Psalm 118
Well, he has knees that bow. That won't change.
Yes, and it wasn't a physical image as I've previously explained. Do you think otherwise?
See above. Is your gods image physical or not? It's a simple yes or no. You're quite the dancer
Yes, of course. Is that image physical?
You've danced around the issue. Is the image physical?
Really. Can you give an example of something that is physical and eternal?
Then your god is physical and occupies space, created.
Show us where I took scriptures, Tanakh, out of context.
Have you read your replies above?
Aah, God gave man a woman. It's in Genesis.
Sounds like it. Though no state legally recognizes such marriages, yet. Maybe in your home town?
By analogy, covenant.
Actually you have and have backtracked and contradicted yourself several times. It's funny to watch.
Nope. The created isn't divine.
Begotten means something didn't exist before. So, yes you missed the basics.
This is funny considering you can't read the Hebrew behind it.
Why don't you admit your god is physical and created?
Of course your idea contradicts basic reason. What does Vayomer mean? Is sheep ? singular or plural?
Rotfl... Jesus has eyes and knees, right? I guess reason isn't a first thought with you?
Jewish Publication Society. Look it up in the Biblehub.com.
Better than you.
That's the point. A non-physical God isn't created. You've admitted your god is physical and created. The next step is becoming a Mormon.
See the JPS.
Yep, such is the idolatry of the Trinity.
Yours are the gods of the Mormons.
He clearly is a stumbling block and a rock of offense...as it is written. That won't change. The builders have rejected it according to scripture, and He is the head of the corner, as it is written.
You've explained nothing...and I agree with your "yes." I think Adam was created in his image, and according to His likeness..."His image and likeness" are the words I will. use, as it is written, the rest is up to Him. I shall not deny that His Word is truth, neither to explain away clear meaning so that god fits the limitations of the box I built to keep him in.
You said, "Yes, and it wasn't a physical image..." I think no further explanation is necessary. That seems to satisfy you, as long as you never forget that Adam is in His image and His likeness...See above. Is your gods image physical or not? It's a simple yes or no. You're quite the dancer
It's His image. See above.
The image is His. See above. Adam is created in God's image and according to His likeness...I have no problem saying what He said. Why add to His Word?
Can you define physical? When Isaiah saw the Lord high and lifted up, and the train of His robe filled the temple, did he see a temple? Did he see the train of His robe? Do you have to say what he saw was physical? Isaiah only said he saw. He did not agonize over the agony from which you seem to be suffering.
See above. God is not formless and void. Your logic is woefully flawed, and your presumption only proves you know nothing at all of Christianity.
I did. See above.
I read, re-read and edit...Clarity is important, because the issues you raise are very important.Have you read your replies above?
True...and you've answered nothing either, have you? Let's try again: Does God have a bride? Do you believe as it is written, Israel is God's bride?...Tell me, what type of creature shall man marry? We know the answer...What type of being weds with God? He's not ashamed to admit it.
Not yet...but nothing will prevent todays governments from enforcing such perversion...until the godly arise and bring back the kingdom.
OK
You're projecting. There is no contradiction to what I'm saying. Neither am I forced to deny scripture as it is written.
You have to force the concept to perpetuate your denial of Messiah. Jesus, the Word, was with the Father in the beginning. Without Him was not anything made that was made...
No...Begotten shows the process...the Word, with the Father...ever and eternal.
Denial is always amusing.
Why don't you admit you do not believe Torah, and your traditions have enforced blindness on you? Ping pong is my favorite sport.
Sheep is an English anomaly...1st person plural is plural in any language.
:roflmao: The Word became flesh and dwelt among us. I guess denial is the next best thing to actual history for you, eh?
No...your own grammar is flawed. "ET" is not a preposition.
Well that's a claim to fame to be sure...error is still error.
You actually missed my point. Your god is formless and void, having no image or likeness, and incapable of creating anything in his own image and likeness. Your god is a contradiction to Torah.
Nah...Contrived appeal to authority. You wasted that card when you made a particle that precedes the accusative case into a preposition.
