Thief on the cross - forgiven how?

tbeachhead

Well-known member
Right. Shama lama ding dong. All fake.
This is how you judge everything you cannot understand...baseless presumption. Thank you for buttressing my point. You have sacrificed your credibility.

Yep, the witches and seers in Tanakh went into trances and lost touch with reality, similar to what I see you experiencing.
There is one witch/seer in the Tenakh, and she came in touch with reality: Samuel returned from the dead with voice and describable form.

Once again, you promote false doctrine.
You confuse the different uses of spirit as it applies to God, angels, and man. They are not the same.
No...your spirit is "a force". You promote false doctrine.

I have never "gone into a trance..." You've also resorted to speaking falsehood.

As far as the apostate Paul, Deut 13 says:

1If a prophet or dreamer of dreams arises among you and proclaims a sign or wonder to you, 2and if the sign or wonder he has spoken to you comes about, but he says, “Let us follow other gods (which you have not known) and let us worship them,” 3you must not listen to the words of that prophet or dreamer. For the LORD your God is testing you to find out whether you love Him with all your heart and with all your soul. 4You are to follow the LORD your God and fear Him. Keep His commandments and listen to His voice; serve Him and hold fast to Him.

5Such a prophet or dreamer must be put to death, because he has advocated rebellion against the LORD your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt and redeemed you from the house of slavery; he has tried to turn you from the way in which the LORD your God has commanded you to walk. So you must purge the evil from among you.

Paul the apostate teaches a different god and abrogation. You can see now why the people wanted to stone him to death.
False dogma. Your Sadducee priests misguided you to follow a god of their invention, and enticed you to justify your own invention as false gods. The prophet Paul, the teacher of righteousness, said "Follow the Lord your God according to the One that was to come after Moses, and of Whom Moses said, 'You must obey Him.'" Paul was a voice against those of the council who betrayed and handed over your Messiah to the gentiles, as foretold. You have followed the apostates who rejected Moses ever since.

No, I haven't skipped. Isaiah had visions. And those visions contradict how you understand things because you accept things literally, and must accept two different bodies contradicting your one body god, and your understanding contradicts your NT where the Father is invisible, no body or blood.
This is invention...See above. Even after being refuted you make the same claim.

So Jesus will still bow with his knees and tongue sword.
And your knee will bow and your tongue will confess Jesus as Messiah and Lord, as prophesied by the Prophet and teacher of righteousness, Paul.
 

tbeachhead

Well-known member
You have said tzelem always means physical. I can show you again the post. I never said my God didn't create, and showed other Christians that understand tzelem the way I do. So the false words are on your side.
Since I have admitted that I am not qualified to exegete Hebrew Scriptures, I would never have and did not says "tzelem always means physical." You claimed that tzelem is not and cannot mean physical, and I quoted Strongs and Drivers from BibleHub.com.

1 images of tumours and mice (of gold) 1 Samuel 6:5 (twice in verse); 1 Samuel 6:11; especially of heathen gods Amos 5:26 (text dubious; strike out We as gloss, compare GASm Dr), 2 Kings 11:18 2Chronicles 23:17 (both with verb שִׁבְּרוּ), Ezekiel 7:20, so זָכָר ׳צ Ezekiel 16:17 (i.e. in male form, according to figurative of harlotry for idolatry); צַלְמֵי מַסֵכֹתָם Numbers 33:52 their molten images; of painted pictures of men Ezekiel 23:14.

2 image, likeness, of resemblance, ׳בְּצ (בָּרָא) עָשָׂה, of God's making man in his own image, Genesis 1:26("" כִּדְמוּתֵנוּ), Genesis 1:27; Genesis 1:27; Genesis 9:6, ׳כְּצ Genesis 5:3 ("" בִּדְמוּתוֺ; all P).

3 figurative = mere, empty, image, semblance, ׳בְּצ Psalm 39:7 as (ב essentiae) a (mere) semblance man walks about; צַלְמָם תִּבְזֶה Psalm 73:20 thou wilt despise their semblance.

Strongs says:image, vain show
From an unused root meaning to shade; a phantom, i.e. (figuratively) illusion, resemblance; hence, a representative figure, especially an idol -- image, vain shew.

Nothing says "always"...I, unlike you, do not invent or repeat things you did not say and attribute my invention to you.

As far as demuth/likeness goes, I'm qualified to quote Brown-Drivers-Briggs and Strongs. 1 likeness, similitude, of external appearance, chiefly in Ezek.: Ezekiel 1:5 (likeness, i.e. something that appeared like) so Ezekiel 1:26; Ezekiel 8:2 דְּמוּת כְּמַרְאֵה (אֵשׁׅ (compare Co), Ezekiel 10:1 כִּסֵּא ׳כְּמַרְאֵה ד; compare also Daniel 10:16 כִּדְמוּת בְּנֵי אָדָם i.e. one like the sons of man; similitude, resemblance Ezekiel 1:5,10,16,22,26; Ezekiel 10:10,21,22; דְּמוּת כְּמַרְאֵה אָדָם Ezekiel 1:26; ׳מַרְאֵה ד ׳כְּבוֺד י Ezekiel 1:28; also 2 Kings 16:10 (pattern of altar), 2 Chronicles 4:3 (images of oxen); of son in likeness of father Genesis 5:3 (P); so also of man in likeness of God Genesis 1:26 ("" צֶלֶם) Genesis 5:1 (both P); compare Isaiah 40:18 what ׳ד will ye compare to him (אֵל) ? "" דִּמָּה q. v.

2 adverbially, in likeness of, like as Isaiah 13:4 compare Ezekiel 23:15 & ׳כִּד Psalm 58:5. — Ezekiel 1:13 read וּבֵינוֺת, see בֵּין and J P PetersJBL 1892 40. 42. On דְּמוּת אֶחָד Ezekiel 1:16; Ezekiel 10:10 (apparently masculine) compare Thes & Sm who translate the likeness of one had they all four; Co reads אחת.

