Thief on the cross - forgiven how?

[tbeachhead]

Oh I very much believe in the whole Torah.

Once you've deformed it into fitting your own understanding. In the days of the judges, like today...the Jews very much believed in the whole "Torah" as they saw fit, and continued to do what seemed right in their own eyes. The Jews of Samaria followed the traditions of their father...that Jeroboam had instigated. When there was revival in the days of Elijah...they went back to Jeroboam's altar at Bethel to worship YHWH...and the image they'd made of him.

You've created a non-image image that has no resemblance at all to the God of Torah.

I just don't take all parts of it literally.

Exactly. That's my point. It's according to your own will. That's called "picking and choosing" as you see fit. The Swedes call it "smörgåsbord". It's very Jewish...and it's not the obedience of faith that we see in David or in Hezekiah or in Elijah.

When 1 Chronicles 16:33 says that trees will sing to God, it is figurative -- trees don't literally sing.

I'm sure God understands your doctrine. It's only reasonable that He agree with you, despite what He says...because you can't hear treesong. The Bible says trees sing. You say, "No they don't," because in your own experience trees don't sing, and it's only reasonable to walk by sight and not by faith. God cannot expect us to believe everything that is written...

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.

Would it? Why? Even in this case, Jesus would be in a better position to know than you. Don't you think?

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.

Parables use physical objects to teach spiritual truth. There is nothing fictional in a parable.

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.

This is actually a great observation...and fun to think about...They cannot contradict each other because it is the Word of God...and they can clarify each other and offer details...The third day saw the vegetation...as seed bearing...but chapter two says, nothing had come to life because there had been no water...If you go with your contradiction theory, the world was lush and verdant in chapter one even before there was ever a sun or a moon...which came both on the fourth day. And the fish and the land animals who all came the sixth day would have nothing to eat, because Man had not been created. It looks to me like seed came, then sun and moon came...and then springs ran as the animals came...ready for man on the sixth day.

Your theory is untenable and yet rife with stimulating questions. Neither one of us was there...but the guesswork could make for some delightful traditions and doctrines of man.

I would retain this point that is, I think, valid...the Adam of chapter 1 is the Adam of chapter 2 and beyond...It's the same time and the same timeline. There were not two Adams...until the last Adam, Jesus, came.

 

[tbeachhead]

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.

And you're scrambling. Void is the absence of substance. Your god is insubstantial. Existence is having substance...and the Bible says "our image", "our likeness" of which you say, "He has none."

My rejection of Christianity is not indicative of lack of understanding.

You have no understanding to make that claim. Sorry...you have to deny history...and you have.

There was an empty tomb that vindicates every claim the Jewish Messiah made as He walked the earth. You have to reject both claims and history. I suggest that there is something missing in your understanding that you've had to rationalize away.

There is no false dogma in any so-called Christian sect, even one that claims be the "real deal" replete with prayer meetings daily and all night bible studies, that can erase the truth of the resurrection and everything it implies and demands of us.

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.

See above...Your claims are belied in the truth of history. I've worked with Christians on four continents in a dozen countries. I've seen sects who called themselves the real deal, who, when it came to acknowledging the one new commandment of Christ...were further from realizing it than the east from the west.

Christianity is not claimed in the number of Bible studies, prayer meetings, all night vigils and fastings, but in likeness and obedience to Christ...Your boasts fall short, though they satisfy you. It is not the matter of abundance of works, as you make it out to be. Your claims are not those of a Christian who has ever had understanding. They are tantamount to one who believes that their works make the difference.

If you actually displayed understanding, your betrayal of the Messiah would be the more painful, and I'm afraid, egregious.

 

[Open Heart]

Exactly. That's my point. It's according to your own will. That's called "picking and choosing" as you see fit. The Swedes call it "smörgåsbord". It's very Jewish...and it's not the obedience of faith that we see in David or in Hezekiah or in Elijah.

No, it has nothing to do with my own will or choice. It has to do with basic reading comprehension. Literaature follows certain rules. You dont' read a law book and say that it's a poem, and you don't read what is clearly a myth and say that it's history.