You actually agreed to it in part above. The Father, the Word and the Spirit...all created the heavens and the earth. Not three persons. Three...perfectly one.
You delight in insulting my intelligence. That's a sad trait. The discussion is still interesting despite your flawed weakness.
This doesn't answer the questions that you quoted.
If you believe who the cornerstone is than you will know how the thief was forgiven.
No offense to me. He's just human with a pair of knees like all men.
Actually, this would include Jesus as well. He practiced in Gethsemane.
So in other words you're squirming and can't admit your precarious position of admitting to a physically created god. If Torah wanted to emphasize physicality to God, it would have used toar for physical appearance, beauty, etc.
Yes, the clear meaning that God is alone, singular, and created using the dirt, air, water, etc, with man.
It's the only understanding available without getting stuck with a created god as you are.
Yes, the ability to reason, rule, speak, etc., like God does.
I haven't added. You're quite scared, aren't you.
Anything with form. God said at Sinai He has none, Deut 4:8,12,35, and to teach this. That's why idols and idolatry involve forms.
Yep, Isaiah saw a vision.
See above. Visions and riddles.
I can say he saw visions and riddles.
Actually, the revelation at Sinai proved otherwise. Christianity as you practice it is idolatry.
I've answered all.
Answered. A nation accepted God. That is depicted as a marriage. We're not ashamed to admit that.
Yep.
Nope, Messiah is just human like the rest of us with knees.
Nope, no support in Tanakh for this NT rubbish.
Nope. Look up the term in Hebrew. It comes from yulad to be birthed.
Rotfl... I can admit your ignorant of Hebrew and can't reason away your physically created god.Why don't you admit you do not believe Torah, and your traditions have enforced blindness on you? Ping pong is my favorite sport.
Sheep, fish, deer, all have singular and plural meanings depending on the context. That applies to the term elohim as well. False gods are in the plural
Rotfl... all of God's spoken words of creation became physical too. Try your idolatry with someone else.
Search on it, TBH. What do you find in Isaiah 41:4. I didn't say et was a preposition.
Then you're still in error.
I explained this to you already. You're focused on a physical image, I'm not.
Nope. I don't know why you say this when you can't read it or understand it.
See above.
Actually not. An action or word is not a person, nor confused with a person.
I'm not insulting your intelligence. I'm refuting your position. You actually believe in a physical god, no different than the Mormons. You're all cults. Jesus was birthed and human like the Mormon gods. So sad ?.
Say what? Do you understand how a conversation is carried on? When you reply, it addresses what was said. You don't just say random things out of the blue. That's just... wierd.
Sorry, but he was obligated to bring sacrifices for his sins while the temple existed. That's the Christian argument. Since he wasn't able to, and you say that his faith saved him, then Jews today are forgiven too on the basis of prayer and their faith that God will as promised. In fact, the prophets say as much as @Open Heart has shown.
Your rejection, refusal fullfills Psalm 118:22
Psalm 118:22 is not a prophecy to be fulfilled.
That's an interesting claim...It is also false. David prophesied, and much of his song is prophecy. The sons of Korah and Asaph were called to prophesy in song.
The verse was written by King David in reference to himself. When Samuel the Prophet was sent to Jesse's house to choose a king from among his sons (I Samuel 16:1-13), Jesse brought all his sons before Samuel except for David, the youngest, who was in the fields tending the sheep. Samuel thought that G-d would choose the oldest son, but G-d told him, No, I have rejected these. Finally Samuel asked, Do you have any other sons? And Jesse sent for David. G-d said, Arise and anoint him, for he is the one. David was thus the stone rejected by the builders Jesse and Samuel, and he became the cornerstone of the great dynasty of Jewish kings. https://www.truetorahjews.org/qanda/stone
You're not a builder either...you have just consigned your own reason to the builders who rejected Him because He was to them a rock of offense.
Weird question...His knees bowed to His Father. The Romans fell down in front of Him. The Jews you confide your own judgment to tried Him illegally, and illegally pursued a death penaltyActually, this would include Jesus as well. He practiced in Gethsemane.
