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

[davbeh2010]

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.

Jewjitzu was refuted, because Jewjitzu made the claim that God didn't command Abraham to sacrifice. (i.e. Genesis 22:2 - (i.e. offer him as a burnt offering))

Blind leading the blind.

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

 

[Jewjitzu]

0

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

Rotfl... Abraham didn't sacrifice Issac, and Abraham returned with Isaac to his servants as he said he would.

Gen 22:2 shows that God said to bring him up as an offering, not a sacrifice. Big difference. Then God confirms this by telling Abraham not to sacrifice or hurt Isaac. It's pretty simple.

 

[davbeh2010]

0

Rotfl... Abraham didn't sacrifice Issac, and Abraham returned with Isaac to his servants as he said he would.

Gen 22:2 shows that God said to bring him up as an offering, not a sacrifice. Big difference. Then God confirms this by telling Abraham not to sacrifice or hurt Isaac. It's pretty simple.

(i.e. Genesis 22:2 - (i.e. offer him as a burnt offering))

Blind leading the blind.

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

 

[Jewjitzu]

(i.e. Genesis 22:2 - (i.e. offer him as a burnt offering))

Offer, not sacrifice. The act of bringing him up was the offering.

Blind leading the blind.

Get some glasses then.

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

Serve the true God

 

[davbeh2010]

Offer, not sacrifice. The act of bringing him up was the offering.


Get some glasses then.


Serve the true God

(i.e. Genesis 22:2 - (i.e. offer him as a burnt offering))

So Jewjitzu believes that a burnt offering is not a sacrifice. Got it.

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

 

[Jewjitzu]

(i.e. Genesis 22:2 - (i.e. offer him as a burnt offering))

So Jewjitzu believes that a burnt offering is not a sacrifice. Got it.

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

Now you're learning.

 

[davbeh2010]

(i.e. Genesis 22:2 - (i.e. offer him as a burnt offering))

So Jewjitzu believes that a burnt offering is not a sacrifice. Got it.

Jewjitzu said, "Now you're learning."

Genesis 22:13 Scripture taken from the New King James Version®. Copyright © 1982 by Thomas Nelson.
13 Then Abraham lifted his eyes and looked, and there behind him was a ram caught in a thicket by its horns. So Abraham went and took the ram, and offered it up for a burnt offering instead of his son.

So then, Jewjitzu also believes that Abraham did not sacrifice the ram instead of his son, Isaac.

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

 

[Jewjitzu]

Jewjitzu said, "Now you're learning."

Yep, a sacrifice isn't a sacrifice unless it's sacrificed. Do you see how that works?

Genesis 22:13 Scripture taken from the New King James Version®. Copyright © 1982 by Thomas Nelson.
13 Then Abraham lifted his eyes and looked, and there behind him was a ram caught in a thicket by its horns. So Abraham went and took the ram, and offered it up for a burnt offering instead of his son.

So then, Jewjitzu also believes that Abraham did not sacrifice the ram instead of his son, Isaac.

I never said that, but you do like games.

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

Serve the true God

 

[davbeh2010]

Yep, a sacrifice isn't a sacrifice unless it's sacrificed. Do you see how that works?

I never said that, but you do like games.

Serve the true God

The artist Marc Chagall's most famous painting was titled "The Sacrifice of Isaac". Marc Chagall was born to a Hasidic Jewish family in Russia.

Jewjitzu is playing games.

["In Scripture, we are told that Abraham “took the ram and sacrificed it as a burnt offering instead of his son.” (Genesis 22:13)
Is it not enough that God provided a ram? Rashi asks, “Why does Scripture also say, ‘instead of his son’?”

These four words don’t have to be there. Or do they?

Rashi, one of the most revered and often quoted Jewish sage explains why it’s important to know that the ram is offered instead of Isaac:

“Over every sacrificial act that he [Abraham] performed, he prayed, ‘May it be [Your] will that this should be deemed as if it were being done to my son: as if my son were slaughtered, as if his blood were sprinkled, as if my son were flayed, as if he were burnt and reduced to ashes.” (Tan. Shelach 14]

If Rashi is correct, then every time Abraham sacrificed a lamb or goat, he thought in his mind and heart that he were slaughtering his own son Isaac and sprinkling his blood over the altar.

....