Parables use physical objects to teach spiritual truth. There is nothing fictional in a parable.

Parables are a form of fiction, because the stories in them never happened in real life. They are simply fiction that teaches truths.

This is actually a great observation...and fun to think about...They cannot contradict each other because it is the Word of God...and they can clarify each other and offer details...The third day saw the vegetation...as seed bearing...but chapter two says, nothing had come to life because there had been no water..

Are you saying that in Genesis 1 God created dead plants?

 

[Open Heart]

And you're scrambling. Void is the absence of substance. Your god is insubstantial. Existence is having substance...and the Bible says "our image", "our likeness" of which you say, "He has none."

You have no understanding to make that claim. Sorry...you have to deny history...and you have.

There was an empty tomb that vindicates every claim the Jewish Messiah made as He walked the earth. You have to reject both claims and history. I suggest that there is something missing in your understanding that you've had to rationalize away.

There is no false dogma in any so-called Christian sect, even one that claims be the "real deal" replete with prayer meetings daily and all night bible studies, that can erase the truth of the resurrection and everything it implies and demands of us.
See above...Your claims are belied in the truth of history. I've worked with Christians on four continents in a dozen countries. I've seen sects who called themselves the real deal, who, when it came to acknowledging the one new commandment of Christ...were further from realizing it than the east from the west.

Christianity is not claimed in the number of Bible studies, prayer meetings, all night vigils and fastings, but in likeness and obedience to Christ...Your boasts fall short, though they satisfy you. It is not the matter of abundance of works, as you make it out to be. Your claims are not those of a Christian who has ever had understanding. They are tantamount to one who believes that their works make the difference.

If you actually displayed understanding, your betrayal of the Messiah would be the more painful, and I'm afraid, egregious.

Void again, means empty. Nothing there. NO one is saying God was not there.

When I was a Christian, I obviously said things quite different from what I say now. You cannot use my current beliefs to somehow prove that I was not a christian.

 

[101G]

You are welcome to anything you see...It's not mine, after all. I, too, was taught.

thanks, the same here, also, I was taught it FREELY, for it is NOT mine, but his, the Lord Jesus. and what's his is mine, and anyone else who is in his body, it is theirs, also.

be blessed,

PICJAG, 101G.

 

[tbeachhead]

No, it has nothing to do with my own will or choice.

Nonsense. In your new religion, you have to choose which traditions matter, and thereby set your own standards to satisfy. Once you've satisfied your own standards to the degree to which you've applied them, you reassure yourself that you've done everything that religion demands of you. And the reward is whatever you've imagined to be the reward of your effort.

It has to do with basic reading comprehension. Literature follows certain rules. You don't' read a law book and say that it's a poem, and you don't read what is clearly a myth and say that it's history.

How much of Torah is a myth for you?

I'm not reading mythology. I'm actually reading the Word of God, some of which is narrative...some of which, in fact, is THE narrative of how the Law was handed down to Moses, and how it was first applied. Some of which is lessons and teachings done in very moving Hebrew verse...which follows rules we never apply in English, but which actually contribute to the depth of the passage.

Parables are a form of fiction, because the stories in them never happened in real life.

You cannot prove your assertion.

They are simply fiction that teaches truths.

They are illustrations of life in the kingdom using familiar forms. They represent deep spiritual truths.

Are you saying that in Genesis 1 God created dead plants?

This is another great question. Everything without breath is dead...I'm suggesting that every plant came from the Seed and that seed was first spoken, then planted.

That's why it is written, "The Word is the seed."

 

[tbeachhead]

Void again, means empty. Nothing there. NO one is saying God was not there.

You have said, "God does not exist in time. He only exists outside of time..." This is error. God simply is, and there is no time where He is not. And He is very really present at this present time...

When I was a Christian, I obviously said things quite different from what I say now. You cannot use my current beliefs to somehow prove that I was not a Christian.

Look, you have no need to defend "your" Christianity. Your own experience with all your deeply rationalized choices is not an anomaly...you illustrate one of four effects the Word has on the heart. Simple as that.

