A very human "god " indeed.

Author: Stephen

Posts

Total: 52
#31
Tradesecret
Tradesecret's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 3,343
3
2
6
Tradesecret's avatar
Tradesecret
3
2
6
-->
@zedvictor4
Wrestling and setting fire to bushes.

This sort of behaviour doesn't do much for an omniscient god's credibility does it?
Nor does sending his son to die on a cross for other people's sins - and yet that is what the NT tells us. 

As a matter of curiosity, what sort of behaviour do you think an omniscient god ought to be doing?  And as you explain that - can you do it such a way that it does not coincide with a god after your image? 

In other words, when people say that humans make God in their own image - and then picture God wrestling or setting fire to bushes, is that reflecting their own image of what god does or is it simply that their own humanness cannot conceive of God doing more than that? What I mean is - you seem to suggest that god wrestling and burning bushes is hardly what an omniscient god would do, therefore it seems you are disproving the theory that humans make god in their own image. an omniscient god would not wrestle with ordinary men according to your understanding, an omniscient god would not burn a bush according to your understanding of god. Yet here in this passage and in other passages god does what you do not expect him to do.  Is a god made in someone else's image or could it be more than that? 
#32
Tradesecret
Tradesecret's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 3,343
3
2
6
Tradesecret's avatar
Tradesecret
3
2
6
-->
@Stephen
What sort of ordinary man ? What sort of ordinary man ? What sort of ordinary man ? What sort of ordinary man ? what sort of ordinary man? 

You also use the the word man a lot too. Neither Abraham nor Jacob state that these men were ordinary. Indeed, on the contrary, they indicate that they are "lord" , which indicates that they were of some statutes above themselves like master and servant in those ancient days. "Lord" is simply a title and nothing more. It does not indicate a supernatural being although I would imagine anyone living at the time who was more intelligent than your average sand trotting tent dweller would be seen and accepted as a "lord".

Today,  here in the UK there are nearly one thousand of  these jumped up, pompous, self serving "lords" who expect every average joe to acknowledge their status. They too live in a very large house called the Lord's house,  it does not indicate that they are somehow supernatural beings. It means that they are definitely far more educated and knowledgeable than your average state school educated Asda shelf stacker. Other examples are pupil and teacher, forman and labourer, tutor and student. 

I personally believe that these men aka lords are simply a highly educated (advanced) species of man that some backward tent dwellers respected, admired and also feared.
Yes, I used the word man as well. You did suggest or imply that this "lord" was only human, otherwise your post has no meaning whatsoever. My point was that despite the usage of the term man in the text, this does not mean "ordinary human". Ordinary humanity does not explain the significant distance between the two wrestling both in ability and in authority. You seem to suggest that this "man" whom Jacob suggests is "God", is actually a more educated and perhaps more advanced human.  I am not sure whether you are talking aliens or from another human culture. In either case, the evidence I submit is not there. But you are free to believe whatever you like. 

I would beg to differ about the supernatural aspect here.  Firstly, Jacob does suggest he is wrestling with God, this flows from the name he called the place.  Secondly, the blessing here is not concretely set out, such as gold or treasure, which I submit implies spiritual blessing probably in the continued granting of the covenant to Abraham rather than a human blessing. Thirdly, the manner in which he touched Jacob is significant. The text uses the word touch - and implies this wrenched his hip from its socket. Now admittedly there are some techniques from some cultures that with a touch can knock a person out - but I have not heard of one where a touch wrenches a hip from its socket. I submit this was very unusual and certainly the text implies it was highly unusual given what Jacob called this place. Further significance must also be attached to what happened given the religious overtones as well - demonstrated by Israel's refusal to eat tendon attached to the socket of the hip. Such observance by his descendants clearly elevates what occurred here between this man and Jacob to something more than meeting with a highly educated human. 
#33
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 11,263
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@Tradesecret
Yep. That makes sense.

And I do from time to time promote the idea of an oscillating universal and evolutionary sequence in which G.O.D is both the ultimate knowledge and the ultimate purpose.

The evolutionary development of organic intelligence and subsequently inorganic intelligence and ultimately G.O.D. are all equally essential parts of the universal sequence.

I also toy with the notion that remnants of G.O.D. data might survive the reinitiation of the sequence.