Strongs: fashion, likeness, as, manner, similitude
From damah; resemblance; concretely, model, shape; adverbially, like -- fashion, like (-ness, as), manner, similitude.

see HEBREW damah.

That's what I've said...No dictionary excludes actual appearance...no dictionary includes "imaginary character or indescribable, inimitible personality."

Angels, as I've told you before are also men. So try to keep up.
Not the angels/spirits we were talking about. Stop shifting the turf.

You translated elohim as gods in the Shema and you said they are one. You admitted to 3 gods. Don't back out now. Rotgl...
This is called a "literal, word for word translation. It's a useful tool when examining context and paradox. I admit to the knowledge that elohim is plural. Your denial has again been highlighted.

But your god with a physical tzelem was created.
Your false statement. Not mine...Your inability to understand again fulfilling Isaiah.
 
Last edited:

Jewjitzu

Well-known member
You are speaking falsehood. First of all, you refer to my elohim as "my gods", and you do not admit that elohim is plural...hence, by your own falsehood, you worship gods.
No, I've told you and shown you context determines the correct understanding, much like English words such as sheep, fish, lamb, can be singular or plural depending on context. So please stop the false statements you are spreading.

Your own translation and understanding shows you believe in multiple gods.

Second, your lie contends that I have said that my Elohim has "three separate physical bodies...", and I've never said anything more than Jesus, your Messiah, Who is the Word of God by Whom all things were created, and without Whom nothing was made that was made, left aside immortality for a season, and clothed Himself in mortality to take on the physical form of a man....something your limited gods invention cannot do.
You're understanding of Daniel 7 shows you do believe your gods have at least 2 bodies.

"Yes...you have a body. God has a body...and the Word was made flesh and dwelt among us. For a season, immortality put on mortality, so that mortality could be swallowed up in immortality." As I said...and here, the "Body" that created is the WORD. At creation, that which formed and molded all things including all things physical, is the WORD. As you have proven all along, and as Isaiah prophesied, you cannot see or understand this, though ever hearing. You have fulfilled prophecy.
So, your god has a body. You've stressed that tzelem is always understood as physical, and stressed that with Gen 1:26. Don't try to get out of it.

You know what...Not worth regurgitating the same argument...
You are....I'm glad you made this post. Those clips each show where you twist, pivot and come back, to "three physical created gods..." They show your reading impediment when it comes to debate. If there's anyone still following this thread and who want's to, they can take the time can see the disingenuous tactic you have to use.to maintain your error.
You've shown with your own words your gods are physical, created, and false.
 

Jewjitzu

Well-known member
This is how you judge everything you cannot understand...baseless presumption. Thank you for buttressing my point. You have sacrificed your credibility.
No, I've just shown how made up the spiritual tongues are. Similar to what witches and wizards practiced of old in their trances.

There is one witch/seer in the Tenakh, and she came in touch with reality: Samuel returned from the dead with voice and describable form.
Actually, no one saw Saul but the witch. She probably used her armpits to make her sounds.

No...your spirit is "a force". You promote false doctrine.
Spirit is a homonym used in many ways. Learn the different applications the term has.

I have never "gone into a trance..." You've also resorted to speaking falsehood.
Let's see, your mind goes empty...

False dogma. Your Sadducee priests misguided you to follow a god of their invention, and enticed you to justify your own invention as false gods. The prophet Paul, the teacher of righteousness, said "Follow the Lord your God according to the One that was to come after Moses, and of Whom Moses said, 'You must obey Him.'" Paul was a voice against those of the council who betrayed and handed over your Messiah to the gentiles, as foretold. You have followed the apostates who rejected Moses ever since.
Sorry, we don't follow anyone that abrogated Torah. Paul does just that.

This is invention...See above. Even after being refuted you make the same claim.
Yes, see above.

And your knee will bow and your tongue will confess Jesus as Messiah and Lord, as prophesied by the Prophet and teacher of righteousness, Paul.
Sorry, we're told in Exodus 20 not to have any gods before the Father. Or to bow to them.

Jesus has already bowed to the Father. The rest is history.
 

Jewjitzu

Well-known member
Since I have admitted that I am not qualified to exegete Hebrew Scriptures, I would never have and did not says "tzelem always means physical." You claimed that tzelem is not and cannot mean physical, and I quoted Strongs and Drivers from BibleHub.com.
Rotfl... this is completely false. Post #414 shows you said this. Why dance around it? Just admit it.

Post in thread 'Thief on the cross - forgiven how?' https://forums.carm.org/threads/thief-on-the-cross-forgiven-how.4749/post-449248

(JJ) Yes, the ability to reason, rule, speak, etc., like God does.
(tbeachhead) Not an image. Not even close. Tselem is always physical. And Duluth is external appearance...Your god has no tselem and no duluth...it is formless and void.

You can apologize at anytime. So, your gods have physical form and physical appearance.

1 images of tumours and mice (of gold) 1 Samuel 6:5 (twice in verse); 1 Samuel 6:11; especially of heathen gods Amos 5:26 (text dubious; strike out We as gloss, compare GASm Dr), 2 Kings 11:18 2Chronicles 23:17 (both with verb שִׁבְּרוּ), Ezekiel 7:20, so זָכָר ׳צ Ezekiel 16:17 (i.e. in male form, according to figurative of harlotry for idolatry); צַלְמֵי מַסֵכֹתָם Numbers 33:52 their molten images; of painted pictures of men Ezekiel 23:14.

2 image, likeness, of resemblance, ׳בְּצ (בָּרָא) עָשָׂה, of God's making man in his own image, Genesis 1:26("" כִּדְמוּתֵנוּ), Genesis 1:27; Genesis 1:27; Genesis 9:6, ׳כְּצ Genesis 5:3 ("" בִּדְמוּתוֺ; all P).

3 figurative = mere, empty, image, semblance, ׳בְּצ Psalm 39:7 as (ב essentiae) a (mere) semblance man walks about; צַלְמָם תִּבְזֶה Psalm 73:20 thou wilt despise their semblance.
Focus on 3 figurative or you end up with issues of your physical tzelem gods being created.

