Why God isn't, can't become man?

[Jewjitzu]

Exodus 34:17 - idolatry entails a god of fusion, covering, a vail. Vails of flesh, dual natures, encompasses idolatry. Masecah.

Deut 4:9,12,15,35 - God has no physical form.

Deut 32:4-6 - God isn't corruptible, has no sin. Man is corruptible, potential to sin. God has no potential to sin. God cannot take on sin. Side note - only the Father created.

Isaiah 40:18,25; 46:5 - God doesn't have a likeness to the physical/domeh, blood/dam, nor man/adam.

Isaiah 43:10 - no new god formed after Him. Jesus was.

Numbers 23:19 - God says he isn't man.
1 Sam. 15:29 - diddo
Job 9:32 - diddo
Hosea 11:9 - diddo

Matthew 16:17 - Jesus says God isn't flesh nor blood.

John 20:17 - Jesus says he has a God, he isn't the Father, and that Jesus himself isn't in heaven.

More to come...

 

[docphin5]

Exodus 34:17 - idolatry entails a god of fusion, covering, a vail. Vails of flesh, dual natures, encompasses idolatry. Masecah.

Deut 4:9,12,15,35 - God has no physical form.

Deut 32:4-6 - God isn't corruptible, has no sin. Man is corruptible, potential to sin. God has no potential to sin. God cannot take on sin. Side note - only the Father created.

Isaiah 40:18,25; 46:5 - God doesn't have a likeness to the physical/domeh, blood/dam, nor man/adam.

Isaiah 43:10 - no new god formed after Him. Jesus was.

Numbers 23:19 - God says he isn't man.
1 Sam. 15:29 - diddo
Job 9:32 - diddo
Hosea 11:9 - diddo

Matthew 16:17 - Jesus says God isn't flesh nor blood.

John 20:17 - Jesus says he has a God, he isn't the Father, and that Jesus himself isn't in heaven.

More to come...

“J.Neusner, in his fascinating study “The Incarnation of God”, was bold enough to tackle the problem even though he could not bring himself to address the central issue. He analyzed the Jewish texts of the first seven Christian centuries to see how they depicted God and recognized that ‘the incarnation of God‘ was profoundly characteristic of Judaism (p. 6), even though his definition of incarnation is “the representation of God as a human being…”

He goes on to explain that the Jerusalem Talmud does not reflect this because they were responding to the threat of Jews who claimed Jesus was an incarnation of YHWH. But the Babylonian Talmud in the sixth or seventh century CE frames the direct encounter with the living God and only then in a community not threatened by Christianity.”
Barker, the Great Angel, p. 158)

IOW, the denial of the incarnation of God is ONLY a partisan response to an internal threat to Phariseeism, most likely by the Essenes who believed YHWH was present among them. So rather than admit a possibility of YHWHs presence and lose more members to them they just denied it was possible as you continue to do.

 

[Jewjitzu]

“J.Neusner, in his fascinating study “The Incarnation of God”, was bold enough to tackle the problem even though he could not bring himself to address the central issue. He analyzed the Jewish texts of the first seven Christian centuries to see how they depicted God and recognized that ‘the incarnation of God‘ was profoundly characteristic of Judaism (p. 6), even though his definition of incarnation is “the representation of God as a human being…”

He goes on to explain that the Jerusalem Talmud does not reflect this because they were responding to the threat of Jews who claimed Jesus was an incarnation of YHWH. But the Babylonian Talmud in the sixth or seventh century CE frames the direct encounter with the living God and only then in a community not threatened by Christianity.”
Barker, the Great Angel, p. 158)

IOW, the denial of the incarnation of God is ONLY a partisan response to an internal threat to Phariseeism, most likely by the Essenes who believed YHWH was present among them. So rather than admit a possibility of YHWHs presence and lose more members to them they just denied it was possible as you continue to do.

Neusner appears to be a conservative Jew, at best. Seeing as Conservative Judaism is pretty anti-baised towards Torah and its observance, it isn't surprising he'd interpret things differently, and have a different idea of what the Talmud has to say. But, based on your quote of his words, "incarnation is the representation of God as a human being…”, the idea could be what I've typed below. I've said this all over the forum - a shaliach, messenger, agent, represents God and is God for all intent and purposes. With this background, you can understand John 1:1 - the Father's spoken words created and was His agent. There was no other person involved in creation.