These remnants might attach themselves to the physiology of newly emergent  lifeforms and eventually manifest primarily as a mythical appreciation/interpretation of the data such as the biblical tales, but ultimately as a stimulus for the development of inorganic data devices, the ultimate of which is G.O.D.
 
As such, it would be G.O.D. that ensured our development and we would ensure the recreation of G.O.D.

But not in any image.

So G.O.D. is the acronym? 


#34
Tradesecret
Tradesecret's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 3,343
3
2
6
Tradesecret's avatar
Tradesecret
3
2
6
-->
@zedvictor4
Well to be perfectly honest - I have no idea what you just wrote. Can you so condescend and put it into language that the rest of us might be able to understand? 

Thanks in anticipation. 
Topic's author
#35
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,321
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@Tradesecret
Yes, I used the word man as well. You did suggest or imply that this "lord" was only human, otherwise your post has no meaning whatsoever.

I am sure you would like to pass off my thread as meaningless and yes I am saying that these "lords" were only human. It is your reply then that is meaningless as you are only repeating what I have written.


My point was that despite the usage of the term man in the text, this does not mean "ordinary human".

And I have stated that to these early patriarchs - Abraham and Jacob - these MEN were recognised as being of some status above themselves. I have also explained that anyone with a title is in some way  deemed to be above an "ordinary human being". I am failing to see your point. Is all you are causing me to do in response to you is to repeat what I have already stated. There are many more examples I could give you where one man can be above another and recognised as being so by his / her title. You are beginning to make this discussion circular.

Ordinary humanity does not explain the significant distance between the two wrestling both in ability and in authority.

They were wrestling.  The MAN of lower status was winning or getting the better of the other MAN of status. What more would you like to read into that? Are you going to start rewriting scripture to suit your own narrative. It is simply a case of one MAN being in a position  to bestow authority on another. As does a Queen to a subordinate commoner. 


You seem to suggest that this "man" whom Jacob suggests is "God", is actually a more educated and perhaps more advanced human. 

 That's correct. You could have started you response to my post right there instead of having me repeat myself. 



I am not sure whether you are talking aliens or from another human culture. In either case, the evidence I submit is not there.

Well with so many references to the space above us (the heavens) and strange craft " a chariot" coming down from the sky to the likes of Ezekiel (Ezekiel 1:4-28)  and things ascending and descending in pillars of flame and clouds of smoke that creates a sound so thunderous that it caused people to cower and lay themselves flat to the earth, you might just be onto something. And it wouldn't be anymore fanciful than your omnipotent being coming down to earth in a "chariot" and then leaving again on pillars of fire and smoke to a thunderous noise.

Watch and listen to this from 1;25 onwards to the end. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OnoNITE-CLc

But you are free to believe whatever you like. 

Yes I know.




Firstly, Jacob does suggest he is wrestling with God, this flows from the name he called the place.

Yes he does doesn't he. He also says that this particular god /lord was a MAN doesn't he. I have already stated this why are you causing me to repeat myself yet again.


  Secondly, the blessing here is not concretely set out.

I am not sure what you mean here. But I am convinced that given time you will no doubt present your own theory as fact and tell us all what is actually meant by this "blessing". You have conveniently left out the part where Jacob demands the blessing from the MAN,  it is not offered freely by the MAN.

 26 Then the man said, “Let me go, for it is daybreak.”But Jacob replied, “I will not let you go unless you bless me.”



Thirdly, the manner in which he touched Jacob is significant. The text uses the word touch - and implies this wrenched his hip from its socket.

I love it when you interpret words to mean what you want them to mean contrary to what the scripture actually states. But just so I am clear, you do mean touch as in physically touching another with one's hand?  You have missed the point that  there is no mention of this lord relocating Jacobs hip either, nor any mention of the pain he must have been suffering with such a severe injury. Any medical journal will tell you the pain from a dislocated hip is excruciating . But are we going to discuss what is NOT written in the scripture now?

Now admittedly there are some techniques from some cultures that with a touch can knock a person out - but I have not heard of one where a touch wrenches a hip from its socket.

That would depend on the health and condition of the man having his hip dislocated. Severe arthritis of the hip joint can cause it  to dislocate repeatedly and easily..

Such observance by his descendants clearly elevates what occurred here between this man and Jacob to something more than meeting with a highly educated human. 

Opinion counts for nothing ,I'm afraid.

