u/Iknowreligionalot

God says in exodus 20:4
4 “You shall not make for yourself an image in the form of anything in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the waters below.

Therefore those who make statues, icons and images of Jesus, Mary, angels, prophets and saints are violating this commandment, and nearly every catholic and orthodox church has this, which means they are all in serious trouble, they are not even keeping the Ten Commandments, the most basic and fundamental commandments of god.

1ST POTENTIAL REFUTATION: Exodus 20:5 shows this prohibition is directly in relation to making images to bow to.

REBUTTAL: The prohibition against bowing to images is not within the same prohibition, it’s a separate prohibition from making images.
It does not say, “do not make images to bow to”, it says do not make images and do not bow to those images, those are two separate, independent commands.
It’s like if I say:

1. ⁠do not run a red light.
2. ⁠and do no run over pedestrians when running a red light.
   That doesn’t mean I can run a red light so long as I don’t run over pedestrians.

Also, Catholics and orthodox christians kneel, bow and direct their prayers to the figures, that violates the exodus 20:5 prohibition, so even if the image-making prohibition was only in relation to making images to bow to, Catholics and orthodox Christians still violate it.

2ND POTENTIAL REFUTATION: The Israelites make cherubim statues and images in Exodus 36:8, Exodus 36:35 and Exodus 37:7-9.

REBUTTAL: The wording in the prohibition of images in exodus 20:4 specifies “for yourself”, meaning the images can’t be made for themselves, but the cherubim images god orders the Israelites to make for the ark of the covenant in exodus 25:17-19 is not for themselves, they are making those images at the command of god for god’s dwelling on the ark of the covenant, so it’s for god and not themselves.

On the other hand, Catholics and orthodox Christians make the images, statues and icons of Jesus, Mary, angels, prophets and saints for themselves, so that they can see and venerate them, without any command from god to do so. This would be like the Israelites making an icon, statue or image of Moses after he died, that would be utterly prohibited according to the prohibition of exodus 20:4 regardless of the intentions behind making the image or what they do with the image.

Thesis statement: Since god says making an image of anything is banned, but then orders the Israelites to make a cherubim statue, he broke his own rule and therefore caused the Bible to contradict itself.

God says in exodus 20:4
4 “You shall not make for yourself an image in the form of anything in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the waters below.

But then he tells the Israelites to make cherubim images:

Exodus 25:17-19
17 “Make an atonement cover of pure gold—two and a half cubits long and a cubit and a half wide. 18 And make two cherubim out of hammered gold at the ends of the cover.19 Make one cherub on one end and the second cherub on the other; make the cherubim of one piece with the cover, at the two ends.

Thesis statement: Since the author of Mathew mistakenly attributed the Immanuel prophecy to Jesus, this means we can’t know which prophecies are actually about Jesus or not.

This is because:

1. The prophecy says nothing at all about a virgin, yet the central part of the prophecy’s fulfillment in the birth narrative is that he was born to a virgin, without that aspect the prophecy is meaningless.
2. The prophecy is in the present tense, meaning there was a young woman there already pregnant at the time.
3. The prophecy is fulfilled in the same book two or three chapters later.
4. The prophecy says “they” will call the child Immanuel, meaning the people, but no where in any Christian work is Jesus called Immanuel, let in alone by a group of people or particular person.

Even more damming, the author of Mathew changes the wording of the prophecy to make it less problematic by making it say, “they” will call the child rather than the Old Testament wording which says “she” as in the mother will call the child Immanuel. So in this case the prophecy of the Old Testament doesn’t even extend to the people, it’s only for Mary, but Mary never calls Jesus Immanuel, she doesn’t even name Jesus Immanuel.

6. The boy was intended as a sign for king ahaz that god would not let Aram and Ephraim invade Jerusalem (Isaiah 7:1-16), this obviously can't be Jesus.