Take a moment to find yourself in Jesus' explanation. It's a parable...and it's truth. This is what happens to different folks who hear, according

1. To how they hear the Word. And
2. To how they cherish the word. And finally
3. to how they respond to the word.

1Once again Jesus began to teach beside the sea, and such a large crowd gathered around Him that He got into a boat and sat in it, while all the people crowded along the shore.

2And He taught them many things in parables, and in His teaching He said, 3“Listen! A farmer went out to sow his seed. 4And as he was sowing, some seed fell along the path, and the birds came and devoured it.

5Some fell on rocky ground, where it did not have much soil. It sprang up quickly because the soil was shallow. 6But when the sun rose, the seedlings were scorched, and they withered because they had no root.

7Other seed fell among thorns, which grew up and choked the seedlings, and they yielded no crop.

8Still other seed fell on good soil, where it sprouted, grew up, and produced a crop—one bearing thirtyfold, another sixtyfold, and another a hundredfold.”

9Then Jesus said, “He who has ears to hear, let him hear.”
Notice not everyone is given to hear?

The Purpose of Jesus’ Parables
(Isaiah 6:1–13; Matthew 13:10–17; Luke 8:9–10)

10As soon as Jesus was alone with the Twelve and those around Him, they asked Him about the parable.

11He replied, “The mystery of the kingdom of God has been given to you, but to those on the outside everything is expressed in parables, 12so that,
‘they may be ever seeing but never perceiving,
and ever hearing but never understanding;
otherwise they might turn
and be forgiven.’”
(All written in verse...)
Do you notice that you're clearly fulfilling Isaiah's prophecy? You're right there in the Tenakh, and it's still by your choice where you fall. In some versions, they include "...and I should heal them." That, too, is an important part of Isaiah's message. Faith comes by hearing, and is lost when we refuse to hear.

The Parable of the Sower Explained
(Matthew 13:18–23; Luke 8:11–15)

13Then Jesus said to them, “Do you not understand this parable? Then how will you understand any of the parables? Fascinating question, don't you think?

14The farmer sows the word. 15Some are like the seedsb along the path, where the word is sown. As soon as they hear it, Satan comes and takes away the word that was sown in them.

16Some are like the seeds sown on rocky ground. They hear the word and at once receive it with joy. 17But they themselves have no root, and they remain for only a season. When trouble or persecution comes because of the word, they quickly fall away.

18Others are like the seeds sown among the thorns. They hear the word, 19but the worries of this life, the deceitfulness of wealth, and the desire for other things come in and choke the word, and it becomes unfruitful.

20Still others are like the seeds sown on good soil. They hear the word, receive it, and produce a crop—thirtyfold, sixtyfold, or a hundredfold.”

You fall into one of the four categories. The seed never changes, but the ground always does and produces four different results:

1. Full belly for the birds hiding any evidence, but for the satisfied flocks, that there ever was a seed planted.
2. Hope and joy and frenzied activity followed by dried and shriveled up straw.
3. Fruitless impotence...and
4. Tremendous abundance of more seed leading to more fruit.

The soil makes the decision as to the fruit of that seed. That's true in farming...and in living. You're not an original...not an anomaly. Not even a surprise. The Word that you received is the same Word. You made of it whatever you wanted to.

Were you once upon a time a "Christian?" That question is meaningless. Clearly you were once impacted by the same Word that has drawn Christians to Him. You have made your choices. Like three of the above four, you were responding to a seed that was planted. What you think you were then is meaningless, and you don't need to feel you have to defend what you thought you were. Christians understand what Jesus taught. Many are called. Few are chosen. You have fulfilled the Messiah's words. It's really that simple.

 

[Jewjitzu]

Promotes that part of Torah that you do not reject?

Which part do we reject? None that I see.

Well, then you certainly do fulfill the prophecy, don't you...having rejected the cornerstone?

Nope. That would be the church and it's rejection of Torah as well as the true Messiah, Psalm 2:1, Daniel 7:25.

Just observing...

Not closely I see...

There is no doubt Who He is...without Him nothing was made that was made. The part that you reject, the rock of offense, is actually the cornerstone, as it is written.

Tanakh only mentions the Father as Creator. The son isn't.

