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

God required sacrifices for certain sins. All of the commandments are God's desire. His desire is that we love Him with all our heart, soul, and might. That includes sacrifices when needed, and available.


See above. The prayers of our lips act as sacrifices for now, Hosea 14:2.


Ok. You're gonna say Jesus' sacrifice eliminated the need for sacrifices even though he didn't follow the commandment to put blood on the altar, correct?


Then you know you have a gap in that human sacrifices were never commanded, and Jesus' blood and sacrifice didn't align with the commandments.
So why did God only accept Jesus as his only human sacrifice as the perfect offering that no animal could do for your atonment for sin?
 
God often wants things that are good for us as humans, even though he himself has no need of anything. A sacrifice is simply a way to communally break bread with God. For humans, sitting down and sharing food with others is relationship building. So slaughtering, cooking, and eating in a ritual way builds our relationship with God. It's not the only way to build that relationship, but it's pretty cool.
God indeed needs nothing, not even our worship.
However, it's not God who is in need, but us. We needed a sacrifice to atone for sin, which is what I'm getting from Jewjitzu. So it's not simply a matter of getting together at the table for a meal. And I think this might be an area that isn't easily clarified; namely the high regard for our need to atone for our sin through a sacrifice, and today's low view of the need to atone for our sin through a sacrifice.
At least this is what I'm getting when I compare/contrast what you're saying with Jewjitzu.
 
God required sacrifices for certain sins. All of the commandments are God's desire. His desire is that we love Him with all our heart, soul, and might. That includes sacrifices when needed, and available.
Okay, but why is sacrifice His desire?

See above. The prayers of our lips act as sacrifices for now, Hosea 14:2.
But these didn't atone for sin. Hence the forgiveness comes before the offering of the fruit of the lips. The temple sacrifices were still going on at the time of Hosea.

Ok. You're gonna say Jesus' sacrifice eliminated the need for sacrifices even though he didn't follow the commandment to put blood on the altar, correct?
If you didn't add on the part you knew that I wouldn't have said, I would have said, "Yes".
Then you know you have a gap in that human sacrifices were never commanded, and Jesus' blood and sacrifice didn't align with the commandments.
Well, first, I understand you and that I don't see the point in answering your questions. This also shows that the reason why I didn't answer your question wasn't, as you asserted, because I couldn't give an answer.
Second, I think we can both see why it would be both disastrous and contrary to even Christian teaching that God would command human sacrifices.
Third, you're looking for something other than what the Bible is saying. You're looking for Jesus to align with the commandments, all of them. This is a desire for the Mosaic Covenant. However, this is not what God had in mind in Jeremiah 31:31-32. You either stay in the Mosaic covenant and demand that Jesus be an actual lamb on the literal altar and therefore God is a liar, or you open yourself up to wonder what things would be different under the New Covenant.
By demanding the things that you're saying, you seem to recognize that there must be at least SOME continuity between the Mosaic and the New covenant, so you cannot just say "That's easy, read Jeremiah 31:31-40 to see how it'll be different" because what needs to be addressed is beyond these verses. What are the implications of this new covenant in other areas like sacrifice that will be different, and why will it need to be different, and what about repentance and confession, how will they be similar or different between the two covenants.
Christianity answers this in Christ. It's not exactly the Mosaic covenant (respectfully saying, as you seem to demand) but it's also not against it either as Christ is a type of the things required in the Mosaic covenant for atonement for sins.
 
So why did God only accept Jesus as his only human sacrifice as the perfect offering that no animal could do for your atonment for sin?
He didn't. Human sacrifices aren't accepted and idolatrous, Jesus wasn't perfect, and animal sacrifices were accepted just fine.
 
Okay, but why is sacrifice His desire?
Because He said so.

But these didn't atone for sin.
Sure they do.

Hence the forgiveness comes before the offering of the fruit of the lips. The temple sacrifices were still going on at the time of Hosea.
Forgiveness comes when we repent with our lips.

If you didn't add on the part you knew that I wouldn't have said, I would have said, "Yes".
Why not? His blood didn't make it on the altar nor was human sacrifices allowed. You know that.