So not only does Jesus fulfill none of this, but it means the author has no idea what he’s talking about, which means the Holy Spirit may have been on vacation the day he wrote this, or maybe the author of Mathew was not divinely inspired.

Paul was not under divine inspiration because he doesn’t understand the scripture he quotes.

He says in Galatians 3:10
For all who rely on the works of the law are under a curse, as it is written: “Cursed is everyone who does not continue to do everything written in the Book of the Law.”

He understands that verse to mean that those who rely on the works of the law are under a curse,

whereas the verse says that those who DO NOT CONTINUE TO DO everything written in the book of law are the ones that are cursed, so it’s the exact opposite of what Paul thinks it means.

Since his misunderstood or misrepresented this verse he can’t be under divine inspiration.

Thesis statement: Muhhamad actually received divine revelation because the other possibilities are less likely.

Preface: This argument is meant to be taken from within the Abrahamic tradition, therefore it presupposes the existence of the Abrahamic god, and nothing more. So don’t ask me to prove god first before I prove divine revelation, because that’s not the point of the argument.

There are four possibilities regarding the revelation Muhammad claimed to have received, either:

1. He lied and made everything up 

2. He genuinely experienced what he claimed to have experienced but it was schizophrenia 

3. He genuinely experienced what he claimed to have experienced but it was from the devil

4. Or he genuinely experienced what he claimed to have experienced and it was divine revelation

   

It is unlikely that he lied and made everything up because:

-He was known by his community to be abnormally honest. 

-He was present at every war of his and was on the front lines of some of them.

-He was offered wealth, status and women so that he would stop preaching Islam but he turned the offer down.

-He and his initial group of followers were socially and economically boycotted in Mecca leading to severe starvation he still did not stop.

-When Khadijah and Abu talib died he lost the clan protection he had in Mecca, yet he still did not stop.

-When his followers were persecuted, tortured and killed in Mecca he still did not stop.

-When he went to ta’if seeking support he was driven out with stones thrown at him, yet he still did not stop. 

-When he was driven out of Mecca he still did not stop. 

-When he was wounded in the battle of uhud he still did not stop 

-When he was completely outnumbered in four of his battles he still did not stop.

-He used to stay up for part of each night praying, sacrificing his sleep for worship.

-He commanded and participated in extensive fasting despite the discomfort of doing so.

-He commanded and participated in many restrictive and strenuous rulings and religious duties despite how hard this would be for himself and his followers to follow, and how unappealing it would make his religion.

-He could have gained a larger Christian following by affirming the sonship, death, resurrection and divinity of Jesus but he didn’t.  

-The Quran calls him out for his shortcomings.

If he was lying for the sake of money, status or power he would have stopped his mission because of the things I just mentioned, but he didn’t, so all of this points to a man who truly believed in what he was preaching and did not lie about his subjective mystical experiences. Therefore the possibility that he lied and made everything up is unlikely.

The second possibility is that he actually believed in what he preached and actually experienced what he claimed to have experienced but it was the result of schizophrenia. This possibility is unlikely because:
-The Quran was and is still widely recognized as a literary masterpiece and a foundational piece of Arabic literature, with extreme eloquence, unique syntax, an extensive vocabulary and a deep, consistent and coherent message. It also revolutionized Arabic prose with its rhythmic  cadence. This is not characteristic of a text produced by a schizophrenic mind, so it is unlikely his beliefs and mystical claims were due to schizophrenia. 

The third possibility is that he actually believed in what he preached and actually experienced what he claimed to have experienced but it was from a devil. This possibility is unlikely because:
-The devil’s goal is to get people to go against the commandments of god and ugo to hell as a result, therefore what he would inspire in people would be teachings and a message that called people to breaking the commandments of god and going against the fundamental theology associated with the god of Abraham, but the Quran’s teachings and message are the exact opposite, it calls to pure monotheism and worship that is only directed to the god of Abraham, and to prayer, fasting, giving charity, helping the widow and the orphan and shunning evil, not only that but the text orders the reader to seek refuge in the god of Abraham from the devil, making it unlikely to be from the devil. It would be way more advantageous for the devil to keep Arabia polytheistic.

