[Abrahamics ONLY] Who is a Jew?

[metis]

Y'shua was like a lamb in His appearance and meekness. Yochanan the immerser said "He is the lamb of God who takes away the world's sin."

Jesus was slaughtered like a lamb. Isaiah said all of us are like lambs, gone astray... but we have been redeemed.

Back to a question I asked you before that you never answered to my recollection, namely which part of Jesus was the "final sacrifice": his humanness or his supposed divinity? Real lambs can be used for sacrifices, but not humans nor God, right?

Oh, and why is it that the prescribed method of performing animal sacrifices was not used and yet you say that he was indeed a real sacrifice?

Oh, and how is it that Jesus' "final sacrifice" almost 2000 years ago forgives "true believer's" sins today when sacrifices only involved forgiving sins that had already been committed, and only some sins at that?

 

[BilliardsBall]

No, the words of Abe are not the words of Hashem. Why do you assume that they are? Can you not see that Abe said one thing and God said another? And this is, of course, ignoring that the Hebrew word for the animal is a category inclusive of the other specifics. For that you would have to know Hebrew, so I'll stick with the logical argument till you learn Hebrew.

I understand how it is that you feel from the Hebrew that English translators erred. But the words of Abraham as recorded in Torah were told to Moses... how? By whom? Did the One who told Moses what to write err, do you think?

 

[BilliardsBall]

He was slaughtered? Really? One slaughters sacrifices by impaling them with nails on crosses? Not so much.

I like your thought here, but follow it further to its logical end--you would have to have Y'shua slain by a priest using a knife. In God's wisdom, He allowed the Romans to kill the Messiah while our people asked for His execution, too, because Jews and Gentiles are all under sin and all require redemption and atonement. How unsearchable God's wisdom can be! Who knew His mind or was His counselor?

 

[BilliardsBall]

I wasn't providing a translation, I was providing an interpretation that included all the words that are present in the verse using their correct translations and the context.

You've shifted the goalposts there. If you are familiar with the term shifting the goalposts, it has do with altering the argument. I was and am pursuing the idea that you were reproving me for making an interpretation while adding words to God's word, which is more than an interpretation. It is a new translation. Be careful with God's word, please!

 

[BilliardsBall]

Back to a question I asked you before that you never answered to my recollection, namely which part of Jesus was the "final sacrifice": his humanness or his supposed divinity? Real lambs can be used for sacrifices, but not humans nor God, right?

Oh, and why is it that the prescribed method of performing animal sacrifices was not used and yet you say that he was indeed a real sacrifice?

Oh, and how is it that Jesus' "final sacrifice" almost 2000 years ago forgives "true believer's" sins today when sacrifices only involved forgiving sins that had already been committed, and only some sins at that?

1. I did answer you. Both God and man died--if you understand death as separation from man and God.

2. For one thing, because Jesus was a person, and not merely an animal. The writer of "the epistle to the Messianic Jews" (Shaul? Apollos?) gives a detailed apologetic regarding this very thing. Have you read it? What do you think of it?

3. Y'shua's sacrifice is all-atoning because the animal sacrifices prescribed in Torah had no actual power to forgive/atone, otherwise, for one example, they would not need to be offered and re-offered and re-offered. The NT puts it in lovely fashion, "The love of Messiah controls us, for One died for all, therefore, all died. He died for all, that they who live might no longer live for themselves, but for Him who died and rose again on their behalf." But if you are that certain/committed that Y'shua's sacrifice was wrong and that the old ones were right, and needed to be involved, what will you do today, without such sacrifices being made at all?! We both know the answer to that one. You would say your personal repentance and alms and deeds and study are appropriate, where I would say God's love offering of Messiah trumps anything I can do.

Is salvation what I do for myself or is God able to save me? And does Tanakh/Torah have anything to say on this distinction? Of course it does say much on the subject. You will have to reconcile in your mind and heart what you know like "The one who does this will live by this law" and statements like:

"I am the LORD, and there is none else, there is no God beside me: I girded thee, though thou hast not known me..."

"I will expose your righteousness and your works, and they will not benefit you."

"Now I know that the LORD saves His anointed; He will answer him from His holy heaven With the saving strength of His right hand."

"Yes, truth is lacking; And he who turns aside from evil makes himself a prey Now the LORD saw, And it was displeasing in His sight that there was no justice. And He saw that there was no man, And was astonished that there was no one to intercede; Then His own arm brought salvation to Him, And His righteousness upheld Him. He put on righteousness like a breastplate, And a helmet of salvation on His head; And He put on garments of vengeance for clothing And wrapped Himself with zeal as a mantle."