#36
Deb-8-a-bull
Deb-8-a-bull's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,949
3
2
3
Deb-8-a-bull's avatar
Deb-8-a-bull
3
2
3
I'm thinking a 
( ASK A BIBLICAL SCHOLAR HOTLINE )
$2.25*  for TWO scriptures translated orrr THREE questions about  ( A )  scripture.
Or you lock in your meaning of said scripture and the BIB SCHOL will rate it and give his meaning. 
You 
There already would be one hey?

Press one for Catholic. 
Press two for Jehovah.
Press three for Trinity religious groups. 
Press six for satan.
* price of landline call. Will be higher for mobile devices. 

We got biblical scholars of ever kind CALL NOW. 


One phone call and this post would be sorted.
#37
Harikrish
Harikrish's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 550
2
1
3
Harikrish's avatar
Harikrish
2
1
3
-->
@OoDart
Men were made in God's Image. It makes sense that He would appear similar.
Humans first appeared in Africa. If God made humans in Africa in his image, should we assume God is Black.
#38
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 11,263
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@Tradesecret
There you go.

If you don't have the ability to understand a very simple hypothesis, then there's not a lot that I can do to help.


#39
OoDart
OoDart's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 12
0
0
7
OoDart's avatar
OoDart
0
0
7
-->
@Harikrish
That is certainly a possibility.
#40
Harikrish
Harikrish's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 550
2
1
3
Harikrish's avatar
Harikrish
2
1
3
-->
@OoDart
That is certainly a possibility.
Does that also explains why white people have struggled to understand God like they struggle with Blacks today. Which is why we have 30,000 denominations of Christians trying to interpret the Bible or words of a Black God. Jews even under went circumcision as a penis enhancement to satisfy a Black God. Go figure!!
Topic's author
#41
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,321
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@Harikrish
Humans first appeared in Africa. If God made humans in Africa in his image, should we assume God is Black.

Ok what is the evidence for a "god" creating black people in Africa before he is supposed to have also created white people in Africa? 
#42
BrotherDThomas
BrotherDThomas's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 2,140
3
3
7
BrotherDThomas's avatar
BrotherDThomas
3
3
7
-->
@OoDart



.
OoDart,

YOUR REVEALING AND HONEST QUOTE: "Men were made in God's Image. It makes sense that He would appear similar."

So, what you are stating as fact, is that our Jewish Yahweh/Jesus God has a penis and a butthole!  Thank you for agreeing with me on this topic of what our God actually looks like since we are created in his exact image, praise!

"So God created mankind in his own image, in the image of God he created them male and female he created them." (Genesis 1:27)

IMAGE: a person strikingly like another person, a reproduction or imitation of the form of a person or thing.


OoDart, One question, since Yahweh/Jesus created woman in His image as well, does that mean that our Yahweh/Jesus is a Hermaphrodite as He/She resides in our glorious Heaven???!  Awaiting your cogent reply, thanks.



.

#43
OoDart
OoDart's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 12
0
0
7
OoDart's avatar
OoDart
0
0
7
-->
@BrotherDThomas
I would say He could have characteristics of both males and females, but I do not know. It says we were made in His image, not exactly like Him.
#44
Harikrish
Harikrish's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 550
2
1
3
Harikrish's avatar
Harikrish
2
1
3
-->
@Stephen

Humans first appeared in Africa. If God made humans in Africa in his image, should we assume God is Black.

Ok what is the evidence for a "god" creating black people in Africa before he is supposed to have also created white people in Africa?

The first humans appeared in Africa and gradually spread throughout the world. (Out of Africa Theory).

Because of the hot African sun Africans are black. Whites arrived in Africa during the colonial expansion of European countries.

So God had to be Black if he created the first humans(Africans) in his image. God is portrayed as white after Christisns embraced the Bible.

Topic's author
#45
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,321
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@Harikrish
Humans first appeared in Africa. If God made humans in Africa in his image, should we assume God is Black.

Ok what is the evidence for a "god" creating black people in Africa before he is supposed to have also created white people in Africa?

The first humans appeared in Africa and gradually spread throughout the world. (Out of Africa Theory).

Because of the hot African sun Africans are black. Whites arrived in Africa during the colonial expansion of European countries.

So God had to be Black if he created the first humans(Africans) in his image. God is portrayed as white after Christisns embraced the Bible.


