It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The God of Hebrews, the God of the Old Testament

page: 3
8
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 8 2017 @ 07:04 AM
link   

originally posted by: DayAfterTomorrow
A forum is for discussion.

A thread-based forum like this one is for discussion within the parameters of the thread topic.
Wandering off-topic is called thread derailment and trolling.

If you pontificate about love, you can demonstrate that love by respecting the topics of threads which other people have started.
If you want to ride a hobby-horse, you can do that on your own threads. That's what they are for.




posted on Apr, 8 2017 @ 07:16 AM
link   

originally posted by: DISRAELI

originally posted by: DayAfterTomorrow
A forum is for discussion.

A thread-based forum like this one is for discussion within the parameters of the thread topic.
Wandering off-topic is called thread derailment and trolling.

If you pontificate about love, you can demonstrate that love by respecting the topics of threads which other people have started.
If you want to ride a hobby-horse, you can do that on your own threads. That's what they are for.


Your title is the topic. It is incorrect.



The God of Hebrews, the God of the Old Testament


The Hebrew God is the Son of God, not the Father. The Father is the EL (Aleph Lamed). Aleph is Strong. Lamed is Shepherd. AL_LAH. You read the word Allah and reject it with judgment, yet you miss the name of EL in the process. The Son is not God. He is the image of God. When he recognizes this, he returns to his origin.

John 17

4 I have brought you glory on earth by finishing the work you gave me to do. 5 And now, Father, glorify me in your presence with the glory I had with you before the world began.

At the right hand of Elohim. He is the prodigal son returned. Unless you see this, you can't see it in yourself to make the same journey out of judgment of others. It's the topic of the copies of Heavenly things for better sacrifices than these below. The Son had to be taught.

Unless you think the Son was lying when he said he was taught, then you simply make another lie by saying he was God without need.

24 “The God who made the world and everything in it is the Lord of heaven and earth and does not live in temples built by human hands. 25 And he is not served by human hands, as if he needed anything. Rather, he himself gives everyone life and breath and everything else. 26 From one man he made all the nations, that they should inhabit the whole earth; and he marked out their appointed times in history and the boundaries of their lands. 27 God did this so that they would seek him and perhaps reach out for him and find him, though he is not far from any one of us. 28 ‘For in him we live and move and have our being.’ As some of your own poets have said, ‘We are his offspring.’

BY ONE MAN!

Relative. Not God. One with God is Echad, not Yachid. Learn this and you know the essence of Yaga (Union). You also get this:

1 Corinthians 15

24 Then the end will come, when he hands over the kingdom to God the Father after he has destroyed all dominion, authority and power. 25 For he must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet. 26 The last enemy to be destroyed is death. 27 For he “has put everything under his feet.” Now when it says that “everything” has been put under him, it is clear that this does not include God himself, who put everything under Christ. 28 When he has done this, then the Son himself will be made subject to him who put everything under him, so that God may be all in all.

No end for the Son of God until HIS dominion and authority is given back to the Father when his lessons are complete. HE is the one learning. ALL in ALL is Echad, not Yachid.

Yoga.



posted on Apr, 8 2017 @ 07:19 AM
link   
a reply to: DayAfterTomorrow

Psalm 1:1-6

1 Happy is the man who does not walk according to the advice of the wicked

And does not stand on the path of sinners

And does not sit in the seat of scoffers.

2 But his delight is in the law of Jehovah,

And he reads His law in an undertone day and night.

3 He will be like a tree planted by streams of water,

A tree that produces fruit in its season,

The foliage of which does not wither.

And everything he does will succeed.

4 The wicked are not like that;

They are like the chaff that the wind blows away.

5 That is why the wicked will not remain standing in the judgment;

Nor will sinners remain standing in the assembly of the righteous.

6 For Jehovah is aware of the way of the righteous,

But the way of the wicked will perish.

Psalm 2:1-12

2 Why are the nations agitated

And the peoples muttering* an empty thing?+

2 The kings of the earth take their stand

And high officials gather together* as one+

Against Jehovah and against his anointed one.*+

3 They say: “Let us tear off their shackles

And throw off their ropes!”

4 The One enthroned in the heavens will laugh;

Jehovah will scoff at them.

5 At that time he will speak to them in his anger

And terrify them in his burning anger,

6 Saying: “I myself have installed my king+

On Zion,+ my holy mountain.”

7 Let me proclaim the decree of Jehovah;

He said to me: “You are my son;+

Today I have become your father.+

8 Ask of me, and I will give nations as your inheritance

And the ends of the earth as your possession.+

9 You will break them with an iron scepter,+

And you will smash them like a piece of pottery.”+

10 So now, you kings, show insight;

Accept correction,* you judges of the earth.

11 Serve Jehovah with fear,

And rejoice with trembling.

12 Honor* the son,+ or God* will become indignant [*: Lit., “he.”]

And you will perish from the way,+

For His anger flares up quickly.

Happy are all those taking refuge in Him.

