Idol worship and sacrifice

[Salty]

We don’t beep-out God’s name because we are unsure how to pronounce it, like you do.

Pronunciation has nothing to do with it. See Tanakh Keeper's thread that explains the actual reason.

Absolutely no different than what is recorded in the NT.

You keep saying that, but it has nothing to do with my point.

Not only do the OT prophets describe Yahweh in the form of a man, but He also came to earth in the form of a man, numerous times.

No, He didn't. But going along with your assertion for the sake of this discussion, was He anatomically correct? Does he have a beating heart pumping blood? Does He have lungs, stomach, spleen, sexual organs? If so, is this only when He's on earth, or also when in heaven? And why would He need them?

God is triune even in the OT.

No, He isn't.

Jesus is the God-man. He is 100% God and 100% man.

Christianity means never having to apply mathematical definitions consistently, especially when they become inconvenient to your dogma.

100% of one thing and 100% of another becomes either 2 things (200%) or 1 thing that is 50% of both parts. Your statement may be semantically valid, but the statement itself is absurd and irrational.

See your reluctance to show that Jesus raised Himself from the dead, proving His divinity.

Grammatically, and exegetically, there are numerous NT verses detailing that Jesus is God.

Whether found there explicitly or implicitly, they don't help explain it, make sense of it nor rectify the logical or scriptural contradictions.

The triune God came to earth in human form numerous times in the OT.

We seem to be stuck in a loop where you keep repeating that over and over, as if repetition will make contradictions with verses like Deut 4:15-16 go away.

Then your god has limitations and is not infinite.

"The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament sheweth his handiwork." The order, structure, laws and perfection of the universe tells me that G-d is a logical, rational G-d.

But you're saying that your god can be irrational. If he makes a four-sided triangle, is it still a triangle?

If your god is not limited, then can your god become completely evil? Can he lie and cheat?

You just proved that you can limit your creator.

Nonsense. At most I proved only that my concept of G-d is of One Who is limited by rational actions. But my imagination does not limit His reality.

[Bowman]

Pronunciation has nothing to do with it. See Tanakh Keeper's thread that explains the actual reason.

Lack of confidence in pronunciation has everything to do with it.

You keep saying that, but it has nothing to do with my point.

It has everything to do with it.

No, He didn't.

Yes, He did.

But going along with your assertion for the sake of this discussion, was He anatomically correct? Does he have a beating heart pumping blood? Does He have lungs, stomach, spleen, sexual organs? If so, is this only when He's on earth, or also when in heaven? And why would He need them?

Your scriptures describe Yahweh as a man upon the Throne, complete with loins.

Just deal with it.

No, He isn't.

Yes, He is.

Christianity means never having to apply mathematical definitions consistently, especially when they become inconvenient to your dogma.

100% of one thing and 100% of another becomes either 2 things (200%) or 1 thing that is 50% of both parts. Your statement may be semantically valid, but the statement itself is absurd and irrational.

Find the mathematical error in this:

1x1x1 = 1

Running from scripture regarding Jesus’ raising Himself from the dead, does very little for your position, brother.

Whether found there explicitly or implicitly, they don't help explain it, make sense of it nor rectify the logical or scriptural contradictions.

That Jesus is God is simply grammatical fact.

We seem to be stuck in a loop where you keep repeating that over and over, as if repetition will make contradictions with verses like Deut 4:15-16 go away.

These verses speak of idols.

God is not an idol.

Furthermore the Hebrew terms employed are entirely different than that of Ezekiel where Yahweh is described as a man upon the Throne.

Deal with it.

"The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament sheweth his handiwork." The order, structure, laws and perfection of the universe tells me that G-d is a logical, rational G-d.

But you're saying that your god can be irrational. If he makes a four-sided triangle, is it still a triangle?

If your god is not limited, then can your god become completely evil? Can he lie and cheat?

Nonsense. At most I proved only that my concept of G-d is of One Who is limited by rational actions. But my imagination does not limit His reality.