 Ok so keeping in mind that what you have written above,  when and where did this "god" create whitey?


#46
Tradesecret
Tradesecret's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 3,343
3
2
6
Tradesecret's avatar
Tradesecret
3
2
6
-->
@zedvictor4


If you don't have the ability to understand a very simple hypothesis, then there's not a lot that I can do to help.
So I take it what you said above was nonsense because you cannot translate it into ordinary everyday English. 

I will take it moreover as a concession; although I might add that I did not think we were particularly at odds prior to that occasion. 

And I do from time to time promote the idea of an oscillating universal and evolutionary sequence in which G.O.D is both the ultimate knowledge and the ultimate purpose.
If this is just you way of saying - you swing between two positions - absolute v relativism, ok? 

The evolutionary development of organic intelligence and subsequently inorganic intelligence and ultimately G.O.D. are all equally essential parts of the universal sequence.
I think what you are suggesting here is that evolution - relativism,  non absolutes exist entirely within the universal or absolute. If it is - then perhaps we are talking the language of covenant, which essentially says the same thing. Freedom exists only within boundaries - or such thing. 

I also toy with the notion that remnants of G.O.D. data might survive the reinitiation of the sequence.
This is another level. It almost suggests inorganic / computerised determinism. 


These remnants might attach themselves to the physiology of newly emergent  lifeforms and eventually manifest primarily as a mythical appreciation/interpretation of the data such as the biblical tales, but ultimately as a stimulus for the development of inorganic data devices, the ultimate of which is G.O.D.
Ok, so now you are again flirting with evolution and a non- deterministic position.
 
As such, it would be G.O.D. that ensured our development and we would ensure the recreation of G.O.D.
yep, far and above my paygrade.  G.O.D seems to be a computer. 



But not in any image.

So G.O.D. is the acronym? 
Ok. 

Covenant theology - the theology of the bible presents the idea of relativism within boundaries - hence taking both choice / freedom and placing both squarely within absolutes and controls.  Example - God made Adam and Eve and placed them in a garden. they were told to eat any fruit they cared for, freedom - but then warned about the boundaries - don't eat from one tree.  so far as they complied totally with this - they had freedom - once they broke it - they destroyed it. Incidentally this correlated wonderfully with the notion of the Trinity. One God, three persons. One absolute God - but within the understanding of ONE absolute God exists three persons. The three persons apply the relativity / flexibility of God. If God existed as ONE GOD and ONE person - then determinism would rule everything. On the other hand if God was not one - then relativism would rule all - for there would be no authority of binding power. Yet, ONE GOD three persons - wow, gives the ultimate covenantal representation of evolution within universalism. 




#47
Harikrish
Harikrish's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 550
2
1
3
Harikrish's avatar
Harikrish
2
1
3
-->
@Stephen
Humans first appeared in Africa. If God made humans in Africa in his image, should we assume God is Black.
Ok what is the evidence for a "god" creating black people in Africa before he is supposed to have also created white people in Africa?
The first humans appeared in Africa and gradually spread throughout the world. (Out of Africa Theory).
Because of the hot African sun Africans are black. Whites arrived in Africa during the colonial expansion of European countries.
So God had to be Black if he created the first humans(Africans) in his image. God is portrayed as white after Christisns embraced the Bible.


Ok so keeping in mind that what you have written above,  when and where did this "god" create whitey?


God did not create whitey. As the humans migrated to other parts of the world the milder climate reduced the melanin pigmentation that turned their skin white. They also interbred with Neanderthals which were the survivors of a failed attempt by God to creat humans in his image before he got it right in Africa.

Topic's author
#48
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,321
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@Harikrish
Humans first appeared in Africa.

Ok. That is a statement and for the sake of argument , I will say I agree. This doesn't answer the question that I have posed you.


If God made humans in Africa in his image, should we assume God is Black.

Now you're saying "IF" after stating that humans did first appear in African AND they were black AND that we "should" assume that a god created them.   You still haven't answered my question. Did "god" create these black beings or didn't he?  A yes or no will do.



Ok so keeping in mind that what you have written above,  when and where did this "god" create whitey?


God did not create whitey.As the humans migrated to other parts of the world the milder climate reduced the melanin pigmentation that turned their skin white.

So are you saying that evolution created Whitey? 


