The three Abrahamic Gods

[firedragon]

Thanks. I understand the claim that a God exists (or, gods exist) but as a "methodological naturalist" I don't know what real thing ─ thing not entirely conceptual / imaginary ─ the word "God" is intended to denote. Nor, so far, has any "methodological theist" been able to tell me.

I did not understand that.

Cheers.

 

[blü 2]

I did not understand that.

Cheers.

Sorry for being unclear.

The idea is simply that things that are solely conceptual or imaginary are not real ─ do not exist independently in reality ─ by which I mean the world external to the self, which we know about via our senses.

So for God to be real [he] would have to be real, that is, to be found as a material entity in nature.

Otherwise [he] exists only as a concept or thing imagined.

 

[firedragon]

Sorry for being unclear.

The idea is simply that things that are solely conceptual or imaginary are not real ─ do not exist independently in reality ─ by which I mean the world external to the self, which we know about via our senses.

So for God to be real [he] would have to be real, that is, to be found as a material entity in nature.

Otherwise [he] exists only as a concept or thing imagined.

Well, with that premise, you can never discuss this topic clearly.

So, thanks for the engagement. Have a great day.

 

[blü 2]

Well, with that premise, you can never discuss this topic clearly.

So, thanks for the engagement. Have a great day.

Thank you. Go well.

 

[1213]

Genesis 17

1 When Abram was ninety-nine years old the LORD appeared to Abram, and said to him, "I am God Almighty; walk before me, and be blameless.
2 And I will make my covenant between me and you, and will multiply you exceedingly."
[...]
7 And I will establish my covenant between me and you and your descendants ...
​

...To be one of God's male people you MUST be circumcised. How is that not the Law?

Thanks. I have understood the God’s law is the ten commandments, and probably all the smaller rules God gave to Moses. It is called the law in the Bible. Circumcision was given to Abraham as the sign of the covenant God made with him. When people are circumcised, they take part of that covenant. And when they do so, they are required to live accordingly. That is why I think it is not actual law, but like seal of an agreement.

I think it is important to notice that it is part of the covenant. Now, according to the Bible, God made a new covenant with people, through Jesus. In that covenant that old circumcision is not required, but the law is the same, meaning, people should love God over all and neighbor as themselves, which fulfills the ten commandments. The new covenant was foretold in the Old Testament and it has also circumcision.

For finding fault with them, he said, "Behold, the days come," says the Lord, "That I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah; Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers, In the day that I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt; For they didn't continue in my covenant, And I disregarded them," says the Lord. "For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel. After those days," says the Lord; "I will put my laws into their mind, I will also write them on their heart. I will be to them a God, And they will be to me a people. They will not teach every man his fellow citizen, Every man his brother, saying, 'Know the Lord,' For all will know me, From the least of them to the greatest of them. For I will be merciful to their unrighteousness. I will remember their sins and lawless deeds no more."
Hebrews 8:8-12 (Jeremiah 31:31-34)

People broke the old covenant, which is why God prepared a new one. In that the law is still valid, but, it is “written into persons heart”.

Yahweh your God will circumcise your heart, and the heart of your seed, to love Yahweh your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, that you may live. Yahweh your God will put all these curses on your enemies, and on those who hate you, who persecuted you. You shall return and obey the voice of Yahweh, and do all his commandments which I command you this day. Yahweh your God will make you plenteous in all the work of your hand, in the fruit of your body, and in the fruit of your cattle, and in the fruit of your ground, for good: for Yahweh will again rejoice over you for good, as he rejoiced over your fathers;
Deuteronomy 30:6-9

Reason why I think the law is fulfilled by loving your neighbor as yourself is this:

One of them, a lawyer, asked him a question, testing him. "Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the law?" Jesus said to him, "'You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind.' This is the first and great commandment. A second likewise is this, 'You shall love your neighbor as yourself.' The whole law and the prophets depend on these two commandments." …
Matt. 22:35-41

One of the scribes came, and heard them questioning together. Knowing that he had answered them well, asked him, "Which commandment is the greatest of all?" Jesus answered, "The greatest is, 'Hear, Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is one: you shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind, and with all your strength.' This is the first commandment. The second is like this, 'You shall love your neighbor as yourself.' There is no other commandment greater than these." The scribe said to him, "Truly, teacher, you have said well that he is one, and there is none other but he, and to love him with all the heart, and with all the understanding, with all the soul, and with all the strength, and to love his neighbor as himself, is more important than all whole burnt offerings and sacrifices."
Mark. 12:28-33

…Love doesn't harm a neighbor. Love therefore is the fulfillment of the law.
Romans 13:8-10

The purpose of law is to tell what is wrong so that people would not harm others. if you love others, you don’t do bad things to them and then you fulfill the law.

 

[blü 2]

Thanks. I have understood the God’s law is the ten commandments, and probably all the smaller rules God gave to Moses. It is called the law in the Bible. Circumcision was given to Abraham as the sign of the covenant God made with him.

The Covenant in Genesis 17 is clearly expressed. But what does the "new covenant" actually say? I can't find any coherent statement of it.

