Why Jews will never accept Jesus

[Iconoclast]

I dealt with all this.

You can ignore it if you want, but you certainly have not came close to dealing with it.

 

[Jewjitzu]

You can ignore it if you want, but you certainly have not came close to dealing with it.

Yep, she dealt with it.

 

[Iconoclast]

Yep, she dealt with it.

No she has not, Jews do not believe for the same reason gentiles do not believe....They do not have the new heart promised in the new covenant.

7 But if the ministration of death, written and engraven in stones, was glorious, so that the children of Israel could not stedfastly behold the face of Moses for the glory of his countenance; which glory was to be done away:

8 How shall not the ministration of the spirit be rather glorious?

9 For if the ministration of condemnation be glory, much more doth the ministration of righteousness exceed in glory.

10 For even that which was made glorious had no glory in this respect, by reason of the glory that excelleth.

11 For if that which is done away was glorious, much more that which remaineth is glorious.

12 Seeing then that we have such hope, we use great plainness of speech:

13 And not as Moses, which put a veil over his face, that the children of Israel could not stedfastly look to the end of that which is abolished:

14 But their minds were blinded: for until this day remaineth the same vail untaken away in the reading of the old testament; which vail is done away in Christ.

15 But even unto this day, when Moses is read, the vail is upon their heart.

16 Nevertheless when it shall turn to the Lord, the vail shall be taken away.

17 Now the Lord is that Spirit: and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty., and then;
3 But if our gospel be hid, it is hid to them that are lost:

4 In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them.

5 For we preach not ourselves, but Christ Jesus the Lord; and ourselves your servants for Jesus' sake.

6 For God, who commanded the light to shine out of darkness, hath shined in our hearts, to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ.

7 But we have this treasure in earthen vessels, that the excellency of the power may be of God, and not of us.

 

[Iconoclast]

I dealt with all this.

21 Then said Jesus again unto them, I go my way, and ye shall seek me, and shall die in your sins: whither I go, ye cannot come.

22 Then said the Jews, Will he kill himself? because he saith, Whither I go, ye cannot come.

23 And he said unto them, Ye are from beneath; I am from above: ye are of this world; I am not of this world.

24 I said therefore unto you, that ye shall die in your sins: for if ye believe not that I am he, ye shall die in your sins.

 

[Open Heart]

The blessings of Abraham was ALSO unto all the nations of the world.

Well certainly it says that through the seed of Abraham (his descendants) all the nations of the world would be blessed. But other promises, such as the land of Canaan were only to be for his descendants through Isaac (and later Jacob).

 

[Open Heart]

As it is written..."They will all be taught of God."

This simply means to be taught about God.

"I will inscribe my word on their heart, and cause them to walk in my way according to my commandment."

And this is not true yet. There are many people of Israel who do not walk according to the Law. This is a prophecy of a time in the future, the messianic era, or perhaps even the world to come.

 

[Open Heart]

21 Then said Jesus again unto them, I go my way, and ye shall seek me, and shall die in your sins: whither I go, ye cannot come.

22 Then said the Jews, Will he kill himself? because he saith, Whither I go, ye cannot come.

23 And he said unto them, Ye are from beneath; I am from above: ye are of this world; I am not of this world.

24 I said therefore unto you, that ye shall die in your sins: for if ye believe not that I am he, ye shall die in your sins.

I'm not sure why you would quote this to me. I'm a Jew, so the New Testament is nothing but a curiosity to me. It is not authoritative, as it contains many errors. The above is a good example.

 

[Iconoclast]

I'm not sure why you would quote this to me. I'm a Jew, so the New Testament is nothing but a curiosity to me. It is not authoritative, as it contains many errors. The above is a good example.

isa65:1,Deut 18:15, psalm110:1-4...if you intend to enjoy eternal life,you must come the same way....1 cor5:7...Christ our passover is sacrificed for us.
Because you are Jewish does not give you any advantage.
Romans 9:1-11 explains it is not the physical descent(sperma), but the children of the promise(teknon) who are Gods Covenant Children.
The ot.promises are fulfilled in the seed of Abraham, singular....not seeds, plural.
Jesus is the seed, and all who believe are In Union with Him
Jew and Gentile come in on the exact same basis.

Take time to investigate as the new testament quotes the ot over and over.
Between Romans 9-15, Isaiah is quoted 17x....plus Deut, the psalms, Hebrews is full of ot.quotes.

