>>18770828
>I never understood this mentality
It's because the vast majority of modern Christians are not actual believers in God. They are often extremely secular and as a result think whatever politicians of the past century vote into law is the epitome of morality. That's the consequence of protestantism and it's offshoots like feminism and just general liberalism. Also it's more like "God was evil but then he went to therapy in a Jesus skin suit and suddenly became moral"

>>18770828
That was an angel anon, not literally God.

>symbolism
Im not against this, but the Jews, and albeit Christians, believe Jacob literally wrestled with a deity

>>18770836
Only in rabbinical fanfiction that tries to deny that the Father has a body.

>>18770890
No the bible says that nobody has seen the Father and lived (Jacob did) and it also says that he does not get contained within creation (the angel was). It's also nonsensical to believe God can lose a wrestling match
>the Targum of Onkelos offers "because I have seen the Angel of the Lord face to face", and another Targum reads "because I have seen the Angels of the Lord face to face".[7]

>>18770834
Brown.

>>18770836
The Lord has many hosts but he is One.

>>18770897
>Targum
Proving my point

>>18770963
It's older than the MT. The LXX calls him a man also, is the Father a man? In addition Hosea 12:4 makes it clear he's an angel even in the KJV

>>18770828
Every period in the New Testament is more important than the biggest prophecy of the Old Testament.
A good Christian can never read any part of the Old Testament and still live a good moral life. The opposite is not true.

>>18770897
Doesn't Moses see his arse at some point? I'm pretty sure I remember Yahweh flashing his bum to Moses

File: Screenshot 2025-03-29 at (...).png (71 KB, 466x865)

71 KB PNG

>>18770998
It seems to say so but interpretations vary on what exactly that means. In any case the bible says.
>And he said, Thou canst not see my face: for there shall no man see me, and live - Exodus 33:20
>And Jacob called the name of the place Peniel: for I have seen God face to face, and my life is preserved - Genesis 32:30
It cannot be literally God since it is specifically talking about his face which mortals cannot survive seeing. It's just the concept of agency at play here and the agent here was an angel

tourist there, why is half of the fucking board discussions about abhraamic religions?

The Old Testament was a bit rough because the jews needed to be roughed up for what they were doing

>>18770828
A lot of the Old Testament makes more sense if you assume it was Michael who led the Israelites in battle.

>>18770828
You said you don’t understand it so you are asking for one and you said that you like metaphor more.
No, I dont want my prayers metaphorically answered and no I am not satisfied with only satanic fool’s gold versions of my prayers being answered by Demi god lords who don’t really have God’s power or aren’t really literally Jesus Christ with him in them and them in him but only metaphorical. If you take that route that the Bible is only metaphor or is only literal you are going to have a bad time. God is everything and where where but He is also Order. There is an Order and a season and a time just as day follows night and that there is supposed to be an eternal day for the righteous with eternal life and light just as the sun doesn’t get put out just because it goes around the earth. It’s still there, burning brightly. God is above all problems and He often deals with our problems from on High with a better perspective than we have. Imagine weak wristed versions of yourself being populated , in your dreams, of metaphorical weak shitty versions of your dreams being fulfilled only, in ways you are disgusted by. That’s ultimately what you are asking for and Satan has already won because this is what the Antichrist wants to happen to you and not achieve the fullness of the Godhead, bodily. This is why revelation says I have defeated the Antichrist with the saints by the shedding of Jesus Christ’s blood over my sins, AND my testimony, that I loved not my life unto the very end (the death of the appointed first life we are now living). I.e. I am not satisfied until my testimony is completed LITERALLY. And I love not this life that is run by the literal antichrist who thinks I am content with a bunch of stupid shit he half assedly fulfilled. I am not content with his metaphorical fake gold and his works shall be burned up and be tormented for eternity in the lake of fire while I go to heaven because my dreams require literal fulfillment.

