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.

 

It is difficult to reconcile the OT god with Jesus in the NT

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 13 2004 @ 11:32 PM
link   
A question for all Christians here in ATS.

I find it difficult to reconcile the 'hell and damnation', genocidal God of the Old Testament with the gentleness of Jesus in the New.

Why do you think they are so different ?

Is it possible that they were originally deities from two completely different religions but were linked together millennia ago by accident?




posted on Jan, 13 2004 @ 11:38 PM
link   
when it comes to hell or hades, all it means is a burial pit, in other words when you are dead and you are no more, you are acutally in hell, the catholics make it out to be worse than what it is, theres no firey grave where you are being tormented for ever ie: hell, except the pits of genna, though they are reseverd for the devil and his mob when god elimantes there souls forever by doing a cleansing, you have to remember there are several different hells all are not the same.



posted on Jul, 17 2004 @ 09:38 PM
link   
Quote: " they were originally deities from two completely different religions but were linked together millennia ago by accident? "

AH YES!!!!!!!! Or on purpose for sinister reasons!!!

About time - this is SOOOOO Obvious - why don't more people pick up on it?

Oh Sheepeople when are you going to start Thinking Freely?



posted on Jul, 17 2004 @ 09:46 PM
link   
Yep....the OT God is an eye for an eye and the NT is turn the other cheek....it's sorta as if there was an election, or take over and the out with the OT God and in with the NT God....a God change... LOL. In all actually, I I beleive Seraphim_Serpente is right. And yes, Hades, is "hell". It is my opinion that if your a "truely" bad/negative/evil person...you may not reincarnate...but simple die with no soul/energy incarnation.....



posted on Jul, 17 2004 @ 10:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by LadyV
Yep....the OT God is an eye for an eye and the NT is turn the other cheek....it's sorta as if there was an election, or take over and the out with the OT God and in with the NT God....a God change... LOL.


Exodus 21:20-27

"If a man beats his male or female slave with a rod and the slave dies as a direct result, he must be punished, but he is not to be punished if the slave gets up after a day or two, since the slave is his property.

"If men who are fighting hit a pregnant woman and she gives birth prematurely but there is no serious injury, the offender must be fined whatever the woman's husband demands and the court allows. But if there is serious injury, you are to take life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise.

"If a man hits a manservant or maidservant in the eye and destroys it, he must let the servant go free to compensate for the eye. And if he knocks out the tooth of a manservant or maidservant, he must let the servant go free to compensate for the tooth.


The eye for an eye rule was instituted as a guide for judges, not as a rule for personal relationships or to justify revenge. This rule made the punishment fit the crime, it was intended to be a guide for the judicator of the day.

Luke 6:27-31

"But I tell you who hear me: Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, pray for those who mistreat you. If someone strikes you on one cheek, turn to him the other also.

If someone takes your cloak, do not stop him from taking your tunic. Give to everyone who asks you, and if anyone takes what belongs to you, do not demand it back. Do to others as you would have them do to you."


Jesus told the people to love your enemies, such words turned away many people from Christ. But Jesus wasnt talking about having affection for your enemies; he was talking about an act of faith and will.

So you see the words of the Old Testaments and the New Testaments arent in contradiction.



posted on Jul, 17 2004 @ 10:36 PM
link   
I am a christian, saved at 8, didn't live like it until 30, that was 11 years ago. That's a hard question and I wish I had the perfect answer. It's probably more involved than the answer I'll give because we won't know everything this side of eternity.

There are some questions God doesn't have to answer. Job never got an answer to why he was put through what he was. So i'm going to answer from what I know.

The God of the OT and NT are the same God. Like someone else said on a different topic God is completely Holy and cannot be in the presence of sin. Man is born to sin and we can't be with God like he wants. Our minds are corrupted by sin and we cannot comprehend true holiness. In the OT, God set before people laws they were to live by in order to live in His presence. These laws were not meant to be lived externally without letting them enter you internally(understanding them, studying them taking them into your heart and soul and letting them change you.) Then when you are changed inside your actions and deeds and words and thoughts will show it. But that's not what we do, we try to live them without believing them. The OT is from the perspective that you have to live and think and act 100% holy and sinless 100% of the time. The OT also shows the severity of sin. Sin causes death. An action of sin brings it's reward, punishment. It also shows us we are not capable of living 100% right all of the time. We can't get back to God on our own.