Strongs says:image, vain show
From an unused root meaning to shade; a phantom, i.e. (figuratively) illusion, resemblance; hence, a representative figure, especially an idol -- image, vain shew.

Nothing says "always"...I, unlike you, do not invent or repeat things you did not say and attribute my invention to you.
You're not being truthful. Look at post #414.

As far as demuth/likeness goes, I'm qualified to quote Brown-Drivers-Briggs and Strongs. 1 likeness, similitude, of external appearance, chiefly in Ezek.: Ezekiel 1:5 (likeness, i.e. something that appeared like) so Ezekiel 1:26; Ezekiel 8:2 דְּמוּת כְּמַרְאֵה (אֵשׁׅ (compare Co), Ezekiel 10:1 כִּסֵּא ׳כְּמַרְאֵה ד; compare also Daniel 10:16 כִּדְמוּת בְּנֵי אָדָם i.e. one like the sons of man; similitude, resemblance Ezekiel 1:5,10,16,22,26; Ezekiel 10:10,21,22; דְּמוּת כְּמַרְאֵה אָדָם Ezekiel 1:26; ׳מַרְאֵה ד ׳כְּבוֺד י Ezekiel 1:28; also 2 Kings 16:10 (pattern of altar), 2 Chronicles 4:3 (images of oxen); of son in likeness of father Genesis 5:3 (P); so also of man in likeness of God Genesis 1:26 ("" צֶלֶם) Genesis 5:1 (both P); compare Isaiah 40:18 what ׳ד will ye compare to him (אֵל) ? "" דִּמָּה q. v.
So nothing physical compares to God, because He isn't physical. You forgot the root includes blood and adam.

Check out Hirsch's Etymological Dictionary of Hebrew.

2 adverbially, in likeness of, like as Isaiah 13:4 compare Ezekiel 23:15 & ׳כִּד Psalm 58:5. — Ezekiel 1:13 read וּבֵינוֺת, see בֵּין and J P PetersJBL 1892 40. 42. On דְּמוּת אֶחָד Ezekiel 1:16; Ezekiel 10:10 (apparently masculine) compare Thes & Sm who translate the likeness of one had they all four; Co reads אחת.

Strongs: fashion, likeness, as, manner, similitude
From damah; resemblance; concretely, model, shape; adverbially, like -- fashion, like (-ness, as), manner, similitude.

see HEBREW damah.

That's what I've said...No dictionary excludes actual appearance...no dictionary includes "imaginary character or indescribable, inimitible personality."
You didn't look very well.
 
Last edited:

Jewjitzu

Well-known member
Not the angels/spirits we were talking about. Stop shifting the turf.
I'm not shifting. You've brought up the angels in Gen 18 before so I just want to make sure you don't go down a rabbit trail.

This is called a "literal, word for word translation. It's a useful tool when examining context and paradox. I admit to the knowledge that elohim is plural. Your denial has again been highlighted.
No, you've admitted that's your understanding. You're a polytheist, outright. No credible translations ever refer to the God of Israel as gods.

Your false statement. Not mine...Your inability to understand again fulfilling Isaiah.
You've already said we were created in the image of your gods that have a body, soul, and spirit.
 

tbeachhead

Well-known member
No, I've told you and shown you context determines the correct understanding, much like English words such as sheep, fish, lamb, can be singular or plural depending on context. So please stop the false statements you are spreading.
You repeat your same specious arguments. This does not make the argument valid. Sheep...singular and plural is not the same as hand and hands...Hence El and Elohim are clearly God and Gods, not sheep and sheep. Why does the specious argument force you to ignore your denial?

Your own translation and understanding shows you believe in multiple gods.
No...But I believe in honesty and grammar as useful tools for debate. I also know when obfuscation is essential to the one in constantly, diligently and artificially maintained error.

You're understanding of Daniel 7 shows you do believe your gods have at least 2 bodies.
It shows I understand that Daniel sees and describes what he sees. I also note that you are forced to deny Daniel his ability to see, and thus, you can learn nothing at all from him. Your invention is necessarily contrived from your own imagination, and not the Word of God.

So, your god has a body. You've stressed that tzelem is always understood as physical, and stressed that with Gen 1:26. Don't try to get out of it.[/'quote]Again, you distort I would never say "Tzelem is always..." anything. I quote the variants in the dictionaries definition, including those your god of your invention has forced you to deny.

You've shown with your own words your gods are physical, created, and false.
No...you've chosen not to read or understand what I've repeated enough to lessen the value of repetition to negligible.
 

Jewjitzu

Well-known member
You repeat your same specious arguments. This does not make the argument valid. Sheep...singular and plural is not the same as hand and hands...Hence El and Elohim are clearly God and Gods, not sheep and sheep. Why does the specious argument force you to ignore your denial?
One clearly has a singular etymological form, the other plural. In the plural form, foreign gods use the plural translation and singular for the God of Israel. It isn't difficult to understand.

No...But I believe in honesty and grammar as useful tools for debate. I also know when obfuscation is essential to the one in constantly, diligently and artificially maintained error.
You've messed up big time. Just admit to it.

It shows I understand that Daniel sees and describes what he sees. I also note that you are forced to deny Daniel his ability to see, and thus, you can learn nothing at all from him. Your invention is necessarily contrived from your own imagination, and not the Word of God.
It shows you don't know the difference between visions, riddles, and the problems with a physical understanding of God.

Look at post #414.

(JJ) Yes, the ability to reason, rule, speak, etc., like God does.
(tbeachhead) Not an image. Not even close. Tselem is always physical. And Duluth is external appearance...Your god has no tselem and no duluth...it is formless and void.

If tzelem isn't always physical, then you can't discount my understanding.

So stop speaking falsely about me.
 
Last edited:

tbeachhead

Well-known member
Rotfl... this is completely false. Post #414 shows you said this. Why dance around it? Just admit it.