Nd by the way since God’s Word says literal fulfillment is our dreams of our heart being literal is a requirement, that means it actually hinges on my testimony. My testimony is that I thankfully received my wife marrying me like she said she would, twice thirty three years apart. And it wasn’t first in heart at six years old who has the same name as me and is my divinely convergent twin wife across the lane which I asked, believed, and thanked Jesus Christ unto the only true living God for. Promises mean nobility and there is no one who can go to heaven without nobility (keeping one’s promises).
An angel is a messenger of God and they appear only in Christian messages. The other day I saw a Halloween messenger with a pink skeleton riding on the back of a green jeep . I also saw mines dressed up as clowns with black and white half and half left and right sides and a little boy who was chopped up with blood in an actual scary costume. They were Mexicans and I and my mom were shopping for Christmas on Halloween not thinking of Halloween, but they came into the store to play dress up. If you didn’t know you are being used to spread angel’s messages from hell, as demons, now you know. And if it came from hell that means it didn’t come from God and wasn’t an authorized message. It’s merely a statement or a fact that this is what the devil is planning and has nothing to do with me, but some people choose to bear it.

>>18770834
Tranny

>>18771077
you believe your deity transitioned into a human being

>>18771074
My testimony is also something that God has to take GREAT CARE of and fully understand. And I recognize who would half assedly fuck it up and that auto translates to the devil, whoever does.

Christianity is about Christ. The gospels are about Christ. The OT was scabbed onto a bible with the NT, but needn't have been. They are not the same.

>>18771097
Why does the NT constantly quote the OT then retard?

>>18771101
Because the same guys who scabbed the OT onto the NT also scabbed some referential bullshit onto the NT. I'd go through the NT with a machete, after I cleaved out the OT.

It's about the Gospel. That's Christianity.

>>18771110
A lot of Christians like this hate God. They hate the God of Abraham. They despise him, his ways, his laws, and want nothing to do with him. All because he didn't chose their tribe as his people.

>>18771122
>Christians
You may need to seek Christianity, and find out what it is. Hint: It's in the name.

>>18771166
Christ just means Messiah, as in the Jewish Messiah

>>18771166
Christ means The Old Testament's God's Anointend Chosen One. Ya Dunce.

>>18771179
>Christ just means Messiah, as in the Jewish Messiah
Which hasn't come, according to you and your buddies. Christianity disagrees with you.

>>18771214
>Old Testament's God's Anointend Chosen One.
You and your dunce buddies can enjoy the OT, but it's not a part of Christianity. Simple as. Even you say that.

>>18770828
According to Jesus, Abraham says the way to avoid hell is to stop seething of whatever Ezekiel, and Daniel, and John, and what Hosea etc. said about it.

>>18771033
/pol/ diaspora/groypers

>>18770828
I think there are two main things. One is the Torah itself is filled with laws, some of which can come across as arbitrary or cruel(the death penalty is common), and there is nothing comparable within the New Testament. The other is that God himself is a much more active character in the Old Testament and kills or orders killed large numbers of people frequently. By contrast he only really does stuff in the Gospels and Acts and only kills a handful of people throughout the New Testament. So some people look at this two things, don't know how to reconcile them, and determine they must be incompatible. This is stupid for various reasons but there is a sort of logic to it.
>Also it's clear that many stories of old aren't supposed to be literal
This is not clear at all, this is a cope to explain away bits of the Old Testament that clearly didn't happen in a book that is supposed to be inerrant.
>>18771029
Abraham also sees God, Exodus contradicts Genesis frequently.

>>18771248
>Oh Lord my Christ my King, how much I hate your father, I hate him with all my heart. But I love you though, I don't obey you or anything but I do scream Christ is King whenever I see one of those wretched Jews from your tribe.
>I'm saved right? Right?

>>18771531
You're asking the wrong entity, lad. Better sharpen up your trolling.