A renowned Reform Jewish Rabbi of today answers:

“There was a remarkable tradition that insisted that Abraham completed the sacrifice and that afterward Isaac was miraculously revived. According to this haggadah [telling], Abraham slew his son, burnt his victim, and the ashes remain as a stored-up merit and atonement for Israel in all generations.” (Rabbi W. Gunther Plaut, The Torah: A Modern Commentary 1981, p. 151)

Clearly, some Rabbis believed that a single, willing, human sacrifice on behalf of mankind would atone for sin.


https://free.messianicbible.com/feature/discover-jesus-binding-isaac-genesis-22-akedah/ ]


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

 

[Jewjitzu]

The artist Marc Chagall's most famous painting was titled "The Sacrifice of Isaac". Marc Chagall was born to a Hasidic Jewish family in Russia.

Interesting.

Jewjitzu is playing games.

I do love games.

["In Scripture, we are told that Abraham “took the ram and sacrificed it as a burnt offering instead of his son.” (Genesis 22:13)
Is it not enough that God provided a ram? Rashi asks, “Why does Scripture also say, ‘instead of his son’?”

These four words don’t have to be there. Or do they?

Rashi, one of the most revered and often quoted Jewish sage explains why it’s important to know that the ram is offered instead of Isaac:

He isn't the only Rabbi we hold in high honor.

“Over every sacrificial act that he [Abraham] performed, he prayed, ‘May it be [Your] will that this should be deemed as if it were being done to my son: as if my son were slaughtered, as if his blood were sprinkled, as if my son were flayed, as if he were burnt and reduced to ashes.” (Tan. Shelach 14]

If Rashi is correct, then every time Abraham sacrificed a lamb or goat, he thought in his mind and heart that he were slaughtering his own son Isaac and sprinkling his blood over the altar.

Yes, because that's what he understood God wanted, but in the end is wasn't. That's why he hoped he misunderstood God's message and would return with Isaac.

....

A renowned Reform Jewish Rabbi of today answers:

We don't care about Reform. The reply below could be from a Lesbian Rabbi.

“There was a remarkable tradition that insisted that Abraham completed the sacrifice and that afterward Isaac was miraculously revived. According to this haggadah [telling], Abraham slew his son, burnt his victim, and the ashes remain as a stored-up merit and atonement for Israel in all generations.” (Rabbi W. Gunther Plaut, The Torah: A Modern Commentary 1981, p. 151)

I'd like to see this tradition. Can you supply the reference?

Clearly, some Rabbis believed that a single, willing, human sacrifice on behalf of mankind would atone for sin.

The tradition I know is that Isaac was considered an offering for the mere fact of being brought up to mount moriah and Isaac willingly allowing himself to be bound on the altar.

https://free.messianicbible.com/feature/discover-jesus-binding-isaac-genesis-22-akedah/ ]

Doesn't help you.

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

Be in harmony with the true God

 

[radvermin]

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.

That argument has no weight for Trinitarians.
John 14:9 Jesus answered: "Don't you know me, Philip, even after I have been among you such a long time? Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father. How can you say, 'Show us the Father'?
When we worship one, we worship all three.

Again, human sacrifices are idolatrous.

This and above did not in anyway deal with my argument. You, of course, are free and right to call out any error, but please do your best to stay on topic.
This section was about the unity of flesh and spirit in one person, and not to separate them like the certain cults.

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

No, but the high priest did make atonement for the people on our behalf, which was my point in Leviticus 16:24.

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

??? How little is God worth to you?

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

This verse is spurious and since it's the only one that keeps being brought up it seems like it's the only one you've got. In short, your theology in this area is on shaky ground.

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.

My mistake. The context we were talking about was on prayer replacing sacrifices and you used Daniel as an example, and it has been argued here that Daniel prayed 3x referencing 3x of sacrifices. But it seems we agree, Daniel is not an example of prayer replacing sacrifices.

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

So I read 1 kings 8 and I still see that the temple is involved. So it's not a time like this and cannot be used to say that prayer replaces sacrifice.

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

Are you're saying that the sacrifice found in Isaiah 53:10 has nothing to do with verse 5? If you're not saying they have nothing to do with each other, then how do you read it?

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

I don't think this is Jewish from how I read what you're saying. I'm trying to show you that the principle of a law can be applied to different situations not stated. That would be, in effect, obeying the spirit of the law as opposed to the letter of the law. Here's another example, https://www.myjewishlearning.com/article/electricity-on-shabbat/

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

Doesn't matter what Abraham said or did. Gen 22:2 Then God said, "Take your son, your only son, Isaac, whom you love, and go to the region of Moriah. Sacrifice him there as a burnt offering on one of the mountains I will tell you about."
Please don't misunderstand me, I understand your argument. It's looking at the actions of Abraham and the words of the angel of the LORD not to slay Isaac, and you're using that as a reference point to interpret Gen 22:2. It's one thing to understand one verse in light of another, it's a completely different thing to reverse what a verse is saying in light of another one. Let both stand as they are and reconcile them.
God did say to Abraham, "Sacrifice Isaac".
If I did that exact same thing to Scripture with regards to sacrifices you'd write me off.

