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

[Jewjitzu]

Yeshua did. That,s enough for me.

It's not required. BTW, he bowed and knelt like all men to the true God and will confess that soon as well.

 

[Jewjitzu]

Because they would rather rock and roll.

To the true Eternal, Immortal, Living Rock.

All others are just tumbleweed.

 

[Open Heart]

Yeah, and I appreciate that accurate assessment. I think that keeping the law "spiritually" ought to be done when the "literal" cannot be done, or when it's no longer culturally relevant. The Biblical example given in Romans 2:25-29, where an illustration is given of a Gentile who keeps the requirements of the law and a Jew who doesn't keep the requirements of the law*. Paul says that the one who keeps the requirements of the law but is uncircumcised is considered as thought they were, but the one who is circumcised will be considered as though they weren't.
This tends to be an interesting in that rather than giving license for sin, as your example illustrates, it ought to make the obedience to it more stringent. For example, I don't have a phylactery but I do memorize Scripture as best as I can. I've committed all of Proverbs to my fading memory and can consistently recite chapters 1-11, 30-31. I used to be able to recite Daniel 1-9. I even dabbled in memorizing Proverbs in Hebrew (and found it very enlightening). The law against adultery is especially important to me. I already told you that I struggled with pornography, and when I was in my teens the only place I found a "law" against it was in Matthew 5:27-29. There are parallels in Job 31:1, and potentially Proverbs, but these are spiritualizations of Exo 20:14.
I'm also, through these conversations, making a self assessment on my own thinking of the Old Testament** - and whether I see it as outdated/irrelevant. I'm wrestling through the topic of homosexuality and the question of whether the Laws still applies today, and I came to a new way of thinking. The answer that I came to before coming on here was, yes they still apply today, just some literally and all spiritually. So how can I uphold them in light of the New Covenant? You and Jewjitzu are putting this new thinking to the test, and I'm enjoying getting my thoughts chiseled away.

*This isn't a race thing, but a circumcision thing, as Paul is writing to both Jew and Gentile in Romans.
** I chose that term deliberately under the circumstance of how I might be treating the Tanakh, as antiquated.

You should know that I absolutely reject everything that Paul says about circumcision. He is not part of my religious texts, and so is not authoritative. My religion prescribes circumcision for Jewish boys on the eighth day. Sometimes we speak of the circumcision of the heart, but this figurative use does not eliminate the actual physical obedience to the commandment.

Generally speaking, the commandments were given to Israel, not to the world. So there is no obligation for non-Jews to do things like wear tefillin or keep the sabbath.

The topic of homosexuality is a hairy one. On one hand, there is no doubt that the Torah restricts sodomy. But some people have made the argument that the Torah also states that a slave is the property of its master, and we certainly don't believe that's true -- no human being is property.

For me personally, I have the traditional morality that sex is restricted to marriage between a man and a woman. This is because sex is a very powerful thing and can cause enormous pain, whether through breakups, or through children living in the poverty of a single parent home, etc. So we have the institution of marriage that is designed to best protect people against this sort of suffering. If you accept marriage as the ideal, then anything that falls short of that ideal gets put off limits. That's not just homosexuality, but also adultery, fornication, beastiality. incest, etc...

 

[radvermin]

No, pleasure and desire/will are not the same. Yes, God at times reveals things but we cannot understand God entirely.

If I follow your flow of thought, it has thus far has been that God's desire/will is for us to follow his commands, as they are His will. His will is also that we love him with all of our heart, soul, and strength. We may not know the full extent for his reasoning, but we can trust that if we obey him, we are showing we love him and that should be enough.
I would add, that when we love someone by obeying them, the command must in some way reflect the person giving the command.
With that in mind, in looking at the sacrifices I see that God desires others to sacrifice, but that He Himself is willing to sacrifice (even his life) for the sake of reconciliation.
I don't see how that kind of message can be given if sacrifices are something that can be substituted for our words.

Well, we will just have to disagree.


It's eternal.


Just in terms of sins that require sacrifices. Not all of them do.

Exactly, those "certain laws".

