Blood-obsessed christians always try to suggest that the reason for the acceptance of Hĕvĕl’s offering and rejection of Kayin’s was that Hĕvĕl brought a blood offering but Kayin’s offering was bloodless (i.e. vegetable produce). It never seems to occur to them that, if this were true, no arable farmer (however righteous he may be) would ever be “acceptable” to God, while all raisers of livestock would be okay, even if they were the most horrible people!
Thankfully, though, God does not discriminate against arable farmers in favour of those who raise sheep and cattle. The reason why He accepted Hĕvĕl’s offering and rejected Kayin’s lay not in the nature of the respective offerings but in the two men’s respective attitudes: Hĕvĕl offered מִבְּכֹרוֹת צֹאנוֹ וּמֵחֶלְבֵהֶן “some first-borns of his flock—the best parts of them” (verse 4), but Kayin only offered מִפְּרִי הָאֲדָמָה “some vegetables” (verse 3). In other words, Hĕvĕl offered the choicest parts of his most desirable animals, while Kayin only offered mediocre produce keeping the best of his vegetables for himself. God would have been satisfied with vegetables (since that was what Kayin was in the business of growing), but He would not accept just any old produce: He demanded that His offering should be the very best parts.
Is it any wonder, therefore, that He accepted Hĕvĕl’s offering and rejected Kayin’s?
schuelman v brown
And if he was worthy of worship than why not make an image of him? If you noticed Deuteronomy 4:15 presents us with a reason why we are not to make an image – it is because we saw no image at Sinai. If we would have seen an image – the implication is that a statue would be OK.
Do these people not make an image of Jesus in an attempt to recreate the picture of the man that they love?
BOWING TO A FORM
I agree with you – idolatry comes in two manifestations – worshiping an entity other than the true God and using something physical to represent the true God are both manifestations of idolatry.
I would say then that Christianity’s veneration of jesus is idolatry according to both definitions of idolatry.
Before I go on – let me say that when you say you worship no form – those are empty words. If you acknowledge that it would have been appropriate to bow to jesus in worship when he walked this earth and you say that that is not worshiping a form – then what IS worshiping a form?
I wonder if you think that it is also a wild coincidence that almost none of the Scriptural texts in which Christians see Jesus – are from verses that are presenting commandments
You are moved by the suffering experienced through a human body and you love the one who suffered in that body. I call that worship of a form. You can call it what you want – but perhaps you can explain how it is different from someone who is moved by the beauty of a statue and falls in love with it – he then tells himself that the experience was so deep that it must have been God Himself who imbued the statue with His own beauty so that people could know Him – and this person elevates his love of the statue to the level of his love for God. Would you call that worshiping a form? Let me remind you – this person doesn’t face the statue when he is worshiping although many of his brothers and sisters in faith do.
Unless you consider this an answer – that the entire commandment is limited to teh point that we are not to make a graven image – and that your adoration of Jesus does not involve the making of a graven image so my question is irrelevant to you. My question to you is then – is worship of a live frog – not a graven image of a frog but a living frog – idolatry? Is it prohibited by the teaching at Sinai?
Would you agree that the word “worship” means “engendering feelings in one’s heart towards”?
If you agree to that definition – then how is it that engendering feelings in one’s heart towards one who suffered in a human body – is not worshiping a form?
Is it because the focus is on the unseen and formless “personality” that was contained in the body? If that is your point – then would you go on to say that one who worships the “spirit” that they believe dwells in a statue or the formless personality of any human or animal – that they are not worshiping a form?
Since I think you all acknowledge – that if the veneration that Christians direct toward Jesus would be directed to any other human being – you would all acknowledge that that would qualify as an act of idolatry.
4. Yeshua, as far as everyone else around him was concerned (Pharisees, Sadducees or Romans), was a mortal being that was born of a woman who depended on oxygen like you and me to survive. Nothing extraordinary about that. When he was crucified he died like all the others died.
The one who suffered and died on a cross cannot be the Creator of heaven and earth. A man who needed oxygen for his own well-being – cannot be the author of his own breath.
jesus ,according to christian theology was 100 percent man and 100 % god
to be human you have to have a mind /soul , spirit and body
so where EXACTLY was god in jesus?
jesus the MAN had a human spirit , mind , body and heart.
SO the human nature IN jesus was worshipping the DIVINE nature in jesus? WHAT THE? was the MIND of jesus WORSHIPPING the spirit in jesus?
Last edited by ali; 30th December 2011 at 19:05.
so i were to punch someone in the face,the someone would know how a punch tastes like . can an allpowerful divine being know how a punch tastes like even though he was the authour of pain and punch?I said that we cannot be absolutely perfect (because that is a Divine attribute). We can be perfect relative to what we are (human, created) but not relative to the Divine.