Well, first, I understand you and that I don't see the point in answering your questions.
No, you don't understand me.

This also shows that the reason why I didn't answer your question wasn't, as you asserted, because I couldn't give an answer.
See above.

Second, I think we can both see why it would be both disastrous and contrary to even Christian teaching that God would command human sacrifices.
Then Jesus' sacrifice was disastrous.

Third, you're looking for something other than what the Bible is saying.
Just what Tanakh says. The NT doesn't hold water for us.

You're looking for Jesus to align with the commandments, all of them. This is a desire for the Mosaic Covenant.
That's what's expected for a prophet, man, of God, Zechariah 7:12.

However, this is not what God had in mind in Jeremiah 31:31-32.
Actually, God reinforces the Torah again with just the houses of Israel and Judah. The only difference is that the law is written on our hearts and minds. We see this as well in Jeremiah 33:17-26, and Ezekiel 37-45.

You either stay in the Mosaic covenant and demand that Jesus be an actual lamb on the literal altar and therefore God is a liar, or you open yourself up to wonder what things would be different under the New Covenant.
Christians like you push Lev 17:11 and get upset when it doesn't work out for you. You're smart enough to know that Jesus could never fulfill this commandment nor be acceptable as a sacrifice.

By demanding the things that you're saying, you seem to recognize that there must be at least SOME continuity between the Mosaic and the New covenant, so you cannot just say "That's easy, read Jeremiah 31:31-40 to see how it'll be different" because what needs to be addressed is beyond these verses.
See above.

What are the implications of this new covenant in other areas like sacrifice that will be different, and why will it need to be different, and what about repentance and confession, how will they be similar or different between the two covenants.
See above. In the future, the prince Messiah will bring his own sacrifices.

Christianity answers this in Christ. It's not exactly the Mosaic covenant (respectfully saying, as you seem to demand) but it's also not against it either as Christ is a type of the things required in the Mosaic covenant for atonement for sins.
Sorry, but "types" is a desperation fall back when nothing else is working out. The coming Messiah doesn't break the commandments to fulfill the commandments.

You need a better answer than this, and I can tell you I've heard it all.
 
Last edited:
God indeed needs nothing, not even our worship.
However, it's not God who is in need, but us. We needed a sacrifice to atone for sin, which is what I'm getting from Jewjitzu. So it's not simply a matter of getting together at the table for a meal. And I think this might be an area that isn't easily clarified; namely the high regard for our need to atone for our sin through a sacrifice, and today's low view of the need to atone for our sin through a sacrifice.
At least this is what I'm getting when I compare/contrast what you're saying with Jewjitzu.
Just a note -- there were a great many different kinds of sacrifices, not just sin offerings.

As I said, slaughtering, BBQing, and eating a communal meal with God is a good symbolic way of establishing a relationship. But it is not the only way to establish that relationship. For example, having conversations with God (prayer) also works.

And indeed that is what Hosea replaces sacrifices with in Hosea 14:2: "The words of our lips (prayers) shall be as bullocks (sacrifices)." Indeed you read about how Daniel prayed three times daily -- these are the three times of the temple offerings.

Don't get me wrong. I think Judaism functions optimally when there is a temple and sacrifices are being done, and I look forward to the day when we build the third temple. But in the meantime, we function quite nicely using prayers as our sacrifices.
 
He didn't. Human sacrifices aren't accepted and idolatrous, Jesus wasn't perfect, and animal sacrifices were accepted just fine.
But you are wrong. Animal sacrifices are no longer necessary because their blood no longer atones for your sins. The only perfect sacrifice that was acceptable to God was Jesus who was the Lamb of God. Unless you become Born Again you will never see it with your natural eyes. So repent that you missed the coming of the true Messiah. The Messiah came riding on a donkey into Jerusalem as your prophets prophesied but your people rejected Him.
 
Because He said so.
According to you, does God do things without a reason other than pleasure?
Sure they do.