This leaves us with the fourth and final possibility, which is that that muhumad actually believed in what he preached and actually experienced what he claimed to have experienced and it was divine revelation. Hyper-skepticism can always drive someone to doubt and dismiss, but the mere existence of a rebuttal against an argument does not mean the rebuttal is valid, as no matter how true and right something is, hyper-skepticism can always produce a rebuttal for it.

When I say “person” I mean a person according to Christian theology, not necessarily a person of the trinity, but not like the casual usage of the term “person”.

Isaiah 65:17-18
17
“See, I will create
new heavens and a new earth.
The former things will not be remembered,
nor will they come to mind.
18 
But be glad and rejoice forever
in what I will create,
for I will create Jerusalem to be a delight
and its people a joy.

Revelation 21:1-2
And I saw a new heaven and a new earth: for the first heaven and the first earth were passed away; and there was no more sea.
2 And I John saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down from God out of heaven, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband.

It seems like no matter how many blatant contradictions I point out, Christians always have an excuse, so if nothing I point out are contradictions then what are contradictions? Where are they? What text has them? It seems like from the Christian worldview you have to subconsciously believe no text has contradictions.

In the new heavens and earth there is still death and reproduction (Isaiah 65:20 & 23), and farming and construction work (Isaiah 65:21), so heaven sounds pretty terrible for Christians and Jews but that’s beside the point. The real focus is that death still exists despite having been thrown in the lake of fire after judgment day in revelation 20:14, obviously symbolizing the end of death. This contradicts the whole idea of the promise of eternal life in heaven that is all throughout the New Testament.

Isaiah 65:17-23
17
“See, I will create
new heavens and a new earth.
The former things will not be remembered,
nor will they come to mind.
18 
But be glad and rejoice forever
in what I will create,
for I will create Jerusalem to be a delight
and its people a joy.
19 
I will rejoice over Jerusalem
and take delight in my people;
the sound of weeping and of crying
will be heard in it no more.
20 
“Never again will there be in it
an infant who lives but a few days,
or an old man who does not live out his years;
the one who dies at a hundred
will be thought a mere child;
the one who fails to reach\[a\] a hundred
will be considered accursed.
21 
They will build houses and dwell in them;
they will plant vineyards and eat their fruit.
22 
No longer will they build houses and others live in them,
or plant and others eat.
For as the days of a tree,
so will be the days of my people;
my chosen ones will long enjoy
the work of their hands.
23 
They will not labor in vain,
nor will they bear children doomed to misfortune;

In the new heavens and earth there is still death and reproduction (Isaiah 65:20 & 23), and farming and construction work (Isaiah 65:21), so heaven sounds pretty terrible for Christians and Jews but that’s beside the point. The real focus is that death still exists despite having been thrown in the lake of fire after judgment day in revelation 20:14, obviously symbolizing the end of death. This contradicts the whole idea of the promise of eternal life in heaven that is all throughout the New Testament.

Isaiah 65:17-23
17
“See, I will create
new heavens and a new earth.
The former things will not be remembered,
nor will they come to mind.
18 
But be glad and rejoice forever
in what I will create,
for I will create Jerusalem to be a delight
and its people a joy.
19 
I will rejoice over Jerusalem
and take delight in my people;
the sound of weeping and of crying
will be heard in it no more.
20 
“Never again will there be in it
an infant who lives but a few days,
or an old man who does not live out his years;
the one who dies at a hundred
will be thought a mere child;
the one who fails to reach[a] a hundred
will be considered accursed.
21 
They will build houses and dwell in them;
they will plant vineyards and eat their fruit.
22 
No longer will they build houses and others live in them,
or plant and others eat.
For as the days of a tree,
so will be the days of my people;
my chosen ones will long enjoy
the work of their hands.
23 
They will not labor in vain,
nor will they bear children doomed to misfortune;

I asked why three persons sharing the same essence equals one being with god while with everything else it equals three beings, and was told that although normally three persons equals three beings because everything’s nature/essence is divisible, for god it’s one being despite there being three persons because god’s nature/essence is indivisible. So in light of that, what evidence is there in the Bible that god’s nature/essence is indivisible?

