The God of OT vs the God of NT? Are they the same?

Blastcat said:

So, is it a loving god, an evil god, a good god, or a jealous god or a vengeful god, or a jewish war god or a political god or a creation god or a three in one god or a single god, or a drowning kind of a god?

Do you see my point? I could go on.. there are a lot of VIEWS about god.. there are what.. 30,000 denominations of Christians that disagree about one aspect of god or another?

I'm pretty sure that not ALL Christians will agree with your particular take on what god is supposed to BE. Some people have told me that ONLY the New Testament Jesus is the one true god and so forth.. I can't keep up, frankly.

So,,, why should I accept only YOUR version of a god?

Click to expand...

You should not accept my version...period. I think each person is accountable to go directly to God and seek answers from God Himself through prayer, talking to Him and sincerely reading and studying the scriptures and asking Him for understanding.

Here is one explanation, but again, I think each person needs to take questions and/or supposed contradictions up with God directly...

"The fact that the Bible is God’s progressive revelation of Himself to us through historical events and through His relationship with people throughout history might contribute to misconceptions about what God is like in the Old Testament as compared to the New Testament. However, when one reads both the Old and the New Testaments, it becomes evident that God is not different from one testament to another and that God’s wrath and His love are revealed in both testaments.

For example, throughout the Old Testament, God is declared to be a “compassionate and gracious God, slow to anger, abounding in love and faithfulness,” (Exodus 34:6; Numbers 14:18; Deuteronomy 4:31; Nehemiah 9:17; Psalm 86:5, 15; 108:4; 145:8; Joel 2:13). Yet in the New Testament, God’s loving-kindness and mercy are manifested even more fully through the fact that “God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life” (John 3:16). Throughout the Old Testament, we also see God dealing with Israel the same way a loving father deals with a child. When they willfully sinned against Him and began to worship idols, God would punish them. Yet, each time He would deliver them once they had repented of their idolatry. This is much the same way God deals with Christians in the New Testament. For example, Hebrews 12:6 tells us that “the Lord disciplines those he loves, and he punishes everyone he accepts as a son.”


Read more: Why is God so different in the Old Testament than He is in the New Testament?

Blastcat said:

So, let me get this straight. The THOUGHT about god changes, but not the god itself. Is that a THOUGHT about god?

Click to expand...

God is a concept beyond our ability to comprehend. The community of believer, with the guide of insightful thinkers, can improve their understanding.

Blastcat said:

So, I am to believe that you would have a higher level of knowledge about the god, than the people who actually wrote the stories themselves.

Click to expand...

Like science advances, technology advances, theology advances under the guide of luminaries.

Blastcat said:

Ok.. by what method would you say that you NOW know more the truth of this god than people in the past?

Click to expand...

By consideration of the teachings of great thinkers along mankind's upward advance.

Blastcat said:

So, you can't use god as a moral guide, then. Right. I would agree with that. We create our own morality. No gods required.

Click to expand...

I think once we have an understanding of the purpose of our lives, we then act in accordance with that purpose. That is my idea of morality.

Servant_of_the_One1 said:

(1 Samuel 15: 1-3)
The Violence in OT is clear.
Message is: Kill enemies of the God of Israel.


Now it seems the authors of NT are more confused and dont know weither to follow Love your enemies part or the sword:



The God of NT: Love your Enemies.
That sounds cool right? Until you read this:

Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword.

Click to expand...

It's the same God....
Centuries come and go, and the scheme of things at hand will shift.
Man seems to be a creature that needs constant correction.

like a child that flip-flops to extremes every time you try to teach him something he needs.

and Man as a species.....can soooooooo problematic......
sometimes all you can do is flood the whole thing over and try a new starting point.

but ultimately....the end.

Sooner or later, Man will play out his direction and potential.
Then the killing will begin.

Blastcat said:

So, I am to believe that you would have a higher level of knowledge about the god, than the people who actually wrote the stories themselves.

Click to expand...

Yes.

We have the luxury of understanding concepts that existed and evolved into the god concept you know today.


