Thief on the cross - forgiven how?

Open Heart said:
Exactly what part of the Torah do you think he rejects? He's an orthodox Jew -- he accepts the entire Torah, and oral Torah.
Click to expand...
Have you been following the strand? He's bent on accusing Christians of absurdity, and rejects the notion that God has an image and a likeness...as you do. Your god has no form and is void, and is incapable of creating anything in his image and likeness because he has none. He has shown that in his religion that you have claimed to have adopted, "Incomparable" means "bereft of."

When his god said, ""I speak with him face to face,
clearly and not in riddles;
he sees the form of the LORD. " he did not mean what he said, because he has no face and no form. If you agree, then you, too, have rejected Torah.
 
tbeachhead said:
Have you been following the strand? He's bent on accusing Christians of absurdity, and rejects the notion that God has an image and a likeness...as you do. Your god has no form and is void, and is incapable of creating anything in his image and likeness because he has none. He has shown that in his religion that you have claimed to have adopted, "Incomparable" means "bereft of."

When his god said, ""I speak with him face to face,
clearly and not in riddles;
he sees the form of the LORD. " he did not mean what he said, because he has no face and no form. If you agree, then you, too, have rejected Torah.
Click to expand...
NOTHING that he has ever said indicates he rejects any portion of the Torah.

God does not have a body/form. When we say "the image of God," we are talking about characteristics of God, such as agency and knowing right from wrong. References to "the face of God," or "the hand of God" are all anthropomorphisms. So you see, when we look at a verse that says God delivered Israel from slavery with a mighty arm, and say that his arm is a figurative arm which refers to his might, we are NOT "rejecting" any part of the Torah.
 
Open Heart said:
I understand what formless means, and it does NOT imply emptiness, or an inability to create.
Click to expand...
You do not understand what I'm saying. "Void" means emptiness...the god your Orthodox friend has created has no form and no space...He's not incapable of creating...but he is definitely unable to create anything in his non-existent image.

You jump to unwarranted conclusions -- very very poor logic.
Click to expand...
Really?

*chuckle*

How does the Formless one create in His image and according to His likeness...He has neither. Hence your understanding of Torah fails in Truth in the very first chapter.
 
Open Heart said:
NOTHING that he has ever said indicates he rejects any portion of the Torah.

God does not have a body/form. When we say "the image of God," we are talking about characteristics of God, such as agency and knowing right from wrong.
Click to expand...
None of which is an image. God says Adam BECAME like God AFTER eating the fruit, knowing good and evil.

That was not at the creation, but after. The man God created in His image and according to His likeness took the step and disobeyed. Any child who came after Adam was in in Adam's image and likeness...Adam was no longer in God's.

References to "the face of God," or "the hand of God" are all anthropomorphisms. So you see, when we look at a verse that says God delivered Israel from slavery with a mighty arm, and say that his arm is a figurative arm which refers to his might, we are NOT "rejecting" any part of the Torah.
Click to expand...
You realize that this is a mere claim...that you're forced to make because your stories do not allow you to believe what Torah actually says? Right? God said of Moses, "He looked on my form...We spoke face to face as man does to man."
 
tbeachhead said:
You do not understand what I'm saying. "Void" means emptiness...the god your Orthodox friend has created has no form and no space...He's not incapable of creating...but he is definitely unable to create anything in his non-existent image.


Really?

*chuckle*

How does the Formless one create in His image and according to His likeness...He has neither. Hence your understanding of Torah fails in Truth in the very first chapter.
Click to expand...
Great point, and correct. God is not formless, because, it's in our time, (THE NEW TESTAMENT), that he was to come, which is the mistake of the Jews, supportive scripture, Isaiah 46:10 "Declaring the end from the beginning, and from ancient times the things that are not yet done, saying, My counsel shall stand, and I will do all my pleasure:"

and his IMAGE which was to come, Romans 5:14 "Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come."

and that word "Figure", is synonyms with IMAGE.

God bless you.

PICJAG, 101G.
 
tbeachhead said:
You do not understand what I'm saying. "Void" means emptiness...the god your Orthodox friend has created has no form and no space...He's not incapable of creating...but he is definitely unable to create anything in his non-existent image.
Click to expand...
Where are you getting the word void from?

God does not exist in space time. He doesn't take up space therefore. He exists in eternity. He doesn't wear a size 10 shoe or and XL shirt.

And I believe that "image" has been explained over and over as being his characteristics, such as agency and knowledge of good and evil, rather than something physical.
 
tbeachhead said:
None of which is an image. God says Adam BECAME like God AFTER eating the fruit, knowing good and evil.

