Help me understand this

[kcmonseysr]

Brother, I think people over-do the whole Torah observance thing on this forum.

It's really not that complicated. Keep the laws that apply to you. I don't know what that number is, but I know pretty much which ones apply to me personally, and I do them as much as I can manage.

Sure, I lay tefillin, have a tallit katan under my shirt most days, keep kosher and all that stuff, but that's my personal conviction due to my understanding of how Jews are to live in this present age- according to their personal convictions. However, I don't apply my convictions as law for any other believer- Jew or Gentile. One must inform and follow his own conscience before God. I think that's what Paul was getting at in Romans 14 etc. (I call that the "forgotten chapter" of MJism)

I think anyone who is a Jew by birth who believes in Jesus as Messiah and Lord is a Messianic Jew. But that's just my opinion (and pretty much the whole of the planet agrees).

Amen my brother, on all of your points

 

[yonah_mishael]

Just got to place my agreement with CM (again). Greetings and salutations.

 

[Gxg (G²)]

Brother, I think people over-do the whole Torah observance thing on this forum.

It's really not that complicated. Keep the laws that apply to you. I don't know what that number is, but I know pretty much which ones apply to me personally, and I do them as much as I can manage.

Sure, I lay tefillin, have a tallit katan under my shirt most days, keep kosher and all that stuff, but that's my personal conviction due to my understanding of how Jews are to live in this present age- according to their personal convictions. However, I don't apply my convictions as law for any other believer- Jew or Gentile. One must inform and follow his own conscience before God. I think that's what Paul was getting at in Romans 14 etc. (I call that the "forgotten chapter" of MJism)



I think anyone who is a Jew by birth who believes in Jesus as Messiah and Lord is a Messianic Jew. But that's just my opinion (and pretty much the whole of the planet agrees).

Amen...

Too often (for a system where no one can do all aspects 100% nor were ever called to do so in light of how things have shifted in the era we live in through the Messiah), it seems that there's a mindset of where we individually follow the Torah to being how Jesus followed Torah and therefore ALL should follow it. And we're not called to reflect one another in order to reflect the Lord or be approved by Him.

And at the end of the day, who are we to judge another man? Some of those dynamics were discussed more in-depth in places such as When your Torah observance falls short and seat of Moses...

 

[mercy1061]

Thanks for the suggestion, Avodart. But I'll pass. I think that my question has been answered. I could only wish that, for the sake of honesty towards any casual visitors, that the title of this part of the Christian Forum would be re-named "Torah Observant Messianic Judaism" - so that the separation promoted here would be clear to all up front and not behind the scenes.

Just a final observation, and then my exit: Please beware. Reverse Replacement "Theology" is just as dangerous as its twin, Replacement "Theology".

More than enough said.

Blessings,

Ken

What is reverse replacement theology?

 

[kcmonseysr]

What is reverse replacement theology?

Hi mercy. Long time, no see .

In the sense that "replacement theology" is a term often used to describe the position of those who believe that Israel has lost her blessings from God and that all of those promises have passed to the "church", I am using the term "reverse replacement theology" to describe the position of those who believe that all who have truly trusted in Yeshua become part and parcel of Israel, i.e., gentiles become truly Jews.

Myself, I categorically reject both positions, but then what can anyone expect from someone like myself that is more or less of the Dispensational gentile camp of thought ???

Nooooowwwww mercy - please don't get carried away. I'm just stating a position and not looking at the moment for a long discussion . At least at this moment and not on this forum. I see that CF has an "Unorthodox Doctrinal Discussion" section that may be a better place if you're inclined http://www.christianforums.com/f130/ .

Blessings,

Ken

 

[Avodat]

Hi mercy. Long time, no see .

In the sense that "replacement theology" is a term often used to describe the position of those who believe that Israel has lost her blessings from God and that all of those promises have passed to the "church", I am using the term "reverse replacement theology" to describe the position of those who believe that all who have truly trusted in Yeshua become part and parcel of Israel, i.e., gentiles become truly Jews.