My God can do whatever He wants, whenever He wants.

Your god cannot.

Your god is limited to what you decide that he can do, and be.

[Salty]

Lack of confidence in pronunciation has everything to do with it.

Let's see, I hyphenate the word, TK does, too, and he provided a link to where a rabbi explains the reason as the desire not to destroy the word. You however, assert differently, yet give no support to that assertion. Are you talking out of your neck?

It has everything to do with it.

Maybe you'll be so kind as to show the connection, because I don't see it.

Yes, He did.

Your scriptures describe Yahweh as a man upon the Throne, complete with loins.

If He really does have a form of any kind, man or otherwise, then the Hebrew bible is internally inconsistent with passages such as Deut. 4:15-18 and Numbers 23:19, in which case both our faiths rest on an unstable foundation.

The apparent inconsistency is resolved by understanding that all references to G-d as looking like a man or having man-like attributes are metaphors or anthropomorphic in nature.

You can believe what you like, continue to hold two diametrically opposed concepts as valid; I'll stick with the consistent view.

Find the mathematical error in this:

1x1x1 = 1

No, your math is fine there. The error is in your application of that equation to a triune god, which probably comes from a misunderstanding of what multiplication is and how it represents reality.

Multiplication is just a handy way of adding groups of things. A x B simply means "add the number A to itself B number of times", or "I have B groups of A number of objects" (or A groups of B objects). 2 x 3 says I have 3 groups of 2 objects each, giving me a total of 6 objects. 2 x 3 x 4 says I have 4 groups of 3 groups which contain 2 objects each.

1 x 1 x 1 means I have 1 group of 1 group of 1 object. How does that have any meaning or application to your triune god concept?

Running from scripture regarding Jesus’ raising Himself from the dead, does very little for your position, brother.

I am no longer a Christian, and so of course I no longer hold the NT to be either scripture or authoritative. Your accusation is a straw man. It's the same as a Hindu accusing you of running from the scriptures that say Krishna is god.

My point is that the text you hold to be scripture says your god-man died. Whether it also says he stayed dead or raised himself or was raised by the Creator, you still have the problem that the sacrifice of the 100% man-part was invalid and is an abomination to G-d, according to the Hebrew bible, which you also hold to be scripture and authoritative,.

That Jesus is God is simply grammatical fact.

That's debatable. But regardless, that claim is explicitly contradicted by other facts, not to mention rational thought.

These verses speak of idols.

Deut 4:15-18 condemns making an image to represent G-d, of which there is no image to be seen, using as a model anything that looks like a man or woman, animal or bird or any creature or heavenly object.

Furthermore the Hebrew terms employed are entirely different than that of Ezekiel where Yahweh is described as a man upon the Throne.

Expand on that, please.

Deal with it.

It would be nice to hold a discussion with you in which we disagree without you being rude or condescending.

My God can do whatever He wants, whenever He wants.

Yes, you've already indicated that your god can be irrational. I continue to hope his followers might be otherwise.

[Bowman]

Let's see, I hyphenate the word, TK does, too, and he provided a link to where a rabbi explains the reason as the desire not to destroy the word. You however, assert differently, yet give no support to that assertion. Are you talking out of your neck?

.

Yahweh contains the appropriate Hebrew sounds to reproduce God’s name.

You, however, don’t know any Hebrew at all, and are obviously unsure of yourself, and would rather keep bleeping-out His name.

[sylvius]

Yahweh contains the appropriate Hebrew sounds to reproduce God’s name.

You, however, don’t know any Hebrew at all, and are obviously unsure of yourself, and would rather keep bleeping-out His name.

Leviticus 24:16,

And one who pronounces the Name of the Lord, shall be put to death; the entire community shall stone him; convert and resident alike if he pronounces the [Divine] Name, he shall be put to death.

Verb used: "nakaw" = to specify, mention, name, mark, ditinguish, state, fix.