There is one thing you have to remember, whether you believe it or not God made us. Without Him creating us none of us would be here. That should humble anyone and everyone. We are not here by accident. We have responsibilities. There are rules.

Now the NT provides the answer so that we can get back to God. The first problem is this. I've sinned and was born to sin. I had to pay the penalty for my own sin. That penalty would be death and eternal everlasting seperation from God. But God provided a different way for my sin to be paid for. Jesus left heaven and became God in human flesh and lived a sinless life. Living a sinless life authorized Him as someone who could pay for sin, and thats what He did. Every sin of all mankind past present and future was placed on Him. I stole a balloon from the dime store when I was little and to think that He took that off me, along with every other misdeed I've done, and in essence said, "I took that balloon, punish me."
He did this so that I could someday see His face is amazing. While the OT showed us that sin needs to be dealt with and dealt with swiftly, the NT shows us that sin has been dealt with(by Christ) and now we are witnessing God's patience as as many people as possible are told that there has been a way provided to have sin paid for and have it removed from you so that you can truly live.

Now I've written enough posts on ATS to know that replys will come saying this and that. One's that say so and so wrote a book saying that the Bible isn't real and true. Or, Jesus isn't God because that's what I read or was told. I say find out for yourself, so...

I would like to ask those who will reply trashing God and the Bible, have you ever read the Bible all the way through for yourself, I mean everyword OT and NT cover to cover. And, " I don't have to read it to know it's not true" isn't a reply to my question. There are only 2 choices to the quetion I asked, yes or no and I would hope for complete honesty. I was 30 before I could say I read it all the way through. If you haven't read it through then you can't truly offer an accurate opinion, becuase if you are basing your answers upon what someone else worte in some other book, that's not your opinion that belongs to the other man or woman. You need to set down and decide to read the Bible cover to cover without any preconceived notions. You will have to put away all bias, because if you take that into your reading you won't be able to "hear" what you are reading.

OK, here come the reply's.......



posted on Jul, 17 2004 @ 11:32 PM
link   
Reconciling OT with NT is not that difficult if you keep an open mind, and remember the Holy Trinity. You know, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. There is the One God( I AM) with three distinct, seperate qualities. The Father is the creator, judge, destroyer, life and death. In essence, The Alpha and The Omega. The Son(Jesus) is the Redeemer, Love, sacrifice, the mercy and compassion of God. The Holy Spirit is the presence of God that moves upon the Earth, changing the hearts of those that believe.

We humans live a singular existence. That is to say we only experience life within the realm of our own awareness. We can never truly know what another person is feeling because we only live within ourselves. As such, it is difficult for us to comprehend a being that exists on three different levels of existance, while being at the same time a singular being.

I mean, I can't even explain it correctly. The best example I can give is your body. You have arms, legs, and a head.(I know, I know, there is alot more, but just bear with me) Each of these three things performs a seperate function, but all operate as the whole. I hope you can follow this.

In the OT, it was the Father that was most predominate. That is not to say that the Son, and the Holy Spirit were not part of the Three. Later, God comes to Earth as Jesus( sort of like Gods' public relations officer to man) in the role of the Redeemer. And all the while, the Holy Spirit was moving invisibly on the face of the Earth.

Someone mentioned in a earlier post, that Basically OT law was for judges and nations. NT "love thy enemy" law was a rule for personal life. I agree. Most of the OT dealt with Israel as a nation.

It is the same God, just different facets of His personality. But understand, I'm not implying that God has some sort of Divine Multiple Personality Disorder. I've said before that one of the largest problems within the modern church is the preaching that God is love, and not preaching that He is also fire and brimstone punishment. You see these guys on T.V. mostly. They come out on stage dressed oh so fashionably, like they just came from a dance club or something. Pastel shirts and flowers etc... Perfectly manicured goatees and coifed hair. Then they stand there and speak of God as if He were some kind of hippie. Now I can somewhat understand why they do this. They're just trying to get people to see the light, and sometimes the easiest way is to preach about Gods' love. This is all well and good, but it's not the whole truth. In a sense, they are only telling people what they want to hear. This is wrong. They must tell people the truth about God. The whole truth, and nothing but the Truth. Then allow them to make their own decision. The job of believers is simply to tell the truth. It is the job of those who hear the truth to decide whether or not they accept it.



posted on Jul, 17 2004 @ 11:45 PM
link   
The God of the OT and NT are different and opposing forces

dont you fools know that the god of the old testament only promises salvation to those of jewish blood?