Psalm 18:2

2 Jehovah is my crag and my stronghold and the One who rescues me.+

My God is my rock,+ in whom I take refuge,

My shield and my horn* of salvation,* my secure refuge.*+


edit on 8-4-2017 by whereislogic because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 8 2017 @ 08:02 AM
link   
a reply to: whereislogic
For those who won't watch or notice the bible quotations in the video, here's some more that I sadly can't apply to anyone commenting in this thread yet (so I have to be a bit creative as to who I'm addressing this comment to or just quote it without figuring out which comment to reply to with it):

Psalms 91:

9 Because you said: “Jehovah is my refuge,”

You have made the Most High your dwelling;*+

10 No disaster will befall you,+

And no plague will come near your tent.

11 For he will give his angels+ a command concerning you,

To guard you in all your ways.+

12 They will carry you on their hands,+

So that you may not strike your foot against a stone.+

13 On the young lion and the cobra you will tread;

You will trample underfoot the maned lion and the big snake.+

14 God said: “Because he has affection for me,* I will rescue him.+

I will protect him because he knows* my name.+ [Or “acknowledges.”]

15 He will call on me, and I will answer him.+

I will be with him in distress.+

I will rescue him and glorify him.

16 I will satisfy him with long life,+

And I will cause him to see my acts of salvation.”*+


Definition for "acknowledge" from the google dictionary (plus some synonym reminders of mine between brackets):

1. accept or admit the existence or truth[/certainty/unambiguity/clarity/accuracy/reality] of.


An antonym for certainty/unambiguity/comprehensibility/distinctness/exactness/plainness/unmistakability is "obscurity". Which is argued by those making any variation of the argument that God's name is unpronouncable or unknowable (with certainty and/or exact spelling, exactness in a variety of languages; you are not "acknowledging" God's name in that case, that's called "obscuring" like the ones mentioned at Jeremiah 23:27; agnosticism, selective or general is not compatible with the verb "acknowledge", it is however perfectly compatible with "obscuring" when it's promoted as shown below for example). I am speaking of this form of agnosticism regarding the subject: God's name (and the subject "knowing or acknowledging something with certainty or for certain/sure").

I could have used the quotations in this video as well:

Here's how the name "Jehovah" is written in the Spanish language and translations of the bible (Jeová):

Of course not everyone in this world speaks Spanish:

edit on 8-4-2017 by whereislogic because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 8 2017 @ 09:39 AM
link   

originally posted by: DISRAELI
I wrote the opening post, and the opening post is what defines the topic of any thread.
The topic of this thread is the continuity of the Biblical God as demonstrated by the teaching of the Epistle to the Hebrews.


edit on 8-4-2017 by whereislogic because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 8 2017 @ 03:25 PM
link   

1John 5:7 For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.

Who is the Word?

John 1:1 ¶ In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
2 The same was in the beginning with God. Joh 1:14 And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.

OK so Jesus is the Word and the Word is God

Rev 19:13 And he was clothed with a vesture dipped in blood: and his name is called The Word of God.

So Jesus is the Word that is God that is one with the Father and the Holy Ghost, very simply seen in New Testament scriptures, this is the same God of the Old Testament.



edit on 8-4-2017 by ChesterJohn because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 9 2017 @ 04:57 AM
link   

originally posted by: DISRAELI
a reply to: whereislogic
In other words, you will be "arguing your position". Why does that become a bad thing when I'm doing it?


Which was a response to:

I see you're only interested in arguing your position. Never mind, I'll try again another day when you're in a different mood if that day arrives or if I see any hints of it arriving.


"Never mind", as in "no big deal", no biggie, no problem, not "a bad thing" (allthough I haven't thought that last one through cause the concept of "bad" did not come up in my mind when I mentioned what I perceived to be a fact regarding something you were demonstrating). It does make some attempts a bit more pointless from my side of the conversation (I did imply that).

You're allowed to dial down the sensitivity meter
. Is that OK for some "rib-poking" and lightening the mood a bit?

rib-poking:

figurative

The action of poking a person in the ribs, now typically to draw attention to a joke, innuendo, etc.; (hence figurative) the action of making a joke, especially in a sly or knowing way.

Source: Oxford Living dictionaries

Something similar was actually going on with the "needing" justification-thingy. I merely said:

That would be the least offensive to anyone attached to these 2 terminologies and who doesn't want to give up on them and sees no misleading effects because of the use of those terminologies (or argues that way to themselves to justify continued usage of these terminologies to refer to those parts of the bible).

Talking about justifying things to oneself, reasoning to oneself, not to others. Describing the process of how a person reaches a conclusion on how to proceed (behave and for example argue). So then you described the justification and your motivation as such:

I use those terms because they are well-understood and convenient for communication, and because I don't see any problem in them.

Which was what I described and guessed as both motive and justification for using and continuing to use those terminologies in spite of what I pointed out. So then I said:

Ah, then I guessed right what your motivation and justification for their continued use was.

The subject of "needing" justifications didn't came up in my commentary. But it's nice to know that that subject was triggered in your mind anyway because of the commentary and perhaps usage of the word "justification". I wonder if that would have happened if I had used the synonym "reason". Justification does seem to carry a bit more meaning than just "reason".
edit on 9-4-2017 by whereislogic because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 9 2017 @ 05:17 AM
link   
a reply to: whereislogic
You are over-elaborating here, trying to read something out of nothing much.