Not a sacrifice. Certain sins require death.

Fair enough.

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

You're going to have to explain more why I'm wrong because any time that I guess, you tell me that I'm wrong. How does your answer deal with me using Isaiah 53 to illustrate that "...God DOES condone human sacrifices at various times"?

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.

Automatically, yes, as that was the error of the people in Ezekiel 18, assuming that their sin wouldn't touch them but rather their children. However, the sacrificial system was something altogether different.
But, moreover, was Moses sinning in Exodus 32:31-32?
31 So Moses went back to the LORD and said, "Oh, what a great sin these people have committed! They have made themselves gods of gold.
32 But now, please forgive their sin-- but if not, then blot me out of the book you have written."

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.

I think it's a gentile thing to you since I apply it to Jesus


Happy Hanukkah!

 

[Open Heart]

But it seems we agree, Daniel is not an example of prayer replacing sacrifices.

Oh I wouldn't agree with that at all. The whole reason that Daniel prayed three times a day, was that these were the times of the sacrifices.

 

[Jewjitzu]

Oh I wouldn't agree with that at all. The whole reason that Daniel prayed three times a day, was that these were the times of the sacrifices.

I don't know where he got that I didn't think Daniel prayed for forgiveness.

 

[radvermin]

Oh I wouldn't agree with that at all. The whole reason that Daniel prayed three times a day, was that these were the times of the sacrifices.

Yeah, unless I'm missing something, you and Jewjitzu are at odds with this.
Where in Scripture does it say that there were three times of Sacrifice?

 

[Jewjitzu]

Yeah, unless I'm missing something, you and Jewjitzu are at odds with this.

No, she's correct. The 3 daily prayers coincide with the times the sacrifices were brought.

Where in Scripture does it say that there were three times of Sacrifice?

Exodus 29:36–42 mentions morning, noon, an evening.

David, as the custom was, prayed at the same times, Psalm 55:17. Daniel at the same times, Daniel 6:10.

 

[Open Heart]

Yeah, unless I'm missing something, you and Jewjitzu are at odds with this.
Where in Scripture does it say that there were three times of Sacrifice?

It's in the Oral Torah.

 

[Jewjitzu]

That argument has no weight for Trinitarians.

Really? Because trinitarians worship 3 persons, 3 masters.

John 14:9 Jesus answered: "Don't you know me, Philip, even after I have been among you such a long time? Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father. How can you say, 'Show us the Father'?
When we worship one, we worship all three.

That's not true, because Jesus said to pray exclusively to the Father.

This and above did not in anyway deal with my argument. You, of course, are free and right to call out any error, but please do your best to stay on topic.

Tell me what I didn't answer.

This section was about the unity of flesh and spirit in one person, and not to separate them like the certain cults.

God doesn't unite with flesh, Daniel 2:11.

No, but the high priest did make atonement for the people on our behalf, which was my point in Leviticus 16:24.

But the Priest wasn't an atonement himself for the people. That's my point.

??? How little is God worth to you?

How little you understand me.

This verse is spurious and since it's the only one that keeps being brought up it seems like it's the only one you've got. In short, your theology in this area is on shaky ground.

Why? Because you don't have a defense for it?

My mistake. The context we were talking about was on prayer replacing sacrifices and you used Daniel as an example, and it has been argued here that Daniel prayed 3x referencing 3x of sacrifices. But it seems we agree, Daniel is not an example of prayer replacing sacrifices.

You misunderstood. Daniel doesn't mention prayers substituting for sacrifices, but Hosea does. Daniel knew this and is the reason he prayed 3 times as he did.

So I read 1 kings 8 and I still see that the temple is involved. So it's not a time like this and cannot be used to say that prayer replaces sacrifice.

1 Kings 8:46-50.

Are you're saying that the sacrifice found in Isaiah 53:10 has nothing to do with verse 5? If you're not saying they have nothing to do with each other, then how do you read it?

V5 deals with punishment for sin. V10 deals with the same issue. Sometimes we give up our life as a result.