Jesus came to free us from bondage to the jews and their racist god



posted on Jul, 18 2004 @ 12:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by Ashlar
The God of the OT and NT are different and opposing forces

dont you fools know that the god of the old testament only promises salvation to those of jewish blood?

Jesus came to free us from bondage to the jews and their racist god



...And for the third time I say this. God made a covenant with Abraham and his descendants. Jesus came to extend this deal to the rest of the world. The reason that God was primarily a Jewish God, was because the Jews were the only ones who knew and worshipped Him.

It's no coincidence that Jesus came at the time of the Roman empire. At that time, Rome had conquered most of the known world. For the first time in history, most of the world was connected, and communication, free trade and ideas were easily transported across cultural and national boundries. God wanted the word of Christ to travel all over the world, and not be thought of as simply a "Jewish religion".

I can aready see certain posts saying "well, if God wanted the whole world to know of His word, why not just tell them Himself. Why wait until a certain point in history?" Because of the personal covenant with Abraham. God cannot break His promises.

Then there is that little thing called "Free Will" and "Higher Intelligence". We choose to accept God, or we choose to reject Him. It was a gift that God gave man. A gift that only He, out of all creation, possessed. Hence the "Let Us(the Trinity) make man in Our Image, and in Our Likeness" verse. God does not force His love on anyone who does not want it. He understands that forced love is rape.

If God had revealed Himself to the world, He would have been guilty of two things: 1. Breaking His promise with Abraham, and 2. Forcing His love on the world.



posted on Jul, 18 2004 @ 12:43 AM
link   
but this does not deal with the fact that the teaching of the jews and the christ are opposite in nature

land of milk and honey Vs. selling off your possessions

revenge Vs. forgiveness

exclusiveness Vs. inclusiveness



posted on Jul, 20 2004 @ 05:59 PM
link   
Actually the god of "Iesous" is just as legalistic, narrowminded and racist as the god of the Old Testament: it is the "same clan god" after all, i.e. Yahweh the clan-god of Israel, and the OT and other writings found among the Dead Sea Scrolls (e.g. the pseudipigrapha and apocrypha) are all the man ever knew or cared to know.

When reading certain passages in Matthew and Luke, it is clear that "Jeezuzz" didn't care very much for Gentiles (i.e. "goyim) who were "not worthy of the life", and treated them the way they are treated in the "Old Testament"...

Don't forget "Jeezuzz" (R. Yehoshua bar Yosef the Galilean) was a Davvidic Jew whose family was at the core of the groups that produced much of Israelite history in the first place. He would hardly have divorced himself from his roots the way the Gospels try to pretend he did.

The "Old Testament Based Intolerant Rabinnic" image of "Jeezuz" was clearly supressed in the goslels and "worked over" by later gentile hands in the gospel narratives during the years AFTER Israel and the Temple in Jerusalem was destroyed in AD 70--when all sacrifices ceased and Israel ceased to exist as a separate nation.

None of the Gospel material was ever actually written down in Greek while Israel still existed, and the Final Conflict for Israel (the Last Days) was still in the future.

But there are glimpses of what narrow-minded Torah Abiding teaching J. used to expect his followers to obey:

Things like the following little gem of a story are happily placed into his mouth in the Gospel of "Matthew" (whoever he was):

NOT A JOT NOT A TITTLE OF THE TORAH SHALL BE ADDED TO OR SUBTRACTED FROM : ALL MUST BE OBEYED TO COMPLETION... he would tell his disciples.

In Luke's Gospel we read a story about a rich young man who asked him, Good Rabbi, what must I do to be worthy of the Life? He is said to have answered, "Why do you call me Good? There is only ONE who is good! ...but if you wish to be worthy of the Life, then YOU HAVE TO OBEY ALL THE LAWS WRITTEN IN THE TORAH OF MOSES---etc.