I said Divine = independent, unique, unlike anything else, all-knowing, all-powerful, etc
Created (human) = dependent, similar (to other humans), ignorant, powerless
some christian really assume that god left his powers somewhere unknown
kunde replied :
When He isn’t using them, where do they go? How does he reacquire them?
Precisely what attributes can He choose to not use? Existence? You’ve already said He can give up life, knowledge, power, uniqueness. Why not existence?
god so loved the world that he created 100 % flesh , hid in it, got it destroyed , transfered himself to hell even though he was already there coz he is omnipresent, forsook himself from himself, then finally rewarded himself by placing himself on the right hand of the other person in trinity . god didn't loose anything for you like a soldier looses an arm and eye for life.
even when he is forsaking himself his attributes like all power and all knowing aren't forsaken/drained , he still retains them , and they call this foolishness "sacrifice" ?
"i'm a god who is going to ACT out my OWN deeds which i wrote formyself in the old testament and i am gonna try my best not to get tempted by the devil even though i'm going to have holy ghost support "
"i'm going to act out my own deeds which my father and ghost already knew about (we discussed it in cosmic form)before i became a human and i'm going act them out for my father so that he is appeased by them."
friends, what did jesus really GIVE UP? was he bleeding to DEATH on the way to glowgotha (golgothata?)? did nailing of jesus PIERCE one of his MAIN blood vessel? no, then how is it any way related to animal sacrifices? was jesus a blood donor? no he wasn't , yet if ppl DONATED their BLOOD and in RETURN got ETERNAL blood pumped back INTO thier wires, then DID THEY giveup/loose anything? and if your ressurected , how in anyway that is related to animal sacrifice?
and friends, think about it, how does a god who is able to create different TYPES of blood use BLOOD as majic blood? i know you derive majic from crosses, but blood?
Last edited by ali; 9th January 2012 at 12:41.
It is written in the gospels i think in mathew that baby's were killed when jesus was born by Herodes when he heard a messiah was about to be born. That means that innocent baby boys were sacrificed for the life of jesus to be saved. So they sacrificed their life in the place of the savior. By their death they saved the savior. Doesnt that make them bigger saviors because they not only sacrificed them selves but they are the Saviors of the Savior. If yes shouldnt we worship these saviors of the savior and include them in the Godhead?
If Jesus had 2 natures - a human and a devine - then wich died on the cross?
1. If it was the human nature that died then God did not suffer pain. Then there is no real sacrifice
2. If it was the devine nature that died then we have a problem of God dying, Who ran the world? If the other 2 persons in the Godhead could run the world then why would they need a third one? Also being mortal means being not devine.
3. If both the human and devine nature died then you have the problem of both (2) and
If jesus had 2 natures then he must have had opposite attributes: allpowerfull and weak, all-knowing and not all-knowing etc
How is that possible for one person to be a married bachelor or square circle? If he chose not to be al-might that means that God chose to be not God. But if that is true then he wasnt God atleast not anymore after he chose so.
Let's say that Jesus sacrificed himself and paid off for all sins of mankind. Why do we need to believe in this sacrifice to be saved?
Isnt it true that when someone pays your bill you then it doesnt matter if you believe in it or not?
Let's say a friend of you is in prison and you make a deal with the judge that you go in his place so your friend goes free. Does that mean that he can be free enjoy his liberty when he believes that someone else pays the price? No. If the price is already paid then we are saved.
If jesus saved mankind 2000 years ago then we are all saved unconditionally. Didnt jesus say "forgive them father, they dont know what they are doing?"
If you say that jesus sacrificed himself then why didnt he commit suicide? What will happen with the roman soldiers and jewish pple who put him on trial and Judas who betraid him so he could be sacrificed. If the sacrifice was meant to be and was essentially a good thing that means that Judas, the jews and roman executors are all big heroes because they helped to fullfilled the prophecy and should be the biggest hero and disciples we believe in.
If God is one and unique that would meand that anything that claims to be God has the unique devine attributes. Since God is unique that means that His attributes are unique. That means that noone has devine attributes but God. Lets say there are 3 unique devine attributes a,b and c.
If you have 3 persons that are God but seperate that means they all have the same unique attributes a, b and c. BUt if you have a twince that have the same attributes then you have to have some attribute that sets them apart. Atleast you can set them numerically apart. You can call one X and the other Y because they are distinguished.