Laws have specific literal physical actions required. You can't do them away with "spiritual" acts.

Then how is it that you who wants to obey the Mosaic Law in a literal way, substitute a literal lamb or bull or goat for your sins with your lips? Maybe I'm miscommunicating, though. By "spiritual" I mean the spirit of the law. The spirit of the law usually does requires a physical action (at least I can't think of when it doesn't at this time), just not always the literal application of that law. For example, I don't have a railing on my roof (Deut 22:8), but I have railings on my stairs for the same reason. In that way I fulfill the spirit of the law with a literal physical action.

Ok.


Ok.


Why? We see that any human sacrifice isn't acceptable. It's idolatry.

That's interesting choice of word.
The reason why I see too many differences is the same as comparing your house with the planet earth. I might say, "They're both made of the same material." but you would point out, not only the differences between Earth and your house, but this illustration and what we're talking about.
So what are the differences I see. Well, considering that mass murder would be the result for making it a law, it would teach us to put our faith in sacrifices as opposed to the One who sacrifices (Jesus), it would teach that impure sacrifices are acceptable to God since noone can say, "I have kept my heart pure, I am clean and without sin.", God is not the God of the dead but of the living so why would he seek death for his children?, it would make like the other nations that much more quickly (which Christianity and Judaism have always been different from the cultures they are alien to), it would take away from the glory of God who would taken on flesh and be a perfect sacrifice on our behalf, need I go on?
One more thing, it would make Israel like the other nations. Immediately my mind thinks, "Well, then one human sacrifice of Jesus makes Christians like the Canaanites." But this isn't the case. The other religions around the world who use human sacrifices do so on a continual basis. If Christianity were to step into that situation, as we have, not only were we telling them to stop and telling them it's evil, but we would be put to death for it. If we are so alike in this one area then this would not be the case.
This was not man sacrificing another man to God, this was God sacrificing Himself for us. Totally different.

Ok, but the law is still eternal.


Descendant of David, following the law of kings, Deuteronomy 17:14-20, not God.

Oh, come on now You know the Messiah will be a type of David (or is David a type of Messiah?).

Ok.


No problem.

Glad I could write you on my day off.
Blessings.
Happy Holidays.

 

[radvermin]

You should know that I absolutely reject everything that Paul says about circumcision. He is not part of my religious texts, and so is not authoritative. My religion prescribes circumcision for Jewish boys on the eighth day. Sometimes we speak of the circumcision of the heart, but this figurative use does not eliminate the actual physical obedience to the commandment.

Generally speaking, the commandments were given to Israel, not to the world. So there is no obligation for non-Jews to do things like wear tefillin or keep the sabbath.

The topic of homosexuality is a hairy one. On one hand, there is no doubt that the Torah restricts sodomy. But some people have made the argument that the Torah also states that a slave is the property of its master, and we certainly don't believe that's true -- no human being is property.

For me personally, I have the traditional morality that sex is restricted to marriage between a man and a woman. This is because sex is a very powerful thing and can cause enormous pain, whether through breakups, or through children living in the poverty of a single parent home, etc. So we have the institution of marriage that is designed to best protect people against this sort of suffering. If you accept marriage as the ideal, then anything that falls short of that ideal gets put off limits. That's not just homosexuality, but also adultery, fornication, beastiality. incest, etc...

So, a couple things... more than a couple. I know that you reject the New Testament as not Scripture, however it was written predominantly by Jews. I tend to quote it, not to be authoritative, but as an example to hopefully clarify what I mean, and also to see if anything resonates. Like, I'm Canadian, and if you quoted a law that was outdated I might say that it doesn't apply, however there might be enough in that law for me to at least see the rational behind it. I may still reject it in the end because it's too different, though. I hope I explained myself well enough :/

Also, I see that when I said "spiritually" I messed up. I do believe that a spiritual law is meant to have a physical outcome. It's the difference between the letter of the law and the spirit of the law. The commandments were not given to gentiles, however the spirit of the law can be applied and ought to be applied in any culture. I may not have oxen, but if I wreck your car I ought to pay for it.