Forgiveness comes when we repent with our lips.
Hosea 14:2 Take words with you and return to the LORD. Say to Him, "Take away all iniquity And receive us graciously, That we may present the fruit of our lips.
This one is going to take some discussion, because I think that you'll translate this differently.
I don't have any more time, to reply, so please give me your thoughts on Hosea 14:2. Thank you.

Why not? His blood didn't make it on the altar nor was human sacrifices allowed. You know that.
Your argument was that you knew what I was going to say.
"You're gonna say Jesus' sacrifice eliminated the need for sacrifices even though he didn't follow the commandment to put blood on the altar, correct?"
That's why not.
The rest of your sentence is being dealt with under the discussion of the New Covenant (Jer 31:31-32) below.

No, you don't understand me.
I may not fully understand Judaism, but I think I understand you. You have no hope that Christians will repent of idolatry, and you're tired of hearing the same thing over and over again. You debate quite often on here and at times it's frustrating that people don't listen to you though you have a wealth of knowledge. With that, it can feel like you're being disrespected.
I'll venture to guess that at times, in the real world, you feel on edge and it's because you're constantly fighting.
Do I get you or am off?

Then Jesus' sacrifice was disastrous.
There's a difference between telling a bunch of people who have a tendency to idolatry that human sacrifice is okay, and telling people who want to obey God that one unique human sacrifice that was provided by God, and is the only sacrifice that will ever be needed, is okay.
I hope you can see the difference and why it's a category error to equate putting in the Law human sacrifice, and having a God provided sacrifice that is unique.

Just what Tanakh says. The NT doesn't hold water for us.
I'm well aware, and accounted for that. Hence why I never quoted the NT in my paragraph.

That's what's expected for a prophet, man, of God, Zechariah 7:12.
That's kinda what I was saying...
Actually, God reinforces the Torah again with just the houses of Israel and Judah. The only difference is that the law is written on our hearts and minds. We see this as well in Jeremiah 33:17-26, and Ezekiel 37-45.
Ezekiel 43-45 is still under the Mosaic covenant, hence the reference to the offspring of Zadok in Ezekiel 43:19, so that's got nothing to do with what I'm talking about.
Jeremiah 33:17-26 reinforces the sacrifices and Covenants with David and I believe Levi, but not the whole of the Torah. But do you believe that when all of God's promises have been fulfilled that people will still sin (cf Jer 33:18)? I don't as that's part of having God's law in our hearts, but I honestly don't know if you do.

Christians like you push Lev 17:11 and get upset when it doesn't work out for you. You're smart enough to know that Jesus could never fulfill this commandment nor be acceptable as a sacrifice.
Okay... but the complete thought had to do with Jeremiah 31:31-32, and how it will be different than the Mosaic Covenant. So at least at heart you have to acknowledge that I'm not pushing for a literal, 1 to 1, application of the Mosaic Law.

See above.

See above. In the future, the prince Messiah will bring his own sacrifices.
So... you don't know, I'm guessing? You didn't answer any of my questions in that last paragraph. I do recognize that I didn't put a question mark at the end, so I apologize for that, but I think it should have been clear by the wording that I was asking several questions (eg. "what", "why", "what", "how").
Sorry, but "types" is a desperation fall back when nothing else is working out. The coming Messiah doesn't break the commandments to fulfill the commandments.
It is perfectly logical to say that if something is similar yet different, then it is a type of something. That's just... English.

You need a better answer than this, and I can tell you I've heard it all.
Then why is it that you ask questions that have nothing to do with what Christians believe? A person who has learning ought to demonstrate their intelligence in their questions. Conversely, asking questions that have nothing to do with the person you're talking with demonstrates a lack of knowledge, which I don't believe you lack.
 
Last edited:
Just a note -- there were a great many different kinds of sacrifices, not just sin offerings.

As I said, slaughtering, BBQing, and eating a communal meal with God is a good symbolic way of establishing a relationship. But it is not the only way to establish that relationship. For example, having conversations with God (prayer) also works.

And indeed that is what Hosea replaces sacrifices with in Hosea 14:2: "The words of our lips (prayers) shall be as bullocks (sacrifices)." Indeed you read about how Daniel prayed three times daily -- these are the three times of the temple offerings.