Also because they have exactly the same attributes that would meand that the attributes are not unique and that there are 2 Gods who have the same attributes. Unique means that noone but one has these attributes. Its like you say coulour red of my car is unique. It makes no sense if your friend has a car (same sort of car or another type) that has the same colour red. Then your colour red is not unique.
So if 3 persons are one in unique attributes (a,b and c) but they are not one and the same person that would mean 2 of the 3 persons has an attribute missing or an extra attribute... that would mean that 2 of 3 are a lesser God or a God with a non-devine attribute.
Lets say you have 3 persons F, H and S (father, Holy goast and son). Lets say the devine attributes are a,b and c. To make the 3 distintc persons with unique attributes we have to give them extra attribute or take an attribute away.
F = a,b,c
H = a,b,c and d (non devine attribute)
S= a,b (one devine attribute missing)
From these 3 only F can be called God.
A lesser God is by definition not perfect and not God. A God with an extra non-devine attribute is a walking contradiction (eg being allpowerfull and weak).
Last edited by ali; 9th January 2012 at 12:33.
"If there should stand up in your midst a prophet or a dreamer of a dream, and he will produce to you a sign or a wonder, and the sign or the wonder comes about of which he spoke to you, saying, 'Let us follow gods of others that you did not know and we shall worship them!'--do not hearken to the words of that prophet or to that dreamer of a dream...And that prophet and that dreamer of a dream shall be put to death, for he had spoken perversion against Hashem, your G-d." (13: 2-4, 6; Artscroll Chumash.)
Last edited by ali; 9th January 2012 at 18:57.
the god of the torah tests people
so there you go, GOD tests people.Anyone who denies the concept of God testing people’s faith is not only throwing away D'varim, but also B'réshıt and Sh'mot (see B'réshıt 22:1 and Sh'mot 15:25, 16:4), as well as much of the remainder of the Scriptures—because itֹ’s a theme that recurs quite often.
It really is funny that the answer of Christians is G-d made all these eternal promises and told us what to do knowing ALL THE TIME we could not do them and so He set everyone up to fail including Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Moses, Aaron, David, Solomon, etc. Some loving god, the Christian god!
So many missionaries claim that Jews cannot "keep all the laws" and thus we need a pagan human sacrifice to somehow go against everything G-d taught us to wipe away our sins. The sins G-d knew would happen because we can't perfectly keep His laws. Wow. As my son would say, "Major FAIL."
No where does the Jewish bible state we have to be perfect or keep the mitzvot "perfectly." G-d MADE us imperfect just as He created good and evil -- so that we could choose the right path and learn. If we do not sin (if we were perfect) we would not grow -- and G-d would not even have made us!
From a post quoting R' Yisroel Blumenthal (in response to a missionary, Michael Brown):
The missionary assumption is that unless one attains absolute perfection (which he cannot), all is lost. Brown should read the verse again. It says,
"There is no RIGHTEOUS person..who never sins."
The person who does a sin is still righteous!
One of the verses most devastating to Original Sin is Genesis 4:7, where G-d tells Cain that he can overcome temptation. Cain is envious of Abel because G-d accepts only Abel's sacrifice. Cain is tempted to murder Abel. G-d says,
"if you do not do good, sin crouches at the entrance. Its desire is for you, but you can rule over it."
G-d's majestic statement of man's ability to overcome evil is brushed aside by Dr. Brown, and his answer is terrible:
"But it is one thing to overcome a particular sin. It is another to be free from the grip of sin in general" (p. 193).
If Cain can free himself from this sin, why can't he free himself from any sin? Also, what is meant by "the grip of sin in general"? If he means that no one is 51% righteous, this is manifestly not true. Must one be 70% righteous (or 80%, or 90%) to transcend "the grip." Perhaps Dr. Brown believes that a 99% righteous person is under "the grip of sin", but would he justify a teacher who failed a student with a 99 average?
This belief that absolute perfection is required is the real backbone of Original Sin, as Dr. Brown admits that people can do much good. What is the Scriptural proof that only perfection earns G-d's favor? There is none whatsoever. It can be asserted only by a faulty reading of Deuteronomy 27:26. It says,
"Cursed is one who does not uphold (yakeem) the words of this Torah to do them."
Since no one fulfills Torah with total perfection, all are damned and require "salvation." This missionary interpretation cannot make sense of the eleven curses (applied to eleven specific sins) that appear before this verse. If 27:26 sets a curse for any single violation of Torah, the eleven prior curses are totally superfluous (Samuel Levine).
