I cut and pasted this from the other thread. Figured it would keep things more on track within each thread and you were so kind as to start this one and all. :)
It is clear that the old testament God (on the surface) was created by man in man's own image.
The Old Testament God? That implies there is a New Testament God, then there is "the God of this World", I guess that makes a trinity
Seriously though, how many gods do you believe in, DWW?
I read something a Rabbi wrote, can't quite remember his name..
He said something to the effect that "we don't have the same God as our ancestors".. then he said, it wasn't exactly that God himself changed, but our understanding of him.
several hundred years ago, their God made the sun rise and set every day.. by Newton's day, their God made the laws that enabled the earth to orbit the sun.
I cut and pasted this from the other thread. Figured it would keep things more on track within each thread and you were so kind as to start this one and all. :)
The Old Testament God? That implies there is a New Testament God, then there is "the God of this World", I guess that makes a trinity
Seriously though, how many gods do you believe in, DWW?
I am glad you re-pasted your quote, that really did inspire this thread.
I consider the Old Testament God to be both a mix of the god of this world and the one truth God.
I also believe it is the holy spirit that helps us discern the old testament God into the respective parts.
This might explain why satan and God were both seemingly chums in the book of Job.
Where in the new testament we learn that God has no conversation with darkness.
I don't believe the true God was ever in the law of Moses fully.
When the word "god" is used even by Moses it is suspect and subject to his own spiritual limitations as a prophet.
I see two god's were used synonymously and interchangeably in the OT...
One god where some people sought justification by the law and one God where people sought justification out of a pure love and trust for the true God to deliver them in spite of their physical position concerning the law.
One justification by the faith on the belief of a coming messiah and one justification by the law of Moses. One justification from Menchizidek on the justification by sacrifice.
Proverbs 16:25
There is a way that seemeth right unto a man, but the end thereof are the ways of death.
Comment: For instance Lot, why would God consider Lot righteous if he had foreknowledge and knew the future of Lot's indiscretions after Sodom and Gomorrah. How could God looking ahead perceive Lot as "righteous" if he was all about the law?
Because it never was ALL about the law. The law always was only PART. See, you sort of exemplify one of the problems I see with modern Christianity. You claim that the Torah is part of your Bible, but know so very very little about it. In addition, you have left out so much of the oral tradition that goes hand in hand with the Torah. It is like trying to run a race with a broken leg.
BTW, what Lot did, he did in ignorance. He was drunk. The role his daughters played, though perhaps misguided, was still done with good intentions as well. If anything, your own example of Lot shows crystal clear that as I said, it never was ALL about the law. Forgiveness was ALWAYS available. God's love was ALWAYS available. and so on.
Offering this excerpt from his book, Dawkins declared with disdain, “The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully.”
BTW, if you can pick apart the Old Testament and say this prophet had this wrong and that prophet had the gods mixed up, etc., then why do you seem to take such great offense at Shifra for picking apart the New Testament and questioning Paul?
BTW, if you can pick apart the Old Testament and say this prophet had this wrong and that prophet had the gods mixed up, etc., then why do you seem to take such great offense at Shifra for picking apart the New Testament and questioning Paul?
Very good point.
Paul is after Christ where Moses was before Christ. Paul was after the arrival of gnosis. "The ability to "know" God..." (Mohamed was also after Christ too)
Philippians 4:7
And the peace of God, which passeth all understanding, shall keep your hearts and minds through Christ Jesus.
Comment: In the end it is simply a matter of my own "opinion"...
I tend to believe that Paul was genuine. I don't believe that the logic of the Church would have been "complete" and would have been subject to a much greater abuse had the Epistles of Paul not been written and preserved. It is just my opinion, but in this is the same proverb that if one rejects Paul are they also rejecting Christ and ultimately the will and word of God. So in rejecting Paul am I crucifying Jesus Christ afresh? I don't want to go down in life as a accuser of the innocent.
I am hesitant to reject such writings of Paul simply because (and I think this is the case) they may address subjects that are sometimes not that pleasant to talk about.
Recommended Posts
Abigail
I cut and pasted this from the other thread. Figured it would keep things more on track within each thread and you were so kind as to start this one and all. :)
The Old Testament God? That implies there is a New Testament God, then there is "the God of this World", I guess that makes a trinity
Seriously though, how many gods do you believe in, DWW?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ham
I read something a Rabbi wrote, can't quite remember his name..