God's presence in Orthodoxy isn't denied, but rather associated with God's blessings or lack thereof, ie, curses. In other words, not a physical presence.

God's presence is also associated with the prophets, angels, men, kings, etc, speaking God's words, and relaying those to mankind at large. That's why we see Moses being called God before Pharaoh, Exodus 7:1; Judges called the God, Ex 21:6,22:8-9, Psalm 82:6; the house of David like God, the angel of the Lord, Zechariah 12:8; Abraham the prince of God, Gen 23:6, angels called God, Psalm 8:5.

 

[Jewjitzu]

IOW, the denial of the incarnation of God is ONLY a partisan response to an internal threat to Phariseeism, most likely by the Essenes who believed YHWH was present among them.

You mean these are your words, and not his, right?

So rather than admit a possibility of YHWHs presence and lose more members to them they just denied it was possible as you continue to do.

Do you see the Essenes and gnosticsm being threatened by Jesus own words that he himself wasn't God nor that God is flesh and blood?

It seems you're threatened because you haven't attempted to reply to any of the verses so far supplied?

 

[docphin5]

You mean these are your words, and not his, right?

References were provided for those who want to verify who said what.

Do you see the Essenes and gnosticsm being threatened by Jesus own words that he himself wasn't God nor that God is flesh and blood?

If the words of Jesus are consistent with the Maccabees, Essenes, and Philo, then his “heavenly Father” would be the El Elyon and Jesus would be equivalent to Elyon’s manifest Son in scripture, namely, YHWH Elohim. The Son of Elyon is manifest, personal, incarnated, changing, but the heavenly Father is invisible. There was a strain of Judaism going all the way back to 8th and 9th century BC in which YHWH was son of Elyon. Archaeology supports and scholars recognize this now.

You happen to belong to the strain of Judaism beginning around sixth century BC that tried to suppress YHWH as son of God and roll everything under him. The Hebrew scriptures reflect both strains of Judaism. Scholars are able to distinguish between the two but it requires a comprehensive analysis. Just cherry picking verses and throwing them at each other will prove nothing other than two opposing ideas are present in scripture.

It seems you're threatened because you haven't attempted to reply to any of the verses so far supplied?

No, just trying to counter the misinformation you spread.

 

[Jewjitzu]

References were provided for those who want to verify who said what.

Ok.

If the words of Jesus are consistent with the Maccabees, Essenes, and Philo, then his “heavenly Father” would be the El Elyon and Jesus would be equivalent to his manifest Son in scripture, namely, YHWH Elohim. The Son of Elyon is manifest, personal, incarnated, changing, but the heavenly Father is invisible.

So, you believe Jesus is mutable and not truly the God. There's only one God, not several.

So, what do you about Jesus clearly saying he isn't God?

There was a strain of Judaism going all the way back to 8th and 9th century in which YHWH was son of Elyon. Archaeology and scholars recognize this now.

I'm sure there are many sectarians. That doesn't say much.

You happen to belong to the strain of Judaism beginning around sixth century BC that tried to suppress YHWH as son of God and roll everything under him.

There's zero evidence of a son of God YHWH in Tanakh.

The Hebrew scriptures reflect both strains of Judaism.

Hardly.

Scholars are able to distinguish between the two but it requires a comprehensive analysis.

Are you a scholar?

Just cherry picking verses and throwing them at each other will prove nothing other than two opposing ideas are present in scripture.

You're a cherry picker.

No, just trying to counter the misinformation you spread.

No misinformation on my part. Don't forgot you spouted that your god is merciful but yet allows an evil god to wreak havoc. You're inconsistent and all over the place.

 

[docphin5]

Ok.


So, you believe Jesus is mutable

That is self evident if he lived, suffered, and died.

and not truly the God. There's only one God, not several.

What does this mean?

“the Father is greater than I.” (John 14:28)

So, what do you about Jesus clearly saying he isn't God?

He makes it clear that he is son of God, also called God, just as El Elyon is true God and YHWH Elohim as son of God is also called God. We make this more complicated than it needs to be.

I'm sure there are many sectarians. That doesn't say much.

There's zero evidence of a son of God YHWH in Tanakh

…and you have done zero investigation of the topic from objective scholarly sources. Instead, you merely spout partisan dogma that you have been indoctrinated into. The blind leading the blind.

Hardly.


Are you a scholar?


You're a cherry picker.