 

[tbeachhead]

You do understand Abraham's whole household was circumcised? The blessings are associated with following the commandments, Gen 18:19.

Why do you ignore key issues...Yes Abraham was circumcised and his household...Both Jeremiah and Moses expand that to a matter of the heart. No Jew is Israel who is circumcised in the flesh only, and not in the heart. That is why Paul says "They are not all Israel who are called Israel." Both Manasseh and Ahaz, and even Ahab for that matter, were circumcised. Tophet is the fruit of that...The blessings of Abraham transcend the flesh...it is an inward affair of the heart...As you say, "Torah grows from within."

Does it matter? The idea of blessings and curses were in the garden.

It clearly matters for you. And in the garden, we were all united as one race in Adam.

Well, the encounter at Sinai showed no physical form. That's what we are told to teach our children.

I just read them what is written. They can see what took place from there.

I haven't seen Jesus teach anything new.

OK...Just saying, you won't either, until you're born again. In fact, you CANNOT see the kingdom of God until that happens.

Isaiah 38:17 explains the backside, Exodus 34:6-7.

Neither explains the backside...Isaiah states where sin lies, and Exodus demonstrates fully the nature of the NAME. God doesn't have to "explain" why we cannot look on His face.

Really? Please show that wording.

וַיִּיצֶר֩ יְהוָ֨ה אֱלֹהִ֜ים אֶת־ הָֽאָדָ֗ם עָפָר֙ מִן־ הָ֣אֲדָמָ֔ה

Best I could do, but that's the wording...I'm sure there is error in the Hebrew. I copied as best as I could, but yatsar is what a potter does. "Formed/fashioned from the dust of the earth."

First wrong assumption on your part - that God has hands and is physical, or that He can't speak and it happens.

Funny...I'd think you'd want to attribute accuracy to God's description.

See...this is something that is unique in all of creation: He did speak for every other being but man...man, he spoke, "Let's create man in our image", then he yatsared like a potter and formed. He did this for no other created being in the account. I'm catching the contrast, and seeing the difference. He then took that which He formed...not what He spoke, and gave him dominion over all that had been spoken.

You're worried about His hands, and these are His very words. Why does this trouble you so?

Sure, see above. Rotfl...

You've added by saying He scooped up dirt. Please show that.
[/quote]Formed/fashioned...as a potter...There was dust...it was formed into man...The dust is no longer dust, but man. Where the dust once lay, there is no dust. That which was dust is walking over the ground from which he was taken, and taking dominion.

Does the text say animals died?

It says "tunics of עוֹר. Is that skin? As in animal hide? Are you nitpicking again, or do you have a better idea for covering Adam's shame?

Like I said, please show where the sacrifice occurred, since it's written clearly.

Have done...If it was animal hide, the animal gave up its hide to cover Adam's shame.

Define sacrifice without giving something up. This is the first time an animal laid down its life in proxy for another, to cover.

The pattern shown on the mountain. Not of a heavenly temple, right?

Wrong. Read it until you get it. The pattern is derivative..."As in heaven, so on earth." Shadow and substance. The tabernacle was fashioned after a heavenly pattern that Isaiah witnessed.

And your point is?

Long threads lose their thread. I'm responding to your denial that Passover is a pattern, and the crucifixion is the fulfillment. Blood on the door posts and lintel protects and covers the Israelite.

I didn't see your answer. It didn't follow my line. You might want to try again.
Yes.
But the seed was like the stars, not a specific one person.

The seed produces...the fruit is numbered as the stars. This seems difficult for you. Isaac was one...You, on the other hand, are a star. It's not that hard.

I don't know what Abraham saw, but he did expect to return with Issac.

He did. And defined faith forever.

The promise was seed like the stars.

No...Seed. Then fruit numbered like the stars. Seeds aren't stars...they bear fruit like you, numbered like stars in number.

The law promises eternity.

To those who live by it. Not to those who do what seems right in their own eyes when there is no king in Israel.

The soul that sins dies. Blood is one means of atonement.

And when that ceased...

Ezekiel 18 proves otherwise.

So...Ezekiel abrogated the Law then?

The new covenant has nothing to do with Jesus.

Your denial doesn't make this true. Having faith in your denial doesn't either. Truth is. not established in anyone's opinion.

Ezekiel 18 says otherwise.

