings, and the struggle with the angel man in Genesis 32:30.

I never said that Hosea 12:3-4 wasn't my basis for declaring the man in Genesis 32:30 as an angel. But, as I've said, a malach is just a messenger representing God or a person, and in this case, the malach lost. Not like God at all.

 

[Open Heart]

I agree. But without Hosea, Jewjitzu doesn't even have the word malakh applied to the guy Jacob wrestled. Are you disagreeing that how one interprets a passage has ramifications? Jewjitzu said Hosea 12:3-4 doesn't apply to Genesis 32 at all. Therefore, you can't call the man Jacob wrestled a malakh.

God Bless

I would lay you odds that you are misunderstanding him. Hosea is clearly referring to the man that Jacob wrestled with. But it simply says he was a malakh, a messenger. It does not call him one of the heavenly hosts.

 

[Jewjitzu]

I agree. But without Hosea, Jewjitzu doesn't even have the word malakh applied to the guy Jacob wrestled. Are you disagreeing that how one interprets a passage has ramifications? Jewjitzu said Hosea 12:3-4 doesn't apply to Genesis 32 at all. Therefore, you can't call the man Jacob wrestled a malakh.

God Bless

BTW, if you look at the opening verses of Gen 32:1-3, you'll see that Jacob had encountered malachim, and sent them as well.

He associated the angels with God, ie, the camp (machanaim, plural camps) of God. The servants he sent ahead to Esau are called malachim, angels.

 

[Jewjitzu]

I would lay you odds that you are misunderstanding him. Hosea is clearly referring to the man that Jacob wrestled with. But it simply says he was a malakh, a messenger. It does not call him one of the heavenly hosts.

Yeah, he doesn't understand.

 

[DoctrinesofGraceBapt]

Interesting take on Hosea 12:3-4. Now you can't even call the man an angel.

But the man was an angel. Men are messengers too. Why can't you grasp that the Hebrew associates malach with men, besides supernatural forces of nature, ie, Psalm 104:3-4?

Hello? That men can be angels doesn't imply any particular person should be recognized as an angel. Why are you arguing that can imples does above?

DoctrinesofGraceBapt said:
Just some random dude that Jacob called God, face to face with God, renaming the area because he wrestled some dude. You're still not taking Genesis 32:30 seriously.

Of course I am. I also take seriously that Moses wrote he is God before Pharaoh, as well as Abraham, judges, kings, altars, angels, etc. But, you don't..
I also take serious that Jacob seeing Esau's face was like seeing God in Genesis 33:10 -
But Jacob insisted, “No, please! If I have found favor in your sight, then receive this gift from my hand. For indeed, I have seen your face, and it is like seeing the face of God, since you have received me favorably.
You can see that receiving approval, blessings, is seeing God's face. That's all that happened in Gen 32:30. Jacob received God's approval blessing that he had been struggling with all along as I told you before.
We also see this idea in the Priestly Blessing in Numbers 6:24-26:
May the LORD bless you and keep you; may the LORD cause His face to shine upon you and be gracious to you; may the LORD lift up His countenance toward you and give you peace.
When God's turns His face away, His providence, then we are cursed, punished, etc.

This is you claiming to take Genesis 32:30 seriously while doing all you can not to interact with what Genesis 32:30 actually says, aka you are not taking seriously what Genesis 32:30 says. Every time you reference a verse like you did above is nothing but miss placed whataboutism. Try answering the challenge directly.

DoctrinesofGraceBapt said:
It's still interesting that Hosea said Jacob met YHWH, when you deny anything supernatural took place.

He met Him in a dream in Genesis 28, not at Gen 32:30. Look at the passages again.

You literally have nothing in Scripture that would tell you Jacob didn't meet YHWH in Genesis 32:30. That's just your dogma. Try arguing for your dogma as opposed to arguing it's possible and just asserting it.

I think you still forget that angels, men, represent those that sent them.

Given that I've never denied that normal humans can be angels, this excuse seems vacuous.

DoctrinesofGraceBapt said:
You weren't talking about aspects of my comment. You just keep talking about meekness when I didn't even bring it up.

Meekness was the basis of your argument, and it is unfounded and unsupported. You still have failed to find any support.

Not in the least. And if you read the paragraph I just reposted, you would know that. That's the point of that paragraph.

DoctrinesofGraceBapt said:
Did you even realize I was summarizing the logic of our conversation? Did you even care? If you haven't realized it, I moved on from the meekness argument because I don't think you are mature enough to interact with said conversation. And this response, proves my case.