>>18771248
>enjoy the OT, but it's not a part of Christianity
This would be only true if more than half the bible is false. Jewish cultists wrote the whole thing including NT.
Is the bible the word of god or not, anon? Did the god who sent Jesus from the bible make mistakes when he appeared to his prophets in the OT? You have to bite that bullet in order to maintain your claim about the OT not being part of Christianity. Same god just written in different languages.

File: Screenshot 2026-11-03 at (...).png (157 KB, 792x658)

157 KB PNG

>>18771504
>Abraham also sees God, Exodus contradicts Genesis frequently.
I'd rather be charitable to the text and use an interpretation that isn't contradictory. I don't believe it says he saw God's face like Jacob is said to have done. Which verse do you have in mind? pic rel where he made God wait so he can serve three angels as the Rabbis say?

>>18771033
An unmoderated board - jannies have long since given up - where actual schizos banned from /x/ or /pol/ admit they move to when they're suffering withdrawal symptoms from attention. Also a lot of spillover between pairs of offisite spergs debating on discord or twitter who just publish their shitposting on a more public space, especially notable in haploautist threads and the drive-by "thought of the day" slop-pic theist/anti-theist threads the likes you could see your uncle post on facebook. I assume this is so that they can later post screencaps of 4chan posts on reddit. /his/ is basically just /pol/ without flags, or the equivalent of what /trash/ is to /int/ and /b/.

>>18771920
It's most of Genesis 18. God is one of the three visitors, and I don't know why I would interpret any of the conversations Abraham has with him in the chapter as though God was speaking to him with his back turned or something.
>I'd rather be charitable to the text and use an interpretation that isn't contradictory.
Why? Exodus also says Abraham did not know him by the name YHWH but he introduces himself to Abraham as that in Genesis 15:7. The books just contradict sometimes.

File: Screenshot 2026-11-03 at (...).png (155 KB, 1262x712)

155 KB PNG

>>18771989
>God is one of the three visitors
No it's just describing the concept of agency, even humans can be called God in the bible. How could he literally be one of the visitors when he was made to wait by Abraham so he could tend to the visitors in the next line? There's no need to force a contradiction here.
>I don't know why I would interpret any of the conversations Abraham has with him in the chapter as though God was speaking to him with his back turned or something.
For something to be an actual contradiction you have to provide P AND NOT P = True, merely speaking to him or appearing in some arbitrary form is not equivalent to Abraham seeing God's face and living.
>Why?
If you didn't apply this as a principle when reading anything then you can make everyone contradict themselves. Even in the same sentence!
>Exodus also says Abraham did not know him by the name YHWH but he introduces himself to Abraham as that in Genesis 15:7. The books just contradict sometimes.
Indeed they do, and that's an actual example where it does say two things that explicitly cannot be true at the same time the way it is usually translated. But even here there are commentaries that do attempt to make sense of it.

>>18772011
>No it's just describing the concept of agency, even humans can be called God in the bible.
I don't know what this means, it says YHWH in the first verse of the chapter and continues to call him that throughout.
>How could he literally be one of the visitors when he was made to wait by Abraham so he could tend to the visitors in the next line?
He is one of the guests. Look at verses 10-14. In verse 10 one of the guests says "I will surely return to you in due season, and your wife Sarah shall have a son". Then in verses 13-14 the speaker is explicitly identified as YHWH and he again says "At the set time I will return to you, in due season, and Sarah shall have a son".
Verse 22 has the men going towards Sodom while Abraham stays with YHWH, and in the next verse he approaches him and starts talking to him, and by chapter 19 there are only 2 angels present in Sodom, because God didn't go with them.
Again you could interpret this as God just wasn't looking at Abraham or was covering his face the entire episode but I don't know why you would, the text suggests nothing like that.
>If you didn't apply this as a principle when reading anything then you can make everyone contradict themselves. Even in the same sentence!
We're not talking about the same sentence we're talking about two different books.
>But even here there are commentaries that do attempt to make sense of it.
There are commentaries and attempts to make sense of every contradiction in the Bible by making extra-Biblical inferences. "By YHWH he actually meant some attribute" is not a natural reading of the text it is something you have to come up with to reconcile the two books contradicting.