"Jeezuz" said some (what we would call) racist things as well.

"I have come TO SAVE ONLY THE LOST SHEEP OF THE HOUSE OF ISRAEL" (Matthew chapter 15) he tells a Syro-Phonecian woman (i.e. a goy =gentile) who came to him for help with her daughter a few verses later: "SINCE WHEN IS IT RIGHT TO TAKE THE BREAD OF THE CHILDREN OUT OF THEIR MOUTHS AND THROW IT TO THE DOGS UNDER THE TABLE?" he tells the gentile lady, right to her face.

Even when he sent out his disciples "two by two" to announce the impending Kingdom of God (i.e. AD 36, as they approached 100th anniverary of the Invasion of the Romans in BC 63 which year he apparently imagined an "divine" overthrow of the Occupation) "Jeeezzuzzz" tells them :

DO NOT ENTER INTO ANY VILLAGES OR TOWN OF THE GOYIM (i.e. gentiles): BUT ONLY PREACH TO THE LOST SHEEP OF THE HOUSE OF ISRAEL...

You can begin to see the same god of the Old Testament here being echoed again and again.

The original "Chrsitian" message was preached by Jesus the Jew and by his 12 Jewish disciples to other Jews, and the original band of followers had no mission to save any gentiles, only to PREACH TO THE ELECT OF THE LOST SHEEP OF THE HOUSE OF ISRAEL SCATTERED AMONG THE GOYIM (i.e. the Jews of the Diaspora which the MESSIAH was supposed to bring back to Jerusalem "during the last days").

J. own brother took over the ministry after the "crucifixion" based on his blood lineage to the Royal Line of the Davvids---and continued the so-called Ebionite or Nazorean church, which made every convert undergo circumcision and keep kashrut dietary laws (as James demanded in Acts 15)

Even Shimeon bar Yonah ("Peter") has a vision on the Rooftop where he exclaims: Lord, I have never ever eaten anything but Kosher Food my whole life...! " which suggets "Jeezzuzz" set the example of keeping Kashrut as well as the disciples.

In other words, you had to be "Jewish" and follow the same guidelines of the Old Testament in order to be saved according to both "Jesus" (R. Yehoshua bar Yosef the Galilean) and his brother "James" the "Just: (R. Yakkov bar Yosef ha Tsaddiq): because THEY BOTH WORSHIPPED YAHWEH THE CLAN GOD OF ISRAEL, i.e. the SAME CLAN GOD OF THE OLD TESTAMENT HEBREW WRITINGS, not some new god.

It was a different preacher altogether (Saul of Tarsus, who as you should know by now did not even know "Jeezuz" personally----yet called himself an Apostle anyway, over the objections of the family of "Jeeezuz") who violently twisted and contorted the original Messianic Nazorean, Old- Testament-God based Jewish message into something that the Gentiles could swallow and accept---including making the Old Testament god of the Jews (YHWH) more palatable to non Jews, "a god of Love and Forgiveness", with a definite "toning down" of the angry genocidal maniac we read about in the book of Joshua or Hezekiel chapters 8 and 9.

One has to be very careful about how to understand correctly how all the "toned down and niced up" Greek of the Gospels had been translated from its Aramaic oral stage into written sayings lists: even more so when church tone it down even more from Greek into modern English---in order NOT to piss people off.

But when the oddly syntactical Greek words are brought back into Galilean Aramaic, they are more powerfully offensive in many cases ---certainly not so "passive and lovely", although the Gospels try as hard as they can to mask over the definite tone of defiance in much of "Jesus" language (they circulated after all among gentiles AFTER THE WAR in which the Jews lost to Rome, so the rhetoric was definitely toned down)

E.g. "Turning the other cheek" is not necessarily a "passive stance" the way most Chrsitians read the sayhing in English: In its original Aramaic form, the saying actually marks a tone of Defiance against the Goyim Gentiles:

"If a gentile tries to slap you on the right cheek (i.e. with the BACK of the hand, a motion of humilating abuse in the middle east) then "be defiant and turn to him the other cheek..." in other words, make the nasty gentile dog Romans think about who they are about to hit...

There are many such instances where the Gospels try to soften and cover up a much "ruder Jesus" and much more in line with the vehemence of the Old Testament Prophets.