You moved on because you lost your case. Now, you want to bring in another argument which isn't do well either.

You're still not listening. Did you realize I was summarizing the logic of our conversation? Did you even care?

I agree. But without Hosea, Jewjitzu doesn't even have the word malakh applied to the guy Jacob wrestled. Are you disagreeing that how one interprets a passage has ramifications? Jewjitzu said Hosea 12:3-4 doesn't apply to Genesis 32 at all. Therefore, you can't call the man Jacob wrestled a malakh.

Your assessment is false. As I tried to say before, Hosea 12:3-4 discusses Jacob's journey regarding his encounter with YHWH in a dream in Genesis 28 wanting to receive reassurance of His blessings, and the struggle with the angel man in Genesis 32:30.
I never said that Hosea 12:3-4 wasn't my basis for declaring the man in Genesis 32:30 as an angel. But, as I've said, a malach is just a messenger representing God or a person, and in this case, the malach lost. Not like God at all.

I agree. But without Hosea, Jewjitzu doesn't even have the word malakh applied to the guy Jacob wrestled. Are you disagreeing that how one interprets a passage has ramifications? Jewjitzu said Hosea 12:3-4 doesn't apply to Genesis 32 at all. Therefore, you can't call the man Jacob wrestled a malakh.

BTW, if you look at the opening verses of Gen 32:1-3, you'll see that Jacob had encountered malachim, and sent them as well.
He associated the angels with God, ie, the camp (machanaim, plural camps) of God. The servants he sent ahead to Esau are called malachim, angels.

Intersting. Noted. So, Hosea commented on Genesis 32, then comments on Genesis 28. Got it. Hosea isn't following chronological order.

God Bless

 

[DoctrinesofGraceBapt]

I agree. But without Hosea, Jewjitzu doesn't even have the word malakh applied to the guy Jacob wrestled. Are you disagreeing that how one interprets a passage has ramifications? Jewjitzu said Hosea 12:3-4 doesn't apply to Genesis 32 at all. Therefore, you can't call the man Jacob wrestled a malakh.

I would lay you odds that you are misunderstanding him. Hosea is clearly referring to the man that Jacob wrestled with. But it simply says he was a malakh, a messenger. It does not call him one of the heavenly hosts.

It seems I did misunderstand him. Although from what he said, my misunderstanding was understandable. And, if this man was one of the heavenly hosts, would have Hosea said anything different? Nope. If this man was the second person of the Trinity delivering a message from the first person of the Trinity to Jacob in the form of a man, would have Hosea said anything differently? Nope. I don't see this as helping the Rabbinical case.

God Bless

 

[Open Heart]

It seems I did misunderstand him. Although from what he said, my misunderstanding was understandable. And, if this man was one of the heavenly hosts, would have Hosea said anything different? Nope. If this man was the second person of the Trinity delivering a message from the first person of the Trinity to Jacob in the form of a man, would have Hosea said anything differently? Nope. I don't see this as helping the Rabbinical case.

God Bless

Again, the word Malakh simply means messenger. It can refer to a heavenly host, or it can refer to a man. In the case of who wrestled with Jacob, it was a man.

 

[DoctrinesofGraceBapt]

It seems I did misunderstand him. Although from what he said, my misunderstanding was understandable. And, if this man was one of the heavenly hosts, would have Hosea said anything different? Nope. If this man was the second person of the Trinity delivering a message from the first person of the Trinity to Jacob in the form of a man, would have Hosea said anything differently? Nope. I don't see this as helping the Rabbinical case.

Again, the word Malakh simply means messenger. It can refer to a heavenly host, or it can refer to a man.

Exactly, so there is nothing in the use of the word Malakh that would deny this man as being the second person of the Trinity delivering a message from the first person of the Trinity to Jacob in the form of a man.

In the case of who wrestled with Jacob, it was a man.

Why? Do you think the heavenly host can never take up a body and walk on earth as man?

God Bless

 

[Open Heart]

Exactly, so there is nothing in the use of the word Malakh that would deny this man as being the second person of the Trinity delivering a message from the first person of the Trinity to Jacob in the form of a man.



Why? Do you think the heavenly host can never take up a body and walk on earth as man?

God Bless

Huh? How did we go from discussing malakhim to the Trinity? I didn't follow your leap. Under no circumstances is a malakh the same thing as God. They are God's MESSENGERS, not God himself.

Angels by definition are spiritual beings. However, they are able to manifest physically, such as the angel that was in the burning bush. However, if the text says that the malakh is a man, that is not a heavenly host.