No misinformation on my part. Don't forgot you spouted that your god is merciful but yet allows an evil god to wreak havoc. You're inconsistent and all over the place.

According to your own scriptures there was a rebellion of angels in heaven against the Elyon which wreaked havoc upon heaven and consequently upon our world. Elyon has sent his Holy Spirit through the archangels to heal the land, hence the purpose of salvation, aka, Jesus. Do you not believe your own scriptures?

 

[Jewjitzu]

That is self evident if he lived, suffered, and died.

Then he isn't God, YHWH, the Almighty. Great.

What does this mean?

It means Jesus isn't God.

“the Father is greater than I.” (John 14:28)

Of course. The servant is always less than the Master.

He makes it clear that he is son of God,

So is Israel.

also called God,

No, son of God isn't God. Or so would be Israel.

just as El Elyon is true God

Also called YHWH.

and YHWH Elohim as son of God is also called God.

YHWH Elo-him is never called son of God, aka God, in Tanakh.

We make this more complicated than it needs to be.

I don't know why you do. It's all of the gnostic junk you promote.

…and you have done zero investigation of the topic from objective scholarly sources. Instead, you merely spout partisan dogma that you have been indoctrinated into. The blind leading the blind.

Spouting argument from authority when you only recognize who you want isn't convincing. The gnostic leading the gnostics.

According to your own scriptures there was a rebellion of angels in heaven against the Elyon which wreaked havoc upon heaven and consequently upon our world.

Actually, Tanakh doesn't mention this at all.

Elyon has sent his Holy Spirit through the archangels to heal the land, hence the purpose of salvation, aka, Jesus. Do you not believe your own scriptures?

Show me this rebellion in Tanakh? You've failed with this before.

Why does Jesus say he isn't God?

 

[docphin5]

Then he isn't God, YHWH, the Almighty. Great.


It means Jesus isn't God.


Of course. The servant is always less than the Master.


So is Israel.


No, son of God isn't God. Or so would be Israel.


Also called YHWH.

YHWH Elo-him is never called son of God, aka God, in Tanakh.

”For who in the sky, Compareth himself to Jehovah? Is like to Jehovah among sons of the mighty?” (Psalm 89:6)

This is just ONE example OF MANY that refutes your blind opinion. I will not bother listing them all because you choose to be blind and want others to be as blind as you are. Scholars who perform comprehensive studies of scripture combined with archaeology can demonstrate TWO strains of Judaism going back three thousand years ultimately developing into Christianity and Rabbinical Judaism. The former held a belief in the son of God and the latter are clueless.

I don't know why you do. It's all of the gnostic junk you promote.


Spouting argument from authority when you only recognize who you want isn't convincing. The gnostic leading the gnostics.


Actually, Tanakh doesn't mention this at all.

Show me this rebellion in Tanakh? You've failed with this before.

Genesis 6 touches on it. Ezekiel 28 describes a mythical Eden in heaven where a cherubim ”corrupts his Wisdom” and becomes “dust” or matter. Isaiah speaks of the fall of the morning star, aka, Lucifer.

Since kings were considered manifestations of heavenly beings in classical times then the authors were associating heavenly events with their earthly manifestations, something the modern world does not understand, which is why scripture can only be understood from the perspective of the author versus a modern mindset. The earthly events are a shadow of heavenly realities.

Why does Jesus say he isn't God?

Because he is the Son of God.

 

[Open Heart]

”For who in the sky, Compareth himself to Jehovah? Is like to Jehovah among sons of the mighty?” (Psalm 89:6)

And the heavens acknowledge Your wonder, O Lord, also Your faithfulness in the congregation of holy ones. psalm 89:6

 

[docphin5]

And the heavens acknowledge Your wonder, O Lord, also Your faithfulness in the congregation of holy ones. psalm 89:6

I provided the literal translation because there is less risk of the translator’s bias being reflected in the translation. It is why we have so many various translations because of the inherent flexibility to choose the word and punctuation from among many possibilities.

There is also the fact that Rabbinical Judaism altered the oldest texts to suit their point of view. This can be demonstrated from the differences of the Septuagent translated (300 BC) from the oldest Hebrew scriptures saying one thing and the modern Hebrew text accepted by Rabbis saying something else. The Masoretic text was completed 10th century CE so the Rabbis had lots of time to ”find” their “correct” version of scripture.