You were criticising my choice of terminology, I was defending it. The claim that something is unjustified is implied in the act of criticism, so defending something involves justifying it. The theological meaning of the word was not in my mind.

The response you quote was an ironic suggestion that you were being unconsciously inconsistent.

This explanation having been given, it isn't worth developing a fresh argument over it.



posted on Apr, 9 2017 @ 05:27 AM
link   
a reply to: DISRAELI

No, I'm sorry, I was not "criticizing". Now it appears to me that you're doing this on purpose to win an argument and paint something negative on me and cherry-picking in the same manner that some of the pharisees were watching Jesus hoping he would do anything that could be remotely spun as being a negative trait or simply something negative or undesirable, something to discredit him and his message* with. *: or whatever he is trying to point out

I even went out of my way to phrase everything I said in a way that could not be 'reasonably' spun or interpreted as "criticizing".

I politely and respectfully asked about the reason without criticizing or condemning it, shared what I thought might be the reason, shared my own reasons for why I think there are better* options in terminology (*: more accurate, less misleading for those who are inclined to misinterpret and argue+think along the lines of Marcion's teachings and philosophies who I'm mentioning now by name and taught what you are trying to argue against in this thread and used the terminologies "Old Testament" and "New Testament" for that exact purpose of arguing in favor of what you are arguing against in this thread, there you go, now you can see more of my conclusions and analysis of the situation based on my research into the facts, including the facts of history, see below). And then you confirmed what I said about possible reasons and ignored all the useful clues I left behind so I didn't have to spell everything out about Marcion and Marcionism.

Is the “Old Testament” Still Relevant?

Is the “Old Testament” Still Relevant?

IN 1786 a French physician published a book called Traité d’anatomie et de physiologie (A Discussion of Anatomy and Physiology). It is considered the most accurate neuroanatomical work of its time, and a rare copy recently sold for over 27 thousand dollars! Nevertheless, few patients today would trust a surgeon who relied on the book’s centuries-old medical research. The historical and literary value of such a book hardly makes it helpful to a sick person now.

Many feel the same way about the so-called Old Testament. They appreciate its account of Israel’s history and admire its beautiful poetry. Yet, they doubt that it is reasonable to follow guidance that is more than 2,400 years old. Scientific knowledge, commerce, and even family life are very different today from what they were when the Bible was written. Philip Yancey, a former editor of Christianity Today, writes in his book The Bible Jesus Read: “It doesn’t always make sense, and what sense it does make offends modern ears. For these and other reasons the Old Testament, three-fourths of the Bible, often goes unread.” That thinking is not new.

Less than 50 years after the apostle John’s death in about 100 C.E., a rich young man named Marcion publicly asserted that the Old Testament should be rejected by Christians. According to English historian Robin Lane Fox, Marcion argued that “‘God’ in the Old Testament was a ‘committed barbarian’ who favoured bandits and such terrorists as Israel’s King David. Christ, by contrast, was the new and separate revelation of an altogether higher God.” Fox writes that these beliefs “became ‘Marcionism’ and continued to attract followers, especially in the Syriac-speaking East, far into the fourth century.” Some of these ideas persist. As a result, over 1,600 years later, writes Philip Yancey, “knowledge of the Old Testament is fading fast among Christians and has virtually vanished in popular culture.”

Has the Old Testament been replaced? How can we reconcile “Jehovah of armies” in the Old Testament with “the God of love and of peace” in the New Testament? (Isaiah 13:13; 2 Corinthians 13:11) Can the Old Testament benefit you today?


“Written for Our Instruction”

“TO THE making of many books there is no end.” (Ecclesiastes 12:12) The glut of printed matter available today makes those words as true today as when they were written. How, then, can a discerning reader decide what deserves his attention?

When contemplating a book that they might read, many readers want to know something about the author. Publishers may insert a small paragraph that supplies the name of the writer’s hometown, his academic credentials, and a list of his published works. The identity of a writer is important, as seen in the fact that in earlier centuries, female authors often wrote under a male pseudonym so that would-be readers would not judge the book inferior merely because it was written by a woman.

Sadly, as noted in the preceding article, some ignore the Hebrew Scriptures because they believe that the God portrayed therein is a cruel deity who destroyed his enemies without mercy.* Let us consider what the Hebrew Scriptures and the Christian Greek Scriptures themselves tell us about the Author of the Bible.

About the Author

According to the Hebrew Scriptures, God told the nation of Israel: “I am Jehovah; I have not changed.” (Malachi 3:6) Some 500 years later, the Bible writer James wrote of God: “With him there is not a variation of the turning of the shadow.” (James 1:17) Why, then, does it seem to some that the God revealed in the Hebrew Scriptures is different from the God of the Christian Greek Scriptures?