Post in thread 'Thief on the cross - forgiven how?' https://forums.carm.org/threads/thief-on-the-cross-forgiven-how.4749/post-449248


(tbeachhead) Not an image. Not even close. Tselem is always physical. And Duluth is external appearance...Your god has no tselem and no duluth...it is formless and void.

You can apologize at anytime. So, your gods have physical form and physical appearance.
I finally found it...Thank you, and I apologize...This was the long argument where I showed that my Elohim has both tzelem and duluth, image and likeness...

I wrote this in response to your specious definition of "tzelem", where you claim: "[tzelem means] Yes, the ability to reason, rule, speak, etc., like God does."
To review:
NAS concordance says it means: form (1), image (5), images (6), likenesses (3), phantom (1).​
Young Briggs Driver says: צֶ֫לֶם noun masculineEzekiel 16:17 image (something cut out,)​
צֶ֫לֶם noun masculineEzekiel 16:17 image (something cut out, compare מֶּסֶל; Nö 'Schnitzbild'); — ׳צ absolute Psalm 39:7, construct Genesis 1:27 +; suffix צַלְמוֺ Genesis 1:27; Genesis 5:3, צַלְמֵנוּ Genesis 1:26, צַלְמָם Psalm 73:20; plural construct צַלְמֵי 1 Samuel 6:5 (twice in verse) +, suffix צְלָמָיו 2 Kings 11:18; 2Chronicles 23:17, צַלְמֵיכֶם Amos 5:26; —​
1 images of tumours and mice (of gold) 1 Samuel 6:5 (twice in verse); 1 Samuel 6:11; especially of heathen gods Amos 5:26 (text dubious; strike out We as gloss, compare GASm Dr), 2 Kings 11:18 2Chronicles 23:17 (both with verb שִׁבְּרוּ), Ezekiel 7:20, so זָכָר ׳צ Ezekiel 16:17 (i.e. in male form, according to figurative of harlotry for idolatry); צַלְמֵי מַסֵכֹתָם Numbers 33:52 their molten images; of painted pictures of men Ezekiel 23:14.​
2 image, likeness, of resemblance, ׳בְּצ (בָּרָא) עָשָׂה, of God's making man in his own image, Genesis 1:26("" כִּדְמוּתֵנוּ), Genesis 1:27; Genesis 1:27; Genesis 9:6, ׳כְּצ Genesis 5:3 ("" בִּדְמוּתוֺ; all P).​
3 figurative = mere, empty, image, semblance, ׳בְּצ Psalm 39:7 as (ב essentiae) a (mere) semblance man walks about; צַלְמָם תִּבְזֶה Psalm 73:20 thou wilt despise their semblance.​
צְלֵם17 noun masculineDaniel 2:31 image (see Biblical Hebrew צלם)​

So you said,
Focus on 3 figurative or you end up with issues of your physical tzelem gods being created.
You are only allowed to focus on three while denying everything else...your invention requires you to ignore one and two so that your invention becomes "mere, empty, image, semblance," and not "ability..." to do anything let alone create in the same non-existent-image image.

So you admit that your definition is "mere empty semblance...in fact meaningless? And you want to squeeze Adam into that or that into Adam?


You're not being truthful. Look at post #414.
I'm glad you posted this. I made a mistake...baffled that you be forced by your invention to deny every definition given from three dictionaries. My wording was more than unfortunate. I would not write it again. The actual dictionary definition and your denial of the same argues better my point than I did.
So nothing physical compares to God, because He isn't physical. You forgot the root includes blood and Adam.

Check out Hirsch's Etymological Dictionary of Hebrew.[/quote]

You didn't look very well.
It's clear someone didn't.
 

Jewjitzu

Well-known member
I finally found it...Thank you, and I apologize...This was the long argument where I showed that my Elohim has both tzelem and duluth, image and likeness...
Great. So you admit your gods have a physical image. If not, why are you complaining?

I wrote this in response to your specious definition of "tzelem", where you claim: "[tzelem means] Yes, the ability to reason, rule, speak, etc., like God does."
To review:
NAS concordance says it means: form (1), image (5), images (6), likenesses (3), phantom (1).​
Young Briggs Driver says: צֶ֫לֶם noun masculineEzekiel 16:17 image (something cut out,)​
צֶ֫לֶם noun masculineEzekiel 16:17 image (something cut out, compare מֶּסֶל; Nö 'Schnitzbild'); — ׳צ absolute Psalm 39:7, construct Genesis 1:27 +; suffix צַלְמוֺ Genesis 1:27; Genesis 5:3, צַלְמֵנוּ Genesis 1:26, צַלְמָם Psalm 73:20; plural construct צַלְמֵי 1 Samuel 6:5 (twice in verse) +, suffix צְלָמָיו 2 Kings 11:18; 2Chronicles 23:17, צַלְמֵיכֶם Amos 5:26; —​
1 images of tumours and mice (of gold) 1 Samuel 6:5 (twice in verse); 1 Samuel 6:11; especially of heathen gods Amos 5:26 (text dubious; strike out We as gloss, compare GASm Dr), 2 Kings 11:18 2Chronicles 23:17 (both with verb שִׁבְּרוּ), Ezekiel 7:20, so זָכָר ׳צ Ezekiel 16:17 (i.e. in male form, according to figurative of harlotry for idolatry); צַלְמֵי מַסֵכֹתָם Numbers 33:52 their molten images; of painted pictures of men Ezekiel 23:14.​
2 image, likeness, of resemblance, ׳בְּצ (בָּרָא) עָשָׂה, of God's making man in his own image, Genesis 1:26("" כִּדְמוּתֵנוּ), Genesis 1:27; Genesis 1:27; Genesis 9:6, ׳כְּצ Genesis 5:3 ("" בִּדְמוּתוֺ; all P).​
3 figurative = mere, empty, image, semblance, ׳בְּצ Psalm 39:7 as (ב essentiae) a (mere) semblance man walks about; צַלְמָם תִּבְזֶה Psalm 73:20 thou wilt despise their semblance.​
צְלֵם17 noun masculineDaniel 2:31 image (see Biblical Hebrew צלם)​
Right, so the image is figurative.