Those who defined the deity in the NT did so never having witnessed anything, or heard a word pass the mans lips.


The OT described a god hundreds of years in the past, when people of that time were not in agreement about the one god.


Due to many of the historical errors in the OT, its credibility as a stand alone source is not there.

Blastcat said:

So, you can't use god as a moral guide, then. Right. I would agree with that. We create our own morality. No gods required.

Click to expand...

Agreed.

The moral guides ion the religious text exist and stand tall whether there is a deity or not.

The errors do not matter. You don't fix the bible, it fixes you.

Flankerl said:

Shemot 23:4-5
If you come upon your enemy's bull or his stray donkey, you shall surely return it to him.
If you see your enemy's donkey lying under its burden would you refrain from helping him? You shall surely help along with him.

Mishlei 24:17-18
When your enemy falls, do not rejoice, and when he stumbles, let your heart not exult,
lest the Lord see and be displeased, and turn His wrath away from him.

Mishlei 25:21-22
If your enemy is hungry, feed him bread, and if he is thirsty, give him water to drink;
for you will be scooping coals on his head, and the Lord will reward you.

Click to expand...

Thanks, but then again women and children are not spared by the OT:

1. Hosea 13:16
Samaria shall bear her guilt, because she has rebelled against her God; they shall fall by the sword, their little ones shall be dashed in pieces, and their pregnant women ripped open. (NRSV)



3. Deuteronomy 3:3-6
So the LORD our God delivered Og also, king of Bashan, with all his people into our hand, and we smote them until no survivor was left. We captured all his cities at that time; there was not a city which we did not take from them: sixty cities, all the region of Argob, the kingdom of Og in Bashan. All these were cities fortified with high walls, gates and bars, besides a great many unwalled towns. We utterly destroyed them, as we did to Sihon king of Heshbon, utterly destroying the men, women and children of every city. (NASB)


2. 1 Samuel 15:3,8
Now go, attack the Amalekites and totally destroy everything that belongs to them. Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys.' " … He took Agag king of the Amalekites alive, and all his people he totally destroyed with the sword.(NIV)



Could this be the reason why israel doesnt mind to kill lots of palestinian children and women? Because it is told they can destroy gentiles, the blood of gentile is allowed to spilled?

InChrist said:

You should not accept my version...period. I think each person is accountable to go directly to God and seek answers from God Himself through prayer, talking to Him and sincerely reading and studying the scriptures and asking Him for understanding.

Here is one explanation, but again, I think each person needs to take questions and/or supposed contradictions up with God directly...

"The fact that the Bible is God’s progressive revelation of Himself to us through historical events and through His relationship with people throughout history might contribute to misconceptions about what God is like in the Old Testament as compared to the New Testament. However, when one reads both the Old and the New Testaments, it becomes evident that God is not different from one testament to another and that God’s wrath and His love are revealed in both testaments.

For example, throughout the Old Testament, God is declared to be a “compassionate and gracious God, slow to anger, abounding in love and faithfulness,” (Exodus 34:6; Numbers 14:18; Deuteronomy 4:31; Nehemiah 9:17; Psalm 86:5, 15; 108:4; 145:8; Joel 2:13). Yet in the New Testament, God’s loving-kindness and mercy are manifested even more fully through the fact that “God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life” (John 3:16). Throughout the Old Testament, we also see God dealing with Israel the same way a loving father deals with a child. When they willfully sinned against Him and began to worship idols, God would punish them. Yet, each time He would deliver them once they had repented of their idolatry. This is much the same way God deals with Christians in the New Testament. For example, Hebrews 12:6 tells us that “the Lord disciplines those he loves, and he punishes everyone he accepts as a son.”


Read more: Why is God so different in the Old Testament than He is in the New Testament?

Click to expand...

Do you think the Crusaders(classic and modern) were inspired by the war verses in OT and NT(the sword verse and Book of revelation)?

I think if NT was 100% about love, and christians followed that while dumping OT there wouldnt be crusades(fighting for the sake of Trinity).