The answer is that different aspects of God’s personality are revealed in different parts of the Bible. In the book of Genesis alone, he is described as feeling “hurt at his heart,” as the “Producer of heaven and earth,” and as “the Judge of all the earth.” (Genesis 6:6; 14:22; 18:25) Do these differing descriptions refer to the same God? They certainly do.

To illustrate: A local judge may be best known by those who have faced him in court as a firm enforcer of the law. His children, on the other hand, may view him as the loving, generous father that he is. His close friends may find that he is an approachable man with a good sense of humor. The judge, the father, and the friend are all the same person. It is just that various aspects of his personality become apparent under different circumstances.

Similarly, the Hebrew Scriptures describe Jehovah as “a God merciful and gracious, slow to anger and abundant in loving-kindness and truth.” Yet, we also learn that “by no means will he give exemption from punishment.” (Exodus 34:6, 7) Those two aspects reflect the meaning of God’s name. “Jehovah” literally means “He Causes to Become.” That is, God becomes whatever is needed to fulfill his promises. (Exodus 3:13-15) But he remains the same God. Jesus stated: “Jehovah our God is one Jehovah.”—Mark 12:29.

Have the Hebrew Scriptures Been Replaced?

It is not uncommon today for textbooks to be replaced when new research becomes available or when popular opinion changes. Did the Christian Greek Scriptures replace the Hebrew Scriptures in that way? No.

...

edit on 9-4-2017 by whereislogic because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 9 2017 @ 05:41 AM
link   
a reply to: whereislogic
I am not trying to "win" anything. I am more than happy for you to have the last word. Just add an extra post here and take it, OK?



posted on Apr, 9 2017 @ 05:59 AM
link   
a reply to: whereislogic

If Jesus had intended that the record of his ministry and the writings of his disciples replace the Hebrew Scriptures, he would surely have indicated this. However, regarding Jesus just before his ascension to heaven, Luke’s account states: “Commencing at Moses and all the Prophets [in the Hebrew Scriptures] he interpreted to [two of his disciples] things pertaining to himself in all the Scriptures.” Later, Jesus appeared to his faithful apostles and others. The account continues: “He now said to them: ‘These are my words which I spoke to you while I was yet with you, that all the things written in the law of Moses and in the Prophets and Psalms about me must be fulfilled.’” (Luke 24:27, 44) Why would Jesus still be using the Hebrew Scriptures at the end of his earthly ministry if they were out-of-date?

After the Christian congregation was established, Jesus’ followers continued to use the Hebrew Scriptures to highlight prophecies that were yet to be fulfilled, principles from the Mosaic Law that taught valuable lessons, and accounts of ancient servants of God whose fine examples encourage Christians to remain faithful. (Acts 2:16-21; 1 Corinthians 9:9, 10; Hebrews 11:1–12:1) “All Scripture,” wrote the apostle Paul, “is inspired of God and beneficial.”* (2 Timothy 3:16) How do the Hebrew Scriptures prove to be beneficial today?

Advice for Daily Living

Consider the present-day problem of racial prejudice. In one Eastern European city, a 21-year-old Ethiopian man states: “If we want to go anywhere, we have to organize a group. Maybe in a group they won’t attack us.” He continues: “We can’t go out after 6 p.m., especially on the metro. When people look at us, they just see our colour.” Do the Hebrew Scriptures address this complex problem?

The ancient Israelites were told: “In case an alien resident resides with you as an alien in your land, you must not mistreat him. The alien resident who resides as an alien with you should become to you like a native of yours; and you must love him as yourself, for you became alien residents in the land of Egypt.” (Leviticus 19:33, 34) Yes, in ancient Israel that law called for consideration for immigrants, or “alien residents,” and it is preserved in the Hebrew Scriptures. Would you not agree that the principles enshrined in that law could be the basis for ending racial prejudice today?

Although they do not give detailed financial advice, the Hebrew Scriptures contain practical guidelines for a wise approach to handling money. For example, at Proverbs 22:7, we read: “He who gets into debt is a servant to his creditor.” (The Bible in Basic English) Many financial advisers agree that buying unwisely on credit can lead to economic ruin.

In addition, the pursuit of wealth at all costs—so common in today’s materialistic world—was accurately described by one of the richest men in history, King Solomon. He wrote: “A mere lover of silver will not be satisfied with silver, neither any lover of wealth with income. This too is vanity.” (Ecclesiastes 5:10) What a wise warning!

Hope for the Future

The entire Bible has but one theme: The Kingdom under Jesus Christ is the means by which the vindication of God’s sovereignty and the sanctification of His name will be accomplished.—Daniel 2:44; Revelation 11:15.

Through the Hebrew Scriptures, we learn details about life under God’s Kingdom that give us comfort and draw us closer to the Source of that comfort, Jehovah God. For example, the prophet Isaiah foretold that there would be peace between animals and humans: “The wolf will actually reside for a while with the male lamb, and with the kid the leopard itself will lie down, and the calf and the maned young lion and the well-fed animal all together; and a mere little boy will be leader over them.” (Isaiah 11:6-8) What a beautiful prospect!