The trial before the Sanhedrin was illegal, and contrary to Torah...replete with false witnesses procured by the priests. Rome performed the execution, because your people turned Him over to the Goyim, but the Sanhedrin demanded the death penalty...in fulfillment of the scriptures.

Well, being that the Sadducees were working with Rome and the High Priest appointed by them, it doesn't surprise me. Ironically, the Pharisees weren't part of this as they tried saving Jesus life previously and were accepting of the Nazarenes as shown by Gamaliel.

So you deny Torah and make a nonsensical definition that denies image.

You've yet to prove your point here.

Could you draw me a picture of fantasy or create a likeness to illustrate it?

That would be your idea of god.

That's not the definition of Image I find in any dictionary. And, as I said, that's the best you can do when your own false religion makes you scramble around the word you profess to believe.

Rotfl... I've previously given various verses that support my position. God revealed He has no form on Sinai and told us to teach that, Deut 4:9,12,15,35. Now, if that form isn't physical or viewable as Jesus himself attests to Peter that the Father is neither flesh nor blood, in agreement with Isaiah 40:18,25;45:5, then you don't have a defense.

You still can't answer which person in the godhead is the female pattern for Eve, nor how your gods got their physical form before the universe was created ex nihilo. Quite a contradiction on your part.

so you agree that your god is formless and void, that he is incapable of creating anything in his image and according to his likeness, having neither image nor likeness, but only esoteric qualities allowed by your own imagination.

No, I've explained myself already. What you have is a contradiction where your physical god is created as well. And you evade and can't answer this point.

...and is a figment of your imagination? Two can play, though it's tediously redundant.

Yes, you're redundant.

You're repeating yourself. See above...His likeness is incomparable does not say "He has no likeness." You're banking on an old and specious argument.

No, the Hebrew root damah shows that blood, physicality, adam/man, fall under this umbrella.

So you're acknowledging a formless empty god who cannot create anything in his image at all...and conforms willingly to the limits you have set for him. You're admitting that in your religion "incomparable" means "non-existent."

No, I'm acknowledging that my God created all that is physical. If He was physical Himself, that would be a contradiction and render Him created as well. That's your dilemma.

:roflmao: Is this from "100 Ways for Jews to Insult Goy Evangelicals"? This is ludicrous. Joe and Brigham had to invent as much as you did...they even found your "lost tribes" and brought them to America in submarines. You guys would do well together. I understand there's even kabbalistic magic in their "temple" ceremonies...and they wear pure linen underwear.

And yet your idea of a physical god aligns with their thinking.

Yep...The Father Who made, the Word by Whom nothing was made that was made, and the Spirit Who brooded on the waters. Only One and Unique.

Great! You acknowledge that Jesus is created, so he can't be creator.

See above...

Yes, please do.

Purely arbitrary interpretation...It does not say "soul." You're imposing your own will on the translation. Read all the translations on BibleHub...your own claim is pure obfuscation.


No it is not...It's used in a metaphor. "My likeness is that of...." You are bent on twisting the language you claim to know so well. I'm beginning to doubt you even speak it.

Nope, I've explained it several times already.

See above. You've successfully refuted your own claim.

Nope.

See above. I've read Torah, and unlike you, I've believed it as it stands. No need to add. No need to subtract...no need to change the meaning of words that are concrete in their original intent and meaning...

That's funny because nothing is mentioned of the Trinity nor a Creator other than the Father.

So, you shot yourself in the foot

Nonsensical redundancy whose aim is only to insult someone's intelligence. See above.

Nope see above again.

Wahahaha...See above! Oh...and check out verse 8 in Numbers 12...when you want to refute your own claim:
8"I speak with him face to face,
clearly and not in riddles;
he sees the form of the LORD. "

Wonderful! And we know from previous verses that God can't be seen, panai being used for His presence and face, Exodus 33:14-22, 34:6-7, and God having no physical form, Deuteronomy 4:9,12,15,35. So, God is acknowledging that Moses knows, sees, understands, God, without the need for trances, visions, riddles.

But He has no face...and He has no form...well...your god doesn't.

Yep, see above. Your god is created.