InChrist said:

You should not accept my version...period. I think each person is accountable to go directly to God and seek answers from God Himself through prayer, talking to Him and sincerely reading and studying the scriptures and asking Him for understanding.

Click to expand...

Directly to God. Your version of Christianity is what God tells you directly. That's it then? We can't verify that your god is real in any way at all?

"The fact that the Bible is God’s progressive revelation of Himself to us through historical events and through His relationship with people throughout history might contribute to misconceptions about what God is like in the Old Testament as compared to the New Testament. However, when one reads both the Old and the New Testaments, it becomes evident that God is not different from one testament to another and that God’s wrath and His love are revealed in both testaments.

Click to expand...

Well, it's not evident to many. But.. what does it matter if you get your facts straight from God himself, to your door. Right?

I suppose that your special revelation guarantees just about anything you make a claim for. That might convince yourself, but not at all any outsider. That doesn't concern you at all?

For example, throughout the Old Testament, God is declared to be a “compassionate and gracious God, slow to anger, abounding in love and faithfulness,” (Exodus 34:6; Numbers 14:18; Deuteronomy 4:31; Nehemiah 9:17; Psalm 86:5, 15; 108:4; 145:8; Joel 2:13). Yet in the New Testament, God’s loving-kindness and mercy are manifested even more fully through the fact that ...

Click to expand...

Sorry, but this is the same god who drowns every baby on earth .. Sorry, but you have a very strange definition of what is loving and kind. I guess those awful babies deserved to drown in the flood, right? Those NASTY babies. Not forgetting the many babies still in the WOMBS who died along with their mothers.. LOVE? KINDNESS? ... No, I don't see it.

“God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life” (John 3:16).

Sorry, but that's sick. He could have just forgave humanity, but .. somehow needed a blood sacrifice? What a monstrous god that truly is. Well, maybe if you made the claim that the god was perfectly EVIL, I might agree that it's the same god.. but a loving, kind god who needs to have his own SON put to death because it can't just FORGIVE people?

Sick.. I just see that as sick.. Old or New Testament.. this is a pathological god. But you must know better because you talk to him on a daily basis. In your mind. Yeah.. really convincing that is.. in your mind it all happens.. too bad nobody can verify that.. I think you did prove your point, though, the old and the new testament talks about a psychotic god.. the same god.. more of the same..

Not as loving as you seem to know him as.. but hey. I don't talk to him on a daily basis.. OH.. next time you talk to him, how about you ask for a general cure for CANCER in babies.. just saying.. Maybe since you guys are such buddies and all.. ahh heck.. we KNOW he won't do that.. It's a GOOD thing that babies die of cancer. Or MAYBE you can ask him anything at all that might be a benefit to mankind.. no? Not going to tell you that is he?

What DOES he tell you.. to keep believing or you will burn in hell?

Old Testament, New Testament, still the perfectly evil god ... take it from me.. I just "know" things like that. It all just "comes" to me.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Servant_of_the_One1 said:

Thanks, but then again women and children are not spared by the OT:

1. Hosea 13:16
3. Deuteronomy 3:3-6
2. 1 Samuel 15:3,8

Could this be the reason why israel doesnt mind to kill lots of palestinian children and women? Because it is told they can destroy gentiles, the blood of gentile is allowed to spilled?

Click to expand...

So your relentlessly literalist, decontextualized readings of Christian English translations of Jewish texts seem like they make good fodder for vapid anti-Semitic polemics and politics. Big shock.

Of course, I'm sure that if some non-Muslim were to quote Quran verses and Hadiths from translations done by non-Muslims, stripping them of all the nuance with which Muslims interpret them and understand them, so as to justify Islamophobic slanders, you would probably pitch a fit and cry foul.

Clearly you're not interested in actual scripture and interpretation, actual theology and philosophy, and how Jews (or probably Christians either) actually read and understand their sacred texts. You're just trolling, doing a little more recreational Jew-baiting (and, I guess, Christian baiting, also). Way to dumb down the forum a little more.