Otherwise, your comparing your gods to those with hemorrhoids.

So you said,

You are only allowed to focus on three while denying everything else...your invention requires you to ignore one and two so that your invention becomes "mere, empty, image, semblance," and not "ability..." to do anything let alone create in the same non-existent-image image.

So you admit that your definition is "mere empty semblance...in fact meaningless? And you want to squeeze Adam into that or that into Adam?
Rotfl... it's either my understanding where Man is representative of God on earth, or you're stuck with physically created gods as you have cornered yourself into.

I'm glad you posted this. I made a mistake...baffled that you be forced by your invention to deny every definition given from three dictionaries. My wording was more than unfortunate. I would not write it again. The actual dictionary definition and your denial of the same argues better my point than I did.
Rotfl... I'm baffled you don't see a problem with your created gods.
 
Last edited:

tbeachhead

Well-known member
One clearly has a singular etymological form, the other plural. In the plural form, foreign gods use the plural translation and singular for the God of Israel. It isn't difficult to understand.
This is linguistic nonsense...Sheep has one form.

Hebrew, a Semitic language, has three: the singular, the dual/emphatic and the plural...El, singular, and Elohim.

You've messed up big time. Just admit to it.
I admitted forgetting a line in a redundant thread...The point remains the same: your invention has neither image or likeness...only an imitable personality.
It shows you don't know the difference between visions, riddles, and the problems with a physical understanding of God.
It shows only that you do not know what it means "to see", which is exactly what Isaiah says.

Look at post #414.
I did...I made a mistake...in one post out of 929. Your god has no image or likeness and cannot create.

(tbeachhead) Not an image. Not even close. Tselem is always physical.
Yes...The mistake. I apologize.

...thanks for pasting the part you will continue to deny, because I also said:
PETE said:
And Duluth is external appearance...
Accurate statement. and...
Pete said:
Your god has no tselem and no duluth...it is formless and void.
Also accurate, since your definition of tselem has no relation or resemblence to any definition we've cited beyond "figurative, mere, empty". Imaginary. Invention.

If tzelem isn't always physical, then you can't discount my understanding.
I discount what is not in the scholars' definition...I highlight what you did accept. "empty"

So stop speaking falsely about me.
I will continue to do my best, and admit to each mistake...In the multiplication of words there is no absence of sin...We are multiplying words. We are at risk. I appreciate it when you point out my error. Thanks.
 

tbeachhead

Well-known member
Great. So you admit your gods have a physical image. If not, why are you complaining?
No...Spirit has describable image.

And you finally admit that your imaginary "spirit" cannot be seen, bears no description, and is more a weather report than a reality.

Right, so the image is figurative.
No...You artificially acquiesce to a single definition. My Elohim is obviously Real and Spiritual.

Otherwise, you're comparing your gods to those with hemorrhoids.
Nope...That's one of the three, too. But I'm thinking it's wiser to go with #2, the definition which the scholars actually apply to Genesis 1, the passage we're discussing: 2 image, likeness, of resemblance, ׳בְּצ (בָּרָא) עָשָׂה, of God's making man in his own image, Genesis 1:26("" כִּדְמוּתֵנוּ), Genesis 1:27; Genesis 1:27; Genesis 9:6, ׳כְּצ Genesis 5:3 ("" בִּדְמוּתוֺ; all P). Trying to help...you won't need your spectacles to read this...and only the truly blind will miss it.

Rotfl... it's either my understanding where Man is representative of God on earth, or you're stuck with physically created gods as you have cornered yourself into.
"Representative" is not "image and likeness." And, once again, you have invented "physically created gods" and falsely accuse me of saying any such absurdity. Do you have a single post where it is I and NOT you who make that claim?

Why do you resort to falsehood after I admitted my mistake?

Rotfl... I'm baffled you don't see a problem with your created gods.
You created your invention and defend your creation here. I read what is written.
 

Jewjitzu

Well-known member
This is linguistic nonsense...Sheep has one form.
Which can be singular or plural based on context.

Hebrew, a Semitic language, has three: the singular, the dual/emphatic and the plural...El, singular, and Elohim.
Yes, and the plural form can be understood as singular based on the context. That's why translators use the singular "God" for YHWH.

I admitted forgetting a line in a redundant thread...The point remains the same: your invention has neither image or likeness...only an imitable personality.
No, you've even exposed that tzelem can be figurative. The problem is you're stuck with your gods being physical.

It shows only that you do not know what it means "to see", which is exactly what Isaiah says.
See is also used in the context of reason, perceive, etc.

I did...I made a mistake...in one post out of 929. Your god has no image or likeness and cannot create.
And your gods have a physical image and are created as a result.

Yes...The mistake. apologize
Thank you.

...thanks for pasting the part you will continue to deny, because I also said:
Accurate statement. and...Also accurate, since your definition of tselem has no relation or resemblence to any definition we've cited beyond "figurative, mere, empty". Imaginary. Invention.
So then admit that your gods are physical, or just keep quite because the only alternative is my idea.

I discount what is not in the scholars' definition...I highlight what you did accept. "empty"
Excuse me, there are more scholars than 3 dictionaries.

I will continue to do my best, and admit to each mistake...In the multiplication of words there is no absence of sin...We are multiplying words. We are at risk. I appreciate it when you point out my error. Thanks.
Ok.
 

Jewjitzu

Well-known member
No...Spirit has describable image.
So your spirit is physical. Will/spirit is seen via an action after the fact.

And you finally admit that your imaginary "spirit" cannot be seen, bears no description, and is more a weather report than a reality.
God, who is described as will, spirit, cannot be seen. The NT uses invisible to describe that.

No...You artificially acquiesce to a single definition. My Elohim is obviously Real and Spiritual.
Your gods are physical and created.