Don't get me wrong. I think Judaism functions optimally when there is a temple and sacrifices are being done, and I look forward to the day when we build the third temple. But in the meantime, we function quite nicely using prayers as our sacrifices.
Yes, I do know there are different types of offerings with different purposes... though I still have no idea what a "wave offering" is for :/
But that's the thing, a fellowship offering was not used for an atonement offering. Just like today, hosting a BBQ and inviting them over won't cover the cost of smashing my car into their second story window.
Lip service isn't going to cut it. It only does if we already have a right relationship with God.

I never read in the Bible that Daniel's prayers were used to atone for sins,
and Hosea 14:2 has a lot of difficulties about it. One being that it's hard to understand what Hosea 14:2 meant. The note in the Jewish Study Bible (2nd Ed.) says that the meaning is uncertain. But to at least try to understand, I'd like to ask you a question, because I don't speak Hebrew.
Hosea 14:2 "Take words with you and return to the LORD. Say to him: "Forgive all our sins and receive us graciously, that we may offer the fruit of our lips."
The word for offer I heard was "shillem", and the argument is that this specific word is never used in animal sacrifices. The majority of the time, it's used for vows. What are your thoughts?
Another question is whether verse 2 is in the Messianic age as opposed to being in exile.

As always, a pleasure reading your responses.
 
But you are wrong. Animal sacrifices are no longer necessary because their blood no longer atones for your sins.
But you're wrong because Jeremiah 33:17-26 says they return with the Levitical priesthood and temple, Ezekiel 37-45, with the prince bringing his own sin sacrifices. You can't escape this fact.

The only perfect sacrifice that was acceptable to God was Jesus who was the Lamb of God. Unless you become Born Again you will never see it with your natural eyes. So repent that you missed the coming of the true Messiah. The Messiah came riding on a donkey into Jerusalem as your prophets prophesied but your people rejected Him.
He wasn't perfect, nor did he meet the requirements for a sacrifice on the altar, Lev 17:11. ;)
 
According to you, does God do things without a reason other than pleasure?
I didn't say anything about please. I said according to his will. If you understood God's will, you'd be God but you're not. ;)

Hosea 14:2 Take words with you and return to the LORD. Say to Him, "Take away all iniquity And receive us graciously, That we may present the fruit of our lips.
This one is going to take some discussion, because I think that you'll translate this differently.
I don't have any more time, to reply, so please give me your thoughts on Hosea 14:2. Thank you.
It's pretty clear what it says. Prayers act like sacrifices.

Your argument was that you knew what I was going to say.
"You're gonna say Jesus' sacrifice eliminated the need for sacrifices even though he didn't follow the commandment to put blood on the altar, correct?"
That's why not.
The rest of your sentence is being dealt with under the discussion of the New Covenant (Jer 31:31-32) below.
First, the new covenant doesn't deal with the Church, and the law remains but is written on the hearts and minds, not stone.

I may not fully understand Judaism, but I think I understand you.
I don't think so.

You have no hope that Christians will repent of idolatry, and you're tired of hearing the same thing over and over again.
I do hope, but idolatry is hard to break from. To date, you've said nothing I haven't heard before.

You debate quite often on here and at times it's frustrating that people don't listen to you though you have a wealth of knowledge. With that, it can feel like you're being disrespected.
It's expected given that my POV isn't what Christians are used to.

I'll venture to guess that at times, in the real world, you feel on edge and it's because you're constantly fighting.
Do I get you or am off?
No, I live a pretty relaxed life.

There's a difference between telling a bunch of people who have a tendency to idolatry that human sacrifice is okay, and telling people who want to obey God that one unique human sacrifice that was provided by God, and is the only sacrifice that will ever be needed, is okay.
Worshipping a man is idolatry. In the same way Christians feeling they have to tell me I'm lost, I have the responsibility to tell them the same thing too, Zechariah 8:23.

I hope you can see the difference and why it's a category error to equate putting in the Law human sacrifice, and having a God provided sacrifice that is unique.
It's the same. Jesus was human.

I'm well aware, and accounted for that. Hence why I never quoted the NT in my paragraph.