Your god isn't telling the truth. And the truth is Isaiah saw. AND Moses actually SAW according to the Word of the Lord.

Isaiah saw visions as all prophets but Moses did. Numbers 12 should be clear to you, right?

 

[Jewjitzu]

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.

Rotfl... I said my God doesn't have physical form. Quite a difference from what you're saying.

If you've studied the term "form" with regards to philosophy, metaphysics, you'd see this term is used with regards to a thing's purpose. Man's purpose is to be like God, but on earth, reigning, ruling, reasoning, thinking, etc., as God does. That's man's form.

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.

See above. How does your god acquire his physical form prior to creation ex nihilo?

 

[Jewjitzu]

Naah...of what he actually saw.
It's built on the Tenakh...and the resurrection according to the writings contained in the Tenakh.

Again, prophets except Moses saw visions and riddles, not reality. Just like Daniel saw terrible beasts that represented something else.

Look up before it's too late. He's not only come, He's shortly returning, and you'll look on Him Whom you pierced.

The world will know when Messiah is here. If you've bothered studying Zech 12, you'd see the events haven't happened nor apply to Jesus' time.

See above. You already adequately refuted your own claim.

Not really.

Naahhh...you've resorted to this ridiculous sparring...tell me...why have you limited your god to formlessness and void?

Actually making a physical god is limiting a god. That's why Jesus was limited in knowledge, place, time, could die, etc.

Of course it is not physical marriage...And of course Jesus said "there is no marriage in heaven"...as in partners don't reunite like Muslims on couches. There is One Bride and One groom...and every member of the Bride is one with the Bride...as God Himself is One...

So you prove my point.

See above...your limited understanding is flawed. Marriage in this life pre-figures the Marriage we have to celebrate...male and female each playing a prophetic role...See Ephesians 5:32. ( You can look it up for yourself, since you keep sending me down rabbit holes.)
Resurrected and immortal...as He was from the beginning, and as He appeared so often in the OT.

Ephesians doesn't prove anything to me. You need to do better. Being physical, and created refutes your stance.

Nope...you just proved how little you understand. Jesus was the visible manifestation of the invisible God...the Word made flesh to dwell among us for a season.

All of creation is the manifestation of the invisible God. Creation speaks of the glory of God. Again, you've refuted your position acknowledging God's essence is non-physical, invisible, and that Jesus is created.

Nope. See above. But...Yours is only imaginary and artificially limited by your own traditions.

Actually, your god is limited as even the NT proclaims this fact. Traditons of men.

See above. Your argument is specious. It's the meaning of "begat."

Beget, from yulad, to be born, meaning it didn't exist before.

And it's always the plural form...Highlighting the paradox of the shemah.

There's no paradox. The word elohim is either translated as singular or plural. Context proves the God of Israel is exclusively one, and alone.

Just like the terms fish, deer, sheep, or the Hebrew terms like panai, mayim, chayim, shamayim, etc., can be different singular or plural in most cases based on context.

His words are the hands He uses to create all things. Why do you not see this?

Ok, I don't argue He can't speak and create without physical hands.

Adam was made in God's image and according to His likeness by His Will and according to His Word...and then the breath of God entered into his nostrils, and he became a living soul...the spirit went into the blood, and Adam lived.

No need for capital letters in word or will. They are not persons.

BTW, since man's physical image is corruptible, your ascribing to an idea of a corruptible god which is exactly what you got.

You went out of context to obfuscate your own error. Zechariah does not have "with"...only a particle that has no meaning in English. Why are you having such a hard time admitting that your Hebrew is flawed?

Et can be translated as with based on the context. Being that my idea of God is not corruptible which includes being physical, the problems are on your side.

That must feel good...to make the claim and convince yourself...

No claims on my side.

I can't help thinking how absurd this seems...to anyone actually following there strand.

Then you're not following.

No...you didn't. And it isn't. You left the contest of Zechariah to obfuscate the fact that your Hebrew is flawed.

Nope.

I'm going to try and help you with this, since you clearly do not know Hebrew as you pretend. Here's the verse on BibleHub: https://biblehub.com/isaiah/41-4.htm

Doesn't help you.