Nope...That's one of the three, too. But I'm thinking it's wiser to go with #2, the definition which the scholars actually apply to Genesis 1, the passage we're discussing: 2 image, likeness, of resemblance, ׳בְּצ (בָּרָא) עָשָׂה, of God's making man in his own image, Genesis 1:26("" כִּדְמוּתֵנוּ), Genesis 1:27; Genesis 1:27; Genesis 9:6, ׳כְּצ Genesis 5:3 ("" בִּדְמוּתוֺ; all P).
Ok, so mankind is representative of God by ruling on earth as He does in Heaven.

"Representative" is not "image and likeness." And, once again, you have invented "physically created gods" and falsely accuse me of saying any such absurdity. Do you have a single post where it is I and NOT you who make that claim?
We represent the godly image by living as He does.

You've said you accept an actual physical tzelem for God. If not, then stop bickering.

Why do you resort to falsehood after I admitted my mistake?
Because you believe in a physical tzelem for your gods. Not falsehood on my part. You're finding it hard admitting your thinking is idolatrous.

You created your invention and defend your creation here. I read what is written.
A physical tzelem must be created or you're no different than the atheists that believe the universe has always existed, and in your case your gods have always been physical even before creation ex nihilo.
 
Last edited:

tbeachhead

Well-known member
Which can be singular or plural based on context.
Yep...which only proves that this is non sequitur, and your argument is specious. Thank you for bringing that out again.

God has two forms, singular and plural: God and Gods....El has two forms: El and Elohim. Perfectly parallel. The shemah is a paradox.
Yes, and the plural form can be understood as singular based on the context.
The Shemah clarifies the paradox, and makes the exception the new rule, because Elohim, the Word, the Will and the Spirit, is actually and very really echad.
That's why translators use the singular "God" for YHWH.
The Tetragrammaton is a proper name..."I Am What I Will Be" is the best translation of the Name I ever saw. Most English and Swedish translators go with Jewish tradition and translate the name as "LORD". The French, in many translations, wisely chose to translate the Tetragrammaton as "L'Éternel", the ever-living, time-transcendent One. It's a very good translation, and makes better sense each of the six hundred plus times the Hashem is used.

Translators actually translate Elohim as "God" because the shemah gives license to do just that, if you're going to actually mistranslate "elohenu" as "our God" and not "our Gods", avoiding the paradox in the translation altogether. All translators I've read in English, French and Swedish have used that license and done exactly that.

No, you've even exposed that tzelem can be figurative. The problem is you're stuck with your gods being physical.
Actually you've deliberately ignored every other definition offered, and thereby artificially limited your own invention to a "spirit" that has no shape or form, and cannot be described despite the Tenach's frequent descriptions of spiritual reality.
See is also used in the context of reason, perceive, etc.
And descriptions provide context that you are forced to deny. For you there is no spirit...only force...and therefore shapeless, unreal and indescribable despite the prophets' numerous descriptions.

And your gods have a physical image and are created as a result.
No...but you've admitted again that Elohim is plural. My Elohim has tselem and duluth, and Adam was created in both. Unlike your invented god, My Elohim is able to create.

Thank you.
Thank your for accepting. More than making mistakes, I regret losing an articulate dialog.

So then admit that your gods are physical, or just keep quiet because the only alternative is my idea.
Just admit that your invention cannot create because he has neither tselem nor duluth...and he's artificially limited by your own rejection of what the words mean. He cannot clothe himself in mortality. He cannot walk among us. He cannot eat the dinner Sarai prepared or wrestle with Jacob. He cannot appear and show his back side to Moses...your god has no side for Moses to see. He can have no beard, cannot sit on a throne. He's incapable of redemption...only your own effort can do that, and that necessarily outside of Torah, bereft as you are of the Ark and of prophet, priest, ephod, urim and thummim or king. Your invention is out of whole cloth and a denial of the Tenakh.

Excuse me, there are more scholars than 3 dictionaries.
Cite them. I have limited resources. Show me the. definition that says "image is merely the ability to reason, will and speak." That would be quite nice to know the origin of your invention.
 

Jewjitzu

Well-known member
Yep...which only proves that this is non sequitur, and your argument is specious. Thank you for bringing that out again.
Rotfl... it should help you understand below.

God has two forms, singular and plural: God and Gods....El has two forms: El and Elohim. Perfectly parallel. The shemah is a paradox.
No, the Shema is straight forward. In looking at Deuteronomy 6:4-6, it's clear you see that "I", a singular term, is in reference to God.

The Shemah clarifies the paradox, and makes the exception the new rule, because Elohim, the Word, the Will and the Spirit, is actually and very really echad.
Actually, the Father is already spirit, and has a will. Just one person.

The Tetragrammaton is a proper name..."I Am What I Will Be" is the best translation of the Name I ever saw.
Yes, and if you check YHWH it's singular,


So any place you see Elo-him in conjunction with YHWH, you know we're talking about a singular God and not three persons with the same name.

Most English and Swedish translators go with Jewish tradition and translate the name as "LORD". The French, in many translations, wisely chose to translate the Tetragrammaton as "L'Éternel", the ever-living, time-transcendent One. It's a very good translation, and makes better sense each of the six hundred plus times the Hashem is used.

Translators actually translate Elohim as "God" because the shemah gives license to do just that, if you're going to actually mistranslate "elohenu" as "our God" and not "our Gods", avoiding the paradox in the translation altogether. All translators I've read in English, French and Swedish have used that license and done exactly that.

Actually you've deliberately ignored every other definition offered, and thereby artificially limited your own invention to a "spirit" that has no shape or form, and cannot be described despite the Tenach's frequent descriptions of spiritual reality.
I'm not obligated to use the other definitions because the alternative is physically created gods as you have.

And descriptions provide context that you are forced to deny. For you there is no spirit...only force...and therefore shapeless, unreal and indescribable despite the prophets' numerous descriptions.
Again, you're ignoring all I've said before.

No...but you've admitted again that Elohim is plural.
No, I've admitted that's your stance. Context determines the actual meaning.