Naaah. I'm amused that this is the best you can do. You've denied the Torah, said your god is formless and void, and has no image in which to make anything.
Yes...The Father and the Word and the Spirit...alone and singular, created man, body soul and spirit...alone and singular, in His image. Blindness is not an argument. It's just absence of insight.
Actually...your god is the creation of what you've erased from Torah to meet and satisfy your own objections. Your god is a creature of someone's reason from two thousand years ago, when the builders decided Messiah missed his appointment, and did not surrender to them.
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've subtracted...I haven't added. You're quite scared, aren't you.
God in the Torah said He has deliberately created Adam in His...not formless...not void.
You've added so you can subtract. He did not say "I saw a vision." He said he saw.
The answer is yes. Why are you so afraid?
I know you can. You can invent, because invention has been the prescribed way of denial for two thousand years.
It confirms what I just said. God had a backside that Moses could look on, because he could not look on His face...So He also has a face.
In your own eyes to your own satisfaction. It runs in the family, but is not a good basis for judgment. And you refuse to actually answer...What are you afraid of?
You almost answered this time. Thank you. Yet, again you skirt the direct question...Is this a trans-species relationship? Or not a marriage? Just a fake/symbolic myth?Answered. A nation accepted God. That is depicted as a marriage. We're not ashamed to admit that.
Was human...Now He's like we will be. As it is written, He set immortality aside and became flesh and walked among us. Then, immortality restored in His resurrection, He was able to restore Adam's race to the kinship we first had. That was the bride price.
You have shown how you've limited your own reading of the Tanakh. Show me anything that was created without the Word...Nothing was until it was spoken. And that's the first chapter of Torah. You don't have much for a foundation when you call that rubbish.
Again, it seems your Hebrew is weak...Abraham yalad Isaac...He was not birthed by Isaac. He brought Isaac to birth...You're completely backwards.
Sheep, fish, deer, all have singular and plural meanings depending on the context. That applies to the term elohim as well. False gods are in the plural
[/quote]Even your grammar is oddly (deliberately?) flawed...One sheep two sheep. One fish two fish. One deer two deer...BUT one el two...the dual form...and more than two: Elohim.Try your denial anywhere else...God's very Word became flesh, and was seen...grace for grace, light for light and truth for truth.
And we weren't talking about Isaiah...but about Zechariah 12:10. That was where you said "et" meant "with".
Not the text we're talking about...
Clearly not.
I'm focused on reading what is written, not making things up to satisfy my misunderstanding.
You've proven someone here is neither reading or understanding...see above. It's not me having problems remembering what we're talking about.
Good idea!
Ahhh...but the Word is indeed a person. The perfect expression of the Father Himself made visible.
You're only showing how poorly you read. You make this stuff up and project it on to those whom you are unable to understand, because the doctrines of man and ancient tradition has nullified the life of the Word of God in you.
Yeah no....this is totally off. Nice try though. The rabbi's quite clever. No one rejected David, least of all his own dad. No one in Israel rejected David, except the evil spirit from the Lord that afflicted Saul. David was the youngest, and someone had to stay with the sheep...neither is David the cornerstone of any building. There is nothing in the psalm or in the proximity that ascribes it to David. Of course your new friends have to scramble to excuse the fact that they rejected the Stone that has become the cornerstone of the Family of God...the living temple built of living stones. That's why David calls Messiah "Lord", when he sang, "The Lord said to my Lord, sit at my right hand..."
Any Jew that promotes Torah is a builder. You got it wrong.
Then why ask a silly question?
God the Creator. There's no doubt Jesus isn't God.
Rotfl... this has nothing to do with the topic, but Rome executed your god.
Again, you continue with a false accusation. I've said that the image we are created in includes the ability to reason, speak, think, rule, which no other animal does.
Yes, you have the god of the Mormons.
False, Nehemiah 9:6 is clear God created exclusively alone. No one else, one person. It's clear.
Nope, see above.