A father must always be a separate being from his son or else the distinction between father and son is meaningless. If a single being is somebody’s father he can’t also be his own son, and if a being is somebody’s son he can’t also be his own father.

It is a logical impossibility for a father to be his own son and for a son to be his own father.

By definition, a father precedes the existence of his son, it is a logical impossibility for something to eternally precede something else because if it came before that thing then there must have been a point in time where the thing it preceded did not exist, but eternality entails that both things have always existed, therefore one could not exist before the other. It does not matter whether you call these two things persons, natures, essences or beings, so long as they exist the conclusion still stands.

X=Father
Y=Son

X must precede Y in order for their titles as father and son to have any significant meaning.

But if X precedes Y then X must have existed before Y at some point in time.

And if X existed before Y at some point in time then X cannot be Y.

Think of it like a single being arriving at a store,
he cannot arrive before he has already arrived because the second he arrives this means he arrived,
so whoever arrives after him cannot be him because he has already arrived, he cannot arrive while he has already arrived and is present in the store and hasn’t left. This is why if X preceded Y it cannot be Y.

A father must always be a separate being from his son or else the distinction between father and son is meaningless. If a single being is somebody’s father he can’t also be his own son, and if a being is somebody’s son he can’t also be his own father.

It is a logical impossibility for a father to be his own son and for a son to be his own father.

By definition, a father precedes the existence of his son, it is a logical impossibility for something to eternally precede something else because if it came before that thing then there must have been a point in time where the thing it preceded did not exist, but eternality entails that both things have always existed, therefore one could not exist before the other. It does not matter whether you call these two things persons, natures, essences or beings, so long as they exist the conclusion still stands.

X=Father
Y=Son

X must precede Y in order for their titles as father and son to have any significant meaning.

But if X precedes Y then X must have existed before Y at some point in time.

And if X existed before Y at some point in time then X cannot be Y.

Think of it like a single being arriving at a store,
he cannot arrive before he has already arrived because the second he arrives this means he arrived,
so whoever arrives after him cannot be him because he has already arrived, he cannot arrive while he has already arrived and is present in the store and hasn’t left. This is why if X preceded Y it cannot be Y.

This a contradiction and therefore the Bible cannot be from god in its entirety.

In **Isaiah 40:28** it says god will not grow tired or weary.

But in **Exodus 31:17** it says he was refreshed after resting from creating the universe,

**Exodus 31:17:** It will be a sign between me and the Israelites forever, for in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, and on the seventh day he rested and was refreshed.’ ”

**and was refreshed.’”**
וַיִּנָּפַֽשׁ׃ (way·yin·nā·p̄aš)
Conjunctive waw | Verb - Nifal - Consecutive imperfect - third person masculine singular
[Strong's 5314:](https://biblehub.com/hebrew/strongs\_5314.htm) To breathe, refreshed הַשְּׁבִיעִ**֔י שָׁ****ב**ַ֖ת וַיִּנָּפַֽשׁ׃ ס

That verse uses the same “refresh” word used in these verses:

**Exodus 23:12**
“Six days do your **work**, but on the seventh day do not work, so that your ox and your donkey may **rest**, and so that the slave born in your household and the foreigner living among you may be **refreshed**.

(This verse has the same exact concept of the verse and even uses the same words, it’s the concept of six days of work, then rest from that work because of weariness, and then being refreshed because of the rest).