And what of those disadvantaged by racial or ethnic prejudice, serious illness, or economic factors beyond their control? The Hebrew Scriptures prophetically say this about Christ Jesus: “He will deliver the poor one crying for help, also the afflicted one and whoever has no helper. He will feel sorry for the lowly one and the poor one, and the souls of the poor ones he will save.” (Psalm 72:12, 13) Such promises are practical because they enable those who put faith in them to face the future with hope and confidence.—Hebrews 11:6.

No wonder that the apostle Paul was inspired to write: “All the things that were written aforetime were written for our instruction, that through our endurance and through the comfort from the Scriptures we might have hope”! (Romans 15:4) Yes, the Hebrew Scriptures are still an integral part of God’s inspired Word, the Bible. They have real value for us today. It is our hope that you will strive to learn more about what the entire Bible really teaches and thus draw closer to its Author, Jehovah God.—Psalm 119:111, 112.

[Footnotes]

In this article, we refer to the Old Testament as the Hebrew Scriptures. (See the box “Old Testament or Hebrew Scriptures?” on page 6.) In a similar way, Jehovah’s Witnesses usually refer to the New Testament as the Christian Greek Scriptures.

The Hebrew Scriptures contain many principles of great value today. However, it should be noted that Christians are not under the Law that God gave through Moses to the nation of Israel.

[Box on page 6]

OLD TESTAMENT OR HEBREW SCRIPTURES?

The expression “old testament” is found at 2 Corinthians 3:14 in the King James Version. In that rendering, “testament” represents the Greek word di·a·theʹke. However, many modern translations, such as the New International Version, render di·a·theʹke as “covenant” rather than “testament.” Why?

Lexicographer Edward Robinson stated: “Since the ancient covenant is contained in the Mosaic books, [di·a·theʹke] is put for the book of the covenant, the Mosaic writings, i.e. the law.” At 2 Corinthians 3:14, the apostle Paul was referring to the Mosaic Law, which is only a part of the pre-Christian Scriptures.

What, then, is a more fitting term for the first 39 books of the Holy Bible? Rather than implying that this part of the Bible was outdated or old, Jesus Christ and his followers referred to these texts as “the Scriptures” and “the holy Scriptures.” (Matthew 21:42; Romans 1:2) Therefore, in harmony with these inspired utterances, Jehovah’s Witnesses refer to the Old Testament as the Hebrew Scriptures because that portion of the Bible was originally written mainly in Hebrew. Similarly, they refer to the so-called New Testament as the Greek Scriptures, for the Greek language was used by men who were inspired by God to write that part of the Bible.

[Pictures on page 4]

A man can be known as a firm judge, a loving father, and a friend

[Picture on page 5]

Jesus used the Hebrew Scriptures throughout his ministry

[Pictures on page 7]

What Bible principles can help a person make right decisions?

edit on 9-4-2017 by whereislogic because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 9 2017 @ 09:36 PM
link   

originally posted by: DISRAELI
...
The Old Testament system is a part, but a subordinate part, of the work of God which is made more complete and perfected in Christ.

For this reason, the writer is urging his readers not to abandon their grasp on what Christ is offering and fall back into the provisional and superseded system inherited from their fathers.

Claim, teaching, argument in favor of and promotion of the theosophy (theological philosophy): "The Old Testament system" = a "superseded system"

Which may trigger the thought (in those so inclined or given that impression through other channels or teachings) that the Hebrew Scriptures a.k.a. "The Old Testament" = "superseded".

Superseded Synonyms, Superseded Antonyms | Thesaurus.com

Synonyms for superseded
adj. out-of-date

antiquated
outmoded

archaic
obsolete

old
old-fashioned

passé

Word Origin & History

supersede...
Meaning "displace, replace"...


Is the “Old Testament” Still Relevant?

Less than 50 years after the apostle John’s death in about 100 C.E., a rich young man named Marcion publicly asserted that the Old Testament should be rejected by Christians. According to English historian Robin Lane Fox, Marcion argued that “‘God’ in the Old Testament was a ‘committed barbarian’ who favoured bandits and such terrorists as Israel’s King David. Christ, by contrast, was the new and separate revelation of an altogether higher God.” Fox writes that these beliefs “became ‘Marcionism’ and continued to attract followers, especially in the Syriac-speaking East, far into the fourth century.” Some of these ideas persist. As a result, over 1,600 years later, writes Philip Yancey, “knowledge of the Old Testament is fading fast among Christians and has virtually vanished in popular culture.”

Has the Old Testament been replaced? How can we reconcile “Jehovah of armies” in the Old Testament with “the God of love and of peace” in the New Testament? (Isaiah 13:13; 2 Corinthians 13:11) Can the Old Testament benefit you today?

... “I am Jehovah; I have not changed.” (Malachi 3:6)... [whereislogic: vs. previously Marcion's theosophy which may sound familiar for those who have paid good attention to the subtlety/craftiness of the OP: "Christ, by contrast, was the new and separate revelation of an altogether higher God." This might be a good point to remind some people of the terminology "more...perfected" used by someone else earlier without implying any relation that needs to be argued against to make sure that no reader might conclude there is a relation because someone else is merely minsunderstanding what was spoken of since it wasn't the same and it follows bible teachings in their view]
“With him there is not a variation of the turning of the shadow.” (James 1:17)...
...
But he remains the same God. Jesus stated: “Jehovah our God is one Jehovah.”—Mark 12:29.