Myself, I categorically reject both positions, but then what can anyone expect from someone like myself that is more or less of the Dispensational gentile camp of thought ???

Nooooowwwww mercy - please don't get carried away. I'm just stating a position and not looking at the moment for a long discussion . At least at this moment and not on this forum. I see that CF has an "Unorthodox Doctrinal Discussion" section that may be a better place if you're inclined http://www.christianforums.com/f130/ .

Blessings,

Ken

I think I coined the term on CF. In a nut shell it is: Replacement Theology is the Gentilisation of Judaism esp. by 'the Church'. Reverse Replacement Theology is the Judaising of Gentiles by non-halachic conversion.

 

[kcmonseysr]

I think I coined the term on CF. In a nut shell it is: Replacement Theology is the Gentilisation of Judaism esp. by 'the Church'. Reverse Replacement Theology is the Judaising of Gentiles by non-halachic conversion.

Avodart - I was reasonably sure that I hadn't lost my mind and I KNEW that I hadn't invented the term, but couldn't remember where I'd seen it. I accept your coinage and clarification with much gratitude and, as it's a very succinct and descriptive term, would you mind muchly if I continued to use it as occasion demands?

Ken

 

[Avodat]

Avodart - I was reasonably sure that I hadn't lost my mind and I KNEW that I hadn't invented the term, but couldn't remember where I'd seen it. I accept your coinage and clarification with much gratitude and, as it's a very succinct and descriptive term, would you mind muchly if I continued to use it as occasion demands?

Ken

It is there to be used if it helps people - I only charge copyright for the hymns I have written .

Btw - there is no 'r' in my name

 

[kcmonseysr]

It is there to be used if it helps people - I only charge copyright for the hymns I have written .

Btw - there is no 'r' in my name

There won't be any problem there - if I were ever to sing one of your hymns, it would be worthless immediately and fovermore .

Hey - 'r', no 'r' - car, caw - fat fingers, dull eyes. It all comes out in the wash. Sorry 'bout that .

 

[mercy1061]

Hi mercy. Long time, no see .

Hi Ken, it is aways a pleasure to hear from you again.

In the sense that "replacement theology" is a term often used to describe the position of those who believe that Israel has lost her blessings from God and that all of those promises have passed to the "church",

I think "replacement theology" is when Abraham replaced Isaac on the altar, with the lamb without spot or blemish; do you agree with the worship of Abraham at the altar on that mountian?

I am using the term "reverse replacement theology" to describe the position of those who believe that all who have truly trusted in Yeshua become part and parcel of Israel, i.e., gentiles become truly Jews.

Do you think a gentile can become a proselyte? The pharisees loved to travel over land an sea to make one proselyte.

Matt 23

15 “Woe to you hypocritical Torah-teachers and P’rushim! You go about over land and sea to make one proselyte; and when you succeed, you make him twice as fit for Gei-Hinnom as you are!

Myself, I categorically reject both positions, but then what can anyone expect from someone like myself that is more or less of the Dispensational gentile camp of thought ???

I did not know the gentiles had a dispensational camp in ancient Israel? Do those gentiles dwell in tents outside in the wilderness?

Nooooowwwww mercy - please don't get carried away. I'm just stating a position and not looking at the moment for a long discussion . At least at this moment and not on this forum. I see that CF has an "Unorthodox Doctrinal Discussion" section that may be a better place if you're inclined http://www.christianforums.com/f130/ .

Blessings,

Ken

Which "Unorthodox Doctrinal Discussion" do you prefer?

 

[kcmonseysr]

Hi Ken, it is aways a pleasure to hear from you again.

Toda raba, mercy. You flatter me .​

I think "replacement theology" is when Abraham replaced Isaac on the altar, with the lamb without spot or blemish; do you agree with the worship of Abraham at the altar on that mountian?

Actually, Abraham replaced Isaac with a Ram, if I correctly recall the account given about this. Are you now telling me at this late date that I have been misled???