My Elohim has tselem and duluth, and Adam was created in both. Unlike your invented god, My Elohim is able to create.
So you admit your gods have a physical tzelem and demut. How did they get this physicality?

Just admit that your invention cannot create because he has neither tselem nor duluth...and he's artificially limited by your own rejection of what the words mean.
As we spoke about before, the physical is restricted. The NT admits to this about Jesus which isn't much of a god.

He cannot clothe himself in mortality. He cannot walk among us. He cannot eat the dinner Sarai prepared or wrestle with Jacob. He cannot appear and show his back side to Moses...your god has no side for Moses to see. He can have no beard, cannot sit on a throne. He's incapable of redemption...only your own effort can do that. Your invention is out of whole cloth and a denial of the Tenakh.
Again, you're stuck in the physical realm and it's sad. I'll give you that your gods are capable of ridicule as Elijah gives physical gods at 1 Kings 18:27, and comparisons to hemorrhoid gods.

Cite them. I have limited resources. Show me the. definition that says "image is merely the ability to reason, will and speak." That would be quite nice to know the origin of your invention.
Rotfl... https://biblehub.com/text/genesis/1-26.htm

What's a representative image?
 

tbeachhead

Well-known member
So your spirit is physical. Will/spirit is seen via an action after the fact.
You're redundantly confused again...Spirit has spiritual form and shape...What you deny has to dawn on you before you get this...Physical reality is only a shadow of spiritual reality. The operative term here is "reality." Not physical or spiritual.

God, who is described as will, spirit, cannot be seen. The NT uses invisible to describe that.
It also says, "We have seen." Do not ignore those posts you do not like.


Your gods are physical and created.
Thank you for pointing out that Elohim is plural...It's good to be reminded of that fact in every post...so we recognize that your god is an invention. You admit that now.


Ok, so mankind is representative of God by ruling on earth as He does in Heaven.
Well...amazingly close...Adam, created as he was in Elohim's tselem and duluth, was given dominion as el of this earth...Adam capitulated to the serpent, and hell broke loose. Hosea points out that we "like Adam have all transgressed the covenant." The Messiah, called by the prophet Paul, teacher of righteousness, the "Last Adam", wrested dominion from satan through obedience unto the cross, suffering Adam's death yet without transgression, and broke the curse, winning back Adam's heritage for the sons of Adam who commit themselves to taking God at His Word as Abraham, the father of our faith, first did. That's the whole gospel.

You're seeming pretty close to seeing here.

We represent the godly image by living as He does.
Our effort doesn't do it...Adam's transgression caused cosmic damage that only the Last Adam, by His blood, can propitiate and remit.

You've said you accept an actual physical tzelem for God. If not, then stop bickering.
I actually said I was wrong to say "physical." I will patiently remind you I apologized. ;) The spiritual is not the physical...Spiritual image is not physical image. Messiah's tongue in the Spirit is a two-edged sword.

Because you believe in a physical tzelem for your gods. Not falsehood on my part. You're finding it hard admitting your thinking is idolatrous.
Again you remind us that Elohim is plural. Thank you for that. You need to now admit that I said "tzelem" can also mean spiritual image, real and describable...something that you must deny to artificially support your invention. Have you admitted that you've invented everything, and that your god can only be imaginary and not real?

A physical tzelem must be created or you're no different than the atheists that believe the universe has always existed, and in your case your gods have always been physical even before creation ex nihilo.
So we're just going back to insulting our intelligence, and revealing that no scripture can support your invention. OK.
 

Jewjitzu

Well-known member
You're redundantly confused again...Spirit has spiritual form and shape...
What is spiritual form? Because you're talking about something else that is created.

Here you go, https://biblehub.com/hebrew/7307.htm.

It's taken you since Oct 21 to say this. I'm assuming you mean your gods have spiritual form. Let's see where this goes.

What you deny has to dawn on you before you get this...Physical reality is only a shadow of spiritual reality. The operative term here is "reality." Not physical or spiritual.
What you deny is that your words and understanding are all physical.

It also says, "We have seen." Do not ignore those posts you do not like.
And what does "seen" mean?

Thank you for pointing out that Elohim is plural...It's good to be reminded of that fact in every post...so we recognize that your god is an invention. You admit that now.
I admit etymologically the word is plural. I also admit that based on the context that the word is used, that will determine the meaning. You forget that. That's the most important part.

Well...amazingly close...Adam, created as he was in Elohim's tselem and duluth, was given dominion as el of this earth...Adam capitulated to the serpent, and hell broke loose. Hosea points out that we "like Adam have all transgressed the covenant." The Messiah, called by the prophet Paul, teacher of righteousness, the "Last Adam", wrested dominion from satan through obedience unto the cross, suffering Adam's death yet without transgression, and broke the curse, winning back Adam's heritage for the sons of Adam who commit themselves to taking God at His Word as Abraham, the father of our faith, first did. That's the whole gospel.
Like I said, man's role was to be God on earth.


Our effort doesn't do it...Adam's transgression caused cosmic damage that only the Last Adam, by His blood, can propitiate and remit.
No, all men are responsible on their own.

I actually said I was wrong to say "physical." I will patiently remind you I apologized. ;) The spiritual is not the physical...Spiritual image is not physical image. Messiah's tongue in the Spirit is a two-edged sword.
Great. So what tzelem, image does your gods have then? If it's not physical why are you complaining to me?

Again you remind us that Elohim is plural. Thank you for that. You need to now admit that I said "tzelem" can also mean spiritual image, real and describable...something that you must deny to artificially support your invention. Have you admitted that you've invented everything, and that your god can only be imaginary and not real?
I admit context is key 🔑.

So we're just going back to insulting our intelligence, and revealing that no scripture can support your invention. OK.
Not insulting. I'm showing the results of thinking of gods in physical terms.
 
Last edited:

tbeachhead

Well-known member
Rotfl... it should help you understand below.
I wish it helped you understand. You continue to invent below.