Have the Hebrew Scriptures Been Replaced?

It is not uncommon today for textbooks to be replaced when new research becomes available or when popular opinion changes. Did the Christian Greek Scriptures replace the Hebrew Scriptures in that way? No.
...
If Jesus had intended that the record of his ministry and the writings of his disciples replace the Hebrew Scriptures, he would surely have indicated this. However, regarding Jesus just before his ascension to heaven, Luke’s account states: “Commencing at Moses and all the Prophets [in the Hebrew Scriptures] he interpreted to [two of his disciples] things pertaining to himself in all the Scriptures.” Later, Jesus appeared to his faithful apostles and others. The account continues: “He now said to them: ‘These are my words which I spoke to you while I was yet with you, that all the things written in the law of Moses and in the Prophets and Psalms about me must be fulfilled.’” (Luke 24:27, 44) Why would Jesus still be using the Hebrew Scriptures at the end of his earthly ministry if they were out-of-date? [whereislogic: notice the terminology Jesus uses and his way of distinguishing different parts]

After the Christian congregation was established, Jesus’ followers continued to use the Hebrew Scriptures to highlight prophecies that were yet to be fulfilled, principles from the Mosaic Law that taught valuable lessons, and accounts of ancient servants of God whose fine examples encourage Christians to remain faithful. (Acts 2:16-21; 1 Corinthians 9:9, 10; Hebrews 11:1–12:1) “All Scripture,” wrote the apostle Paul, “is inspired of God and beneficial.”* (2 Timothy 3:16)
...
The Hebrew Scriptures contain many principles of great value today. However, it should be noted that Christians are not under the Law that God gave through Moses to the nation of Israel.
...
The expression “old testament” is found at 2 Corinthians 3:14 in the King James Version. In that rendering, “testament” represents the Greek word di·a·theʹke. However, many modern translations, such as the New International Version, render di·a·theʹke as “covenant” rather than “testament.” Why? Lexicographer Edward Robinson stated: “Since the ancient covenant is contained in the Mosaic books, [di·a·theʹke] is put for the book of the covenant, the Mosaic writings, i.e. the law.” At 2 Corinthians 3:14, the apostle Paul was referring to the Mosaic Law, which is only a part of the pre-Christian Scriptures.

Rather than implying that this part of the Bible was outdated or old, Jesus Christ and his followers referred to these texts as “the Scriptures” and “the holy Scriptures.” (Matthew 21:42; Romans 1:2)

Notice that the emphasis above is not on the part that is called "the old covenant" (or that it's outdated/superseded/replaced) or what is described above as "it should be noted that Christians are not under the Law that God gave through Moses to the nation of Israel." and by Jesus distinguished from "the Prophets" and "the Psalms" by the terminology "the law of Moses".

Genesis 2:16; 3:1

Jehovah God also gave this command to the man: “From every tree of the garden you may eat to satisfaction. 17 But as for the tree of the knowledge of good and bad, you must not eat from it, for in the day you eat from it you will certainly die.”
...
Now the serpent was the most cautious [Or “shrewdest; craftiest.”] of all the wild animals of the field that Jehovah God had made. So it said to the woman: “Did God really say that you must not eat from every tree of the garden?”


Notice that Satan's emphasis in his insincere rhetorical question for which he already knew the answer is on something else than the first thing Jehovah said and taught: "From every tree of the garden you may eat to satisfaction."

As if he wanted the emphasis and Eve's mind to be on something else, what she shouldn't be doing or thinking or which impression she shouldn't be getting. (shouldn't, as in that would not be beneficial to her mind, thinking/reasoning/arguing and behaviour, not something that would qualify as "beneficial teaching" either, 2 Timothy 4:3,4). Even though someone may be able to argue that Satan was not technically lying in his rhetorical question, but it was not actually exactly what Jehovah had said while he knew what Jehovah had said and had a very specific reason to rephrase and re-focus on something else, the last part.
edit on 9-4-2017 by whereislogic because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 9 2017 @ 10:06 PM
link   
P.S. or btw:

What has been is what will be,
And what has been done will be done again;
There is nothing new under the sun.
(Eccl.1:9)

1 Corinthians 2:10

10 For it is to us God has revealed them through his spirit, for the spirit searches into all things, even the deep things of God.

Searching Into “the Deep Things of God”

Sorry, no milk today. "For everyone who continues to feed on milk is unacquainted with the word of righteousness...But solid food belongs to mature people". OK, a bit of milk for those described in Hebrews 5:12. "Who is "the One who was able to save [Jesus] out of death"? What is his name if you know it? Does God need to learn obedience? Obedience to whom?