And for homosexuality... we're on the same page... I weep and fear for my country... especially with regards to wisdom's view of the foolish in Proverbs 1:20-33.

 

[Open Heart]

This was not man sacrificing another man to God, this was God sacrificing Himself for us. Totally different.

I'm not sure what you personally believe, but the standard Christian teaching is that Jesus is "fully god, fully man." So if he was sacrificed, it would qualify as being a human sacrifice. And that's something that is abhorrent to God.

 

[Jewjitzu]

If I follow your flow of thought, it has thus far has been that God's desire/will is for us to follow his commands, as they are His will. His will is also that we love him with all of our heart, soul, and strength. We may not know the full extent for his reasoning, but we can trust that if we obey him, we are showing we love him and that should be enough.
I would add, that when we love someone by obeying them, the command must in some way reflect the person giving the command.
With that in mind, in looking at the sacrifices I see that God desires others to sacrifice, but that He Himself is willing to sacrifice (even his life) for the sake of reconciliation.

God has no need to reconcile as He's done nothing wrong. Besides, sacrificing Himself as God is impossible.

I don't see how that message can be given if sacrifices are something that can be substituted for our words.

See above.

Exactly, those "certain laws".

So, you understand that all sins don't require sacrifices? Stealing requires compensation, misuse of holy things an asham.

So, even if you look at Isaiah 53, the asham sacrifice doesn't cover all sins.

Then how is it that you who wants to obey the Mosaic Law in a literal way, substitute a literal lamb or bull or goat for your sins with your lips?

We can only do what we can do given the circumstances. If the prophets gave us an alternative for the times then we don't argue. Even Daniel had no access to the temple or sacrifices in his generation.

Maybe I'm miscommunicating, though. By "spiritual" I mean the spirit of the law. The spirit of the law usually does requires a physical action (at least I can't think of when it doesn't at this time), just not always the literal application of that law. For example, I don't have a railing on my roof (Deut 22:8), but I have railings on my stairs for the same reason. In that way I fulfill the spirit of the law with a literal physical action.

Well, religious Jews take this seriously. In the old times, the roofs were flat and people had access to them. Today, if that's the case, we're obligated to provide safety for the roof.

That's interesting choice of word.
The reason why I see too many differences is the same as comparing your house with the planet earth. I might say, "They're both made of the same material." but you would point out, not only the differences between Earth and your house, but this illustration and what we're talking about.
So what are the differences I see. Well, considering that mass murder would be the result for making it a law, it would teach us to put our faith in sacrifices as opposed to the One who sacrifices (Jesus), it would teach that impure sacrifices are acceptable to God since noone can say, "I have kept my heart pure, I am clean and without sin.", God is not the God of the dead but of the living so why would he seek death for his children?, it would make like the other nations that much more quickly (which Christianity and Judaism have always been different from the cultures they are alien to), it would take away from the glory of God who would taken on flesh and be a perfect sacrifice on our behalf, need I go on?

You still miss the point that God doesn't condone human sacrifices and yet you want to condone specifically one. Besides, God can't bleed or die so the point that He took on flesh is non sequitur.

One more thing, it would make Israel like the other nations. Immediately my mind thinks, "Well, then one human sacrifice of Jesus makes Christians like the Canaanites." But this isn't the case. The other religions around the world who use human sacrifices do so on a continual basis. If Christianity were to step into that situation, as we have, not only were we telling them to stop and telling them it's evil, but we would be put to death for it. If we are so alike in this one area then this would not be the case.
This was not man sacrificing another man to God, this was God sacrificing Himself for us. Totally different.

No different because God can't sacrifice Himself nor take on sin, die, etc., Deuteronomy 32:4.

Oh, come on now You know the Messiah will be a type of David (or is David a type of Messiah?).

No, Messiah is just a man descendant of David. Types are a Christian teaching.

Glad I could write you on my day off.
Blessings.

Me too.

Happy Holidays.

Likewisw

 

[radvermin]

I'm not sure what you personally believe, but the standard Christian teaching is that Jesus is "fully god, fully man." So if he was sacrificed, it would qualify as being a human sacrifice. And that's something that is abhorrent to God.