**may be refreshed,**
וְיִנָּפֵ֥שׁ (wə·yin·nā·p̄êš)
Conjunctive waw | Verb - Nifal - Conjunctive imperfect - third person masculine singular
[Strong's 5314:](https://biblehub.com/hebrew/strongs\_5314.htm) To breathe, refreshed

**2 Samuel 16:14**
The king and all the people with him arrived at their destination **exhausted**. And there he **refreshed** himself.
(The king is weary and then refreshes himself, this explicitly connects exhaustion to the refreshed word).

**he refreshed himself.**
וַיִּנָּפֵ֖שׁ (way·yin·nā·p̄êš)
Conjunctive waw | Verb - Nifal - Consecutive imperfect - third person masculine singular
[Strong's 5314:](https://biblehub.com/hebrew/strongs\_5314.htm) To breathe, refreshed
———————-

**Conclusion:** This is a contradiction, either god does not grow tired and weary or he does. I’ve shown that all the words mean exaclty as the translation translates them so no one can say, “well the translators were just joking around”, and I’ve shown an explicit connection between weariness and refreshment logically, conceptually and linguistically.

**Possible rebuttal:** Someone might say this is a metaphor, but if this is a metaphor and not a contradiction,

1. then no single text in the world can be said to have a contradiction because any apparent contradiction could just be called a metaphor.

2. Secondly, nothing in the text indicates it is a metaphor, especially considering the Israelites were supposed to do exactly what god did, in the sense of ceasing work after a week of working in order to be refreshed from their weariness.

3. Thirdly, if it is a metaphor, then why stop there? Why not assume the creation of the heavens and the earth in seven days is a metaphor? That’s more worthy of being a metaphor.

4. Fourthly, the only real way to tell whether something is literal or a metaphor is by how ridiculous it would be if the phrase were taken literally, so for example if I said, “bob hurt himself”, there’s no indication that is a metaphor because it is normal and expected that bob could have hurt himself before, nothing is nonsensical or exaggerated about the phrase when taken literally. But if I were to say, “bob killed himself making those burgers” while bob was still alive, that would clearly be a metaphor because it would be weird, unexpected and nonsensical if someone killed themselves in the process of making burgers, especially if they were still alive in the moment the statement was said. Similarly, if god says he rested after a week’s work of creating and was refreshed, it is not a metaphor because it is expected and normal that after the hard work of a week’s worth of creation work, a rest day would follow and refreshment would come because of the resting, it’s normal and expected that at the excessive expenditure of energy resting would follow and that resting would lead to the replenishment of that energy in refreshment.

There’s nothing wrong with god ceasing from work, but to call that ceasing from work “resting” like how a jogger takes a break from jogging, and to imply that resting refreshed god is just nonsense.

And ask yourself, if someone with a completely unbiased perspective on this, with no horse in this race, were to observe it, would they consider it a contradiction or would they use whatever rebuttal you are going to use?

Or consider if you found this contradiction in the religious text of a religion you didn’t belong to, would you accept the argument you are about to make in response to my post from someone of that religion if they made that same argument to you in defense of the contradiction?

This a contradiction and therefore the Bible cannot be from god in its entirety.

In Isaiah 40:28 it says god will not grow tired or weary.

But in Exodus 31:17 it says he was refreshed after resting from creating the universe,

Exodus 31:17: It will be a sign between me and the Israelites forever, for in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, and on the seventh day he rested and was refreshed.’ ”

and was refreshed.’”
וַיִּנָּפַֽשׁ׃ (way·yin·nā·p̄aš)
Conjunctive waw | Verb - Nifal - Consecutive imperfect - third person masculine singular
Strong's 5314: To breathe, refreshed הַשְּׁבִיעִ֔י שָׁ****בַ֖ת וַיִּנָּפַֽשׁ׃ ס

That verse uses the same “refresh” word used in these verses:

Exodus 23:12
“Six days do your work, but on the seventh day do not work, so that your ox and your donkey may rest, and so that the slave born in your household and the foreigner living among you may be refreshed.