"What man can live and not see death? Can he deliver his soul from the power of Sheol? Selah."

"He will swallow up death for all time, And the Lord GOD will wipe tears away from all faces, And He will remove the reproach of His people from all the earth; For the LORD has spoken."

 

[metis]

1. I did answer you. Both God and man died--if you understand death as separation from man and God.

Then not only doesn't that make any sense whatsoever, it is a clear violation of what's in Torah because both what's being sacrificed and the procedures used are not being followed as Torah dictates. It is logically impossible for you to claim you believe in what you say and then claim to follow Torah when it's absolutely clear with what you wrote above that you really don't.

2. For one thing, because Jesus was a person, and not merely an animal. The writer of "the epistle to the Messianic Jews" (Shaul? Apollos?) gives a detailed apologetic regarding this very thing. Have you read it? What do you think of it?

What he may believe and say is not important in the context of Torah. As with my last comment, one cannot violate Torah and then claim they believe in and follow it.

3. Y'shua's sacrifice is all-atoning because the animal sacrifices prescribed in Torah had no actual power to forgive/atone, otherwise, for one example, they would not need to be offered and re-offered and re-offered. The NT puts it in lovely fashion, "The love of Messiah controls us, for One died for all, therefore, all died. He died for all, that they who live might no longer live for themselves, but for Him who died and rose again on their behalf." But if you are that certain/committed that Y'shua's sacrifice was wrong and that the old ones were right, and needed to be involved, what will you do today, without such sacrifices being made at all?! We both know the answer to that one. You would say your personal repentance and alms and deeds and study are appropriate, where I would say God's love offering of Messiah trumps anything I can do.

The first sentence not only defies what Torah states, you just shot yourself in the foot. You can't ignore the dictates of Torah and then claim that a human/divine sacrifice, neither of which is found in Torah, somehow forgives anyone their sins.

As far as today is concerned, as I told you how to look it up before, Torah prescribes more than just animal/grain sacrifices for the forgiveness of sins, and I even linked you to where you can look that up in the Tanakh itself. So, why did you ignore that link? or did you forget?

 

[rosends]

I understand how it is that you feel from the Hebrew that English translators erred. But the words of Abraham as recorded in Torah were told to Moses... how? By whom? Did the One who told Moses what to write err, do you think?

No, they were conveyed accurately to Moses who wrote them accurately, and they were translated to reflect that Abe said one thing and God said another. Why do you insist on mixing the two?

 

[rosends]

In God's wisdom, He allowed the Romans to kill the Messiah while our people asked for His execution, too, because Jews and Gentiles are all under sin and all require redemption and atonement. How unsearchable God's wisdom can be! Who knew His mind or was His counselor?

well, we know because he told us what a sacrifice is, and the Romans are not able to perform sacrifices so therefore Jesus couldn't have been a sacrifice. QED and tyvm.

 

[Tumah]

You've shifted the goalposts there. If you are familiar with the term shifting the goalposts, it has do with altering the argument. I was and am pursuing the idea that you were reproving me for making an interpretation while adding words to God's word, which is more than an interpretation. It is a new translation. Be careful with God's word, please!

You didn't add words, you changed them or left them out altogether along with the context. Just for a recap:

The text (word for word)
v.7 And he said / Isaac / to / Abraham / his father./ And he said/ 'My father?'/ And he said / 'Here I am / my son.' / And he said / 'Here is / the fire / and the trees / and where / is the lamb / for a burnt offering?'
v.8 And he said / Abraham / 'G-d / He will see / for Him[self] / the lamb / for a burnt offering / my son'. / And they went / two of them / together.

Your interpretation:
In the Genesis text, Issac asks where the LAMB is. Abraham says God will provide HIMSELF, the LAMB.

My interpretation:
Abraham is saying "G-d will provide His own lamb... as opposed to one that we should have brought ourselves."

And you're telling me that when Isaac looks at the fire he's currently carrying and the wood he's currently carrying, and he turns to his father and asks him where the lamb that goes together with the wood and fire that he's currently carrying. You're telling me that you believe Abraham turns to him and says, "God will provide HIMSELF, the LAMB. [in another 1,500 years]" and that response answers Isaac's question such that it requires no follow up and they can ascend the mountain. And that not only was Isaac not bothered by this answer, but he also understood that even though Abraham said "G-d will see for Himself", Abraham actually meant that G-d Himself would be the lamb. And not just be a lamb but be a lamb in a figurative sense.