"...worship of Abraham.."? Oh vey!!! Please tell me it's not so and that you really mean to say "...worship by Abraham??? .."​

Do you think a gentile can become a proselyte? The pharisees loved to travel over land an sea to make one proselyte.

If a gentile sincerely wants to become a Jew, I'm under the impression that there are indeed rabbis ranging from Reformed to Ultra-Orthodox [maybe MJRs as well? I'm still learning...] views that would be more than willing to assist him. Except for any possible MJRs who may(?) encourage it, what would such a thing as this have to do with Yeshua?​

Matt 23

15 “Woe to you hypocritical Torah-teachers and P’rushim! You go about over land and sea to make one proselyte; and when you succeed, you make him twice as fit for Gei-Hinnom as you are!

I did not know the gentiles had a dispensational camp in ancient Israel?

Wow!!! Neither did I!!! Where did you read this??????? I'm spellbound by your tale!!!​

Do those gentiles dwell in tents outside in the wilderness?

They're still out there??? Still living there??? Fascinating!!! The thicken plottens!! Don't hold anything back!! What did your sources tell you???? Are these people subject to the IDF draft process??? Can they vote??? Are they discriminated against????​

Which "Unorthodox Doctrinal Discussion" do you prefer?

No preference. Similar in that regard as here, but maybe fewer good pickings than here . Some interesting, some not so much. I was just suggesting that if you were to start or participate in a thread, that there would (perhaps???) be fewer rules restricting any debate from goys like me .

Behave, mercy...

Blessings,

Ken

 

[mercy1061]

No preference. Similar in that regard as here, but maybe fewer good pickings than here . Some interesting, some not so much. I was just suggesting that if you were to start or participate in a thread, that there would (perhaps???) be fewer rules restricting any debate from goys like me .

Behave, mercy...

Blessings,

Ken

Do you agree with Abraham replacing Isaac with the ram?

 

[kcmonseysr]

Do you agree with Abraham replacing Isaac with the ram?

I am not sure if a simple person like me fully understands your question, as I can read it in more than one way. So if you will grant me some leeway to attempt to re-phrase it in two different ways, and see if one of them is maybe what you intended to ask? Danke.

Do I agree that Abraham actually took the action of offering the ram in place of Isaac? Yes. Even as it is written:

Avraham went and took the ram and offered it up as a burnt offering in place of his son. Gen 22:13 CJB​

Do I agree that Abraham should have replaced Isaac with the ram, that it was Abraham's primary "desire of choice" - i.e. did Abraham just simply decide of his own initiative - to replace Isaac as the offering with the ram as the offering? No. Why? Because Abraham DID offer up Isaac. Even as it is written:

By trusting, Avraham, when he was put to the test, offered up Yitz’chak as a sacrifice. Yes, he offered up his only son, he who had received the promises, to whom it had been said, “What is called your ‘seed’ will be in Yitz’chak.” For he had concluded that God could even raise people from the dead! And, figuratively speaking, he did so receive him. Heb 11:17-19 CJB​

Now, just because I (attempted?) to answer one of your questions (gee, thanks for keeping it down to one ), please don't get carried away with yourself and throw a whole bunch of your mysterious (to me, and maybe to most of us?? ) double entendre questions back at me. My warm milk and cookies are arriving and I'm going nity nite... "I am MAN - hear me SNORE!"

Blessings,

Ken

 

[mercy1061]

I am not sure if a simple person like me fully understands your question, as I can read it in more than one way. So if you will grant me some leeway to attempt to re-phrase it in two different ways, and see if one of them is maybe what you intended to ask? Danke.