Nevertheless, archaeology does not lie. And archaeology has revealed quite a bit about ancient Judaism to include the Dead Sea Scrolls and worship of YHWH and his consort (possibly representing Wisdom) in the first Temple. YHWH was a national God equivalent to the storm God of the Canaanites, namely, Baal, who also was a Son of El, at that time. The Supreme God had appointed angels over the nations, to include YHWH over the Hebrews. Apparently, YHWH was supposed to be the Great Angel, chief over all angels or chief of the gods (Elohim) over all the nations.

The interesting thing is that the Essenes believed Jesus was the incarnation of YHWH (the New Testament reflects that belief) and Jesus is considered God by many western nations. Myth becoming reality. Coincidence or prophesy being fulfilled? It is the Big picture that brings everything into context.

 

[Open Heart]

I provided the literal translation because there is less risk of the translator’s bias being reflected in the translation.

There is no such thing as a literal translations. All translations are influenced by the translator's bias. This is why Jews do not accept translations as God's word. Only the original Hebrew is the word of God.

 

[Open Heart]

There is also the fact that Rabbinical Judaism altered the oldest texts to suit their point of view.

This is an anti-semitic trope.

 

[docphin5]

There is no such thing as a literal translations. All translations are influenced by the translator's bias. This is why Jews do not accept translations as God's word. Only the original Hebrew is the word of God.

Then the original Hebrew meant something different to Jews in the third century BC than rabbis in the 10th century CE. Duh!

 

[docphin5]

This is an anti-semitic trope.

It is demonstrated by the texts available, to include the Targums from rabbis who explained their own scriptures to their own people. What they say changes over time depending upon the threat coming from other Jews who interpreted their own scriptures differently, specifically, those who held YHWH-Elohim to be the son of Elyon. It is documented but I don’t expect you to know that if you ONLY listen to Rabbis because they are only one partisan to the internal Jewish debate going back three thousand years.

The other strain of Judaism developed into Christianity who believe in the Son of God. Christianity did not spontaneously appear in the first century, rather it is the natural development of a strain of Judaism stretching back to the ninth century BC which believed in a son of God. Philo and the Dead Sea Scrolls prove that. Archaeology is gradually affirming that conclusion. But dont expect your rabbis to share that with you.

 

[Open Heart]

Then the original Hebrew meant something different to Jews in the third century BC than rabbis in the 10th century CE. Duh!

I have no idea what you are talking about. Thhis seems to have no relationship to anything I said.

 

[Open Heart]

It is demonstrated by the texts available, to include the Targums from rabbis who explained their own scriptures to their own people. What they say changes over time depending upon the threat coming from other Jews who interpreted their own scriptures differently, specifically, those who held YHWH-Elohim to be the son of Elyon. It is documented but I don’t expect you to know that if you ONLY listen to Rabbis because they are only one partisan to the internal Jewish debate going back three thousand years.

The other strain of Judaism developed into Christianity who believe in the Son of God. Christianity did not spontaneously appear in the first century, rather it is the natural development of a strain of Judaism stretching back to the ninth century BC which believed in a son of God. Philo and the Dead Sea Scrolls prove that. Archaeology is gradually affirming that conclusion. But dont expect your rabbis to share that with you.

I notice this is teh second post where your reply had nothing to do with what I said. Do you always have problems carrying on conversations?

 

[Jewjitzu]

”For who in the sky, Compareth himself to Jehovah? Is like to Jehovah among sons of the mighty?” (Psalm 89:6)

Yes, the angels are referred to as sons of God. But, they are created and not divine.

This is just ONE example OF MANY that refutes your blind opinion. I will not bother listing them all because you choose to be blind and want others to be as blind as you are.

Sorry, but Gnosticsm has been around for a while. Just because you choose to believe in a world with greater and lesser gods, that doesn't make it legit.

Scholars who perform comprehensive studies of scripture combined with archaeology can demonstrate TWO strains of Judaism going back three thousand years ultimately developing into Christianity and Rabbinical Judaism. The former held a belief in the son of God and the latter are clueless.

Zzzzzzzzz..... Christianity doesn't go back that far. Definitely overlaps with Gnosticsm, came from it.

Genesis 6 touches on it.

No it doesn't. Rulers of men are also called elohim. You should research the usages of the term in Hebrew.

Ezekiel 28 describes a mythical Eden in heaven where a cherubim ”corrupts his Wisdom” and becomes “dust” or matter. Isaiah speaks of the fall of the morning star, aka, Lucifer.