During his life on earth,* Christ offered up supplications and also petitions, with strong outcries and tears,+ to the One who was able to save him out of death, and he was favorably heard for his godly fear. 8 Although he was a son, he learned obedience from the things he suffered.+ 9 And after he had been made perfect,+ he became responsible for everlasting salvation to all those obeying him,+ 10 because he has been designated by God a high priest in the manner of Mel·chizʹe·dek.+

11 We have much to say about him, and it is difficult to explain, because you have become dull in your hearing. 12 For although by now* you should be teachers, you again need someone to teach you from the beginning the elementary things+ of the sacred pronouncements of God, and you have gone back to needing milk, not solid food. 13 For everyone who continues to feed on milk is unacquainted with the word of righteousness, for he is a young child.+ 14 But solid food belongs to mature people, to those who through use have their powers of discernment* trained to distinguish both right and wrong.
(Hebrews 5:7-14)
edit on 9-4-2017 by whereislogic because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 9 2017 @ 11:25 PM
link   

originally posted by: namelesss

originally posted by: DISRAELI
The God of Hebrews, the God of the Old Testament

Existence = the complete Universe = Nature = Reality = Consciousness = Truth = Love = 'Self!' = God = Brahman = Tao = ... etc....

=blah blah blah? = the flying spaghetti monster = the pink unicorn = the multiverse = something = nothing = anything = conflation = funny = but deceptive = and mentally diseased and demonstrating a current but not irreversible incapabilty of using their thinking abilities the way the One who designed those abilities intended them to be used but explained as a result of Satan's mindgames, warping and over 6000 years of training his craftiness in deceiving mankind + resulting in a nice demonstration of various bible descriptions that this was going to happen to many people?

Proverbs 26:
3 A whip is for the horse, a bridle is for the donkey,
And the rod is for the back of stupid people.
4 Do not answer the stupid one according to his foolishness,
So that you do not put yourself on his level.* [Or “So that you do not make yourself his equal.”]
5 Answer the stupid one according to his foolishness,
So that he does not think he is wise.


There's a right way of doing things such as replying to someone "according to his foolishness", and there's a wrong way of replying to someone. I hope I picked the right way with no offense intended, just a heads-up.

Oh sorry, "hope" is a synonym for "desire" I think...yep, just checked. And I think you were the one arguing how negative desire/hope is to have if I remember your philosophies/ideas about that subject correctly (well, as they were expressed in your commentary months ago and repeated thereafter that is). Might have been someone else.

4 Love is patient and kind. Love is not jealous. It does not brag, does not get puffed up, 5 does not behave indecently, does not look for its own interests, does not become provoked. It does not keep account of the injury. 6 It does not rejoice over unrighteousness, but rejoices with the truth. 7 It bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things. (1 Corinthians 13:4-7)

Conflation - Wikipedia

In logic, it is the practice of treating two distinct concepts as if they were one, which produces errors or misunderstandings as a fusion of distinct subjects tends to obscure analysis of relationships which are emphasized by contrasts.

Father and Son. God, and the Son of God.

"The God and Father" of Jesus Christ who is also called the "Sovereign Lord Jehovah", who is "the God... of our Lord Jesus Christ" (Eph.1:3) and Jesus Christ. So there in that last bible quotation there's a distinction made between "our Lord Jesus Christ" and "the God... of our Lord Jesus Christ".

The main reason for posting these 2 videos and how it relates to the last few things I said in this comment is discussed after 3 minutes below, and the quotation from the bible and Jesus at the end relates to all my commentary in this thread and what the OP described as "the continuity of the Biblical God":

edit on 10-4-2017 by whereislogic because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 10 2017 @ 01:41 AM
link   
a reply to: ChesterJohn

This one or probably both are special for tomorrow:

edit on 10-4-2017 by whereislogic because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 10 2017 @ 10:33 PM
link   

originally posted by: whereislogic

originally posted by: namelesss

originally posted by: DISRAELI
The God of Hebrews, the God of the Old Testament

Existence = the complete Universe = Nature = Reality = Consciousness = Truth = Love = 'Self!' = God = Brahman = Tao = ... etc....

=blah blah blah?

Yes, dear, "blah, blah, blah".
Beyond that must also be "blah, blah, blah", and considering that any and all 'meaning' exists in the mind of the beholder, I shan't waste any more of our time in meaningless discussion.
(and, seems like I triggered something...)



posted on Apr, 10 2017 @ 11:47 PM
link   

originally posted by: DayAfterTomorrow
a reply to: namelesss

You get it, but it's hard for others to see this. Presupposition one is this if you are looking at it biblically.

Colossians 1

15 The Son is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation.

I see that you have taken the time to prepare quite a meal.
Imma gon work my way through it carefully.
One doesn't want to get tangled in mere 'translational' problems; translating it to Our experience/Knowledge.
So fare what you have handed me is the sort of biblical quote that I'd leave on the cutting room floor during the critical update!
The 'invisible' God made a Son in his image?
Huh?
Logically, this statement is an abortion!
If taken literally, of course.
But now we have metaphor, and such, open to one's momentary interpretations.
There is ....
and then there is the duality of the ego/thoughts.
There is no God 'and' anything!
So, in order to tell the tales such as these epics of duality do, we do well to remember; "to even speak, one needs to descend the mountain!"
So we have a 'Son' (Trinity doctrine is commonly thought a later addition, and not authentic) dualistically diverging from the Omni-, One.
Now there are two.
And we also have 'creation', which is scientifically and philosophically impossible.
And a 'firstborn' "over" 'creation'.
Cutting room floor with that semipoetical useless nonsense.
Truth does not need 'adornment'



16 For in him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things have been created through him and for him. 17 He is before all things, and in him all things hold together.