Some say it can also mean: to curse, blaspheme. But that's based on the previous verse 11:

And the son of the Israelite woman pronounced the [Divine] Name and cursed. So they brought him to Moses. His mother's name was Shelomith the daughter of Dibri, of the tribe of Dan.

He cursed him by pronouncing his name ...

[Salty]

Yahweh contains the appropriate Hebrew sounds to reproduce God’s name.

Irrelevant.

You, however, don’t know any Hebrew at all,

You think you know me? You think you know what I know and what I don't? Are you stalker? Or just omniscient?

And what does knowing Hebrew have to do with putting a hyphen in the word G-d?

and are obviously unsure of yourself, and would rather keep bleeping-out His name.

Circular reasoning. You say--in spite of all explanations to the contrary--I (and TK and rabbis and Jews the world 'round) put a hyphen in because I'm unsure of myself, and the proof that I'm unsure of myself is because I put the hyphen in. Your powers of rational thought and reasoning are stupefying.

Bowman, why don't you stop beating around the bush and just say plainly what you keep implying: that I and TK and rabbis and Jews around the world are lying about why we use the hyphen.

[Bowman]

Leviticus 24:16,

And one who pronounces the Name of the Lord, shall be put to death; the entire community shall stone him; convert and resident alike if he pronounces the [Divine] Name, he shall be put to death.

Verb used: "nakaw" = to specify, mention, name, mark, ditinguish, state, fix.

Some say it can also mean: to curse, blaspheme. But that's based on the previous verse 11:

And the son of the Israelite woman pronounced the [Divine] Name and cursed. So they brought him to Moses. His mother's name was Shelomith the daughter of Dibri, of the tribe of Dan.

He cursed him by pronouncing his name ...

The context of these verses are regarding the ones who curse (yekalel) and blaspheme (venokev) the name Yahweh.

There is nothing in these verses about punishment delivered to those who mis-pronounce His name.

[Bowman]

I am no longer a Christian, and so of course I no longer hold the NT to be either scripture or authoritative. Your accusation is a straw man. It's the same as a Hindu accusing you of running from the scriptures that say Krishna is god.

You just got finished using the very same 'untrustworthy' NT scriptures to claim that Jesus died.

Now...when confronted with the very same NT scriptures stating that Jesus rose Himself from the dead, you want nothing to do with it.

Which is it going to be, brother?

[sylvius]

The context of these verses are regarding the ones who curse (yekalel) and blaspheme (venokev) the name Yahweh.

There is nothing in these verses about punishment delivered to those who mis-pronounce His name.

"nakav" never does mean to blaspheme.

But: to specify (Genesis 30:28)
to mention, name ( Numbers 1:17; Ezra 8:20; 1 Chronicles 12:32; 16:41; 2 Chronicles 28:15; 31:19)
to mark, ditinguish, state, fix ( Isaiah 62:2; Amos 6:1)

KJV presents a corrupt translation of Leviticus 24:16,

And he that blasphemeth the name of the LORD, he shall surely be put to death, and all the congregation shall certainly stone him: as well the stranger, as he that is born in the land, when he blasphemeth the name of the Lord, shall be put to death.

Not for nothing Prof. Mordochai Ben Tziyyon called it "King James Perversion"..

[Salty]

You just got finished using the very same 'untrustworthy' NT scriptures to claim that Jesus died.

Now...when confronted with the very same NT scriptures stating that Jesus rose Himself from the dead, you want nothing to do with it.

No, as I keep telling you, it is not that your text doesn't make that claim, it's that it has nothing to do with my point. Your text says he died, it says he was raised. If it makes you feel you've won some kind of victory by having me agree that your text says that, then there you go, it does, you win that little side debate. Congratulations.