(This verse has the same exact concept of the verse and even uses the same words, it’s the concept of six days of work, then rest from that work because of weariness, and then being refreshed because of the rest).

may be refreshed,
וְיִנָּפֵ֥שׁ (wə·yin·nā·p̄êš)
Conjunctive waw | Verb - Nifal - Conjunctive imperfect - third person masculine singular
Strong's 5314: To breathe, refreshed

2 Samuel 16:14
The king and all the people with him arrived at their destination exhausted. And there he refreshed himself.
(The king is weary and then refreshes himself, this explicitly connects exhaustion to the refreshed word).

he refreshed himself.
וַיִּנָּפֵ֖שׁ (way·yin·nā·p̄êš)
Conjunctive waw | Verb - Nifal - Consecutive imperfect - third person masculine singular
Strong's 5314: To breathe, refreshed
———————-

Conclusion: This is a contradiction, either god does not grow tired and weary or he does. I’ve shown that all the words mean exaclty as the translation translates them so no one can say, “well the translators were just joking around”, and I’ve shown an explicit connection between weariness and refreshment logically, conceptually and linguistically.

Possible rebuttal: Someone might say this is a metaphor, but if this is a metaphor and not a contradiction,

1. then no single text in the world can be said to have a contradiction because any apparent contradiction could just be called a metaphor.

2. Secondly, nothing in the text indicates it is a metaphor, especially considering the Israelites were supposed to do exactly what god did, in the sense of ceasing work after a week of working in order to be refreshed from their weariness.

3. Thirdly, if it is a metaphor, then why stop there? Why not assume the creation of the heavens and the earth in seven days is a metaphor? That’s more worthy of being a metaphor.

4. Fourthly, the only real way to tell whether something is literal or a metaphor is by how ridiculous it would be if the phrase were taken literally, so for example if I said, “bob hurt himself”, there’s no indication that is a metaphor because it is normal and expected that bob could have hurt himself before, nothing is nonsensical or exaggerated about the phrase when taken literally. But if I were to say, “bob killed himself making those burgers” while bob was still alive, that would clearly be a metaphor because it would be weird, unexpected and nonsensical if someone killed themselves in the process of making burgers, especially if they were still alive in the moment the statement was said. Similarly, if god says he rested after a week’s work of creating and was refreshed, it is not a metaphor because it is expected and normal that after the hard work of a week’s worth of creation work, a rest day would follow and refreshment would come because of the resting, it’s normal and expected that at the excessive expenditure of energy resting would follow and that resting would lead to the replenishment of that energy in refreshment.

There’s nothing wrong with god ceasing from work, but to call that ceasing from work “resting” like how a jogger takes a break from jogging, and to imply that resting refreshed god is just nonsense.

And ask yourself, if someone with a completely unbiased perspective on this, with no horse in this race, were to observe it, would they consider it a contradiction or would they use whatever rebuttal you are going to use?

Or consider if you found this contradiction in the religious text of a religion you didn’t belong to, would you accept the argument you are about to make in response to my post from someone of that religion if they made that same argument to you in defense of the contradiction?

God explicitly denies being a man in the OT, but Christians insist that a man was god, therefore Christianity cannot be from the god of the OT

In numbers 23:19 it says, “god is not a man that he should lie, not a man that he should change his mind”.

In 1 Samuel 15:29 it says, “**He** who is the Glory of Israel does not **lie** or change his mind; for **he** is not a human being, **that** **he** **should** change his mind.”

In Hosea 11:9 he says, “for I am god and not a man”,

Hosea 11:9
I will not carry out my fierce anger,
nor will I devastate Ephraim again.
For I am God, and not a man—
the Holy One among you.
I will not come against their cities.

And in Malachi 3:6 he says, “I the Lord do not change.”

So if god says he is not a man, and he also says he does not change, this means he will never become a man.

Despite all of this, Christians insist that god is a man, therefore the Christian religion cannot be from the god of the Hebrew Bible.