File: Screenshot 2026-11-03 at (...).png (93 KB, 850x472)

93 KB PNG

>>18772047
>I don't know what this means, it says YHWH in the first verse of the chapter and continues to call him that throughout.
It's the Jewish shaliach principle which states "a man's agent is like the man himself" Therefore it isn't surprising the agent takes on the name of the one he is representing. Moses for example is also called YHWH indirectly and the immediate speaker shifts throughout the bible demonstrate this. He's also called god too btw. I am well aware of the identification with YHWH in Genesis 18 anon.
>Again you could interpret this as God just wasn't looking at Abraham or was covering his face the entire episode but I don't know why you would, the text suggests nothing like that
Yes it's silent on these things but it's also silent on Abraham seeing God in the manner that would kill him therefore it isn't an actual example of a proposition (dying from seeing God's face) and its negation (not dying from seeing God's face) both being true at the same time. If you want to argue for an actual contradiction you similarly can't insert details that you'll find favorable, that's the whole point I am making here.
>We're not talking about the same sentence we're talking about two different books
Yes but the original discussion was about Jacob. It's obvious the author of that passage knows that seeing God face to face would kill him since he points it out that it didn't happen. This demonstrates that it was expected to happen according to the theology of the author. And similarly we see no reason to suspect that they had such wildly different understandings between these two books as well.
>"By YHWH he actually meant some attribute" is not a natural reading of the text it is something you have to come up with to reconcile the two books contradicting.
Why not? Rashi gave his reasoning based on the text itself and he isn't alone with this interpretation. Furthermore I see no indication of this being an apologetic work. The Jews simply understand it like that

>>18772082
>It's the Jewish shaliach principle which states "a man's agent is like the man himself" Therefore it isn't surprising the agent takes on the name of the one he is representing. Moses for example is also called YHWH indirectly
I'm not sure I know what you are referring to with Moses being called YHWH. Also do you have some other examples of people who are not YHWH being referred to as YHWH?
>Yes it's silent on these things but it's also silent on Abraham seeing God in the manner that would kill him
>Yes but the original discussion was about Jacob. It's obvious the author of that passage knows that seeing God face to face would kill him since he points it out that it didn't happen. This demonstrates that it was expected to happen according to the theology of the author.
Looking into this a bit more and I actually don't think this follows. In Genesis 16 Hagar expresses disbelief at having seen God and lived as well, so well there could be an expectation in Genesis of seeing God leading to death, it doesn't guarantee it or require you actually see his face.
Clarifying question, do you think Jacob was mistaken when he said he saw God face to face? I don't think that is an untenable reading I just want to make sure that's what you're saying.
>Furthermore I see no indication of this being an apologetic work. The Jews simply understand it like that
This is how Rashi read it 200ish years after the text was compiled in a recognizable state, we have no reason to believe this is how the original audience of the work would have understood is that way. That Rashi comments on it at all suggests people saw a contradiction there or else he wouldn't need to address it.

>>18770911
>>18771077
He must be onto something if the bots started foaming like this.

File: Screenshot 2026-10-27 at (...).png (34 KB, 573x782)