That's kinda what I was saying...

Ezekiel 43-45 is still under the Mosaic covenant, hence the reference to the offspring of Zadok in Ezekiel 43:19, so that's got nothing to do with what I'm talking about.
The law still remains. Till heaven and earth...

Jeremiah 33:17-26 reinforces the sacrifices and Covenants with David and I believe Levi, but not the whole of the Torah. But do you believe that when all of God's promises have been fulfilled that people will still sin (cf Jer 33:18)? I don't as that's part of having God's law in our hearts, but I honestly don't know if you do.
God doesn't take away free will.

Okay... but the complete thought had to do with Jeremiah 31:31-32, and how it will be different than the Mosaic Covenant.
It isn't except for the writing on stone.

So at least at heart you have to acknowledge that I'm not pushing for a literal, 1 to 1, application of the Mosaic Law.
And that's the problem. It is literal. The law is eternal.

So... you don't know, I'm guessing? You didn't answer any of my questions in that last paragraph. I do recognize that I didn't put a question mark at the end, so I apologize for that, but I think it should have been clear by the wording that I was asking several questions (eg. "what", "why", "what", "how").
The sacrifices still remain, literally. Tanakh says so.

It is perfectly logical to say that if something is similar yet different, then it is a type of something. That's just... English.
Types don't fulfill commandments.

Then why is it that you ask questions that have nothing to do with what Christians believe? A person who has learning ought to demonstrate their intelligence in their questions. Conversely, asking questions that have nothing to do with the person you're talking with demonstrates a lack of knowledge, which I don't believe you lack.
Because I want to see if you have a new POV I haven't heard. I'm open to learning something new.
 
Last edited:
Just a note -- there were a great many different kinds of sacrifices, not just sin offerings.

As I said, slaughtering, BBQing, and eating a communal meal with God is a good symbolic way of establishing a relationship. But it is not the only way to establish that relationship. For example, having conversations with God (prayer) also works.

And indeed that is what Hosea replaces sacrifices with in Hosea 14:2: "The words of our lips (prayers) shall be as bullocks (sacrifices)." Indeed you read about how Daniel prayed three times daily -- these are the three times of the temple offerings.

Don't get me wrong. I think Judaism functions optimally when there is a temple and sacrifices are being done, and I look forward to the day when we build the third temple. But in the meantime, we function quite nicely using prayers as our sacrifices.
Speaking of prayers, why don't Jews kneel when they pray?
 
I didn't say anything about please. I said according to his will. If you understood God's will, you'd be God but you're not. ;)
I was basing my thinking on you saying, "All of the commandments are God's desire." I figure desire and pleasure are fairly close in meaning. But if by desire you mean his will, I'll adjust.
What you're saying reminds me of Romans 11:33 Oh, the depth of the riches of the wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable his judgments, and his paths beyond tracing out! You're right, I'm not God, but we both know He has reasons for why he does things. I may not know, but at times He reveals His will to us, chiefly through His word as revealed through those He sent.

It's pretty clear what it says. Prayers act like sacrifices.
The reason why I couldn't just immediately reply is because at that time I was comparing the Hebrew with the English and Greek and it's actually not clear. I even went to my Jewish Study Bible (not Christian but from a scholarly Jewish perspective) and the note said that the meaning of that verse is uncertain.
Moreover, the context refers to a time after the exile, not during. So, I don't think that this verse can be used to say that during the current exile our lips act like our sacrifices to atone for sin.

First, the new covenant doesn't deal with the Church, and the law remains but is written on the hearts and minds, not stone.
*In what way does the Law remain? You contend that you can offer up prayers to God as a way to fulfill certain laws in the Torah.
That there is a shift from the physical to the spiritual, the internal part of man, shows there is a shift from the literal to the spiritual application of the laws.

I don't think so.


I do hope, but idolatry is hard to break from. To date, you've said nothing I haven't heard before.


It's expected given that my POV isn't what Christians are used to.


No, I live a pretty relaxed life.
I stand corrected, then.

