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

[Jewjitzu]

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

She's correct. What you didn't understand from my post was the connection of the sacrifices to the prayers.

 

[Jewjitzu]

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

I think you still are. Daniel relied on prayers for forgiveness.

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.

Towards, which is what we do.

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)?

Two separate things.

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.

Punishment can be payment for sins as is stated several times in Tanakh by Israel paid double for her sins. As a result, people can die and in fact bemotaiv in v10 is plural, which can't refer to a single person.

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

The application needs to be understood. There's still a real physical aspect of the law that must be fulfilled.

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.

Yes. The difference is the intent not to have Isaac sacrificed and Abraham knowing he'd return with him.

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."

I think it's more like God didn't mean that.

According to your view, no it wouldn't require an altar because there is no law regarding a human sacrifice.

If the point of blood sacrifices is Lev 17:11, an altar is required.

Human sacrifices isn't required because there was a never a commandment for it. It's idolatrous.

How can you have a requirement for a law that doesn't exist?

See above. How can you have a human sacrifice without a law that exists?

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.

An asham isn't in Lev 16:21.

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).

No, the issue was responsibility for sinning or doing righteousness. Either way, the person that does it gets what's coming them.

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

No, Moses wasn't offering his life, just his future reward.

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

I think every time a Christian offers up the explanation that Jesus fulfilled type/kinds instead of the actual law is an excuse on Christians part.

 

[Open Heart]

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.

Looks like Jewjitzu is right about that.

I do not need to trace Oral Torah back to Moses. It is unecessary. It's like saying "Can you trace teh supreme court rulings back to the time of teh Founding Fathers."

 

[radvermin]

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

That's a category error. Persons does not describe essence.
Where does it say, "God is not three persons"?

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

Matthew 6 doesn't mention exclusively.

Ok, let's see.

Yes, go back and read.

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

That's circular reasoning.
You know that God doesn't inhabit flesh because these guys said so, and they know that God doesn't inhabit flesh because you don't know God doesn't in habit flesh.

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

Gen 3:8 doesn't say there was no body. You have to make that assumption.

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

No, that's what we were talking about at the beginning which is how we ended up with you making arguments that have nothing to do with the Christian perspective (ie. 3 persons = 3 gods). Here we were arguing about whether God was not reconciling people because he hadn't sinned. Even though we hadn't settled that, you added in another topic about the priest not taking on the sins of another.

No.

Well, then you're off topic.

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.

Jesus is Yehweh. Jesus paid the price for our sins against God. Your argument is based on the false assumption that we don't repent.

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.

He fulfilled the spirit of the law.

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

Off topic.

Understood. Provide more info when you can.

I already told you, the Jewish Study Bible in the note says that "the Hebrew is uncertain". Last time I gave this information you said that we will have to agree to disagree.

 

[radvermin]

I think you still are. Daniel relied on prayers for forgiveness.

I know. That disproves that you think I misundestand.

Towards, which is what we do.

Towards... the temple, which you don't. So I'll ask the same question I asked when I first got in this forum which you brushed off, "Where's your temple?"

Two separate things.


Punishment can be payment for sins as is stated several times in Tanakh by Israel paid double for her sins. As a result, people can die and in fact bemotaiv in v10 is plural, which can't refer to a single person.

Bemotaiv is in V9 and everything else in the verse is in the singular. Moreover the LXX puts it in the singular. And this is a unique way to use this word as in that form it only refers to high places (2 Kings 18:22, 2 Chron 32:12, and Isa 36:7) so it's an assumption to say that this can't refer to a single person.
It is Jewish to say that this is a singular person as evidenced by the LXX.

The application needs to be understood. There's still a real physical aspect of the law that must be fulfilled.

Only in restoring our relationship with other people.

Yes. The difference is the intent not to have Isaac sacrificed and Abraham knowing he'd return with him.

Except that that is nowhere in the Hebrew. When one cannot say what they mean, they cannot mean what they say. God inspired Moses to write in Genesis 22:2 "He said, "Take now your son, your only son, whom you love, Isaac, and go to the land of Moriah, and offer him there as a burnt offering on one of the mountains of which I will tell you."" To say that God meant the complete opposite makes God out to be a liar.

I think it's more like God didn't mean that.

My argument still applies. There's only a need for reconciling the different passages when you reject what God clearly commanded.

If the point of blood sacrifices is Lev 17:11, an altar is required.
Human sacrifices isn't required because there was a never a commandment for it. It's idolatrous.

What makes the atonement, the altar or the blood?

See above. How can you have a human sacrifice without a law that exists?

Go ask Isaiah 53.

An asham isn't in Lev 16:21.

And yet the sacrifice of Isaiah 53:10 deals with transgressions that are beyond the asham sacrifice.

No, the issue was responsibility for sinning or doing righteousness. Either way, the person that does it gets what's coming them.

That undermines the sacrificial system if applied to it.

No, Moses wasn't offering his life, just his future reward.

Okay.

I think every time a Christian offers up the explanation that Jesus fulfilled type/kinds instead of the actual law is an excuse on Christians part.

Okay

 

[radvermin]

Looks like Jewjitzu is right about that.

I do not need to trace Oral Torah back to Moses. It is unecessary. It's like saying "Can you trace teh supreme court rulings back to the time of teh Founding Fathers."