Ah, the context deals with the King of Tyre.

Since kings were considered manifestations of heavenly beings in classical times then the authors were associating heavenly events with their earthly manifestations, something the modern world does not understand, which is why scripture can only be understood from the perspective of the author versus a modern mindset. The earthly events are a shadow of heavenly realities.

Rotfl.... are you playing with pixie dust?

Because he is the Son of God.

So what? So is Israel.

Son of God isn't the same as the God. There is zero divinity involved.

 

[radvermin]

Exodus 34:17 - idolatry entails a god of fusion, covering, a vail. Vails of flesh, dual natures, encompasses idolatry. Masecah.

Deut 4:9,12,15,35 - God has no physical form.

Deut 32:4-6 - God isn't corruptible, has no sin. Man is corruptible, potential to sin. God has no potential to sin. God cannot take on sin. Side note - only the Father created.

Isaiah 40:18,25; 46:5 - God doesn't have a likeness to the physical/domeh, blood/dam, nor man/adam.

Isaiah 43:10 - no new god formed after Him. Jesus was.

Numbers 23:19 - God says he isn't man.
1 Sam. 15:29 - diddo
Job 9:32 - diddo
Hosea 11:9 - diddo

Matthew 16:17 - Jesus says God isn't flesh nor blood.

John 20:17 - Jesus says he has a God, he isn't the Father, and that Jesus himself isn't in heaven.

More to come...

1. If you're going to make an argument that God is not now a man, should you not use verses that speak about God not being one today as opposed to verses that happened thousands of years before the incarnation of Jesus?
EG, if you said when you were 4, "I'm not an adult" and then time marches on and things change and you become an adult, I shouldn't say "But you said when you're 4 you weren't an adult."

2. God isn't corruptible, and that's why Jesus overcame all temptation (cf Matthew 4 and Luke 4).

3. The Son of God was never created, hence John 1:1 being a timeless beginning before Genesis 1:1. Rather Jesus created everything.

4. Matthew 16:17 - Jesus says God isn't flesh nor blood.
Matthew 16:17 Jesus replied, "Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by man, but by my Father in heaven.
? wrong verse?

5. John 20:17 - Jesus says he has a God, he isn't the Father, and that Jesus himself isn't in heaven.
Jesus wasn't an atheist. We know he isn't the Father. Jesus is now on the throne of God.
But in light of this verse, should I believe the words of Jesus when he speaks about himself or reject them?

 

[Jewjitzu]

1. If you're going to make an argument that God is not now a man, should you not use verses that speak about God not being one today as opposed to verses that happened thousands of years before the incarnation of Jesus?
EG, if you said when you were 4, "I'm not an adult" and then time marches on and things change and you become an adult, I shouldn't say "But you said when you're 4 you weren't an adult."

Why? He's said at least 3 times He isn't a man, and also said via Isaiah 40:18,25; 46:5, that He has no likeness to humans, ie. domeh/physicality, dam/blood, nor adam/man, and that He has no physical form, Deut 4:9,12,15,35. Did you read all of the verses?

2. God isn't corruptible, and that's why Jesus overcame all temptation (cf Matthew 4 and Luke 4).

God isn't, man is. Jesus was less than perfect, grew in grace with God, Luke 2:52, and cried the prayers of a penitent, Heb 5:7. Besides, he donated to the temple funds used for sacrifices, broke his wine vow from the last supper, etc.

3. The Son of God was never created, hence John 1:1 being a timeless beginning before Genesis 1:1. Rather Jesus created everything.

Tanakh states clearly that only the Father created, and no one else, Deut 32:4-6, Mal 2:10, etc. Jesus was formed in the womb.

4. Matthew 16:17 - Jesus says God isn't flesh nor blood.
Matthew 16:17 Jesus replied, "Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by man, but by my Father in heaven.
? wrong verse?

Right verse.

5. John 20:17 - Jesus says he has a God, he isn't the Father, and that Jesus himself isn't in heaven.
Jesus wasn't an atheist. We know he isn't the Father. Jesus is now on the throne of God.
But in light of this verse, should I believe the words of Jesus when he speaks about himself or reject them?

Jesus never says he's the God. David and Solomon and all Davidic kings sit on YHWH's throne, 1 Chr 29:23.

Jesus worships another. You should worship only One.