My point was that your god died, and that G-d cannot die. You clarified your position that it was the man part of your god-man who died. For the sake of this discussion I accept that (and ignore historical accusations of deicide against the Jews by Christians, which would seem to counter your understanding, but that's a different discussion). I moved on to my original point that this is human sacrifice which is clearly and explicitly prohibited by G-d and is not a valid sacrifice, much less a valid or acceptable sin offering. Will you move along with me, or will you keep harping on irrelevant side issues like hyphens and such?

[Bowman]

"nakav" never does mean to blaspheme.

But: to specify (Genesis 30:28)
to mention, name ( Numbers 1:17; Ezra 8:20; 1 Chronicles 12:32; 16:41; 2 Chronicles 28:15; 31:19)
to mark, ditinguish, state, fix ( Isaiah 62:2; Amos 6:1)

KJV presents a corrupt translation of Leviticus 24:16,

And he that blasphemeth the name of the LORD, he shall surely be put to death, and all the congregation shall certainly stone him: as well the stranger, as he that is born in the land, when he blasphemeth the name of the Lord, shall be put to death.

Not for nothing Prof. Mordochai Ben Tziyyon called it "King James Perversion"..

Wrong.

Any lexicon will demonstrate otherwise….even sources that you can google off the web.

appoint, blaspheme, bore, curse, express, with holes, name, pierce

A primitive root; to puncture, literally (to perforate, with more or less violence) or figuratively (to specify, designate, libel) -- appoint, blaspheme, bore, curse, express, with holes, name, pierce, strike through.

[Bowman]

No, as I keep telling you, it is not that your text doesn't make that claim, it's that it has nothing to do with my point.

It has everything to do with your claim.

If you want to use the NT to demonstrate your point, then you must also be willing to use the NT when it diametrically opposes it.

Your text says he died, it says he was raised. If it makes you feel you've won some kind of victory by having me agree that your text says that, then there you go, it does, you win that little side debate. Congratulations.

The NT says that He raised Himself from the dead, brother.

Apparently you forgot to read this before you departed from the truth of Christianity.

My point was that your god died, and that G-d cannot die.
You clarified your position that it was the man part of your god-man who died. For the sake of this discussion I accept that (and ignore historical accusations of deicide against the Jews by Christians, which would seem to counter your understanding, but that's a different discussion).

The human part of the Son died.

The God part did not.

Remember...Jesus is 100% God and 100% man, at the same time.

I moved on to my original point that this is human sacrifice which is clearly and explicitly prohibited by G-d and is not a valid sacrifice, much less a valid or acceptable sin offering. Will you move along with me, or will you keep harping on irrelevant side issues like hyphens and such?

Jesus, as God, is the perfect sacrifice, for all time.

Sacrificial offering ceased after Jesus offered Himself as the final sacrifice for humanity.

Even Jews today have stopped the practice.

[Salty]

The NT says that He raised Himself from the dead, brother.
Apparently you forgot to read this before you departed from the truth of Christianity.

It's kind of you to want to remind me of what I might have forgotten. And you are right, the author of John's gospel claims that Jesus was talking about his body when he said he would raise the temple in 3 days.

But perhaps you've forgotten the alternate "truth" offered by Paul and Luke, who claimed in Acts 2:24 and 32, Acts 4:10, Acts 13:30, Romans 10:9, 1 Corinthians 15:15, Colossians 2:12, but most clearly and explicitly in Galatians 1:1 and 1 Thessalonians 1:10 it was G-d the Father who raised Jesus. Or maybe you just hoped I'd forgotten.

The human part of the Son died.
The God part did not.
Remember...Jesus is 100% God and 100% man, at the same time.
Jesus, as God, is the perfect sacrifice, for all time.
Sacrificial offering ceased after Jesus offered Himself as the final sacrifice for humanity.

Those are the claims that played a big part in my realization that it contradicted the very scriptures Christianity claims to be based on. As you keep ignoring, the 100% man part that was sacrificed was an invalid sacrifice, as human sacrifice is forbidden. It was an imperfect sacrifice not only because of that, but because the "animal" was not the right kind of animal, was not unblemished--he was circumcised, he was beaten bloody--it wasn't performed as commanded in Leviticus--by priests in the Temple, the blood wasn't poured out onto the base of the altar, his body burned and consumed by the priests.