Now we have removed Heaven from Here! Now!
What ugly fallacious unEnlightened dualistic/vain trash!
Cutting room floor!
You know, if all the unenlightened, vain fallacious trash were, Occam like, removed from the book, the entire book(s), we'd probably be left with 20 pages.
If really trimmed, perhaps a Haiku (but WHAT a Haiku!).
You know where it gets it right?
Places like never believe your thoughts and feelings (ego)!
THAT is Enlightened/Wisdom!
Or the God is One, Omni-, stuff.
That means there is no God 'and'.
God includes me and you and the fishes and the moon and everything else, so treat Us like it! *__-


...ONE God, then...

There is no "then", no "and";
One God. (period)


What makes creation from God's Spirit (MIND)?

A 'feeling' passed a moment ago, that as if I were in class, and the teacher finally asked a question to which I was prepared to offer an answer, waving my arm (as the teacher deliberately passed me over...)...
Anyway.
First, I am going to translate that poor term 'creation' into a more 'updated' form, though not a fascile on the tongue;
Reality as we uniquely perceive it/Us.
If you are willing, perhaps I shall just shorten it to Reality (works for me, k?)?

Here you go;
We are all unique Conscious Perspectives ('Souls'; be happy to give you dimensions if you like), perceiving the One unchanging Universal Reality/Self! every unique moment of Universal Existence.
What are we perceiving?
Mind/information waves, the undifferentiated potential (Reality is never more than 'potential'), the quantum wave field...
The only way that anything can be 'perceived' from this 'homogenous unperceivable 'potential' is the focus of each Perspective that, necessarily, excludes everything in the Universe other than what is before Us, uniquely, at the moment!
That gives 'appearance', a 'make-believe' Reality as perceived by unique individual Perspectives/Souls!
There is One Universal Consciousness that peers from behind all 'eyes/Perspectives'!
Thus, ALL is Known!
Self is Known!
That is how 'Reality' can exist, it is by 'perception', by 'appearances' like mirages...
Odd, people often would not consider a mirage to be Reality, yet Reality IS a mirage!
Go figure.


Dhammapada

Chapter 1 - Choices

Nonsense, other than 'feelings' and vain thought, there are no 'choices'.
That is why enjoined NOT to believe thoughts/feelings!
They are vanity!


We are what we think.
All that we are arises with our thoughts.

Cogito ergo sum...
Yes! Thought = ego = IDENTITY, who and what 'we think we are'.


With our thoughts we make the world.

The 'world/One Reality' is perceived.
One feature of the One Universal Reality that is perceived, is 'thought'.


Speak or act with an impure mind
And trouble will follow you
As the wheel follows the ox that draws the cart.

So, there is some feature of the Mind of God that is 'impure'?
Such judgments are not warned against in the few useful lines in the bible?
Who are We to judge the Mind of God?
What 'other' Mind can there be?
There can be only One! *__-
And never believe it!


To get to the Father, what do you do?

Look in the mirror.
Often a painful process.

"Perhaps it is the curvature of space that, like a funhouse mirror distorting our own reflection, we imagine strangers." - Mythopoeicon


John 14

Jesus answered, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.

The land of metaphor has no borders and can go on forever.
A problem is the literalist believers who are now ready to go to war against those false god people who do not host the same 'belief' as they.
Can I translate this into something actually 'nutritious' for consumption?
Yeah, but it's work, and the critical update will remove this all too often misunderstood and evilly used 'quote'.
All the quotes that the hateful oppressors use to justify their hatred and oppression will be eliminated!
With Love! *__-



posted on Apr, 11 2017 @ 06:52 AM
link   
a reply to: namelesss

You don't need to leave out any part of God's word if you just accept the fact that he says that he himself will preserve his words to every generation forever. Read Psalm 12:6 and 7 and believe it and find it.

Someone gave me a 1995 edition of the "Schocken Bible" Vol 1 the five books of Moses. the very first verse tells me this is one of the 350 plus bibles out there is a perversion of the word of God. This bible version does not flow when reading it, it is a difficult read for anyone with a 5th grade or higher reading level. The English grammar has been thrown out the window and reads like a chopped up mess. This is like what you want to do leave it on the editing floor.

Another Bible for the scrap pile.


edit on 11-4-2017 by ChesterJohn because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 11 2017 @ 02:32 PM
link   
I am just putting together an Index thread on this series, which will appear in a couple of days.

edit on 11-4-2017 by DISRAELI because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 11 2017 @ 06:35 PM
link   
a reply to: DISRAELI

Once again a good work of solid doctrine.



new topics

top topics



 
8
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join