That was not at the creation, but after. The man God created in His image and according to His likeness took the step and disobeyed. Any child who came after Adam was in in Adam's image and likeness...Adam was no longer in God's.
Click to expand...
Genesis 2-3 is an entirely different creation story than Genesis 1. It's not something that happens after Genesis 1. It is a mistake to try to establish a common timeline for both stories. IOW the story of Adam and Eve has no relationship to the six day creation story.
tbeachhead said:
You realize that this is a mere claim...that you're forced to make because your stories do not allow you to believe what Torah actually says? Right? God said of Moses, "He looked on my form...We spoke face to face as man does to man."
Click to expand...
Nah, its a simple matter of understanding figurative speech. When Chronicles 16:33 says that trees will sing to God, it is not literal. Trees do not literally sing. It's anthropomorphism. The Bible uses anthropomorphism a lot, and it often uses antrhopomorphisms int relationship to describing God. It is a big, BIG mistake on your part to take such poetic language literally.
 
Open Heart said:
Where are you getting the word void from?
Click to expand...
From this thread...I believe I inserted it when trying to get JJ to admit that he is advocating for a god who, having neither image nor likeness, is incapable of creating man in both image and likeness...You have rejected what Torah teaches.

God does not exist in space time. He doesn't take up space therefore. He exists in eternity. He doesn't wear a size 10 shoe or and XL shirt.
Click to expand...
This is all well reasoned...I'm assuming it's from the made up inventions you call "Oral Torah." A God Who speaks in the day of Abraham certainly exists in time...Your Oral Torah is inadequate. Your shoe size quip is immaterial. If I want to find what God resembles, I'm going to look for anything in His image and according to His likeness. I believe I will find just that.

Let me add, a transcendent God can do as He wills. He proved that when the Word became flesh and dwelt as Adam's son and heir among us for thirty-three years. A Transcendent God is not bound by your inventions.

And I believe that "image" has been explained over and over as being his characteristics, such as agency and knowledge of good and evil, rather than something physical.
Click to expand...
Your "explanation," though you have found satisfaction in it, is inadequate and esoteric, especially when examining the actual Hebrew used in the 1at chapter of Genesis, which does not seek esoteric interpretation, and is indeed quite literal. I'm pleased that you found satisfaction in it, for your sake. The inadequacies are glaring.
 
Open Heart said:
Genesis 2-3 is an entirely different creation story than Genesis 1. It's not something that happens after Genesis 1. It is a mistake to try to establish a common timeline for both stories. IOW the story of Adam and Eve has no relationship to the six day creation story.
Click to expand...
So...you do not believe Torah. They are not "entirely different"? This is more of your oral invention...It's the same Adam. Same lifetime. Same story. This is what happened when God created them male and female and crowned them with glory, giving them dominion...and this is what happened after. Like the gospels, this is merely two accounts of the same story.

Nah, its a simple matter of understanding figurative speech.
Click to expand...
Or a matter of invention...when your traditions are inadequate. There are folks who look at Jesus' miracles in the NT and call them "figures of speech" because the miraculous doesn't fit into their worldview. They err in the same manner as you do.

When Chronicles 16:33 says that trees will sing to God, it is not literal.
Click to expand...
Are you ready to tell your god that?

Trees do not literally sing. It's anthropomorphism.
Click to expand...
It has been shown by science that trees emit sound when they are injured, as with an axe. I'm not ready to believe that I know more than the Word of God revealed.

The Bible uses anthropomorphism a lot, and it often uses antrhopomorphisms in relationship to describing God. It is a big, BIG mistake on your part to take such poetic language literally.
Click to expand...
I prefer taking God at His Word, rather than explaining to him, as you are now...as to a child who doesn't know better. There is much more to the trees than meets the eye, when the land can vomit you out for your sin.
 
tbeachhead said:
From this thread...I believe I inserted it when trying to get JJ to admit that he is advocating for a god who, having neither image nor likeness, is incapable of creating man in both image and likeness...You have rejected what Torah teaches.
Click to expand...
IOW "void" is yet another example of you putting words into Jewjitzu's mouth that don't belong there. For shame.
tbeachhead said:
This is all well reasoned...I'm assuming it's from the made up inventions you call "Oral Torah."
Click to expand...
No, the talmud doesn't talk about space/time. That expression has only existed with the advent of modern physics. But I think it helps to make it very clear that God doesn't exist in this universe. He exists in eternity. Yes?
tbeachhead said:
A God Who speaks in the day of Abraham certainly exists in time...
Click to expand...
No, God does not exist in time. We experience God in time because WE are bound by time. But God is not. He is an eternal being, not a being in this universe. YOUR OWN SCRIPTURES says that A day is like a thousand years to the Lord, and a thousand years is like a day. 2 Peter 3:8

tbeachhead said:
Your "explanation," though you have found satisfaction in it, is inadequate and esoteric, especially when examining the actual Hebrew used in the 1at chapter of Genesis, which does not seek esoteric interpretation, and is indeed quite literal. I'm pleased that you found satisfaction in it, for your sake. The inadequacies are glaring.
Click to expand...
My explanation of image as referring to the character traits of God, and not physical traits, is the traditional understanding of Christianity as well as Judaism. I'm way within the mainstream on this.
 