 They also interbred with Neanderthals

Who "interbred with Neanderthals? I hope you have clear evidence for these claims - by the way, because I shall be coming back to your claims in due course.


which were the survivors of a failed attempt by God to creat humans in his image before he got it right in Africa.


A " failed attempt" by a GOD!!!!!? The "god" of AALLLLL creation actually failed?     Are you kidding' me!!!?



  Not much of a god then is he  and certainly not a god  in the way we are led to believe in concerning the almighty powers and "miracles" of the lord "god"?  This all sounds very human to me, i.e if at first you don't succeed try and try again. 

#49
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 11,263
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@Tradesecret
Maybe your G.O.D. is an analogy as well as an acronym.

And it would be necessary for G.O.D. to exceed the constraints of computerised determinism.

We are obviously bogged down in the organic with no chance of escape, other than the transfer of our knowledge. As would be the same for computerised knowledge.

Pure, free ultimate data would be able to survive the collapse and rebirth of the sequence, as matter reduces to zero and is once again reinitiated in the succeeding oscillation.

But O.K. As with all hypotheses I am flummoxed by the apparent magical events that determine primary zero to one.

Any thoughts? Is there a realistic theistic explanation?  Or is there another theistic analogy that can be drawn upon for inspiration?

#50
Tradesecret
Tradesecret's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 3,343
3
2
6
Tradesecret's avatar
Tradesecret
3
2
6
-->
@Stephen
I am sure you would like to pass off my thread as meaningless and yes I am saying that these "lords" were only human. It is your reply then that is meaningless as you are only repeating what I have written.
There is no need to be so defensive. You raise some interesting perspectives. I don't think your overall position is meaningless, although sometimes specific sentences and points are redundant. 

My point was that despite the usage of the term man in the text, this does not mean "ordinary human".

And I have stated that to these early patriarchs - Abraham and Jacob - these MEN were recognised as being of some status above themselves. I have also explained that anyone with a title is in some way  deemed to be above an "ordinary human being". I am failing to see your point. Is all you are causing me to do in response to you is to repeat what I have already stated. There are many more examples I could give you where one man can be above another and recognised as being so by his / her title. You are beginning to make this discussion circular.
My point was yes and so what? Just because Abraham and Jacob may have done so on some occasions, does not mean that every occasion was the same. I know as well as the next person that these things occurred in many cultures - but Jacob is clearly this was more than just a titled man. He calls him God. 

Ordinary humanity does not explain the significant distance between the two wrestling both in ability and in authority.

They were wrestling.  The MAN of lower status was winning or getting the better of the other MAN of status. What more would you like to read into that? Are you going to start rewriting scripture to suit your own narrative. It is simply a case of one MAN being in a position  to bestow authority on another. As does a Queen to a subordinate commoner. 
I don't agree with your narrative. and since your narrative is not the usual one it puts the onus on you to demonstrate otherwise.  There seems to be no point to the story being added to this one if it is just talking about a noble man. It would add nothing to the story unless it worked in with the rest of the story which is about God dealing with his people.   But for the sake of your argument, assume you are correct, how does it add to the story? 

You seem to suggest that this "man" whom Jacob suggests is "God", is actually a more educated and perhaps more advanced human. 

 That's correct. You could have started you response to my post right there instead of having me repeat myself. 
ok. 


I am not sure whether you are talking aliens or from another human culture. In either case, the evidence I submit is not there.

Well with so many references to the space above us (the heavens) and strange craft " a chariot" coming down from the sky to the likes of Ezekiel (Ezekiel 1:4-28)  and things ascending and descending in pillars of flame and clouds of smoke that creates a sound so thunderous that it caused people to cower and lay themselves flat to the earth, you might just be onto something. And it wouldn't be anymore fanciful than your omnipotent being coming down to earth in a "chariot" and then leaving again on pillars of fire and smoke to a thunderous noise.







Firstly, Jacob does suggest he is wrestling with God, this flows from the name he called the place.

Yes he does doesn't he. He also says that this particular god /lord was a MAN doesn't he. I have already stated this why are you causing me to repeat myself yet again.
Well I suppose because it reminds me of a certain Jewish man in the NT who was fully man and fully God. 

  Secondly, the blessing here is not concretely set out.