Check out the different translations...and how different translators add the word "with". It's not in the original Hebrew.

I never said it was as a word. The use of ET serves that purpose.

"ET" is...and it's only a particle. Translators make choices. Learn language...learn how difficult translating can be.

Yep, and line with God not being physical, my understanding is fine.

Trying to help. You err, and your appeal to authority is absurd.
Naaahhh...focused on Truth...

Funny, your appealing to English translations and Christian authority above. You see how that works?

Actually, the Tanakh defends Himself adequately against your suggestion. He is the Word, after all.

Please show where "word" is a person in Tanakh?

 

[Yodas_Prodigy]

When the thief on the cross died, how were his sins forgiven prior to his death?

Was he still obligated to the law and required to bring sacrifices for his confessed sins, or did Jesus forgive him with just words, a prayer?

For that matter, by what thinking did Jesus forgive others in the NT by just saying your sins are forgiven since the law still applied and sacrifices were required for those before his death, according to Christian theology?

Since Jesus didn't break the law according to Christians, what justifies him forgiving people without a sacrifice?

Jesus was the sacrifice for the sins of the thief. Jesus died before the thief. His words were, "It is finished." The debt was paid for... The Old Covenant was done at the Sacrifice of Christ... The curtain of the temple was torn in two... The thief no longer needed to follow the Law as defined by the Pharisees... The thief believed on the Lord Jesus Christ, and it was credited to him as righteousness...

 

[tbeachhead]

Again, prophets except Moses saw visions and riddles, not reality. Just like Daniel saw terrible beasts that represented something else.

He saw terrible beasts that represented the reality of truth. What Isaiah saw in the temple was reality. What Ezekiel saw on the river's edge was reality. It is no less real being spiritual.

The world will know when Messiah is here. If you've bothered studying Zech 12, you'd see the events haven't happened nor apply to Jesus' time.

As it is written, "Who has believed our report..." Some will believe. Others will do what you're doing and rationalize as they did two thousand years ago.

Not really.

Really...and quite well in fact.

Actually making a physical god is limiting a god. That's why Jesus was limited in knowledge, place, time, could die, etc.

The incarnation was deliberate...and you are correct. He took our infirmity, and our mortality, to provide what we could not for ourselves...and to complete to perfection what Adam should have done.

And by your argument, your god limited himself in the fire on top of the mountain of God, and when he talked to Moses from the burning bush.

So you prove my point.

Nah. I prove my point, and you miss it. The marriage is spiritual, not physical...and no less real.

Ephesians doesn't prove anything to me. You need to do better. Being physical, and created refutes your stance.

Being with God from the beginning, and making all things, and holding all together by the Word of His power...Proves my point.

As far as Ephesians goes, it's a good illustration, whether you accept it or not. Your personal animus toward Paul as a Jew will always taint your understanding his writings. I don't have a problem reading excellent illustrations of the points you're making...even if the writer is Jewish albeit bereft of the revelation of Jesus Paul had.

All of creation is the manifestation of the invisible God. Creation speaks of the glory of God. Again, you've refuted your position acknowledging God's essence is non-physical, invisible, and that Jesus is created.

You're a pantheist then?

You're fixated on the incarnation...as if the means were the end. The Word had to become flesh and dwell among us, to fulfill all things, and so become the mediator He is. And the Word was with God from the beginning, and all things were made by Him and without Him was not anything made that was made. He became the visible expression of the invisible God, clothed as we in humanity, in mortality, for a season to be the first to be raised, the first born from the dead.

Actually, your god is limited as even the NT proclaims this fact. Traditons of men.

Actually your god is limited, as you are. As soon as God makes a promise, He has limited Himself. He is incapable of lying.

Beget, from yulad, to be born, meaning it didn't exist before.

That's not what David says..."
Psalm 139:15My frame was not hidden from You
when I was made in secret,
when I was woven together
in the depths of the earth.
16Your eyes saw my unformed body;
all my days were written in Your book
and ordained for me
before one of them came to be.

You're contradicting the Tenach now. Traditions and doctrines of man will do that.