Missionaries also make a subtle but devastating grammatical error. While y'kayaim means to fulfill, yakeem is a different construct meaning "cause to stand up", "confirm", "uphold". This verse is not saying that unless one fulfills Torah flawlessly, he is cursed. One who does not accept the mitzvot, in whole or in part, fails to "uphold" the Torah, but the commission of a specific sin is not the subject here. This reading is faithful to the grammar and is totally consistent with Torah's frequent injunctions to choose good and make amends for wrong behavior. The missionary viewpoint paints G-d as an anti-Semite who curses Israel with commandments they cannot obey (Samuel Levine).
At no point does Dr. Brown attempt to integrate the verses he cites with the many hundreds of verses that stress free will, the opportunity to do good and amend wrongs, and descriptions of righteous people who earned G-d's favor. Let us cite only one of them:
"It is not in heaven, to say 'Who will go up for us to heaven, and acquire it for us, and teach it to us, and we will do it?' Nor is it across the sea, to say Who will cross the sea, and acquire it for us and teach it to us, and we will do it?' For the matter is very near to you, in your mouth and in your heart, to do it (Deuteronomy 30:11)."
Dr. Brown provides not a single verse to support Original Sin. There is also no support that one must be a perfect individual to earn G-d's favor. Original Sin was unknown before Christianity, not because ancient Jews did not read carefully but because Original Sin is not in the Hebrew Bible at all.
Pay particular attention to the mistranslation that lets missionaries think perfection is required: Missionaries also make a subtle but devastating grammatical error. While y'kayaim means to fulfill, yakeem is a different construct meaning "cause to stand up", "confirm", "uphold".
This verse is not saying that unless one fulfills Torah flawlessly, he is cursed. One who does not accept the mitzvot, in whole or in part, fails to "uphold" the Torah, but the commission of a specific sin is not the subject here. This reading is faithful to the grammar and is totally consistent with Torah's frequent injunctions to choose good and make amends for wrong behavior. The missionary viewpoint paints G-d as an anti-Semite who curses Israel with commandments they cannot obey (Samuel Levine).
god got aids for you
god did a difficult a level test for you
god became a woman and was physically and mentally abused for you
god so loved the world that he gave himself by allowing the jews to send him in a desert and his flesh cooked under hot son and he eventually died of dehydration
now that is a painful way to die.
children die of dehydration THIS VERY minuite.
all this is blasphemous to apply to god.
god who knows the dna of aid cells inside and outside does not NEED to get it to FIX the problem, he knows how to destroy it without getting it.
MORE: If, however, Koyaanisqatsi is using “fully” in the sense of
“only” above described, then he is using “fully” in a manner that does
not correspond to the Chalcedonian statement which employs the
conjunction “and” – thereby eliminating the possible sense of Jesus as
Great. Still no substantive counter-argument (or, for that matter,
coherent counter-argument) so the hunt continues…
Truly God sacrificed Truly God to himself. Or is it, Complete God
sacrificed Complete God to himself? Or is it Truly God sacrificed a
part of himself that was Truly Man to himself? I’ll leave out the
eunuch jokes in order to hopefully get a direct, coherent
deconstruction from you.
Here, let’s narrow it down. What part of God did God sacrifice to
himself and how is that in any way a redemptive act?
MORE: In order for Koyaanisqatsi to demonstrate the logical
impossibility of the Incarnation,
Strawman…again. My argument was that claiming something is “fully”
and “not fully” is logically impossible, but, again, why let anything
substantive slow you down? And, yes, I’ve left off the “at the same
time” aspect of it, because I don’t want you to keep using the word
“semantics” as if that somehow indicts the question, so now I’ll once
again accomodate your semantics shuffling and use your terms; how is it
logically possible to be “truly God” and “not truly God?” Or “complete
God” and “not complete God?”
And, more importantly, how can something be “truly God” and “truly
man,” when “truly God” trumps “truly man” and what does that mean in
terms of a redemptive sacrifice of one’s own self, even if that self is
just a lesser part? I cut off my arm as a sacrifice to myself in order
to save you from my wrath? Is that the thrust here? Because I require a
sacrifice in order to save you (a blood sacrifice, no less) and that
sacrifice has to be “pure” in order for it to work in my mind, I
therefore cut off my own arm (a “pure” arm) in order to satisfy my own
requirments, therefore making the requirement larger than myself?
Is this the logic of the Creeds you keep claiming are unrefuted in
The hunt continues…
MORE: He has not done this;
Nor do I need to, even though, I just did, using your own terms.
Complete God sacrifices that part of himself that is Complete Man (or
Truly Man, or whatever other spin you want to put on it) to himself in
order to save us from himself; a self-evidently irrelevant process that
must therefore mean that the act of sacrifice is so necessary that not
even God himself can avoid its mandate.