I am not sure what you mean here. But I am convinced that given time you will no doubt present your own theory as fact and tell us all what is actually meant by this "blessing". You have conveniently left out the part where Jacob demands the blessing from the MAN,  it is not offered freely by the MAN.
In other words, no matter what I say, you have already formed your conclusion and my input is irrelevant. Thanks again for your arrogance. 



 26 Then the man said, “Let me go, for it is daybreak.”But Jacob replied, “I will not let you go unless you bless me.”



Thirdly, the manner in which he touched Jacob is significant. The text uses the word touch - and implies this wrenched his hip from its socket.

I love it when you interpret words to mean what you want them to mean contrary to what the scripture actually states. But just so I am clear, you do mean touch as in physically touching another with one's hand?  You have missed the point that  there is no mention of this lord relocating Jacobs hip either, nor any mention of the pain he must have been suffering with such a severe injury. Any medical journal will tell you the pain from a dislocated hip is excruciating . But are we going to discuss what is NOT written in the scripture now?
Scuse me. i am just reading the text. sorry it is not your translation. 


Such observance by his descendants clearly elevates what occurred here between this man and Jacob to something more than meeting with a highly educated human. 

Opinion counts for nothing ,I'm afraid.
that goes both ways.  but this is a page for opinions. you have given yours. I did not agree. 
Topic's author
#51
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,321
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@Tradesecret
My point was that despite the usage of the term man in the text, this does not mean "ordinary human".
 Yes and I have already agreed that this "MAN" was no ordinary human and that he seemed better informed and above both these patriarchs in status.  Queen Elizabeth II is no ordinary human woman is she! She is highly educated, of Royal Blood. She is of the highest status one can be. She is head of a country, an Army, Navy and Airforce and the head of the Church of England i.e she is high priestess. But she is also very very human!

Firstly, Jacob does suggest he is wrestling with God, this flows from the name he called the place.

No,he actually states clearly that he was wrestling with a MAN and suggests a MAN of some status  above himself and of some status who is in a position to bestow blessing on people lower than himself. Yet this MAN could not physically  subdue or overcome Jacob in a wrestling match.  And you really have to take note of what this MAN actually says and not wish something to have been said when it hasn't been said, i.e.

28 Then the man said, “Your name will no longer be Jacob, but Israel, because you have struggled with God and with humans and have overcome.”

Did you note that? THE MAN SAID  " you have struggled with god and humans" . He doesn't say -  because you have struggled with me, I your "god" and humans - does he? He appears to be talking about something entirely different to what had just occurred. This was not a " god" he was wrestling and conversing with,  it was a human of some status.


  
I am not sure what you mean here. But I am convinced that given time you will no doubt present your own theory as fact and tell us all what is actually meant by this "blessing". You have conveniently left out the part where Jacob demands the blessing from the MAN,  it is not offered freely by the MAN.
In other words, no matter what I say, you have already formed your conclusion and my input is irrelevant. Thanks again for your arrogance. 

Well listen to yourself. You too have formed your conclusion about you religious beliefs (or had them driven into you from an early age) and so to you anyone else's opinion or theories outside your own dogma is irrelevant.  But your input is not wasted at all on me. If find it interesting how you like to interpret these scriptures when these ambiguous half stories are highlighted.  
You didn't answer my question above,

here it is again:

 But just so I am clear, you do mean touch as in physically touching another with one's hand?  

You haven't explained what kind of blessing this was that Jacob could demand of this MAN but it was obviously important enough for Jacob to demand for it. You have also failed to explain how it was that Jacob, a mere lowly human of no status was in a position to demand a blessing at all from this MAN that you call a "god".


Thank you for staying on topic.
Topic's author
#52
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,321
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@Tradesecret
I am not sure whether you are talking aliens or from another human culture. In either case, the evidence I submit is not there.

Well with so many references to the space above us (the heavens) and strange craft " a chariot" coming down from the sky to the likes of Ezekiel (Ezekiel 1:4-28)  and things ascending and descending in pillars of flame and clouds of smoke that creates a sound so thunderous that it caused people to cower and lay themselves flat to the earth, you might just be onto something. And it wouldn't be anymore fanciful than your omnipotent being coming down to earth in a "chariot" and then leaving again on pillars of fire and smoke to a thunderous noise.

Watch and listen to this from 1;25 onwards to the end. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OnoNITE-CLc