He said something to the effect that "we don't have the same God as our ancestors".. then he said, it wasn't exactly that God himself changed, but our understanding of him.
several hundred years ago, their God made the sun rise and set every day.. by Newton's day, their God made the laws that enabled the earth to orbit the sun.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
DrWearWord
I am glad you re-pasted your quote, that really did inspire this thread.
I consider the Old Testament God to be both a mix of the god of this world and the one truth God.
I also believe it is the holy spirit that helps us discern the old testament God into the respective parts.
This might explain why satan and God were both seemingly chums in the book of Job.
Where in the new testament we learn that God has no conversation with darkness.
I don't believe the true God was ever in the law of Moses fully.
When the word "god" is used even by Moses it is suspect and subject to his own spiritual limitations as a prophet.
I see two god's were used synonymously and interchangeably in the OT...
One god where some people sought justification by the law and one God where people sought justification out of a pure love and trust for the true God to deliver them in spite of their physical position concerning the law.
One justification by the faith on the belief of a coming messiah and one justification by the law of Moses. One justification from Menchizidek on the justification by sacrifice.
Proverbs 16:25
There is a way that seemeth right unto a man, but the end thereof are the ways of death.
Comment: For instance Lot, why would God consider Lot righteous if he had foreknowledge and knew the future of Lot's indiscretions after Sodom and Gomorrah. How could God looking ahead perceive Lot as "righteous" if he was all about the law?
Edited by DrWearWordLink to comment
Share on other sites
Abigail
Because it never was ALL about the law. The law always was only PART. See, you sort of exemplify one of the problems I see with modern Christianity. You claim that the Torah is part of your Bible, but know so very very little about it. In addition, you have left out so much of the oral tradition that goes hand in hand with the Torah. It is like trying to run a race with a broken leg.
BTW, what Lot did, he did in ignorance. He was drunk. The role his daughters played, though perhaps misguided, was still done with good intentions as well. If anything, your own example of Lot shows crystal clear that as I said, it never was ALL about the law. Forgiveness was ALWAYS available. God's love was ALWAYS available. and so on.
Edited by AbigailLink to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
http://www.vision.org/visionmedia/article.aspx?id=1886
(This thread just reminded me of this quote)
Edited by BolshevikLink to comment
Share on other sites
Abigail
BTW, if you can pick apart the Old Testament and say this prophet had this wrong and that prophet had the gods mixed up, etc., then why do you seem to take such great offense at Shifra for picking apart the New Testament and questioning Paul?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Sushi
At the request of my lovely bride, I post this. :wub:
HERE!
(Wow, I don't have to put the usual language disclaimer on this one. Mr. Black actually goes a whole SIX minutes without swearing
)
p.p.s. I would still appreciate a lesson on how to embed.
Edited by SushiLink to comment
Share on other sites
Oakspear
paging Invisible Dan, Marcion alert at the front doctrinal desk...paging Invisible Dan
Link to comment
Share on other sites
DrWearWord
Very good point.
Paul is after Christ where Moses was before Christ. Paul was after the arrival of gnosis. "The ability to "know" God..." (Mohamed was also after Christ too)
Philippians 4:7
And the peace of God, which passeth all understanding, shall keep your hearts and minds through Christ Jesus.
Comment: In the end it is simply a matter of my own "opinion"...
I tend to believe that Paul was genuine. I don't believe that the logic of the Church would have been "complete" and would have been subject to a much greater abuse had the Epistles of Paul not been written and preserved. It is just my opinion, but in this is the same proverb that if one rejects Paul are they also rejecting Christ and ultimately the will and word of God. So in rejecting Paul am I crucifying Jesus Christ afresh? I don't want to go down in life as a accuser of the innocent.
I am hesitant to reject such writings of Paul simply because (and I think this is the case) they may address subjects that are sometimes not that pleasant to talk about.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TheInvisibleDan
Antithesis
Link to comment
Share on other sites
lovematters
Sushi,
The trick is to copy the embed code from YouTube, paste it and select from "Post Options" HTML On - Auto Linebreak Mode.
Edited by lovemattersLink to comment
Share on other sites
Sushi
Guess I'll just go sit in the corner with my dunce cap on.
Edited by SushiLink to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.