I don't think this is Jewish from how I read what you're saying. I'm trying to show you that the principle of a law can be applied to different situations not stated. That would be, in effect, obeying the spirit of the law as opposed to the letter of the law. Here's another example, https://www.myjewishlearning.com/article/electricity-on-shabbat/

The law applies to specific situations. Electricity has been considered as fire by the Rabbis. So, yes, I can see where both the letter and spirit would be kept.

Doesn't matter what Abraham said or did. Gen 22:2 Then God said, "Take your son, your only son, Isaac, whom you love, and go to the region of Moriah. Sacrifice him there as a burnt offering on one of the mountains I will tell you about."

Bring him up, not sacrifice him. God says later specifically not to hurt him.

Please don't misunderstand me, I understand your argument. It's looking at the actions of Abraham and the words of the angel of the LORD not to slay Isaac, and you're using that as a reference point to interpret Gen 22:2. It's one thing to understand one verse in light of another, it's a completely different thing to reverse what a verse is saying in light of another one. Let both stand as they are and reconcile them.

One reconciles the meaning of the other.

God did say to Abraham, "Sacrifice Isaac".
If I did that exact same thing to Scripture with regards to sacrifices you'd write me off.

See above.

You're going to have to explain more why I'm wrong because any time that I guess, you tell me that I'm wrong. How does your answer deal with me using Isaiah 53 to illustrate that "...God DOES condone human sacrifices at various times"?

Human sacrifice would require an altar which isn't even discussed here, let alone the idea of asham which is for unknown sins or misuse of holy objects, which require monetary compensation.

Either way, all sins wouldn't be covered.

Automatically, yes, as that was the error of the people in Ezekiel 18, assuming that their sin wouldn't touch them but rather their children. However, the sacrificial system was something altogether different.

How so?

But, moreover, was Moses sinning in Exodus 32:31-32?

He offered to take on the punishment but God rejected it. Just like the idea behind Isaac.

31 So Moses went back to the LORD and said, "Oh, what a great sin these people have committed! They have made themselves gods of gold.
32 But now, please forgive their sin-- but if not, then blot me out of the book you have written."

Yep, Moses was willing to give up eternal life.

I think it's a gentile thing to you since I apply it to Jesus

Yep, still a gentile thing.

Happy Hanukkah!

Likewise.

 

[radvermin]

Really? Because trinitarians worship 3 persons, 3 masters.

The definition of the trinity is not 3 gods in three persons.

That's not true, because Jesus said to pray exclusively to the Father.

Exclusively to the Father? Not true, John 14:14.

Tell me what I didn't answer.

I did in the following sentence.

God doesn't unite with flesh, Daniel 2:11.

That's what the Babylonian seers said, who didn't know Yahweh. Who lived before Christ. And who also didn't know Genesis 3:8 "They heard the sound of the LORD God walking in the garden in the cool of the day, and the man and his wife hid themselves from the presence of the LORD God among the trees of the garden."

But the Priest wasn't an atonement himself for the people. That's my point.

I know. We hadn't settled your argument that the Christian perspective is that sacrifices of atonement are only offered by the one who sinned, and in the context we were talking about it was specifically God being referenced.
Do you concede that that's not the case? If so, then we can move on to talk about the priest himself as atonement for the people.

How little you understand me.

You're the one who made the argument that, "Many don't pay their debt, so Jesus' sacrifice would fall short here."
From a Christian perspective, Jesus is God, so let's reword what you said so that it becomes an argument against Christianity.
'Many don't pay their debt, so God's sacrifice would fall short here.' God, unable to pay a debt? That seems like a devaluing of God that both of us would reject.

Why? Because you don't have a defense for it?

Nope. I already told you why a while ago. It's spurious because the meaning is not only difficult to understand in the Hebrew (not my words but Jewish scholars), it's different from the LXX, and also because your own Jewish scholars say so. I would get the quote, but it's 2:42 AM and I don't feel like going back to the office in a blizzard to get it.

You misunderstood. Daniel doesn't mention prayers substituting for sacrifices, but Hosea does. Daniel knew this and is the reason he prayed 3 times as he did.

Then I didn't misunderstand. We can move on.

1 Kings 8:46-50.

48 and if they turn back to you with all their heart and soul in the land of their enemies who took them captive, and pray to you toward the land you gave their fathers, toward the city you have chosen and the temple I have built for your Name;
The temple is still standing in Solomon's prayer, unlike today.

V5 deals with punishment for sin. V10 deals with the same issue. Sometimes we give up our life as a result.

I get the feeling that I'm not 100% certain that I understand your position.
Are "transgressions" and "iniquities" in V5 covered in asham sacrifices (V10)?
You said that "V10 deals with the same issue", but I feel like you see V5 is different in some way, and I'm not sure how.