Do I agree that Abraham actually took the action of offering the ram in place of Isaac? Yes. Even as it is written:

Avraham went and took the ram and offered it up as a burnt offering in place of his son. Gen 22:13 CJB​

Do I agree that Abraham should have replaced Isaac with the ram, that it was Abraham's primary "desire of choice" - i.e. did Abraham just simply decide of his own initiative - to replace Isaac as the offering with the ram as the offering? No. Why? Because Abraham DID offer up Isaac. Even as it is written:

By trusting, Avraham, when he was put to the test, offered up Yitz’chak as a sacrifice. Yes, he offered up his only son, he who had received the promises, to whom it had been said, “What is called your ‘seed’ will be in Yitz’chak.” For he had concluded that God could even raise people from the dead! And, figuratively speaking, he did so receive him. Heb 11:17-19 CJB​

Now, just because I (attempted?) to answer one of your questions (gee, thanks for keeping it down to one ), please don't get carried away with yourself and throw a whole bunch of your mysterious (to me, and maybe to most of us?? ) double entendre questions back at me. My warm milk and cookies are arriving and I'm going nity nite... "I am MAN - hear me SNORE!"

Blessings,

Ken

Did Abraham have only one son? Did Abraham offer up Isaac as a burnt offering? In the days of Noah, the world received judgement or death but Noah and his family received life. In the days of Isaac, did he receive judgement or life?

 

[yonah_mishael]

In the earlier version of the Akedah, it’s quite certain that Abraham did sacrifice Isaac. The blending of sources creates a story in which Isaac’s life was spared. You’re aware that there are two major sources in the book of Genesis, aren’t you? The Elohist (E) and Yahwist (J), when separated out, create two different stories of the Akedah. You can check it for yourself in the Hebrew text. Just suppose that it’s true and see what comes out of it. Read the verses that say God ([ha]Elohim) as one story and Yahweh or Yahweh Elohim as a different story. We see the story of Isaac actually end in the Elohist source in chapter 22. Never again does the term Elohim by itself appear in the Isaac story after the Akedah. Rather, it is Yahweh’s angel that stops Abraham from killing the child – and it is only Yahweh that appears throughout the rest of Isaac’s life, even though up until that point the name Elohim was used regularly in episodes of Abraham’s story without the name Yahweh.

It’s quite an interesting example of the division of sources. In the Elohist source, Isaac died that day on the altar at the hand of his own father. In From Gods to God: How the Bible Debunked, Suppressed, or Changed Ancient Myths and Legends, Avigdor Shinan and Yair Zakovitch make the argument that the Bible changed its own myths in order to present a different story in many cases. This book is a translation of the original Hebrew text לא כך כתוב בתנ"ך (Lo Kach Katuv BaTanach [That’s not how it’s written in the Bible]). Avigdor Shinan is professor of Jewish Studies at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem. He writes his books in Hebrew and argues for the standard scholastic position regarding the sources of the texts and changes that the compilers made to the text. Some of the changes are incomplete. For instance, the Bible gives two different places as the burial place of Jacob’s bones. I’d certainly encourage a reading of this book.

 

[kcmonseysr]

So - how do you understand the meaning of what is written in the Scriptures?

Did Abraham have only one son?

And Abraham called the name of his son who was born to him, whom Sarah bore to him, Isaac. Gen 21:3-4 NASB

Now Abraham gave all that he had to Isaac; but to the sons of his concubines, Abraham gave gifts while he was still living, and sent them away from his son Isaac eastward, to the land of the east. Gen 25:5-7 NASB
​

Did Abraham offer up Isaac as a burnt offering?

. By faith Abraham, when God tested him, offered Isaac as a sacrifice. He who had received the promises was about to sacrifice his one and only son, even though God had said to him, "It is through Isaac that your offspring will be reckoned." Abraham reasoned that God could raise the dead, and figuratively speaking, he did receive Isaac back from death Heb 11:17-19 NIV
​

In the days of Noah, the world received judgement or death but Noah and his family received life. In the days of Isaac, did he receive judgement or life?

Grammar - accidental or purposed? "he"? Noah, to the best of my knowledge, did not walk the earth in the days of Isaac. This is the type of question that tends to arise when someone seems to insist upon writing in a seemingly mysterious manner .​

Meanwhile, back at the ranch, hasn't this thread been hijacked more than enough already???? Why don't you simply live up to your chosen moniker and show some mercy by releasing this thread back to Rachel's question. It's her thread. She started it. Did ya happen ta notice????