I can almost agree with your critique, but I did say that it wasn't "man sacrificing another man". Jesus was fully man, and that is absolutely important(!), but Jesus didn't sacrifice another man, he sacrificed himself. Moreover, Jujitzu tends to overemphasize the humanity to the neglect of the deity, which I was trying to counterbalance.
However, your critique is valid enough for me to think twice about how I respond to ensure that I'm not neglecting the humanity of Jesus. It does appear like my response was doing this.

 

[Jewjitzu]

I can almost agree with your critique, but I did say that it wasn't "man sacrificing another man". Jesus was fully man, and that is absolutely important(!), but Jesus didn't sacrifice another man, he sacrificed himself.

Human sacrifice would include one's self.

Moreover, Jujitzu tends to overemphasize the humanity to the neglect of the deity, which I was trying to counterbalance.

There is no deity when it comes to Jesus' sacrifice since deity cannot die, bleed, etc.

 

[Open Heart]

I can almost agree with your critique, but I did say that it wasn't "man sacrificing another man". Jesus was fully man, and that is absolutely important(!), but Jesus didn't sacrifice another man, he sacrificed himself. Moreover, Jujitzu tends to overemphasize the humanity to the neglect of the deity, which I was trying to counterbalance.
However, your critique is valid enough for me to think twice about how I respond to ensure that I'm not neglecting the humanity of Jesus. It does appear like my response was doing this.

Thanks for the consideration!
Jesus did not kill himself, even in gospel accounts. He was put to death by the Romans.

 

[SPOKENWORD]

He didn't. Human sacrifices aren't accepted and idolatrous, Jesus wasn't perfect, and animal sacrifices were accepted just fine.

Wasn,t Isaac going to be a human sacrifice that was going to be accepted by God?

 

[Jewjitzu]

Wasn,t Isaac going to be a human sacrifice that was going to be accepted by God?

Some understand that, but the story shows that ultimately that's not what God wanted.

 

[Open Heart]

Wasn,t Isaac going to be a human sacrifice that was going to be accepted by God?

Jews have a midrash about the binding of Isaac. Basically, Abraham failed the test. What Abraham should have done was argued with God over the morality of killing an innocent person. But he did not. Thus, he failed.

If a human sacrifice were acceptable to God, God would have allowed Abraham to go through with it.

 

[radvermin]

God has no need to reconcile as He's done nothing wrong. Besides, sacrificing Himself as God is impossible.

It's only impossible if you separate Jesus and the Son of God (which is what Open Heart reminded me how easy it is for anybody to do). If you are to worship God with all your heart, soul, mind, and strength, do you separate your soul from your body in this act? Neither should the sacrifice of Jesus be separated from the Son of God.

God hasn't done anything wrong, exactly right. We have, though, and so that is where reconciliation is needed. Jesus the Messiah reconciled us to God by offering himself as a substitutionary atonement on our behalf, just like the high priest (eg Lev 16:24.)

See above.

So, you understand that all sins don't require sacrifices? Stealing requires compensation, misuse of holy things an asham.

One important point, compensation for theft (for example in Exodus 22) deals with the sin between humans, hence why the fines are paid to the neighbor. But what about the sins against God? That's why Christ atoned for, sins against God.
But like Exodus 22, Jesus taught that we ought to repay what we owe in Matthew 5:23-24.