Worshipping a man is idolatry. In the same way Christians feeling they have to tell me I'm lost, I have the responsibility to tell them the same thing too, Zechariah 8:23.
Again, that's not what I would say, but I don't disagree with you speaking your mind.
It's the same. Jesus was human.
If it's the same then I infer that I would see Christians being sacrificed in every Christian Church. Moreover, none of those Christians would be worshiped or even deified. The differences are too insurmountable for me.
The law still remains. Till heaven and earth...


God doesn't take away free will.


It isn't except for the writing on stone.


And that's the problem. It is literal. The law is eternal.


The sacrifices still remain, literally. Tanakh says so.
*These are all under the similar thought above

Types don't fulfill commandments.
So how would you see the Messiah in relation to King David? Wouldn't the coming Messiah be a type of king David but more-so?

Because I want to see if you have a new POV I haven't heard. I'm open to learning something new.
Or maybe at least through our exchange someone says something that gets us to see things in a different light... that we inspire one another.

I'm sorry I take so long. I have very limited time to be on the computer, and often don't have the proper frame of mind to be a student.
 
I was basing my thinking on you saying, "All of the commandments are God's desire." I figure desire and pleasure are fairly close in meaning. But if by desire you mean his will, I'll adjust.
What you're saying reminds me of Romans 11:33 Oh, the depth of the riches of the wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable his judgments, and his paths beyond tracing out! You're right, I'm not God, but we both know He has reasons for why he does things. I may not know, but at times He reveals His will to us, chiefly through His word as revealed through those He sent.
No, pleasure and desire/will are not the same. Yes, God at times reveals things but we cannot understand God entirely.

The reason why I couldn't just immediately reply is because at that time I was comparing the Hebrew with the English and Greek and it's actually not clear. I even went to my Jewish Study Bible (not Christian but from a scholarly Jewish perspective) and the note said that the meaning of that verse is uncertain.
Moreover, the context refers to a time after the exile, not during. So, I don't think that this verse can be used to say that during the current exile our lips act like our sacrifices to atone for sin.
Well, we will just have to disagree.

*In what way does the Law remain?
It's eternal.

You contend that you can offer up prayers to God as a way to fulfill certain laws in the Torah.
Just in terms of sins that require sacrifices. Not all of them do.

That there is a shift from the physical to the spiritual, the internal part of man, shows there is a shift from the literal to the spiritual application of the laws.
Laws have specific literal physical actions required. You can't do them away with "spiritual" acts.

I stand corrected, then.
Ok.

Again, that's not what I would say, but I don't disagree with you speaking your mind.
Ok.

If it's the same then I infer that I would see Christians being sacrificed in every Christian Church. Moreover, none of those Christians would be worshiped or even deified. The differences are too insurmountable for me.
Why? We see that any human sacrifice isn't acceptable. It's idolatry.

*These are all under the similar thought above
Ok, but the law is still eternal.

So how would you see the Messiah in relation to King David? Wouldn't the coming Messiah be a type of king David but more-so?
Descendant of David, following the law of kings, Deuteronomy 17:14-20, not God.

Or maybe at least through our exchange someone says something that gets us to see things in a different light... that we inspire one another.
Ok.

I'm sorry I take so long. I have very limited time to be on the computer, and often don't have the proper frame of mind to be a student.
No problem.
 
*In what way does the Law remain? You contend that you can offer up prayers to God as a way to fulfill certain laws in the Torah.
That there is a shift from the physical to the spiritual, the internal part of man, shows there is a shift from the literal to the spiritual application of the laws.
I am seeing a disturbing trend to do away with the law in the GUISE of making them spiritual. In fact, the laws apply to behavior. You keep them or not by your actions, which are prescribed by those laws. For example, you can't go sleep with your neighbor's wife, and then say you are not committing adultery because you kept the law "spiritually."
 
I am seeing a disturbing trend to do away with the law in the GUISE of making them spiritual. In fact, the laws apply to behavior. You keep them or not by your actions, which are prescribed by those laws. For example, you can't go sleep with your neighbor's wife, and then say you are not committing adultery because you kept the law "spiritually."
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.
 
Back
Top