I'm willing to play twenty questions with you (at least to a point), but only if you yourself want to badly enough to take the effort to start your own thread for this. May I suggest a title??? I will anyway: Mercy's Questions. And, as I sort of suggested earlier (did you maybe miss this suggestion, or ...you're not just being a mossik are you? Say it's not so, Joe!!!) - anyway, for me (and, just maybe, some others) to really join in, thi proposed new thread has to be taken out of the (Torah Observant?) Messianic Judaism forum section. If starting a new thread is too much effort for you, then it will be that much harder for me to take you seriously.

Blessings,

Ken

 

[mercy1061]

So - how do you understand the meaning of what is written in the Scriptures?

That is what we are trying to discuss, sometimes you quote (cut and paste) scriptures without providing any meaning. I asked you did Abraham have only one son? I thought this was rather a simple question. In response to a post from you quoting him offering his only son; your answer to my question:

<B>

And Abraham called the name of his son who was born to him, whom Sarah bore to him, Isaac. Gen 21:3-4 NASB

Now Abraham gave all that he had to Isaac; but to the sons of his concubines, Abraham gave gifts while he was still living, and sent them away from his son Isaac eastward, to the land of the east. Gen 25:5-7 NASB
​

</B>
​

Does this answer my question? How does Abraham having only one son offered up on the altar; yet it is said somewhere else he had other sons from his concubines? You have failed to explain the scriptures. The original post deals with being "dead to the law"; Pharisee Shaul in his letter(s) do speak about Isaac; Isaac was received back from death figuratively; so we are still on topic my friend. After Isaac was replaced on the altar was he "dead to the law"? The ram was indeed dead to the law after he was sacrificed as a burnt offering?

Then I asked you, was Isaac offered up as a burnt offering? Your answer:

By faith Abraham, when God tested him, offered Isaac as a sacrifice. He who had received the promises was about to sacrifice his one and only son, even though God had said to him, "It is through Isaac that your offspring will be reckoned." Abraham reasoned that God could raise the dead, and figuratively speaking, he did receive Isaac back from death Heb 11:17-19 NIV

Does this quote answer my question; are you saying that Isaac was offered up as a living sacrifice? Why did Abraham seek to use the knife instead of the fire? The angel objected to Abraham harming Isaac with a knife; Isaac was suppose to be offered up as a burnt offering. Usually fire is used in burnt offerings; do you agree?

In the days of Noah, the world received judgement or death but Noah and his family received life. In the days of Isaac, did he receive judgement or life? The "he" in my question refers Isaac not Noah. Your response:

Grammar - accidental or purposed? "he"? Noah, to the best of my knowledge, did not walk the earth in the days of Isaac. This is the type of question that tends to arise when someone seems to insist upon writing in a seemingly mysterious manner

Meanwhile, back at the ranch, hasn't this thread been hijacked more than enough already???? Why don't you simply live up to your chosen moniker and show some mercy by releasing this thread back to Rachel's question. It's her thread. She started it. Did ya happen ta notice????

I'm willing to play twenty questions with you (at least to a point), but only if you yourself want to badly enough to take the effort to start your own thread for this. May I suggest a title??? I will anyway: Mercy's Questions. And, as I sort of suggested earlier (did you maybe miss this suggestion, or ...you're not just being a mossik are you? Say it's not so, Joe!!!) - anyway, for me (and, just maybe, some others) to really join in, thi proposed new thread has to be taken out of the (Torah Observant?) Messianic Judaism forum section. If starting a new thread is too much effort for you, then it will be that much harder for me to take you seriously.

Blessings,

Ken

Do you think Isaac after being offered up as a living sacrifice (Rom 12:1)was dead to the law? Do you feel the ram after being offered up as a burnt offering was dead to the law?