I do understand that not every sin required a sacrifice (there wouldn't be any animals left!).
However, prayer does not take the place of sacrifices.
You mention below that Daniel's prayers is a sign of prayer replacing sacrifices. However, the text does not say that at all. It has to be read into the text. He was praying towards Jerusalem, but that was because of the sin and judgment that came up on Jerusalem. Note that he didn't pray to the temple. Why? Because the temple was destroyed. The place where atonement could be made was gone. That's why there is such a desire for the temple to be rebuilt, and why the temple was rebuilt before the city walls! That's also why Israel was still in captivity for years before the temple was rebuilt, because Daniel's prayers didn't actually atone for anything. Israel was still under the wrath of God.
Even when Solomon dedicated the temple and prayed that when people prayed to the temple, sacrifices were being done and it was on the basis that God's name and sacrifices were being done that the prayers would be heard. However, the temple was not only destroyed, it was rejected by God (2 Chronicles 7:19-20 19 "But if you turn away and forsake the decrees and commands I have given you and go off to serve other gods and worship them, 20 then I will uproot Israel from my land, which I have given them, and will reject this temple I have consecrated for my Name. I will make it a byword and an object of ridicule among all peoples.)
So while you say, below, that the prophets tell that prayer replaces sacrifice, it was actually the Rabbis who taught this (eg. the Rabban, because prayer atoning for sins was unheard of.
So, no, prayer does not replace sacrifice.

So, even if you look at Isaiah 53, the asham sacrifice doesn't cover all sins.

If you look at asham in other laws, maybe, but you have to look at the human sacrifice in its context, and Isaiah 53 says in V5 "But he was pierced for our transgressions, he was crushed for our iniquities; the punishment that brought us peace was upon him, and by his wounds we are healed."
No limitation in that chapter is given.

We can only do what we can do given the circumstances. If the prophets gave us an alternative for the times then we don't argue. Even Daniel had no access to the temple or sacrifices in his generation.
Well, religious Jews take this seriously. In the old times, the roofs were flat and people had access to them. Today, if that's the case, we're obligated to provide safety for the roof.

But would you not see that the principle of having a railing for a roof applies for stairs too, or other fences?

You still miss the point that God doesn't condone human sacrifices and yet you want to condone specifically one. Besides, God can't bleed or die so the point that He took on flesh is non sequitur.

It's only a non-sequitur if you separate the spirit from the body, as I addressed above, so we can deal with that above.
But God DOES condone human sacrifices at various times. He commanded Abraham to sacrifice his son, which God stopped, but he still commanded Abraham to do this, and God doesn't command people to do what is abhorrent to Himself. God also accepted the death of 7 of Saul's descendants for the attack on the Gibeonites by Saul in 2 Samuel 21. What's also interesting about 2 Samuel 21 is that it has been compared to 2 Samuel 24 as there are a lot of similarities. At the end of both, after the death of either the people or animal, God heard their prayers again.
Or you have Isaiah 53. Whether or not one takes this to refer to one person or to a nation, it is still humans dying for the forgiveness of another.

No different because God can't sacrifice Himself nor take on sin, die, etc., Deuteronomy 32:4.

Does this verse say that he cannot take on the sin of another?

No, Messiah is just a man descendant of David. Types are a Christian teaching.

Well, what do I mean by type? Another word could be "kind" and we see different kinds even in Genesis with the animals and birds. We know that there are different kinds of priests (Levitical and High Priest).
But even God gives an example that the prophets who came after Moses would be like him, Deut 18:18 "17 The LORD said to me: "What they say is good. 18 I will raise up for them a prophet like you from among their brothers; I will put my words in his mouth, and he will tell them everything I command him."
So kinds is not a Gentile thing, but Jewish and Biblical.

 

[radvermin]

Jews have a midrash about the binding of Isaac. Basically, Abraham failed the test. What Abraham should have done was argued with God over the morality of killing an innocent person. But he did not. Thus, he failed.

If a human sacrifice were acceptable to God, God would have allowed Abraham to go through with it.

That interpretation really shocked me. I'd never heard that before and ... yeah... just shocked me.

Of course, not all Jewish thought would agree with that midrash. For example the Wisdom of Solomon 10:5 says "She, when the nations were sunk in universal wickedness, knew the righteous man,* kept him blameless before God, and preserved him resolute against pity for his child." Commentators and context relates the man to Abraham.
Not saying one or the other is right in of itself, and I recognize that WoS is not scripture, however I'm pointing out that Abraham passing the test is not a Gentile/Christian thing, nor did Christians invent it... just in case anyone was thinking along those lines.