Levite said:

So your relentlessly literalist, decontextualized readings of Christian English translations of Jewish texts seem like they make good fodder for vapid anti-Semitic polemics and politics. Big shock.

Of course, I'm sure that if some non-Muslim were to quote Quran verses and Hadiths from translations done by non-Muslims, stripping them of all the nuance with which Muslims interpret them and understand them, so as to justify Islamophobic slanders, you would probably pitch a fit and cry foul.

Clearly you're not interested in actual scripture and interpretation, actual theology and philosophy, and how Jews (or probably Christians either) actually read and understand their sacred texts. You're just trolling, doing a little more recreational Jew-baiting (and, I guess, Christian baiting, also). Way to dumb down the forum a little more.

Click to expand...

Brother in mankind,
I quoted verses from the Bible OT.

So do u agree with the butchering of women and children? If not, are u not disbelieving in the OT?

Servant_of_the_One1 said:

Brother in mankind,
I quoted verses from the Bible OT.

So do u agree with the butchering of women and children? If not, are u not disbelieving in the OT?

Click to expand...

I don't "disbelieve in the OT." I believe in Torah and the rest of Tanach (we do not use "Old Testament," that is what Christians call it): I believe that Tanach is nuanced, and designed to be interpreted, not always to be taken literally. And I also believe that while parts of it contain revelation from God, that revelation is filtered through the lens of the human prophets. They did their best to pass on the meaning of the visions they received from God, but inevitably, what they wrote was colored by the context of their time and place, and the attitudes that went with it.

When Tanach speaks of our ancestors warring on other nations around them, it describes how wars were fought two and a half thousand years ago and more: brutal, and with the presumption that one's victory meant that God approved of one's actions. When the Prophets depict visions of the People Israel achieving vengeance on the nations that wronged it, that is the poetry of the oppressed, not directions for what God wants of us.

Written Torah (in its widest sense of including all the Tanach) must be understood in light of Oral Torah, in its widest sense incorporating not only Talmud but also the teachings of the commentators, jurists, and philosophers of the past 1500 years who have inherited the interpretive authority and duty to teach passed on by the Rabbis of the Talmud. Torah (again, in its widest sense) must not be read simplistically, literally, rigidly: it must be the foundation for an evolving understanding of God and what He wants from us.

"Do you agree with the butchering of women and children" is a useless question, because it lacks nuance and context. In the abstract, of course I don't agree with killing women and children. However, when one fights wars, casualties will occur, no matter how careful those who fight may be. That is why it is best to avoid wars altogether, and to work toward a world where wars are no longer fought. That is also why no civilized nation conducts total war in the fashion it was conducted 2500 years ago. Our understanding of the ethics of war evolves, just as all other ideas of ethics, theology, and everything else evolves.

Asking "Do you agree with the butchering of women and children" based on reading of a 2500 year old text shows a profound lack of understanding of the reality of reading and interpreting text over time. And in general, presuming either ethical, juridical, or ritual thought and practice based on the Written Torah in the absence of the Oral Torah shows a profound lack of understanding of the reality of how Judaism works.

Blastcat said:

So, you can't use god as a moral guide, then. Right. I would agree with that. We create our own morality. No gods required.

Click to expand...

That doesn't mean there is no Higher Power.....or consequence for the code of behavior you deem appropriate.

Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.
(everyone knows this)

What if there is a God and heaven....and they ARE willing to do unto you.....as you did unto others?
that might include denial.....

Blastcat said:

Ok, fair enough... But you still assume that one of the things that there are different opinions possible about this god. Nobody really can say that they KNOW what this god is or isn't. Right?
Is that what you mean?

Click to expand...

Even though billions of people probably claim they know, I have strong doubts anyone really knows. My inkling is that God, or maybe even Gods, is/are intrinsic with "creation" (Spinoza's and Einstein's approach), but I'm not willing to bet my house on this.

Servant_of_the_One1 said:

Brother in mankind,
I quoted verses from the Bible OT.