 

[kcmonseysr]

That is what we are trying to discuss, sometimes you quote (cut and paste) scriptures

Gee, I wasn't aware that you could see my technique...​

without providing any meaning. I asked you did Abraham have only one son? I thought this was rather a simple question.

Obviously, it wasn't...​

In response to a post from you quoting him offering his only son; your answer to my question:

<B></B>
​

Does this answer my question? How does Abraham having only one son offered up on the altar; yet it is said somewhere else he had other sons from his concubines? You have failed to explain the scriptures. The original post deals with being "dead to the law"; Pharisee Shaul in his letter(s) do speak about Isaac; Isaac was received back from death figuratively; so we are still on topic my friend. After Isaac was replaced on the altar was he "dead to the law"?

The Law didn't come until some 400 years later. So your question here is meaningless.​

The ram was indeed dead to the law after he was sacrificed as a burnt offering?

The ram spoken of here was an animal. Are you saying that you believe that animals are under the Law?​

Then I asked you, was Isaac offered up as a burnt offering? Your answer:



Does this quote answer my question; are you saying that Isaac was offered up as a living sacrifice?

Hey, I gave you the quote, and lo and behold, methinks that you did not only read the quote, but you understood it!!!​

Why did Abraham seek to use the knife instead of the fire?

Maybe he was actually following what rules God had given him. You think maybe we could ask him (Abraham) someday?​

The angel objected to Abraham harming Isaac with a knife;

The angel objected to Abraham harming Isaac, period. Let me cut and paste once more:​

But the angel of Adonai called to him out of heaven: “Avraham? Avraham!” He answered, “Here I am.” 12 He said, “Don’t lay your hand on the boy! Don’t do anything to him! For now I know that you are a man who fears God, because you have not withheld your son, your only son, from me.” Gen 22:11-13 CJB​

Isaac was suppose to be offered up as a burnt offering. Usually fire is used in burnt offerings; do you agree?

As far as I know, the only god requiring a living being to be burnt as an offering is/was Molech. A burnt offering to the true God was killed with the knife before any burning took place. Are you not well aware of this, as a Jew?​

In the days of Noah, the world received judgement or death but Noah and his family received life. In the days of Isaac, did he receive judgement or life? The "he" in my question refers Isaac not Noah. Your response:




Do you think Isaac after being offered up as a living sacrifice (Rom 12:1)was dead to the law? Do you feel the ram after being offered up as a burnt offering was dead to the law?

As to Isaac, again, the Law didn't come until some 400 years later. As to the ram in question, at best the same time frame applies, and things go downhill from there? Your question here is meaningless.​

 

[mercy1061]

Gee, I wasn't aware that you could see my technique...
​

You need to use better techniques, perhaps the techniques you learned at Penn State University to obtain your engineering degree, so that I may learn from you; as well as everyone else on this forum.

Obviously, it wasn't...

You are right Ken; it wasn't a simple question . I admit I was trying to trap you (Matt 22:15); but you failed to fall into my spider-web argument. Ok Ken, let us review your crudentials; Petroleum and Natural Gas Engineering degree from Penn State University; State College, PA, average admissions standards (taken from PSU website) 3.5-3.97 GPA and 1750-2000 SAT; these are modest academic requirements; probably higher for engineering majors. Last year over 57K students applied to PSU, about 52% accepted, which means (please help me with my math I have never taken calculus course like you) over 20K students were denied admission! What does all this mean? Everybody can not attend PSU as a engineering major; everybody that attends PSU may not graduate with an engineering degree which requires "mastery" in math, engineering and science. Of course the Wall Street Journal (Corporate Recruiters) rank PSU as #1 to prepare students for the job market; according to the Wall Street Journal PSU was compared to ivy league schools and outperformed them. For the sake of our discussion; I will accept the Wall Street Journal oppinion concerning PSU. If anyone wants to to be contentious about PSU's "outstanding" reputation in the academic community, they are welcomed to visit the PSU State College website.
​

As to Isaac, again, the Law didn't come until some 400 years later.