Glib is no better than an argument from silence. Ezekiel 18 is the process of repentance. Blood is still the means whereby repentance brings justification. Ezekiel did not abrogate the system...it illustrates the process of repentance and backsliding. Hezekiah's and Josiah's revival or Ezekiel 18 repentance brought a rain of mercy...and a restoration of the temple and its practices.

And I'm saying so what about Parthenos. The context of Isaiah 7 doesn't apply to Jesus or Mary.

Again, no false claim establishes itself as true by repetition...except in the American Congress and the press. Mary was a virgin. Jesus was born of her...and Isaiah 7 was fulfilled. Can't erase history. You can only deny, rewrite, forget or make stuff up.

No, I'm not stuck. That's your life line, not mine. I'm not stuck on the LXX.

Again...history. The LXX is historic support. Not the truth. The truth is Mary was a virgin. Jesus was born of her, and lived a good life, died and rose again. From history, draw conclusions. Much better than drawing conclusions from denial.

Promise doesn't make sperm from male loins and male seed of David. If you can show the original LXX which was only based on the Pentateuch you might have an argument.

You do have a point. But clearly, promise produces life from faith in that promise...and the seed of David was maternal. The paternal seed was more like Adam's original. And I love the science of it.

Very few I've met talk like you do.

No, it is physical seed.

Clearly not...She got pregnant when she said, "Be it done unto me according to your Word." The Word she received became life in her womb.

Then Jesus isn't legit.

Think about it...there is no Law against faith. Receiving a promise is quite legit.

I've learned nothing new. Sorry.

I do not suspect you come here to learn anything new. You're a good teacher.

I haven't learned anything new, but I've appreciated the way you word the challenges you do. I'm grateful for the discussion we've had, and do look forward to others. Few can discourse like this.

 

[tbeachhead]

The Talmud describes the laws that the NT confuses. Jesus was using Pharisee teaching in many of his Sabbath points. He taught nothing new.

Did the Pharisees teach "The sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath?" Because that teaching seems unique. Do the Pharisees not limit the number of steps one can take? And is it not an offshoot of this that would make the Orthodox in Israel today hire out goyim to come and flip on their lights on the Sabbath?

The NT consistently misrepresents the Pharisees position. Any learned Jew can see this.

The NT only claims to represent folks with real names who, perhaps, did misrepresent the Pharisaical position, but who also enforced their own misrepresentation. This happens through time. The Reform brought Reformation to a toxic Roman church...and the Romans have never actually admitted to the excesses they now disclaim. This is typical of any religion seeking to justify itself despite its colored past. Nothing wrong with this. In fact, I understand. There were great men and brilliant thinkers among the Pharisees.

The NT contradicts itself. It's pretty obvious.

That's an easily debunked claim. I'm sure you know that. The NT is unique in that it begins with four views of the same story. Harmonizing them is a treat...and not that difficult. Any way you wish, Paul's letters are consistent, and for depth and growth of message, again unique. When you harmonize his letters with Luke's account in Acts, you get a history of Rome like none can give.

Which contradiction are you most keen on pointing out?

Again, the NT confuses the sects of the times.

It doesn't seek to define the sects...it quotes the adherents of the sects. The "scribes" are the literate of any sect...who seek to bind onto others the laws they themselves will not follow.

Immanuel is not God is walking with us. Why are you adding to the text?

It turns out that's what happened.

What does the name mean?

And a name.

Ok...Like, "Oh great King Live Forever." Still a title.

No, not a necessary denial but one that is supported.

To your satisfaction...not by history.

Messiah is just a man.

That's just it...Turns out He is not "just" a man.

James would have been the Nasi just like Gamaliel was for the Pharisees. A Nasi carries weight.

James was among the other apostles. Not all the 12 had left Jerusalem.

Paul was never an elder. Visions of grandeur.

That too, is a false claim, and devoid of substance. From the moment he came to Antioch, he was welcomed among the Elders, and received by them through Barnabas. When he was set apart by the Spirit and sent, by definition he became an apostle. In every church he planted, he was the ruling elder, and apostle to that church. In Jerusalem he was welcomed as he who was sent to the Gentiles as Peter was sent to the Jews. You just don't like Paul...and I suspect because you've found your intellectual equal, and that troubles you.

Jesus never assumed any throne. The Davidic throne is on earth.

Hmmm...pretty lengthy reign...forever and ever according to Nathan. Naaah....David's throne was but a shadow. Messiah's throne is the substance, and the kingdom is a heavenly kingdom.