 

[Jewjitzu]

It's only impossible if you separate Jesus and the Son of God (which is what Open Heart reminded me how easy it is for anybody to do). If you are to worship God with all your heart, soul, mind, and strength, do you separate your soul from your body in this act? Neither should the sacrifice of Jesus be separated from the Son of God.

If you're truly to worship God with all your soul, heart, and mind, you can only do that with one person. You can only serve one Master.

Again, human sacrifices are idolatrous.

God hasn't done anything wrong, exactly right. We have, though, and so that is where reconciliation is needed. Jesus the Messiah reconciled us to God by offering himself as a substitutionary atonement on our behalf, just like the high priest (eg Lev 16:24.)

The High Priest never took on our sins, and neither does God, Deut 32:4-6, a God without sin.

One important point, compensation for theft (for example in Exodus 22) deals with the sin between humans, hence why the fines are paid to the neighbor. But what about the sins against God? That's why Christ atoned for, sins against God.
But like Exodus 22, Jesus taught that we ought to repay what we owe in Matthew 5:23-24.

Many don't pay their debt, so Jesus' sacrifice would fall short here. There's no way around it.

I do understand that not every sin required a sacrifice (there wouldn't be any animals left!).
However, prayer does not take the place of sacrifices.

Sorry, but in certain situations, they do, Hosea 12:2.

You mention below that Daniel's prayers is a sign of prayer replacing sacrifices. However, the text does not say that at all. It has to be read into the text.

I didn't say that. I said Daniel was without sacrifices as we are. I can't imagine God not forgiving him, and us too.

He was praying towards Jerusalem, but that was because of the sin and judgment that came up on Jerusalem. Note that he didn't pray to the temple. Why? Because the temple was destroyed. The place where atonement could be made was gone. That's why there is such a desire for the temple to be rebuilt, and why the temple was rebuilt before the city walls! That's also why Israel was still in captivity for years before the temple was rebuilt, because Daniel's prayers didn't actually atone for anything. Israel was still under the wrath of God.
Even when Solomon dedicated the temple and prayed that when people prayed to the temple, sacrifices were being done and it was on the basis that God's name and sacrifices were being done that the prayers would be heard. However, the temple was not only destroyed, it was rejected by God (2 Chronicles 7:19-20 19 "But if you turn away and forsake the decrees and commands I have given you and go off to serve other gods and worship them, 20 then I will uproot Israel from my land, which I have given them, and will reject this temple I have consecrated for my Name. I will make it a byword and an object of ridicule among all peoples.)
So while you say, below, that the prophets tell that prayer replaces sacrifice, it was actually the Rabbis who taught this (eg. the Rabban, because prayer atoning for sins was unheard of.
So, no, prayer does not replace sacrifice.

Read 1 Kings 8. Solomon knew of a time like this where forgiveness would still be available.

If you look at asham in other laws, maybe, but you have to look at the human sacrifice in its context, and Isaiah 53 says in V5 "But he was pierced for our transgressions, he was crushed for our iniquities; the punishment that brought us peace was upon him, and by his wounds we are healed."
No limitation in that chapter is given.

If you don't know what an asham covers, one could mistakenly come to an idea as you have.

But would you not see that the principle of having a railing for a roof applies for stairs too, or other fences?

Stairs, etc., aren't a roof. We are also required to not be a stumbling block to the blind.

It's only a non-sequitur if you separate the spirit from the body, as I addressed above, so we can deal with that above.
But God DOES condone human sacrifices at various times. He commanded Abraham to sacrifice his son, which God stopped, but he still commanded Abraham to do this, and God doesn't command people to do what is abhorrent to Himself.

No, God didn't command Abraham to sacrifice as He told him to not hurt Isaac. Even Abraham said he'd return with Isaac.

God also accepted the death of 7 of Saul's descendants for the attack on the Gibeonites by Saul in 2 Samuel 21. What's also interesting about 2 Samuel 21 is that it has been compared to 2 Samuel 24 as there are a lot of similarities. At the end of both, after the death of either the people or animal, God heard their prayers again.

Not a sacrifice. Certain sins require death.

Or you have Isaiah 53. Whether or not one takes this to refer to one person or to a nation, it is still humans dying for the forgiveness of another.