No, the Shema is straight forward.
"Our GODS is ONE." Very straightforward...so straightforward you are in denial...and cannot recognize a paradox when it stares you in the face.
In looking at Deuteronomy 6:4-6, it's clear you see that "I", a singular term, is in reference to God
Yep.

Oh...and "eloheku" is plural. See the link: "Noun - masculine plural" Under eloheku, with the second singular possessive construct tacked on, "YHWH thy Gods." Translators continue to follow the licensed choice that the shema allows.
Actually, the Father is already spirit, and has a will. Just one person.
Yes...the Will decides to create, the Spirit broods...and the Word does the work of creation. Decidedly One...Elohim. Or should I go with your choice and say "Gods" every time? English speakers won't get this, because we ignore the Jewish connection to the shemah...by you and I both see it, don't we?

Yes, and if you check YHWH it's singular,
Of course. It's the hashem.


So any place you see Elo-him in conjunction with YHWH, you know we're talking about a singular God and not three persons with the same name.
Of course we are...it's absurd when you call my Elohim my gods...but you do anyway...And He is very present in the Creation as Will, and Spirit and Word...All One.

It's amazing that He is so Unlimited, Elohenu, that the Word became Flesh and dwelt among us. It's absolutely amazing that He was in the world, and though the world was made through Him, the world did not recognize Him. Astounding that, He came to His own, and His own did not receive Him. But. the good news is that to all who DID receive Him, to those who actually did believe in His Hashem, He gave the right to become children of God— children born not of blood, nor of the desire or will of man, but born of God. And though it is obviously true that no man has seen the Father, the one and only Son, the Word made flesh, who is Himself God and is at the Father’s side, has made Him known.

Without seeing, we have known Him!
I'm not obligated to use the other definitions because the alternative is physically created gods as you have.
No...actually, the alternative is a spiritual reality that you are forced to deny.

Again, you're ignoring all I've said before.
This is a summary of everything you've said. There is no such thing as "spiritual reality" for you. It is an apparent oxymoron, despite the Tenakh proving otherwise.


No, I've admitted that's your stance. Context determines the actual meaning.
Indeed..and you admit that you are forced to deny context according to your invention.

So you admit your gods have a physical tzelem and demut. How did they get this physicality?
So you admit that Elohim is plural, and you cannot imagine what the term "spiritual reality" means...outside of "imaginary"? Your invention is limited to fiction.


As we spoke about before, the physical is restricted. The NT admits to this about Jesus which isn't much of a god.
The only restriction in this thread that I see is what you have imposed on your imaginary invention, with neither tselem nor demuth in which to create anything, let alone Adam. The invented god/image you have created is incapable of what the Torah claims El Elohenu did.

Again, you're stuck in the physical realm and it's sad. I'll give you that your gods are capable of ridicule as Elijah gives physical gods at 1 Kings 18:27, and comparisons to hemorrhoid gods.
You're stuck in deNial...You haven't made it to the Red Sea.


Rotfl... https://biblehub.com/text/genesis/1-26.htm

What's a representative image?
Don't know what you're talking about...I do understand "image/resemblence" and "likeness/similitude" though...Thanks for the link.
 

Jewjitzu

Well-known member
"Our GODS is ONE." Very straightforward...so straightforward you are in denial...and cannot recognize a paradox when it stares you in the face.
Yep, you admit to 3 gods. At least 2 have separate bodies.

My translation shows "God".

Oh...and "eloheku" is plural. See the link: "Noun - masculine plural" Under eloheku, with the second singular possessive construct tacked on, "YHWH thy Gods."
And YHWH shows singular. Context determines the meaning.

Translators continue to follow the licensed choice that the shema allows.
Yes...the Will decides to create, the Spirit broods...and the Word does the work of creation.
Will is same as spirit.

Decidedly One...Elohim. Or should I go with your choice and say "Gods" every time? English speakers won't get this, because we ignore the Jewish connection to the shemah...by you and I both see it, don't we?
I see God, not gods.


Why isn't the verse above following your thinking?

Of course we are...it's absurd when you call my Elohim my gods...but you do anyway...And He is very present in the Creation as Will, and Spirit and Word...All One.
But your gods are different persons and different bodies. That isn't one.

It's amazing that He is so Unlimited, Elohenu, that the Word became Flesh and dwelt among us.
That's not one anymore.

It's absolutely amazing that He was in the world, and though the world was made through Him, the world did not recognize Him. Astounding that, He came to His own, and His own did not receive Him. But. the good news is that to all who DID receive Him, to those who actually did believe in His Hashem, He gave the right to become children of God— children born not of blood, nor of the desire or will of man, but born of God. And though it is obviously true that no man has seen the Father, the one and only Son, the Word made flesh, who is Himself God and is at the Father’s side, has made Him known.
Yawn 🥱...

Without seeing, we have known Him!
No...actually, the alternative is a spiritual reality that you are forced to deny.
Yes, creation is a witness to His glory.

This is a summary of everything you've said. There is no such thing as "spiritual reality" for you. It is an apparent oxymoron, despite the Tenakh proving otherwise.
No, I've said your spiritual is really physical.

Indeed..and you admit that you are forced to deny context according to your invention.
No, I admit that visions and riddles aren't reality.

So you admit that Elohim is plural, and you cannot imagine what the term "spiritual reality" means...outside of "imaginary"? Your invention is limited to fiction.
I admit my God is exclusively one, and non-physical.

Define spiritual form for me.

The only restriction in this thread that I see is what you have imposed on your imaginary invention, with neither tselem nor demuth in which to create anything, let alone Adam. The invented god/image you have created is incapable of what the Torah claims El Elohenu did.
So we're back to a physical form for you. Or can you define spiritual form for me?

You're stuck in deNial...You haven't made it to the Red Sea.
Actually, we passed it and left your gods behind ;)

Don't know what you're talking about...I do understand "image/resemblence" and "likeness/similitude" though...Thanks for the link.
I've known this since last year.
 
Top