If this was true, James would not assumed the position he was in.

You really don't understand Christian hierarchy. James didn't assume anything to which he was not called. The Holy Spirit directed the established authority. Paul makes it clear to the Corinthians, God places in office the leadership of the body.

And as an apostate, he desired to claim his Roman citizenship to escape early persecution. He wasn't true to the brethren.

Sigh. You have so many misconceptions. You and Paul would be great friends. Paul didn't "escape" early persecution: He was beaten by the Jews, stoned and left for dead by Greeks, beaten by the Romans, thrown to the lions in Ephesus, shipwrecked. He didn't claim his Roman citizenship in Philippi until AFTER he was beaten and locked away for a rollicking night of singing and earthquakes and conversions and baptisms. Where did you get that he "escaped" anything? Once, on the way in for questioning did he ask if it was ok to beat a Roman citizen without a trial.

Paul and Messianics are perfect apostates. Nothing to apologize for.

Good...and that's where the tension lies. Because if Paul and the Messianics are correct, and the historic evidence is actually in their favor with the resurrection...the apostate stands on the other side pointing an errant finger everywhere but at himself.

Yep, read Eusebius and also James Tabor on the matter.

Quote them and you'll have one more irritating friend. I wouldn't know where to begin.

Thank you.
It's a good study.

You've shown that.

We were shown to know.

Both sides were shown. We're instructed by every word in the Tenach...if we take the time.

Leviticus 12:1-8 is all I need.

that might be...and there's more...

No, that is the gnostic teachings from Tarsus and Hellenists.

You really do not know what the gnostic teaching is. Paul's is the opposite. There is no hidden, secret knowledge with Paul: only the invitation to see as he was shown, and to hear as he was taught.

Another deception. Read Eusebius.

Quote him. He ascribes to Paul's authority in what I've read. Besides, I'm puzzled that you grant such authority on any hand to one who came two hundred years after Paul.

Gnostics maybe.

Nope...this charge is becoming a trope.

No pattern from heaven talked about, right.

Sigh...A pattern...shown to Moses...on the mountain...by GOD HIMSELF. What are you suggesting the origin of the pattern is? God drew up a meaningless blueprint, so there would always be three places for sacrifice within one tent?

And?
Again, you haven't proven anything.

What does this statement do for you but buttress your own pride? I'm not trying to "prove" anything, but to answer your questions, and note observations that your comments inspire.

Do you think I'd deceive myself into imagining that you'll accept anything I offer as "proof"?

Every time you say this, I picture the Bozo punching doll that springs back after every blow and says, "That didn't hurt." I'm not trying to punch your ideas down. Only explore them, as for the first time.

For you, God's design is not even a "heavenly" pattern. I'm learning a lot.

 

[Jewjitzu]

No she has not, Jews do not believe for the same reason gentiles do not believe....They do not have the new heart promised in the new covenant.

We don't need to believe in Jesus. The new covenant is clear in Jeremiah 31:31-34 the law remains the same but written in the hearts and minds of the houses of Israel and Judah. The spirit convicts one to be obedient, Ezekiel 36:26-27.

 

[tbeachhead]

The context of your verse in Hebrews, "Without the shedding of blood there is no remission of sins" is that it is referring to blood sacrifices, not blood purification of utensils. I'm sorry but you are just off with this one.

You err...sorry. Here's the context from Hebrews 9:21 "In the same way, he sprinkled with blood the tabernacle and all the vessels used in worship. 22According to the law, in fact, nearly everything must be purified with blood, and without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness." Please notice...and he actually says "...nearly everything must be purified...", not everything, but it's about purifying the tabernacle and all the vessels used in worship.

This cuts both directions. It could just as equally mean that Jesus is still dead and buried despite your belief to the contrary.

That was actually my point. Glad you see that. Seeing accurately is essential, which only increases the enjoyment of conversations like this one. thanks.

Be well.

And be blessed.

 

[tbeachhead]

You don't need a higher authority when it comes to common sense. If I buy meat at the grocery store, I can assume that it was not an animal sacrifice. If I buy a leather purse, I can assume it was not an animal sacrifice. Under normal circumstances, killing for food or clothing is a practical affair, not a sacrifice. It is a sacrifice when the person doing the killing intends it to be so. There is nothing in Genesis to indicate that God intended it to be a sacrifice. Nothing. You are ADDING to the text. And while we are at it, tell me who God would be making a sacrifice to?