Wrong. Asham requires a payment, and suffering is included in that.

Does this verse say that he cannot take on the sin of another?

Yes, if a person becomes responsible for someone's sins then they die because of that sin. God can't do either and Ezekiel 18 is clear we aren't responsible for someone else's sins.

Well, what do I mean by type? Another word could be "kind" and we see different kinds even in Genesis with the animals and birds. We know that there are different kinds of priests (Levitical and High Priest).
But even God gives an example that the prophets who came after Moses would be like him, Deut 18:18 "17 The LORD said to me: "What they say is good. 18 I will raise up for them a prophet like you from among their brothers; I will put my words in his mouth, and he will tell them everything I command him."

Yep, and to be like Moses requires two human parents, etc.

So kinds is not a Gentile thing, but Jewish and Biblical.

It is a gentile thing the way you want to apply it to Jesus.

 

[davbeh2010]

If you're truly to worship God with all your soul, heart, and mind, you can only do that with one person. You can only serve one Master.

Again, human sacrifices are idolatrous.


The High Priest never took on our sins, and neither does God, Deut 32:4-6, a God without sin.


Many don't pay their debt, so Jesus' sacrifice would fall short here. There's no way around it.


Sorry, but in certain situations, they do, Hosea 12:2.


I didn't say that. I said Daniel was without sacrifices as we are. I can't imagine God not forgiving him, and us too.


Read 1 Kings 8. Solomon knew of a time like this where forgiveness would still be available.


If you don't know what an asham covers, one could mistakenly come to an idea as you have.


Stairs, etc., aren't a roof. We are also required to not be a stumbling block to the blind.


No, God didn't command Abraham to sacrifice as He told him to not hurt Isaac. Even Abraham said he'd return with Isaac.


Not a sacrifice. Certain sins require death.


Wrong. Asham requires a payment, and suffering is included in that.


Yes, if a person becomes responsible for someone's sins then they die because of that sin. God can't do either and Ezekiel 18 is clear we aren't responsible for someone else's sins.


Yep, and to be like Moses requires two human parents, etc.


It is a gentile thing the way you want to apply it to Jesus.

Jewjitzu said,
"No, God didn't command Abraham to sacrifice as He told him to not hurt Isaac. Even Abraham said he'd return with Isaac."

What are you talking about? Abraham followed God's command. If Abraham didn't follow God's command, this would be considered child abuse!

https://biblehub.com/text/genesis/22-2.htm (i.e. offer him as a burnt offering)

https://biblehub.com/text/genesis/22-9.htm (i.e. bound Isaac and laid him on the altar)


In Messiah’s (Christ’s) service,
David Behrens
Soli Deo Gloria!
Bringing Christian harmony to all the world

 

[Jewjitzu]

Jewjitzu said,
"No, God didn't command Abraham to sacrifice as He told him to not hurt Isaac. Even Abraham said he'd return with Isaac."

What are you talking about? Abraham followed God's command. If Abraham didn't follow God's command, this would be considered child abuse!

https://biblehub.com/text/genesis/22-2.htm (i.e. offer him as a burnt offering)

https://biblehub.com/text/genesis/22-9.htm (i.e. bound Isaac and laid him on the altar)


In Messiah’s (Christ’s) service,
David Behrens
Soli Deo Gloria!
Bringing Christian harmony to all the world

What was the ultimate outcome?

 

[davbeh2010]

What was the ultimate outcome?

Jewjitzu was refuted! God did command Abraham to sacrifice Isaac. Jewjitzu is not a credible teacher. It is a waste of time to reply to one's nonsense!

In Messiah’s (Christ’s) service,
David Behrens
Soli Deo Gloria!
Bringing Christian harmony to all the world

 

[Open Heart]

Jewjitzu was refuted! God did command Abraham to sacrifice Isaac. Jewjitzu is not a credible teacher. It is a waste of time to reply to one's nonsense!

Oh my goodness. God STOPPED the sacrifice of Issac. Human sacrifice is an abomination to God. Remember THAT when you think of the man Jesus claiming to be a sacrifice.