There's no paradox. The word elohim is either translated as singular or plural. Context proves the God of Israel is exclusively one, and alone.

The word is plural. The translation is immaterial. Even the translators will get it wrong:

Aaron didn't make "gods" to worship in the desert. He made "Elohim" to worship, and declared a feast day unto YHWH. Why would he declare a feast day to YHWH after making foreign gods.

He was just following traditions that he'd learned in Egypt, just like you've had to learn all new traditions, since you lost the Ark of the Presence.

Just like the terms fish, deer, sheep, or the Hebrew terms like panai, mayim, chayim, shamayim, etc., can be different singular or plural in most cases based on context.

No. Two different languages. Your claims are specious.

Ok, I don't argue He can't speak and create without physical hands.

At last. Wisdom. Thank you.

No need for capital letters in word or will. They are not persons.

That's your argument. "He sent His Word and healed them." You're missing much in your perception. Look at what you said above...His Word is the means of creating all things physical.

BTW, since man's physical image is corruptible, your ascribing to an idea of a corruptible god which is exactly what you got.

No...corruption came from Adam, and when Jesus rose, as David admitted, He will never know corruption.

It can be translated as with based on the context. Being that my idea of God is not corruptible which includes being physical, the problems are on your side.

No....Because you're stuck missing the brilliance of the incarnation. God had not designed corruption into Adam, but in breaking the Law, Adam corrupted himself, making the incarnation the only means of redemption...blood for blood. Soul for soul. Since you haven't yet grasped the importance of blood redemption, you'll be likewise limited in your understanding.

No claims on my side.

Like I said.

Then you're not following.
Nope.

Doesn't help you.

It was Hebrew, meant to help you, but you're mind is already clinging to error.

I never said it was as a word. The use of ET serves that purpose.

Yep, and line with God not being physical, my understanding is fine.

When you admit that the Word forms the physical...

Funny, your appealing to English translations and Christian authority above. You see how that works?

That's your limited understanding: I'm appealing to the translation process, and the choices translators make. English is the vehicle you and I are using for discussion. There is no authority in any translation beyond the accuracy thereof.

Please show where "word" is a person in Tanakh?

I'll show you how the Word created the heavens and the earth, and without the Word nothing was made that was made.

How about that?

 

[tbeachhead]

Rotfl... I said my God doesn't have physical form. Quite a difference from what you're saying.

And he is therefore incapable of creating anything in his image or likeness. He has none. Your god is not limitless...he's finite.

And he's incapable of describing his own creation without contradicting himself.

If you've studied the term "form" with regards to philosophy, metaphysics, you'd see this term is used with regards to a thing's purpose. Man's purpose is to be like God, but on earth, reigning, ruling, reasoning, thinking, etc., as God does. That's man's form.

You're drawing from Jewish philosophers who have to redefine the language before positing their inadequate guesses.

See above. How does your god acquire his physical form prior to creation ex nihilo?

Are you suggesting your god created himself?

 

[Jewjitzu]

Jesus was the sacrifice for the sins of the thief. Jesus died before the thief. His words were, "It is finished." The debt was paid for... The Old Covenant was done at the Sacrifice of Christ... The curtain of the temple was torn in two...

Zero evidence of this.

The thief no longer needed to follow the Law as defined by the Pharisees...

Actually, God's laws. The Apostles and disciples followed all of the laws after Jesus death. Gave sacrifices too.

The thief believed on the Lord Jesus Christ, and it was credited to him as righteousness...

And Jesus was credited with righteousness of others for some commandments too, right?

 

[Jewjitzu]

And he is therefore incapable of creating anything in his image or likeness. He has none. Your god is not limitless...he's finite.

No, you're focused on a physical image. I'm not. Anything physical is finite. You see how that works?

And he's incapable of describing his own creation without contradicting himself.

How so?

You're drawing from Jewish philosophers who have to redefine the language before positing their inadequate guesses.

Nope. No redrawing on our part.

Are you suggesting your god created himself?

No, I'm suggesting your god was created at best.