The law applies to specific situations. Electricity has been considered as fire by the Rabbis. So, yes, I can see where both the letter and spirit would be kept.

So, is it wrong to talk about laws as being kept by individuals because they keep the spirit of the law?

Bring him up, not sacrifice him. God says later specifically not to hurt him.

If I understand correctly, the word you translate as "bring him up" is the same word used in V7
Genesis 22:7 Isaac spoke to Abraham his father and said, "My father!" And he said, "Here I am, my son." And he said, "Behold, the fire and the wood, but where is the lamb for ________________________?" How would you fill in the blank?
It's the same word in verse 13.

One reconciles the meaning of the other.

I think it reconciles, not the meaning, but the theology that God would never accept Jesus as a sacrifice for sins. There isn't an issue with God telling Abraham to sacrifice Isaac and then tell him to stop later on. On a literary level it makes sense, the meaning of the verses not only are clear but do not contradict.
It only causes problems when you say, "Wait, God wouldn't say that."

Human sacrifice would require an altar which isn't even discussed here, let alone the idea of asham which is for unknown sins or misuse of holy objects, which require monetary compensation.
Either way, all sins wouldn't be covered.

According to your view, no it wouldn't require an altar because there is no law regarding a human sacrifice. How can you have a requirement for a law that doesn't exist?
Also, Isaiah 53's sacrifices cover over more than just unknown sins or misuse of holy objects as it also covers transgressions in V5, which is the same word used in Leviticus 16:21 to deal with the sins of Israel on the day of atonement.

How so?

Ezekiel 18 was dealing with the false claim that a person's sin will automatically affect their children and not them (verse 2).
This is different than saying that the punishment for a sin can be transferred to another (hence the whole sacrificial system).

He offered to take on the punishment but God rejected it. Just like the idea behind Isaac.

I get that God rejected it, but was it a sin?

Yep, still a gentile thing.

So... you acknowledge our bias against Jesus specifically in the idea of "kinds" in Scripture?

 

[radvermin]

It's in the Oral Torah.

Okay, well you're going to have to correct Jewjitzu because he says it's from Exodus 29:36–42.

Can you trace the Oral Torah back to Moses (ie. Moses said to So-n-so who said to So-n-so, etc... who said to me)?
Roman Catholics have been using the "Oral tradition" line for a long time and it turns out that tracing it back to the claimed source is not as easy as one thinks, and can lead to some interesting insights when it's traced back to its actual source.

 

[Jewjitzu]

The definition of the trinity is not 3 gods in three persons.

That's what it amounts to. Three persons that are gods.

Exclusively to the Father? Not true, John 14:14.

Doesn't mention prayer. Besides Jesus said to pray exclusively to the Father in Matthew 6.

I did in the following sentence.

Ok, let's see.

That's what the Babylonian seers said, who didn't know Yahweh. Who lived before Christ.

They knew enough to know God doesn't inhabit flesh.

And who also didn't know Genesis 3:8 "They heard the sound of the LORD God walking in the garden in the cool of the day, and the man and his wife hid themselves from the presence of the LORD God among the trees of the garden."

Yes, sound travels. Just like at Sinai. But no body, Deut 4:9,12,15,35.

I know. We hadn't settled your argument that the Christian perspective is that sacrifices of atonement are only offered by the one who sinned, and in the context we were talking about it was specifically God being referenced.

My point was that God isn't a sacrifice as He isn't flesh.

Do you concede that that's not the case? If so, then we can move on to talk about the priest himself as atonement for the people.

No.

You're the one who made the argument that, "Many don't pay their debt, so Jesus' sacrifice would fall short here."

Yes, first off he isn't the God, nor did he have a money purse to pay off what the law requires. A sacrifice by itself doesn't do that.

From a Christian perspective, Jesus is God, so let's reword what you said so that it becomes an argument against Christianity.

From a Jewish and Tanakh perspective he's not. If Jesus is going to fulfill the law he has to do it completely. He didn't.

'Many don't pay their debt, so God's sacrifice would fall short here.' God, unable to pay a debt? That seems like a devaluing of God that both of us would reject.

See above. God wrote the laws, I didn't. Again, Jesus isn't God.

Nope. I already told you why a while ago. It's spurious because the meaning is not only difficult to understand in the Hebrew (not my words but Jewish scholars), it's different from the LXX, and also because your own Jewish scholars say so. I would get the quote, but it's 2:42 AM and I don't feel like going back to the office in a blizzard to get it.

Understood. Provide more info when you can.