So do u agree with the butchering of women and children? If not, are u not disbelieving in the OT?

Click to expand...

Out of curiosity, how many innocent people will be killed today by Muslims worldwide in the name of Allah?

My opinion - which, I freely admit, doesn't matter - is that (provided God even exists) they are considered the same, but it means that God changed his mind, and is, therefore, fallible - even if only to himself.

If God does not exist, then a simple explanation is that the church of old started realizing that people didn't like the doom and gloom statements of the OT and were trying to "make it fresh" for a developing and maturing crowd of believers. "More flies with honey" and all...

Thief said:

That doesn't mean there is no Higher Power.....or consequence for the code of behavior you deem appropriate.

Click to expand...

And it also doesn't mean there IS a Higher Power. And of course, we have laws and consequences enough for breaking them. We don't need any kind of god or HP for that.

Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.
(everyone knows this)

Click to expand...

Well, except, as I stated before there are things that YOU might like done to you, that I would NEVER want done to me. How about BEFORE you do onto me something how about you CHECK with me if I would like it too. You might discover that we don't agree on moral issues as much as you might have assumed. So, the Golden Rule needs an update.

What if there is a God and heaven....and they ARE willing to do unto you.....as you did unto others?
that might include denial.....

Click to expand...

Thanks for the speculation. What if there isn't a heaven?.. What if there IS a HP and it's perfectly evil? How would you know? If you can speculate something into existence, then so can I.

I am "doing" speculation as you would speculate unto me. It's kind of trivial, and meaningless.

George-ananda said:

God is a concept beyond our ability to comprehend. The community of believer, with the guide of insightful thinkers, can improve their understanding.

Click to expand...

So, you are saying that you can comprehend what you can't comprehend? I don't get it.. you comprehend something or you don't comprehend it... How can multiplying ignorance equal to knowledge? This makes no sense.

Like science advances, technology advances, theology advances under the guide of luminaries.

Click to expand...

It's so nice that you have luminaries. They also cannot comprehend. As you stated, God is a concept that is beyond your ability to comprehend. Are you now saying that these luminaries DO comprehend God or not? .. You really seem to want it both ways, and I'm not feeling particularly generous about that right now. Can you make up your mind?

By consideration of the teachings of great thinkers along mankind's upward advance.

Click to expand...

But if these great thinkers can't comprehend God, then what does it matter what they think about it? It's all INCOMPREHENSION from the human camp. So, these great thinkers have thought a lot about what they don't comprehend?

Well.. great. They don't comprehend God VERY WELL.. lol
And whose to say that there is a god TO comprehend in the first place? I have no reason to just grant that to you.

metis said:

Even though billions of people probably claim they know, I have strong doubts anyone really knows. My inkling is that God, or maybe even Gods, is/are intrinsic with "creation" (Spinoza's and Einstein's approach), but I'm not willing to bet my house on this.

Click to expand...

By intrinsic, do you mean a metaphor for the universe? .. God is a nice word, after all.. like Einstein using the term "old man".. I like that too. and mother nature is nice... metaphors.. because humans sure do like their metaphors, don't we?

Blastcat said:

By intrinsic, do you mean a metaphor for the universe? .. God is a nice word, after all.. like Einstein using the term "old man".. I like that too. and mother nature is nice... metaphors.. because humans sure do like their metaphors, don't we?

Click to expand...

Einstein hypothesized that God may well be the energy that forms all "creation", and I can see that as a possibility but I have no clue as to whether it's correct. To him, the concept of a God similar to the Abrahamic depictions was highly unlikely, and he even used the term "childish".

Spinoza felt that God was so intrinsic with everything that he often substituted "Nature" for God. In this case, "Nature" means virtually everything. So, a way of phrasing this approach can be summed up this way: "What is, Is".

I tend to take the position that whatever caused our universe/multiverse I'll call "God" and pretty much leave it at that. To me, there's simply not enough information for me to take it any further, so why should I guess. Or, to put it another way: "Whatever happened, Happened".