 

[Jewjitzu]

He saw terrible beasts that represented the reality of truth. What Isaiah saw in the temple was reality. What Ezekiel saw on the river's edge was reality. It is no less real being spiritual.

As it is written, "Who has believed our report..." Some will believe. Others will do what you're doing and rationalize as they did two thousand years ago.
Really...and quite well in fact.
The incarnation was deliberate...and you are correct. He took our infirmity, and our mortality, to provide what we could not for ourselves...and to complete to perfection what Adam should have done.

And by your argument, your god limited himself in the fire on top of the mountain of God, and when he talked to Moses from the burning bush.

Nah. I prove my point, and you miss it. The marriage is spiritual, not physical...and no less real.

Being with God from the beginning, and making all things, and holding all together by the Word of His power...Proves my point.

As far as Ephesians goes, it's a good illustration, whether you accept it or not. Your personal animus toward Paul as a Jew will always taint your understanding his writings. I don't have a problem reading excellent illustrations of the points you're making...even if the writer is Jewish albeit bereft of the revelation of Jesus Paul had.
You're a pantheist then?

You're fixated on the incarnation...as if the means were the end. The Word had to become flesh and dwell among us, to fulfill all things, and so become the mediator He is. And the Word was with God from the beginning, and all things were made by Him and without Him was not anything made that was made. He became the visible expression of the invisible God, clothed as we in humanity, in mortality, for a season to be the first to be raised, the first born from the dead.

Actually your god is limited, as you are. As soon as God makes a promise, He has limited Himself. He is incapable of lying.
That's not what David says..."
Psalm 139:15My frame was not hidden from You
when I was made in secret,
when I was woven together
in the depths of the earth.
16Your eyes saw my unformed body;
all my days were written in Your book
and ordained for me
before one of them came to be.

You're contradicting the Tenach now. Traditions and doctrines of man will do that.

The word is plural. The translation is immaterial. Even the translators will get it wrong:

Aaron didn't make "gods" to worship in the desert. He made "Elohim" to worship, and declared a feast day unto YHWH. Why would he declare a feast day to YHWH after making foreign gods.

He was just following traditions that he'd learned in Egypt, just like you've had to learn all new traditions, since you lost the Ark of the Presence.
No. Two different languages. Your claims are specious.

At last. Wisdom. Thank you.
That's your argument. "He sent His Word and healed them." You're missing much in your perception. Look at what you said above...His Word is the means of creating all things physical.

No...corruption came from Adam, and when Jesus rose, as David admitted, He will never know corruption.

No....Because you're stuck missing the brilliance of the incarnation. God had not designed corruption into Adam, but in breaking the Law, Adam corrupted himself, making the incarnation the only means of redemption...blood for blood. Soul for soul. Since you haven't yet grasped the importance of blood redemption, you'll be likewise limited in your understanding.
Like I said.

It was Hebrew, meant to help you, but you're mind is already clinging to error.

When you admit that the Word forms the physical...

That's your limited understanding: I'm appealing to the translation process, and the choices translators make. English is the vehicle you and I are using for discussion. There is no authority in any translation beyond the accuracy thereof.

I'll show you how the Word created the heavens and the earth, and without the Word nothing was made that was made.

Show us the word is a person in Tanakh. Otherwise, I've already shown God the Father spoke everything into existence.

BTW, don't forget Jesus has knees that bow, and a tongue that will acknowledge the true God.

How about that?

Well, you waited since Oct 21 to answer until now? Why?

 

[Yodas_Prodigy]

Zero evidence of this.

The Gospels are my evidence written by men who died for what they knew and saw...

 

[Jewjitzu]

The Gospels are my evidence written by men who died for what they knew and saw...

The gospel falls short. The curtain was never rent, nor 500 saints busted from tombs after Jesus' death. Sorry, padawan.

 

[Yodas_Prodigy]

The gospel falls short. The curtain was never rent, nor 500 saints busted from tombs after Jesus' death. Sorry, padawan.

I know Jewish converts who disagree with you...

 

[Jewjitzu]

I know Jewish converts who disagree with you...

So what. Nothing historically backs this up, neither from Josephus, Talmud, or other Roman sources.

I know Christian converts who disagree with you.