Ken, I want you to read these scriptures as an engineer, not as an uneducated gentile. You have the ability to analyze and interpet data; Pharisee Shaul acknowledges that sin entered the world through Adam (Rom 5:12); Pharisee Shaul says "without law there is no sin" (Rom 5:13); for sin is the violation of the law (1 John 3:4). The law from nature existed during the creation account (Gen 1:1); sin existed since genesis; the law (pertaining to certain things) was not passed down until 400 years later;

As to the ram in question, at best the same time frame applies, and things go downhill from there? Your question here is meaningless.

Again, read the scriptures like an engineer from PSU, not as an ignorant gentile. You are born from jewish ancestry (Phil 3:5); you are well prepared for our discussion; don't give me an answer I would hear from a tv evangelist that does not honor torah or unborn from jewish ancestry.

The ram spoken of here was an animal. Are you saying that you believe that animals are under the Law?
​

What do you mean by "underneath the law"? I thought we were discussing "dead to the law"?

​

Hey, I gave you the quote, and lo and behold, methinks that you did not only read the quote, but you understood it!!!
​

The quote did not answer my question. If your professor at PSU asked you a engineering question in class, do you cut and paste a quote to answer his question? Ken, I need you interpet the quote; so that this quote can be put into daily practice. Do you think ancient Israel used "quotes" or engineers to build Solomon's temple? If the temple is to be rebuilt, engineers like Ken will be needed to rebuild the temple!

Maybe he was actually following what rules God had given him. You think maybe we could ask him (Abraham) someday?
​

Human religious sacrifices were always living (Daniel in the lion's den-Dan 6, 3 hebrew boys in the fiery furnace-Dan 3); animal sacrifices were always killed before being burned in the fire. The angel(s) appeared to Moses in fire (Ex 3:2); Abraham was breaking the rules when the angel told him to stop! That is why Abraham broke the rules, so his son could live; while the ram die! Was not Isaac's body bound on the altar for death?

​

Rom 7
24 What a miserable creature I am! Who will rescue me from this body bound for death?

Rom 12

I exhort you, therefore, brothers, in view of God&#8217;s mercies, to offer yourselves as a sacrifice, living and set apart for God. This will please him; it is the logical &#8220;Temple worship&#8221; for you.

The angel objected to Abraham harming Isaac, period. Let me cut and paste once more:
​

But the angel of Adonai called to him out of heaven: &#8220;Avraham? Avraham!&#8221; He answered, &#8220;Here I am.&#8221; 12 He said, &#8220;Don&#8217;t lay your hand on the boy! Don&#8217;t do anything to him! For now I know that you are a man who fears God, because you have not withheld your son, your only son, from me.&#8221; Gen 22:11-13 CJB
​

Abraham had the knife in his hand;

As far as I know, the only god requiring a living being to be burnt as an offering is/was Molech.

You are combing two concepts (worship practices); that should never be combined; again they were thrown into the fire alive.

A burnt offering to the true God was killed with the knife before any burning took place. Are you not well aware of this, as a Jew?

You are refering to animal sacrifices not human sacrifice.
​

 

[mercy1061]

Do I agree that Abraham should have replaced Isaac with the ram, that it was Abraham's primary "desire of choice" - i.e. did Abraham just simply decide of his own initiative - to replace Isaac as the offering with the ram as the offering? No. Why? Because Abraham DID offer up Isaac. Even as it is written:

This was such an amazing answer to my double "entendre" question. I am very impressed.

The angel objected to Abraham harming Isaac, period. Let me cut and paste once more:
​

But the angel of Adonai called to him out of heaven: &#8220;Avraham? Avraham!&#8221; He answered, &#8220;Here I am.&#8221; 12 He said, &#8220;Don&#8217;t lay your hand on the boy! Don&#8217;t do anything to him! For now I know that you are a man who fears God, because you have not withheld your son, your only son, from me.&#8221; Gen 22:11-13 CJB
​

Yes indeed! Did Abraham have a knife in his hand?

​