Some rebuttals:

1. Someone may say I’m taking all the verses out of context, so please show how its context nullifies god’s claim that he is not a man. Also, religious Jews use this verse to debunk Christianity, does this mean every single religious Jew managed to misunderstand these verses and take them out of context?
2. Someone may say that the point of the passages were to say that god doesn’t lie or change his mind rather than proving he wasn’t a man.
3. This doesn’t matter, god makes a claim in those passages, whether the purpose of the passage is focused on that claim is irrelevant, if I say, “I am not an idiot that I should say dumb things”, just because the purpose of me saying that is to tell people that I don’t say dumb things, doesn’t change the fact that I claimed to not be an idiot, the greater goal of my statement does not nullify the claim made in the statement.

I would essentially be saying, “Idiots say dumb things, I am not an idiot therefore I do not say dumb things”, and this is the same thing god is saying about being a man, he is saying,” humans lie and change their mind, I am not a human therefore I do not lie or change my mind”.

Also the Hosea verse has god himself explicitly claiming not to be a man without any follow up claim, so even if that rebuttal was valid it still wouldn’t apply to the Hosea verse.

In numbers 23:19 it says, “god is not a man that he should lie, not a man that he should change his mind”.

In 1 Samuel 15:29 it says, “He who is the Glory of Israel does not lie or change his mind; for he is not a human being, that he should change his mind.”

In Hosea 11:9 he says, “for I am god and not a man”,

Hosea 11:9
I will not carry out my fierce anger,
nor will I devastate Ephraim again.
For I am God, and not a man—
the Holy One among you.
I will not come against their cities.

And in Malachi 3:6 god says,”I the Lord do not change.”

If god says he is not a man, and he also says he does not change, this means he will never become a man.

Despite all of this, Christians insist that god is a man, therefore the Christian religion cannot be from the god of the Hebrew Bible.

Some rebuttals:

1. Someone may say I’m taking all the verses out of context, so please show how its context nullifies god’s claim that he is not a man. Also, religious Jews use this verse to debunk Christianity, does this mean every single religious Jew managed to misunderstand these verses and take them out of context?
2. Someone may say that the point of the passages were to say that god doesn’t lie or change his mind rather than proving he wasn’t a man.
3. This doesn’t matter, god makes a claim in those passages, whether the purpose of the passage is focused on that claim is irrelevant, if I say, “I am not an idiot that I should say dumb things”, just because the purpose of me saying that is to tell people that I don’t say dumb things, doesn’t change the fact that I claimed to not be an idiot, the greater goal of my statement does not nullify the claim made in the statement.

I would essentially be saying, “Idiots say dumb things, I am not an idiot therefore I do not say dumb things”, and this is the same thing god is saying about being a man, he is saying,” humans lie and change their mind, I am not a human therefore I do not lie or change my mind”.

Also the Hosea verse has god himself explicitly claiming not to be a man without any follow up claim, so even if that rebuttal was valid it still wouldn’t apply to the Hosea verse.

Jesus cannot be god because god is all-knowing at all times yet Jesus claimed the mustard seed was the smallest of all seeds on earth when it isn’t.

There are many other smaller seeds, one of which being orchid seeds.

Matthew 13:31-32 (NIV): "He told them another parable: “The kingdom of heaven is like a mustard seed, which a man took and planted in his field. 32 Though it is the smallest of all seeds…".

Mark 4:30-32 (NIV): "...It is like a mustard seed, which, when sown upon the ground, is the smallest of all the seeds on earth".

Jesus cannot be god because god is all-knowing at all times yet Jesus claimed the mustard seed was the smallest of all seeds on earth when it isn’t.

Matthew 13:31-32 (NIV): "He told them another parable: “The kingdom of heaven is like a mustard seed, which a man took and planted in his field. 32 Though it is the smallest of all seeds…".
Mark 4:30-32 (NIV): "...It is like a mustard seed, which, when sown upon the ground, is the smallest of all the seeds on earth".

There are many other smaller seeds, one of which being orchid seeds.