False. Tzelem is also used in Psalm 73:20, contempt for man's soul, not the properties of his body. Demut is used in regards to an abstract relation, like a pelican in the wilderness, Psalm 102:6.
Show me where. You've added physicality and a created god.
Yes, explained above. Explain who created the image of your god. Stop running away from the problem you have.
Start from Isaiah 1, also read Numbers 12:6-8.
Rotfl... of visions and riddles?
Christianity was built on inventions.
See above. Messiah hasnt arrived.
Nope, panai would mean any physical presence which God said is not possible. You're admitting again to physical god which must be created as well.
I've answered all. Tell us who created your god since the Father has no physicality.
Not a physical marriage. It was pretty clear. Even Jesus admits to this as he says there is no marriage in the resurrection. So there is zero physical marriage with the church. It's all metaphor.
Well that's a problem with Christianity. Ironically, Jesus himself said there is no marriage in the resurrection, so your physical understanding is debunked. See above.
He still is. He's returning as he was according to the NT.
I never said anything wasn't spoken into creation. You just proved God has no physical form. Words are spoken and don't exist before that.
What? Where did this come from?
Not really. If you've bother looking at the Tanakh, you'll see the term elohim is translated as gods or God, depending on context. This are the only two choices.tbeachhead said:
You just said above that all was created. So, when God speaks everything becomes physical. God isn't physical nor has those attributes to become physical.tbeachhead said:
Adam was formed by air, dirt, and water, etc.tbeachhead said:
I showed you how "et" is used as with. Can't you follow?tbeachhead said:
Well, I'm scoring. You're missing the marktbeachhead said:
And I showed you that "et" can be translated as with.tbeachhead said:
Nope, see above.tbeachhead said:
You said "et" wasn't translated as with anywhere. So, you were wrong.tbeachhead said:
Sorry TBH, but you are.tbeachhead said:
You're focused on a translation.tbeachhead said:
See above.tbeachhead said:
Actually, the Tanakh doesn't support the notion that "word" is a person. Please find me a verse that says this.tbeachhead said:Good idea!
Ahhh...but the Word is indeed a person. The perfect expression of the Father Himself made visible.
Take ye therefore good heed unto yourselves--for ye saw no manner of form on the day that the LORD spoke unto you in Horeb out of the midst of the fire Deuteronomy 4:15
And that's how you read, and what has been enforced on you. That is not what the verse actually says, though, is it?
Promotes that part of Torah that you do not reject?
Just observing...
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.
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.So you deny Torah and make a nonsensical definition that denies image. Could you draw me a picture of fantasy or create a likeness to illustrate it? 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.
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.
...and is a figment of your imagination?
Two can play, though it's tediously 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.
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."
: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.
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.
See above...
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.
See above. You've successfully refuted your own claim.
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...
Nonsensical redundancy whose aim is only to insult someone's intelligence. See above.
Wahahaha...See above! Oh...and check out verse 8 in Numbers 12...when you want to refute your own claim:
Naah...of what he actually saw.
It's built on the Tenakh...and the resurrection according to the writings contained in the Tenakh.
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.
See above. You already adequately refuted your own claim.
Naahhh...you've resorted to this ridiculous sparring...tell me...why have you limited your god to formlessness and void?
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...
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.
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.
Nope. See above. But...Yours is only imaginary and artificially limited by your own traditions.
See above. Your argument is specious. It's the meaning of "begat."
And it's always the plural form...Highlighting the paradox of the shemah.
His words are the hands He uses to create all things. Why do you not see this?
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.
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?
That must feel good...to make the claim and convince yourself...Well, I'm scoring. You're missing the mark
No...you didn't. And it isn't. You left the contest of Zechariah to obfuscate the fact that your Hebrew is flawed.
Naaahhh...focused on Truth...
Actually, the Tanakh defends Himself adequately against your suggestion. He is the Word, after all.
Exactly what part of the Torah do you think he rejects? He's an orthodox Jew -- he accepts the entire Torah, and oral Torah.
[/QUOTE]