And how is it compatible with Matthew's Jesus saying (Matthew 5:18) "till heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the law until all is accomplished"?

 

[sojourner]

Judaism, Christianity and Islam are referred to, often enough, as the Abrahamic religions, which many take to be an assertion that they worship the one God.

But neither the Jews nor the Muslims worship the Trinitarian God of the Christians.

And the Jewish God never made a covenant with either the Christians (thanks to Paul) or the Muslims.

And only the Jews follow the Law. The Christians have their own usual rules, and the Muslims have their own usual rules.

It's undoubtedly true that people of decency, kindness,and generosity are found in all three, as in the rest of humanity.

But praying to Yahweh, praying to the crucified Jesus or the Triune God, and praying to Allah are three distinct conceptual frames, psychologically and culturally.

All three claim a common starting point but (evolution being a force of nature) from there I see three gods, not one.

Any argument?

Just because there are three distinct conceptual frames doesn’t mean that three gods are being worshiped. It means that the one God evades our full understanding.

 

[Batya]

The Covenant in Genesis 17 is clearly expressed. But what does the "new covenant" actually say? I can't find any coherent statement of it.

And how is it compatible with Matthew's Jesus saying (Matthew 5:18) "till heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the law until all is accomplished"?

The new covenant is generally misunderstood, I think, by mainstream Christianity as something like, "The law wasn't good enough so he sent Jesus to die for our sins so that we can go to heaven, and now we are under grace so there is no need to be under the bondage of the law." To the contrary, the new covenant as spoken of in Jeremiah 31 says that the "law" (Torah) would be written on our hearts, not annulled. Yeshua meant what he said, the law will not be abolished. He kept the law, and we are told to follow his example, so for people to say that we are to do what Yeshua did, yet insist he did away with the law, is nonsense, in my opinion.

31 “Behold, the days are coming, says the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah— 32 not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt, My covenant which they broke, though I was a husband to them," says the Lord. 33 But this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, says the Lord: I will put My law in their minds, and write it on their hearts; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people. 34 No more shall every man teach his neighbor, and every man his brother, saying, ‘Know the Lord,’ for they all shall know Me, from the least of them to the greatest of them, says the Lord. For I will forgive their iniquity, and their sin I will remember no more.”

 

[blü 2]

Just because there are three distinct conceptual frames doesn’t mean that three gods are being worshiped. It means that the one God evades our full understanding.

That's not how it appears to me.

The starkest difference is the Trinitarian god, who's actually three gods but you're not allowed to say so.

But there's no equivalent to the Jewish Covenant or the Jewish Law in either Christianity or Islam.

And so on.

 

[blü 2]

The new covenant is generally misunderstood, I think, by mainstream Christianity as something like, "The law wasn't good enough so he sent Jesus to die for our sins so that we can go to heaven, and now we are under grace so there is no need to be under the bondage of the law." To the contrary, the new covenant as spoken of in Jeremiah 31 says that the "law" (Torah) would be written on our hearts, not annulled. Yeshua meant what he said, the law will not be abolished. He kept the law, and we are told to follow his example, so for people to say that we are to do what Yeshua did, yet insist he did away with the law, is nonsense, in my opinion.

But the Law in Judaism isn't just the ten commandments. It requires circumcision of males, it has dietary requirements, you must avoid menstruating women, put witches to death, and oh so much more.

But I generally agree with your remarks about the "new covenant".

 

[Batya]

But the Law in Judaism isn't just the ten commandments. It requires circumcision of males, it has dietary requirements, you must avoid menstruating women, put witches to death, and oh so much more.

But I generally agree with your remarks about the "new covenant".

Yes, I understand that, and I believe we are to do those things still today (obviously we don't have jurisdiction to be putting people to death these days, as was there case in Israel at times throughout their history. I believe we are in exile ultimately until the Messiah returns, therefore there will not have true biblical sovereignty and jurisdiction until that time). My family and I strive to do those things, as well as many people that we know, I'd say we are a very tiny sub-group within Christianity (I say Christianity because we're believe in the Yeshua, but I generally don't identify as a Christian because I believe many of the things they hold to are false). I think perhaps people would consider Christians a much less hypocritical group if they actually began embracing those things which are clearly laid it in the whole Bible. The NT has a message that is consistent with that of the tanach if only people would read or carefully, honestly, and with the context of the tanach in mind.

 

[sojourner]

That's not how it appears to me.

The starkest difference is the Trinitarian god, who's actually three gods but you're not allowed to say so.

But there's no equivalent to the Jewish Covenant or the Jewish Law in either Christianity or Islam.

And so on.

1) If you think the Trinity represents three gods, you don’t understand the doctrine.
2) Laws, codes, and doctrines may differ, but they all point us toward a God who creates us, loves us, and lives in the spaces between us.

 

[blü 2]

Yes, I understand that, and I believe we are to do those things still today (obviously we don't have jurisdiction to be putting people to death these days, as was there case in Israel at times throughout their history. I believe we are in exile ultimately until the Messiah returns, therefore there will not have true biblical sovereignty and jurisdiction until that time).