Where does it say, "morning, noon, and evening" in Exodus 29:36-42?
I think it interesting that you and Jewjitzu point to each other as being correct when you gave different answers, but at least they're not contradictory answers. It's just interesting.
Now, I know that Jewjitzu has been talking about this, but I'm only talking to you. Please don't think ill of me in any way, it's just that I understand that Jewjitzu reads and responds to my posts to you, so I expect he'll reply to this one as well.

Shalom

 

[Jewjitzu]

That's a category error. Persons does not describe essence.
Where does it say, "God is not three persons"?

When it says God is alone, etc., as in Neh 9:6. Only one exclusively alone Created. The reference to "I AM", is alone, etc.

Matthew 6 doesn't mention exclusively.

It gives the example that only the Father is worthy or prayer, worship.

Yes, go back and read.

Done.

That's circular reasoning.
You know that God doesn't inhabit flesh because these guys said so, and they know that God doesn't inhabit flesh because you don't know God doesn't in habit flesh.

We know God doesn't inhabit flesh because God isn't physical, doesn't have physical qualities, has no physical form. That's why He revealed Himself that way at Sinai, Deuteronomy 4:8,12,15,35, and told is to teach this to our children.

Gen 3:8 doesn't say there was no body. You have to make that assumption.

It says He used a voice. There is zero body mention. Only after the fall did man start thinking of God in physical terms. Sinai shows He doesn't have physical form, and Solomon showed nothing physical can contain God, that includes heaven, earth, a human body.

No, that's what we were talking about at the beginning which is how we ended up with you making arguments that have nothing to do with the Christian perspective (ie. 3 persons = 3 gods).

The Christian perspective is flawed and based on pagan principles.

Here we were arguing about whether God was not reconciling people because he hadn't sinned. Even though we hadn't settled that, you added in another topic about the priest not taking on the sins of another.

God Himself, since He isn't physical nor has physical qualities such as blood, nor a body, can reconcile sin via His own sacrifice. Is that what you mean?

Well, then you're off topic.

Just so you know, I can bring up anything I think is relevant or important.

Jesus is Yehweh.

Nope. He's just a man who has knees and worships another like we all do.

Jesus paid the price for our sins against God.

No need to. We all pay the price. He paid his own.

Your argument is based on the false assumption that we don't repent.

No, I never said that.

He fulfilled the spirit of the law.

Really? There's the physical aspect which needs to be fulfilled as well. Regardless, the requirements of the law remain for all. Until Heaven and Earth.

Off topic.

Deal with it.

I already told you, the Jewish Study Bible in the note says that "the Hebrew is uncertain". Last time I gave this information you said that we will have to agree to disagree.

Which Jewish scholars? Why can't you give a reference?

 

[Jewjitzu]

Where does it say, "morning, noon, and evening" in Exodus 29:36-42?

I gave you the basis for the sacrifices and then the prayers thatvwere said for them.

I think it interesting that you and Jewjitzu point to each other as being correct when you gave different answers, but at least they're not contradictory answers. It's just interesting.

That's because you didn't look at the context of my answer.

Now, I know that Jewjitzu has been talking about this, but I'm only talking to you. Please don't think ill of me in any way, it's just that I understand that Jewjitzu reads and responds to my posts to you, so I expect he'll reply to this one as well.

Yep. It is an open forum.

Shalom

Likewise

 

[Jewjitzu]

I know. That disproves that you think I misundestand.

Great. I'm glad you clarified.

Towards... the temple, which you don't. So I'll ask the same question I asked when I first got in this forum which you brushed off, "Where's your temple?"

The location, yes. We don't have a temple now. You didn't know that?

Bemotaiv is in V9 and everything else in the verse is in the singular.

No, it's plural. You should study this. Deaths.

Moreover the LXX puts it in the singular.

Bad Christian translation then.

And this is a unique way to use this word as in that form it only refers to high places (2 Kings 18:22, 2 Chron 32:12, and Isa 36:7) so it's an assumption to say that this can't refer to a single person.

High places is plural. So death should be plural above as well.

It is Jewish to say that this is a singular person as evidenced by the LXX.

See above. Israel being the servant, is referred to as a whole. It's understood that Israel, It's people have suffered and died in the plural.

Only in restoring our relationship with other people.

And being obedient to God.

Except that that is nowhere in the Hebrew. When one cannot say what they mean, they cannot mean what they say. God inspired Moses to write in Genesis 22:2 "He said, "Take now your son, your only son, whom you love, Isaac, and go to the land of Moriah, and offer him there as a burnt offering on one of the mountains of which I will tell you."" To say that God meant the complete opposite makes God out to be a liar.

No, the verses that follow clarify the meaning.

My argument still applies. There's only a need for reconciling the different passages when you reject what God clearly commanded.

See above. Ironically, you argue the same when it comes to matters of ideology in the NT.

What makes the atonement, the altar or the blood?

Both. You must comply with the requirements.

Go ask Isaiah 53.

You can't ask a verse a question. I just threw your question back at you.

And yet the sacrifice of Isaiah 53:10 deals with transgressions that are beyond the asham sacrifice.

That's not true. The example you gave doesn't even mention an asham.

That undermines the sacrificial system if applied to it.

No it doesn't.