The message would have been delivered a lot differently if the Jews had won the War in AD 66-72.....for one thing, the family of "Jesus" would still have been running the show, instead of being wiped out, only to be completely usurped by all those Greek Speaking Pauline churches scattered all over the Roman Empire, spreading their misunderstood, mistranslated and warped "anti-Judaic" image of "Jeezuzzz" whom they were successfully sellling to the gentile masses in the form of some pagan deity with a Greek haircut...they even changed his name from Yeshua to "Iesous" to top it all off !

It has been said that only Jews well versed in the OT and the Dead Sea Scroll material can ever truly understand the references in the Gospel material----and there is a very good reason for that...!



posted on Jul, 20 2004 @ 07:50 PM
link   
The New Testament is just the Old Testament with a better marketing department.

You really can't even take the New Testament at face value without looking at what was happening in the Roman Empire in the years following the short lived "Christian persecutions", specifically Emperor Constantine's "dream" he'd win in battle under the sign of the cross, and the creation of the very first "National Religion" where Rome immediately reversed the persecutions to that of "non Christian heretics."

The NT continued to be sculpted over the years to the Roman audience in "tweaking" efforts to make it more palatable than it's 5,000 year old predecessor, and continues to be interpreted in new ways to this day to make it seem more applicable.

But had Rome not been in control of the world at the time it "converted" and established it's Church/State rule of law, and two pronged attack of inavsion and conversion...we'd likely have never even heard of Jesus.

Those of us in the West would most likely be Druids in all honesty, or a much more advanced secular people that never had a "Dark Age". But like the way of all "natives" they must convert or die, and the "Western World" remains Roman inspired and Christian to this day.

And now some random KJV Bible quotes that remain as relevant today as ever:


Hobbies
2Ki 18:27 But Rabshakeh said unto them, Hath my master sent me to thy master, and to thee, to speak these words? Hath he not sent me to the men which sit on the wall, that they may eat their own dung, and drink their own piss with you?

Deu 28:53 And thou shalt eat the fruit of thine own body, the flesh of thy sons and of thy daughters, which the LORD thy God hath given thee, in the siege, and in the straitness, wherewith thine enemies shall distress thee:

Cooking Tips
Mal 2:3 Behold, I will corrupt your seed, and spread dung upon your faces, even the dung of your solemn feasts; and one shall take you away with it.

Eze 4:12 And thou shalt eat it as barley cakes, and thou shalt bake it with dung that cometh out of man, in their sight.

Child Rearing
Psa 137:9 Happy shall he be, that taketh and dasheth thy little ones against the stones.




[edit on 20-7-2004 by RANT]



posted on Jul, 21 2004 @ 03:10 AM
link   
Amadeus - perhaps you are correct - Perhaps St. Paul truly is the Originator of the Christianity that I knew as a Boy - which mysteriously disappeared as I got Older - when Reason & Logic & Science kicked in. Now I only shudder when I think about all of the absolute CRAP that is probably being passed off for "Christian" these days. I Certainly run into these Idiotic Fundamentalists on the WEB all the time. These days I turn on the T.V. News & all I see are people KILLING each other in the Middle East & for what - the Name of the Invisible Man in the Sky - the Infamous Invisible Real Estate Agent? It is really Twisted & Perverted - maybe we should just let them Kill each other off completely - so that we can start over again once they are done!!!



posted on Jul, 21 2004 @ 07:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by Ashlar
The God of the OT and NT are different and opposing forces

dont you fools know that the god of the old testament only promises salvation to those of jewish blood?

Jesus came to free us from bondage to the jews and their racist god


It's obvious you haven't a clue what you're talking about. The OT is full of 'types and shadows' to tell the story of the coming Christ and His redeeming work that takes in all peoples. Another thing, God is not and never has been the God of the Jews only. He is Israels God, Judah was only one son. If you knew your history you would know that the anglo-saxon people are Israelites. A split came after the death of King Soloman and during the reign of his son, they were then known as the Northern Kingdom (10 tribes) and the Southern Kingdom (Judah & Benjamin). At the time of the bondage by the Assyrians the 10 northern tribes were placed between the Assyrians and their enemies for a buffer zone. They were known by the surrounding peoples as Beth Khumri or house of Omri, Omri being one of the kings of Israel. They escaped over the Caucausus Mts. At that time a new people emerged in Europe referred to as Sakasuni or Sons of Isaac....later transliterated into Saxons. God is our God, and He is the God of all the nations, His promise has always been that He would include all people in His promises of redemption for the whole world.



posted on Jul, 21 2004 @ 09:16 AM
link   
Hi there, Soterion 5:

What rock did you crawl out from under?