And when you read the Bible it seemed more likely to you than Abraham answering Isaac, that 'G-d will see to getting us that lamb we're currently missing.'

Shifting the goalposts means changing what the requirements are to win an argument. I didn't do that. In the beginning I told you that you're interpretation is lousy it incorporates a mistranslation and no context. I offered what is clearly a more logical interpretation to the verse that incorporates the context and all the words in their correct translations. And I'm still telling you that.

Ike: Hey, dad? I got the wood and fire right here, so uh, where's the lamb?
Abe: Fear not, my son. G-d will sacrifice Himself as a lamb in another 1,500 years.
Ike: Great! I was afraid I carried this fire and wood for nothing! Let's go!

Yup!

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Ike: Hey, dad? I got the wood and fire right here, so uh, where's the lamb?
Abe: Fear not, my son. G-d will sacrifice Himself as a lamb in another 1,500 years.
Ike: Great! I was afraid I carried this fire and wood for nothing! Let's go!

Yup!

Much like ...

Hey, Isaiah, how can I be certain that God will destroy my enemies?
Simple, Ahaz, here's a sign: in about seven centuries ...​

Christians are so -- how shall we put it -- forward looking.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Then not only doesn't that make any sense whatsoever, it is a clear violation of what's in Torah because both what's being sacrificed and the procedures used are not being followed as Torah dictates. It is logically impossible for you to claim you believe in what you say and then claim to follow Torah when it's absolutely clear with what you wrote above that you really don't.


What he may believe and say is not important in the context of Torah. As with my last comment, one cannot violate Torah and then claim they believe in and follow it.

The first sentence not only defies what Torah states, you just shot yourself in the foot. You can't ignore the dictates of Torah and then claim that a human/divine sacrifice, neither of which is found in Torah, somehow forgives anyone their sins.

As far as today is concerned, as I told you how to look it up before, Torah prescribes more than just animal/grain sacrifices for the forgiveness of sins, and I even linked you to where you can look that up in the Tanakh itself. So, why did you ignore that link? or did you forget?

Please tell us what Torah prescribes for sacrificing a person.

Go ahead and put the Tanakh points here where you feel we have alternatives on sin forgiveness/atonement.

 

[BilliardsBall]

No, they were conveyed accurately to Moses who wrote them accurately, and they were translated to reflect that Abe said one thing and God said another. Why do you insist on mixing the two?

I'm not. I'm asking you whether you believe the Tanakh is inerrant or errant. If you believe Torah and Tanakh are perfect, you will likely come to worship Y'shua as Messiah, too.

Thanks.

 

[BilliardsBall]

well, we know because he told us what a sacrifice is, and the Romans are not able to perform sacrifices so therefore Jesus couldn't have been a sacrifice. QED and tyvm.

The Levitical sacrifices were for Israel. Messiah's sacrifice was for Israel and the goyim. There are other non-Levitical sacrifices, of course, as you know... Job's, Abraham's, Issac's, etc.

 

[BilliardsBall]

You didn't add words, you changed them or left them out altogether along with the context. Just for a recap:

The text (word for word)
v.7 And he said / Isaac / to / Abraham / his father./ And he said/ 'My father?'/ And he said / 'Here I am / my son.' / And he said / 'Here is / the fire / and the trees / and where / is the lamb / for a burnt offering?'
v.8 And he said / Abraham / 'G-d / He will see / for Him[self] / the lamb / for a burnt offering / my son'. / And they went / two of them / together.

Your interpretation:
In the Genesis text, Issac asks where the LAMB is. Abraham says God will provide HIMSELF, the LAMB.

My interpretation:
Abraham is saying "G-d will provide His own lamb... as opposed to one that we should have brought ourselves."

And you're telling me that when Isaac looks at the fire he's currently carrying and the wood he's currently carrying, and he turns to his father and asks him where the lamb that goes together with the wood and fire that he's currently carrying. You're telling me that you believe Abraham turns to him and says, "God will provide HIMSELF, the LAMB. [in another 1,500 years]" and that response answers Isaac's question such that it requires no follow up and they can ascend the mountain. And that not only was Isaac not bothered by this answer, but he also understood that even though Abraham said "G-d will see for Himself", Abraham actually meant that G-d Himself would be the lamb. And not just be a lamb but be a lamb in a figurative sense.

And when you read the Bible it seemed more likely to you than Abraham answering Isaac, that 'G-d will see to getting us that lamb we're currently missing.'