Shalom

I am covering Adam's shame at the cost of another's life. Your claims don't take me to the grocery store. They take me to the consequences of sin.

 

[tbeachhead]

Well certainly it says that through the seed of Abraham (his descendants) all the nations of the world would be blessed. But other promises, such as the land of Canaan were only to be for his descendants through Isaac (and later Jacob).

This opens up vistas of conversation...concerning adoption...and promise and inheritance.

And I agree with you.

 

[tbeachhead]

This simply means to be taught about God.

Not at all...

The promise of God becoming our teacher is throughout the OT...beginning with Psalm 32. Read Isaiah 30, after we will weep no more.

In the NT we're told we do not need a teacher. It's a teacher's lament, especially considering that "teacher" is one of the five important officers for the edification of the church. Our job must be to stay out of God's way as He does the teaching...even using us on occasion. St Francis of Assisi said it best, "Preach the gospel wherever you go. If necessary, use words."

And this is not true yet. There are many people of Israel who do not walk according to the Law. This is a prophecy of a time in the future, the messianic era, or perhaps even the world to come.

There is that element in every promise. I have never sat down to memorize scripture. I know a lot of scripture by heart. I've always attributed that to this promise.

 

[Open Heart]

isa65:1,Deut 18:15, psalm110:1-4...if you intend to enjoy eternal life,you must come the same way....1 cor5:7...Christ our passover is sacrificed for us.
Because you are Jewish does not give you any advantage.
Romans 9:1-11 explains it is not the physical descent(sperma), but the children of the promise(teknon) who are Gods Covenant Children.
The ot.promises are fulfilled in the seed of Abraham, singular....not seeds, plural.
Jesus is the seed, and all who believe are In Union with Him
Jew and Gentile come in on the exact same basis.

Take time to investigate as the new testament quotes the ot over and over.
Between Romans 9-15, Isaiah is quoted 17x....plus Deut, the psalms, Hebrews is full of ot.quotes.

Quotes sure. But quoted out of context, much as you have done.

 

[Open Heart]

You err...sorry. Here's the context from Hebrews 9:21 "In the same way, he sprinkled with blood the tabernacle and all the vessels used in worship. 22According to the law, in fact, nearly everything must be purified with blood, and without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness." Please notice...and he actually says "...nearly everything must be purified...", not everything, but it's about purifying the tabernacle and all the vessels used in worship.

And if the latter referred to the former, the former would say that everything was purified by blood.

 

[Open Heart]

In the NT we're told we do not need a teacher.

But it's just not true. Indeed the early church appointed teachers. And the apostles chose as elders those they could trust to teach rightly.

 

[Jewjitzu]

Did the Pharisees teach "The sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath?" Because that teaching seems unique. Do the Pharisees not limit the number of steps one can take? And is it not an offshoot of this that would make the Orthodox in Israel today hire out goyim to come and flip on their lights on the Sabbath?

You're a bit ignorant here. We see in Yoma 85b:

The Sabbath was handed over to you, and you were not handed over to the Sabbath.

If circumcision, which concerns one of the 248 members of the body, overrides the Sabbath, shall not a man's whole body override the Sabbath?

Like I said before, you're not presenting anything new that I haven't seen.

The NT only claims to represent folks with real names who, perhaps, did misrepresent the Pharisaical position,

Not perhaps, it did for hateful and antisemitic reasons.

but who also enforced their own misrepresentation. This happens through time. The Reform brought Reformation to a toxic Roman church...and the Romans have never actually admitted to the excesses they now disclaim. This is typical of any religion seeking to justify itself despite its colored past. Nothing wrong with this. In fact, I understand. There were great men and brilliant thinkers among the Pharisees.
That's an easily debunked claim. I'm sure you know that. The NT is unique in that it begins with four views of the same story. Harmonizing them is a treat...and not that difficult. Any way you wish, Paul's letters are consistent, and for depth and growth of message, again unique. When you harmonize his letters with Luke's account in Acts, you get a history of Rome like none can give.

Yep, apostasy is consistent.

Which contradiction are you most keen on pointing out?
It doesn't seek to define the sects...it quotes the adherents of the sects. The "scribes" are the literate of any sect...who seek to bind onto others the laws they themselves will not follow.
It turns out that's what happened.