34 KB PNG

>>18772128
>I'm not sure I know what you are referring to with Moses being called YHWH
Pic rel is an example where Moses speaks as if he was YHWH, there are a bunch all over the bible.
>In Genesis 16 Hagar expresses disbelief at having seen God and lived as well, so well there could be an expectation in Genesis of seeing God leading to death, it doesn't guarantee it or require you actually see his face.
Well the NIV says in a footnote "Or seen the back of" - https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis%2016:13&version=NIV and the NRSVue plus the revised JPS says the meaning of the Hebrew is uncertain. Rashi states "This is an exclamation of surprise: “could I have ever imagined that here also — in the wilderness — I would see the messengers of the Omnipresent after I have seen them in Abraham’s house, where I saw them regularly!” You may know that she used to see them there regularly from this: That Manoah saw the angel only once and exclaimed, (Judges 13:22) “We shall surely die”, and she saw angels four times, one after the other, and she showed no fear (Genesis Rabbah 45:7)" So yeah they absolutely expected to die even when seeing his angels
>Clarifying question, do you think Jacob was mistaken when he said he saw God face to face? I don't think that is an untenable reading I just want to make sure that's what you're saying.
I don't believe he was mistaken but I also don't think he meant it literally because of agency. As we have seen above they were scared to death of even angels.
>That Rashi comments on it at all suggests people saw a contradiction there or else he wouldn't need to address it.
it's a fair point that this is a relatively late interpretation so we must take it with a grain of salt. But at the same time him or the other Rabbis commenting on a particular section is not evidence that they found it problematic.

File: Screenshot 2025-12-04 at (...).png (153 KB, 760x734)

153 KB PNG

>>18772128
Also meant to add that the Rabbis are not shy to say when something in their canon seemingly contradicts. They did it with the book of Ezekiel for example until one of them managed to "solve" them. So even if you believe the prior examples are bullshit ad hoc reasoning to save their text, we must at least expect them to mention that there is a problem here for us to conclude that it's just an apologetic work

>>18772149
>>18772153
The part in Deuteronomy is Moses literally quoting God, and Acts 7 isn't Moses speaking at all, it is someone talking about him and outlining things he did, which are in fact attributed to him in Exodus. Yes I understand it is God working through him but he's not some secondary character, it's perfectly normal to describe Moses as being the one who parted the Red Sea and that is usually how people refer to it when speaking colloquially.
>So yeah they absolutely expected to die even when seeing his angels
I think we are in agreement on there being an expectation, but it seems that expectation exists regardless of if you see God's face literally, just seeing him or even his angels was apparently cause for worry. That Abraham doesn't express this worry at all to me seems somewhat similar to the explanation given by Manoah's wife: Abraham has been talking to God for years, why would he fear him?
>I don't believe he was mistaken but I also don't think he meant it literally because of agency. As we have seen above they were scared to death of even angels.
I am going to argue against my own point here slightly and point out that Exodus 33:11 says Moses and YHWH used to speak face to face, before a few verses later saying anyone who sees him dies, so there is a decent argument that "face to face" doesn't mean literally, though I'm not entirely sure what it could mean in the case of Jacob that it doesn't mean here. In Exodus 33:11 it could simply mean, as it says, "as a friend".
>we must at least expect them to mention that there is a problem here for us to conclude that it's just an apologetic work
I don't think I agree. Well they will sometimes say they are raising a potential contradiction, I don't think the absence of those exact words suggests they are just riffing. Why include the explanation at all if it's obvious?

File: Screenshot 2026-10-27 at (...).png (35 KB, 573x786)

35 KB PNG

>>18772166
Yes he's speaking from a first person perspective as if God was the one saying these things directly to the people. Why would Moses say he is YHWH otherwise? Also the point with Acts was to show you that it was an early (not much better than Rashi to be honest) understanding that Moses was the one leading them and yet YHWH says he was the one leading them. If that's not convincing then maybe this will make it clearer. Here you can see the speaker shift in the middle of the speech.
>Abraham has been talking to God for years, why would he fear him?
I don't believe it's a direct action of God to smite those who look upon his face and it can't be since he tried to protect his prophets from that even when he lets them take a look at him in other ways. It seems to be more like how looking at direct sunlight harms your eyes but there is no intent here from the sun to actually harm you.
>there is a decent argument that "face to face" doesn't mean literally, though I'm not entirely sure what it could mean in the case of Jacob that it doesn't mean here
Yeah that's why I believe the fact that they were afraid of even witnessing his angels is relevant here. There is a theme here that direct perception means certain death that's for sure
>I don't think I agree. Well they will sometimes say they are raising a potential contradiction, I don't think the absence of those exact words suggests they are just riffing. Why include the explanation at all if it's obvious?
We don't need those exact words of course but the point I am making is that if they saw something that could not be reconciled there is reason to expect that they would at least mention that there is a source of tensions here. It's basically an argument from silence but one that isn't fallacious. If we look at what Rashi does for example https://www.sefaria.org/Rashi_on_Exodus?tab=contents we can see that he comments on pretty much everything. I doubt he has problems with those sections too