And then there are the problems with G-d's revelation in several passages that no man can pay the death penalty for another. That includes the 100% man part of your Jesus. If one man can't pay it for one other, he can't pay it for eternity for humanity.

Even Jews today have stopped the practice.

But they will start back up when the messiah comes and the Temple is rebuilt.

[Bowman]

It's kind of you to want to remind me of what I might have forgotten. And you are right, the author of John's gospel claims that Jesus was talking about his body when he said he would raise the temple in 3 days.

But perhaps you've forgotten the alternate "truth" offered by Paul and Luke, who claimed in Acts 2:24 and 32, Acts 4:10, Acts 13:30, Romans 10:9, 1 Corinthians 15:15, Colossians 2:12, but most clearly and explicitly in Galatians 1:1 and 1 Thessalonians 1:10 it was G-d the Father who raised Jesus. Or maybe you just hoped I'd forgotten.

Interesting how you are beginning to really get into the same NT scripture that you just got through stating was not ‘authoritative’.

So…what do you do? You now attempt to use these same ‘un-authoritative’ scriptures to show that the Father also raised Jesus from the dead.

Nice logic, brother.

But…wait….what about the Spirit? Did the Spirit also raise Jesus from the dead?

Yup.

So…who exactly raised Jesus from the dead?

· God the Father…Romans 6.4; 10.9; Col 2.11-12; 1 Peter 1.20-21; 1 Cor 6.14; Acts 2.23-24; 3.14-15; 13.30-37; Hebrews 13.20-21; Eph 1.15-20; Gal 1.1; 1 Thes 1.9-10

· God the Son…John 2.19-22; 10.17-18

· God the Spirit…Romans 8.11; 1 Peter 3.18



This is what we call the Trinity, brother.

Those are the claims that played a big part in my realization that it contradicted the very scriptures Christianity claims to be based on. As you keep ignoring, the 100% man part that was sacrificed was an invalid sacrifice, as human sacrifice is forbidden. It was an imperfect sacrifice not only because of that, but because the "animal" was not the right kind of animal, was not unblemished--he was circumcised, he was beaten bloody--it wasn't performed as commanded in Leviticus--by priests in the Temple, the blood wasn't poured out onto the base of the altar, his body burned and consumed by the priests.

Jesus, as God in the flesh, was the perfect, pure and sinless sacrifice.

Jesus, as the second Adam, reversed the original order in which woman came from man…the new Adam come from woman…since sin is carried through the males as described in Genesis.

So….yes, Jesus as the Second Adam was the ultimate sacrifice for humanity.

And then there are the problems with G-d's revelation in several passages that no man can pay the death penalty for another. That includes the 100% man part of your Jesus. If one man can't pay it for one other, he can't pay it for eternity for humanity.

This is not an issue for a God-man.

But they will start back up when the messiah comes and the Temple is rebuilt.

Even Jews realize the futility in still offering animal sacrifices.

Jesus was the final sacrifice.

This much they seem to grasp.

[sylvius]

Wrong.

Any lexicon will demonstrate otherwise….even sources that you can google off the web.

These lexicons derive their meanings from the corrupt translations.

LXX is still right:
. ὀνομάζων δὲ τὸ ὄνομα κυρίου θανάτῳ θανατούσθω λίθοις λιθοβολείτω αὐτὸν πᾶσα συναγωγὴ Iσραηλ ἐάν τε προσήλυτος ἐάν τε αὐτόχθων ἐν τῷ ὀνομάσαι αὐτὸν τὸ ὄνομα κυρίου τελευτάτω

Vulgata being the source of delusion:
et qui blasphemaverit nomen Domini morte moriatur lapidibus opprimet eum omnis multitudo sive ille civis seu peregrinus fuerit qui blasphemaverit nomen Domini morte moriatur