And when you do you'll put people to death for being witches, for being disrespectful to their parents, for shaving their beards, and more, and more? Neither God nor we have come any moral distance since the Bronze Age? That sounds like a particularly horrible kind of unfreedom.

And more generally, no person, believer or not , should ever be required to live in someone else's theocracy.

 

[blü 2]

1) If you think the Trinity represents three gods, you don’t understand the doctrine.

Christian theologists call the Trinity doctrine "a mystery in the strict sense" in that it "cannot be known by unaided human reason apart from revelation, nor cogently demonstrated by reason after it has been revealed" (Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church, with which the online Catholic Encyclopedia, in rather less direct words, agrees).

It will only take you a moment to notice that anything which answers that description would usually be called "a nonsense" in polite society, while other synonyms may be found elsewhere.

The Trinity doctrine is not only not found, but expressly denied, in the NT. Paul, and each of the Jesuses of Mark, Matthew, Luke and John expressly denies he's God and never once claims to be God. The doctrine is devised in the 4th century CE to satisfy Christian political pressure to promote Jesus to God status ─ but without opening the Church to the charge that like the pagans, they're polytheists.

Therefore the doctrine declares that the Father is not Jesus or the Ghost and is 100% of God, Jesus is not the Father or the Ghost and is 100% of God, and the Ghost is not the Father or Jesus and is 100% of God. It will already have occurred to you that 100% + 100% + 100% = 300% = three gods, and the only thing that stands between us and the obvious is the doctrine's declaration that this isn't so in this case because it's "a mystery in the strict sense" instead ─ which as I said above, means it's a nonsense.

It doesn't explain, when you pray to God, who answers the phone; nor why the Jesuses of Mark and Matthew should say on the cross, "Me, me, why have I forsaken me?"; nor why, since Jesus is the son of God and Jesus is 100% of God, and so is the Ghost and so is the Father, the Father is singled out to be called the Father ─ and so on.

 

[1213]

The Covenant in Genesis 17 is clearly expressed. But what does the "new covenant" actually say? I can't find any coherent statement of it.

And how is it compatible with Matthew's Jesus saying (Matthew 5:18) "till heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the law until all is accomplished"?

I think Jeremiah 31:31-34 and Deuteronomy 30:6-9 are coherent and define the new covenant well. What do you think is unclear in them?

And as those scriptures tell, the law is written in persons heart, as said in Jeremiah 31:31-34 “..I will put my laws into their mind, I will also write them on their heart…”.

 

[blü 2]

I think Jeremiah 31:31-34 and Deuteronomy 30:6-9 are coherent and define the new covenant well. What do you think is unclear in them?

And as those scriptures tell, the law is written in persons heart, as said in Jeremiah 31:31-34 “..I will put my laws into their mind, I will also write them on their heart…”.

The point is that in those verses the cover of the book changes, but the contents remain the law. What's written on your heart is that you shall not suffer a witch to live, you shall not eat port or shellfish, you shall not be in the company of menstruating women, since they're unclean &c.

The NT statements that Jesus' blood is shed for the 'new covenant' either mean that and are unanimously ignored, or are undefined and therefore have no particular meaning at all.

 

[Batya]

The NT statements that Jesus' blood is shed for the 'new covenant' either mean that and are unanimously ignored, or are undefined and therefore have no particular meaning at all.

What is it that makes you think that is the case?

 

[sojourner]

The Trinity doctrine is not only not found, but expressly denied, in the NT

Only if one doesn’t bother to actually exegete the texts. There are several things in the NT that hint at Jesus’ divinity, not the least of which is resurrection, itself.

100% + 100% + 100% = 300%

This isn’t math, it’s theology.

It doesn't explain, when you pray to God, who answers the phone

Prayer isn’t about getting God to answer a phone.

nor why the Jesuses of Mark and Matthew should say on the cross, "Me, me, why have I forsaken me?

You’re forgetting that there are three persons — not one — in the Trinity.

You’re making all the same inadequate arguments. This isn’t cosmology, it’s theology. Make a theological argument, and you might have something.

 

[blü 2]

What is it that makes you think that is the case?

What do you think the "new covenant" actually says?

It appears to have no coherent definition at all.

 

[1213]

The NT statements that Jesus' blood is shed for the 'new covenant' either mean that and are unanimously ignored, or are undefined and therefore have no particular meaning at all.

I would like to see the scripture before commenting. I don’t think Bible says “Jesus' blood is shed for the 'new covenant'”.

Bible says for example this:

Then he took a loaf of bread, gave thanks, broke it in pieces, and handed it to them, saying, “This is my body, which is given for you. Keep on doing this in memory of me.” He did the same with the cup after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood, poured out for you.
Luke 22:19-20

By that, the blood of the covenant is the wine. It does not mean that the wine turns into blood. Earlier covenants were confirmed by blood, this is by the wine. The wine is like the blood in earlier deals. And if you take the wine by those words Jesus told, you take part of that new Covenant.

Moses took the blood, and sprinkled it on the people, and said, "Look, this is the blood of the covenant, which Yahweh has made with you concerning all these words."
Ex. 24:8

Instead of using actual blood like Moses did, Jesus used wine as the blood of the covenant.