>>18771745
Christianity is about Jesus Christ. It's not about pagan legend and lore, tossed into the mix centuries on. It's about Jesus Christ, who walked this earth and about whom the Gospel is written, by guys who actually walked with him.

Now, you have many questions, about legend and lore detached from the Gospel. That's your burden to carry. If you're looking for my declarations associated with your many questions, they are above. Good luck with your burden.

>>18772212
>Why would Moses say he is YHWH otherwise?
He doesn't, he's directly quoting him. Now I don't think Hebrew has quotation marks like we use in English but the "yet the lord says" bit I think makes it pretty clear Moses is saying "he's what YHWH said".
>Also the point with Acts was to show you that it was an early (not much better than Rashi to be honest) understanding that Moses was the one leading them and yet YHWH says he was the one leading them
I don't think these are in conflict though, both Moses and YHWH play complementary parts in the narrative of Exodus. In fact if you look at the plagues it is actually sort of inconsistent on whether God is doing them himself, or if Moses is doing them at God's guidance. Pestilence and death of the first born for example God acts without a contribution form Moses, but when it comes to the hail and locusts, God acts after Moses stretches out his hand. With the plague of darkness, it hits simply after Moses stretches out his hand, and God isn't said to have directly done anything. So the text is quite comfortable attributing actions to Moses that are obviously God's doing, I don't think you are supposed to believe in the final text Moses literally brought about darkness by himself(I do think you are supposed to think that in the original source but for the sake of argument I will assume it was always one complete story). My greater point is I don't think from this you can take "sometimes YHWH is identified as figures who aren't YWHW".
Your quoted bit from Deuteronomy 11 is a much better illustration. I would immediately be inclined to think this is also him quoting YHWH and the text just reads sort of awkward. But there is actually apparently quite a bit of writing about these particular verses so I want to do some more reading on them.

>>18772212
>>18772250
>It seems to be more like how looking at direct sunlight harms your eyes but there is no intent here from the sun to actually harm you.
>There is a theme here that direct perception means certain death that's for sure
I am inclined to believe there was thought to be some sort of danger in directly observing the divine; Acts has Paul going blind after his vision of Jesus, so it's not like that belief went away either. What I am less sure of is that seeing YHWH consistently means certain death throughout the OT. Outside of Exodus the only time it seems to come up is people surprised they didn't die when they saw him. Timothy straight up says you can't see him but that's sort of a different thing.
I am curious what you make of Genesis 33:10, where Jacob compares seeing Esau's face to seeing God's face. My interpretation would be that much like seeing God's face, Jacob expected Esau to kill him, and like Jacob's meeting with God in the previous chapter, Jacob was not killed either time, despite the expectation.
>we can see that he comments on pretty much everything. I doubt he has problems with those sections too
Fair enough, though I maintain that Rashi's commentary is not necessarily how everyone would have automatically read it, either in Rashi's time or when the text was compiled in its present form.

>>18771033
If these people went elsewhere on the internet you could block them, so they end up here eventually.

>>18770828
>I believe in the old one people believed in annihilationism
You believe wrong. The doctrine is exactly the same between the Old and New Testaments.

>>18772335
>Same but split, huh
Doubt.

>>18770828
>I pay attention to atheists
That's your mistake.

File: 1793016984628430.png (658 KB, 900x521)

658 KB PNG

>>18770998
Of course