The NT confuses its facts.

What does the name mean?
Ok...Like, "Oh great King Live Forever." Still a title.

Still a name.

To your satisfaction...not by history.
That's just it...Turns out He is not "just" a man.
James was among the other apostles. Not all the 12 had left Jerusalem.

Jesus born like a man, bled and died like one.

That too, is a false claim, and devoid of substance. From the moment he came to Antioch, he was welcomed among the Elders, and received by them through Barnabas. When he was set apart by the Spirit and sent, by definition he became an apostle. In every church he planted, he was the ruling elder, and apostle to that church. In Jerusalem he was welcomed as he who was sent to the Gentiles as Peter was sent to the Jews. You just don't like Paul...and I suspect because you've found your intellectual equal, and that troubles you.

Rotfl... Paul was no Pharisee, just a wanna be gnostic and apostate. Until he started abrogating Torah and teaching the same, sure, he was in good standing.

Hmmm...pretty lengthy reign...forever and ever according to Nathan. Naaah....David's throne was but a shadow. Messiah's throne is the substance, and the kingdom is a heavenly kingdom.
You really don't understand Christian hierarchy. James didn't assume anything to which he was not called. The Holy Spirit directed the established authority.

The spirit of holiness dictating that all Gentiles must start adhering to the basic laws so that they could learn, and worship on the Sabbath. The church is far removed from this.

Paul makes it clear to the Corinthians, God places in office the leadership of the body.
Sigh. You have so many misconceptions. You and Paul would be great friends. Paul didn't "escape" early persecution: He was beaten by the Jews, stoned and left for dead by Greeks, beaten by the Romans, thrown to the lions in Ephesus, shipwrecked. He didn't claim his Roman citizenship in Philippi until AFTER he was beaten and locked away for a rollicking night of singing and earthquakes and conversions and baptisms. Where did you get that he "escaped" anything? Once, on the way in for questioning did he ask if it was ok to beat a Roman citizen without a trial.

Paul as an apostate claimed Roman citizenship to escape condemnation of the Jewish courts. The very ones he was working previous under the Sadducees.

Good...and that's where the tension lies. Because if Paul and the Messianics are correct, and the historic evidence is actually in their favor with the resurrection...the apostate stands on the other side pointing an errant finger everywhere but at himself.

If... with the talpiot tombs find of Jesus's ossuary with that of his wife, son, and James, etc., I doubt it.

Quote them and you'll have one more irritating friend. I wouldn't know where to begin.
You've shown that.
Both sides were shown. We're instructed by every word in the Tenach...if we take the time.
that might be...and there's more...
You really do not know what the gnostic teaching is. Paul's is the opposite. There is no hidden, secret knowledge with Paul: only the invitation to see as he was shown, and to hear as he was taught.
Quote him. He ascribes to Paul's authority in what I've read. Besides, I'm puzzled that you grant such authority on any hand to one who came two hundred years after Paul.
Nope...this charge is becoming a trope.

Paul claims to have special revelation that no other apostle had. That's as gnostic as it gets.

Sigh...A pattern...shown to Moses...on the mountain...by GOD HIMSELF. What are you suggesting the origin of the pattern is? God drew up a meaningless blueprint, so there would always be three places for sacrifice within one tent?

Sigh... The pattern is not based on a heavenly temple. God doesn't sit on a physical throne.

What does this statement do for you but buttress your own pride? I'm not trying to "prove" anything, but to answer your questions, and note observations that your comments inspire.

I'm not exhibiting pride, just a firm stance.

Do you think I'd deceive myself into imagining that you'll accept anything I offer as "proof"?

Like I said, nothing new in your arguments.

Every time you say this, I picture the Bozo punching doll that springs back after every blow and says, "That didn't hurt." I'm not trying to punch your ideas down. Only explore them, as for the first time.

You're dating yourself with Bozo, but I can understand your need to belittle.

For you, God's design is not even a "heavenly" pattern. I'm learning a lot.

God doesn't sit on a physical throne. These are riddles and visions that must be understood. The Sinai revelation explains a lot Deut 4:9,12,35.

So, I'm done here TBH.

 

[tbeachhead]

And if the latter referred to the former, the former would say that everything was purified by blood.

I don't understand. Sorry...Are you sayin, "Oh...I missed that?" Because your claim was inaccurate. He's talking about purifying the vessels of worship with blood.