Shifting the goalposts means changing what the requirements are to win an argument. I didn't do that. In the beginning I told you that you're interpretation is lousy it incorporates a mistranslation and no context. I offered what is clearly a more logical interpretation to the verse that incorporates the context and all the words in their correct translations. And I'm still telling you that.

Ike: Hey, dad? I got the wood and fire right here, so uh, where's the lamb?
Abe: Fear not, my son. G-d will sacrifice Himself as a lamb in another 1,500 years.
Ike: Great! I was afraid I carried this fire and wood for nothing! Let's go!

Yup!

1. You seem to have God in a neat little box there. Be more open-minded.

2. If you believe Messiah has not yet come, you are reproving me for seeing 1,500-year fulfillment on scriptures while you are awaiting longer than that for others to be fulfilled.

3. Issac is a type of Messiah. He carries wood across His shoulders. He is the son sacrificed by a father. He was innocent. The scriptures also inform us that after three days of journeying, Abraham looked up to see the mount. Three days after suffering for us, Y'shua rose for us.

 

[Tumah]

1. You seem to have God in a neat little box there. Be more open-minded.

In other words:
I have no answer for you. Try to pretend I am giving you logical responses.

2. If you believe Messiah has not yet come, you are reproving me for seeing 1,500-year fulfillment on scriptures while you are awaiting longer than that for others to be fulfilled.

In other words:
I can't respond to your question. Let me try deflecting the question.

3. Issac is a type of Messiah. He carries wood across His shoulders. He is the son sacrificed by a father. He was innocent. The scriptures also inform us that after three days of journeying, Abraham looked up to see the mount. Three days after suffering for us, Y'shua rose for us.

In other words:
Since my understanding of Abraham's response doesn't fit with the context, let's go ahead and reinterpret the context as well.

Please note: A messiah is a savior or liberator of a group of people (courtesy Wikipedia: Messiah). A messiah is not "one who carries wood across his shoulders". That would correctly be defined as a "wood carrier". Nor is a messiah defined as "one who is sacrificed by a father". That would correctly be defined as a "victim". While Isaac did carry wood across his shoulders and seemed to almost be the victim of human sacrifice, he neither saved nor liberated a group of people.
Isaac was not a type of messiah.

 

[rosends]

I'm not. I'm asking you whether you believe the Tanakh is inerrant or errant. If you believe Torah and Tanakh are perfect, you will likely come to worship Y'shua as Messiah, too.

Thanks.

I believe that tanach is perfect. In this case, the tanach reports the words of Abraham as the words of Abraham. If you read accurately, you would abandon your claims.

 

[rosends]

The Levitical sacrifices were for Israel. Messiah's sacrifice was for Israel and the goyim. There are other non-Levitical sacrifices, of course, as you know... Job's, Abraham's, Issac's, etc.

And all of them were of animals, not people. Can you show me the sacrifices that are for atonement that have anything to do with non-Jews? Did Abraham sacrifice anything on behalf of other people? Did Job impale his animals on a cross?

 

[rosends]

1. You seem to have God in a neat little box there. Be more open-minded.

2. If you believe Messiah has not yet come, you are reproving me for seeing 1,500-year fulfillment on scriptures while you are awaiting longer than that for others to be fulfilled.

3. Issac is a type of Messiah. He carries wood across His shoulders. He is the son sacrificed by a father. He was innocent. The scriptures also inform us that after three days of journeying, Abraham looked up to see the mount. Three days after suffering for us, Y'shua rose for us.

What? 1. You ask for him to be more open minded simply because he has made points that you can't refute
2. you miss the point -- we are not looking for fulfillment of those particular prophecies. You are. The argument made was that those WERE fulfilled and yet you are still looking for someone to fill them.
3. Isaac is not a messiah, nor did he carry a cross and no where does the text indicate any suffering. You are simply making things up.

 

[Tumah]

I'm not. I'm asking you whether you believe the Tanakh is inerrant or errant. If you believe Torah and Tanakh are perfect, you will likely come to worship Y'shua as Messiah, too.

Thanks.

You're tossing new meanings into the text that actually make the text less reasonable as support for your beliefs and are arguing that if we believed the Torah was perfect we would believe like you?

Try this cool trick at home:
1. Open your Bible.
2. Assume the Bible means what it actually says.
3. Notice that under the above assumption the lack of Jesus references are ubiquitous.
4. Contrast that observation with your statements here.[/QUOTE]

 

[Flankerl]

Please tell us what Torah prescribes for sacrificing a person.

You got things mixed up, your religion is in favour of sacrificing people.