tbeachhead said:
So...you do not believe Torah.
Click to expand...
Oh I very much believe in the whole Torah. I just don't take all parts of it literally. When 1 Chronicles 16:33 says that trees will sing to God, it is figurative -- trees don't literally sing. Part of reading comprehension is to know when figurative language is being used, as well as identifying the genre of the writing. For example, it would be a mistake to think that the Prodigal Son is about a real historical person. Parables are fictions that teach. If you don't have problems with parables, then you shouldn't have problems with the fact that the two creation stories are myths.

And yes, they are separate. They contradict each other. In Genesis 1, plants are created before humanity. In Genesis 2, man is created before plants.
 
tbeachhead said:
None of which is an image. God says Adam BECAME like God AFTER eating the fruit, knowing good and evil.
Click to expand...
Again, image meaning likeness. We ARE like God in that we have agency, know right from wrong, have the capacity for love and justice, etc. This is what you are struggling with.
 
Open Heart said:
IOW "void" is yet another example of you putting words into Jewjitzu's mouth that don't belong there. For shame.
Click to expand...
No...Void is what happens when you have nothing. No form. No likeness. No image. Void is the unavoidable result of your claims. Why would you want to trivialize what I'm saying by trying to put "shame" on a willingness to converse? As we've observed, you are quite albeit unnecessarily condescending.

No, the talmud doesn't talk about space/time. That expression has only existed with the advent of modern physics. But I think it helps to make it very clear that God doesn't exist in this universe. He exists in eternity. Yes?
Click to expand...
Read your sentence. It answers itself. God's presence is very real and in real time. Transcendent is not non-existent. God already is and will ever be. That's His Name. He doesn't become, He is what He will be and always real in real time.

No, God does not exist in time. We experience God in time because WE are bound by time. But God is not. He is an eternal being, not a being in this universe. YOUR OWN SCRIPTURES says that A day is like a thousand years to the Lord, and a thousand years is like a day. 2 Peter 3:8
Click to expand...
You do not see your own contradiction. Your god is an impossibility. The God of Torah interacts with real people in real time...He is time and through all time. We are limited by pinpoints on a line. He is ALL and above the line. At any point on that line He IS. "Before Abraham was I AM..." is an expression of this reality from Him Whom you sadly chose to reject, and I would guess because you cannot grasp this truth.

God has an image, and a likeness...and He has a Bride Who is very fit for Him...in His likeness and in His image, but Bride.
My explanation of image as referring to the character traits of God, and not physical traits, is the traditional understanding of Christianity as well as Judaism. I'm way within the mainstream on this.
Click to expand...
No...And you do not understand Christianity. It's not good to make yourself an expert on the subject that you have yourself rejected.
 
Open Heart said:
Again, image meaning likeness. We ARE like God in that we have agency, know right from wrong, have the capacity for love and justice, etc. This is what you are struggling with.
Click to expand...
You have to change the meaning of the Hebrew words God chose. It doesn't work but to satisfy you in your personal rejection of Torah. We bear His image and His likeness...

...unless you're suggesting that Adam, like your god, was also formless and void.
 
tbeachhead said:
No...Void is what happens when you have nothing. No form. No likeness. No image. Void is the unavoidable result of your claims. Why would you want to trivialize what I'm saying by trying to put "shame" on a willingness to converse? As we've observed, you are quite albeit unnecessarily condescending.
Click to expand...
No one has said that God is nothingness. Clearly, having a form is only one type of existence. You are suffering from a failure of imagination.
tbeachhead said:
No...And you do not understand Christianity. It's not good to make yourself an expert on the subject that you have yourself rejected.
Click to expand...
My rejection of Christianity is not indicative of lack of understanding. Not only was I Christian, but I was the sort of Christian that studied the Bible, Church history, and theology. Please stop assuming things about me -- it only is embarrassing for you when you screw up.
 
tbeachhead said:
You have to change the meaning of the Hebrew words God chose. It doesn't work but to satisfy you in your personal rejection of Torah. We bear His image and His likeness...

...unless you're suggesting that Adam, like your god, was also formless and void.
Click to expand...
No, not at all. Image can mean specifically a physical likeness, OR it can also mean alike in non-physical characteristics.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top