Where did you get all this ponderous PSEUDO-ANGLO SAXON HISTORY of yours?

You mean you actually believe that crackpot who wrote the article "Lost Israel Found" or others like him?

You can't be that obtuse, surely !

The 10 "lost tribes" which were exiled into Assyria in 722-701 BC (into an area where the modern day Kurdish population lives today) were NOT ANGLO SAXON, but of Shemitic stock.

Maybe you should look that word up some time.

HERE'S A SAMPLE OF SOME OF THE NONSENSE YOU WROTE:

"It's obvious you haven't a clue what you're talking about. God is not and never has been the God of the Jews only. He is Israels God, Judah was only one son. If you knew your history you would know that the anglo-saxon people are Israelites."

Presumably when you use the word "god" you are referring to Yahweh the clan-god of the post Exilic Judaean-Israelites.

FACT: There is NO LINGUISTIC OR ARCHAEOLOGICAL EVIDENCE TO BACK UP ANY OF THESE ANGLO SEMITIC FANTASIES OF YOURS.

The SOCALLED TEN "lost tribes" never returned to Palestine, but remained in the regions of northern Iraq and parts of Afghanistan to this day: the LEVETICAL MARKER in the genetic codes of many people in the region proves this (even the Kurds have the Levetical marker: could that be a CLUE???!!!)

Can you even READ HEBREW? PROTO-SAXON? CAN YOU TELL THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THEM?

Do you even know where Assyria was located on the ANCIENT WORLD MAP?

YOU ALSO WROTE: "Beth Khumri or house of Omri...escaped over the Caucausus Mts. "

Sorry, but the CAUCASUS MOUNTAINS ARE IN THE OPPOSITE DIRECTION FROM THE AREA WHERE THE NORTHERN WESTERN EURIOPEAN SAXON ("Sachseni") PEOPLE WERE LIVING IN THE 8th CENTURY BC.

YOU ALSO WROTE: "...a new people emerged in Europe referred to as Sakasuni or Sons of Isaac....later transliterated into Saxons. "

The Term SAXON has nothing to do with the Hebrew room "Yitsaaq" (from a verb meaning to "sneer, or laugh outloud" , so they could not be Sons of Yitzaak: Nothing of the kind was ever TRANSLITERATED into "SAXON" (or Sachsene):

Etymologically, the Nordic word "SAXON" derives from the Germano-Finnish root "Sachsa" meaning to ["cut" ] i.e. with a kind of knife [or "dagger"] which these Nordic people preferred in Battle. It has no Shemitic-Arabid linguistic or cultural links whatever.

The SAXONS ("Sachsens") were Nords not Shemites (whereas the 10 northern tribes of Israel which were exiled into Assyria were all a brown-skinned mixture of Shemitic Canaanitish Arabids)

Why don't you try consulting a real book on historical anthropology so you can get some of your warped facts straight?

Try checking out: e.g. 'Origin of the Anglo-Saxon race; a study of the settlement of England and the tribal origin of the Old English people. by: Thomas William Shore (Publisher: Port Washington, N.Y., Kennikat Press [1971] = ISBN: 0804612498)

YOU ALSO WROTE: "God is our God, and He is the God of all the nations, His promise has always been that He would include all people in His promises of redemption for the whole world. "

What utter nonsense you write. You clearly have not studied any of the Hebrew text variants in their originals and do not know a Middle Eastern Clan-God when you see one.

"Clan gods" for those of you who do-not-know are by definition NOT UNIVERSAL but are the local tribal priestly manifestations (i.e. false conjurings or imaginative projected national local tribal deities) designed to unify a tribe against "those outside the tribe" and the priestly cults of YHWH and EL (and other Cannanite deities reflected and morphed together in the Hebrew Bible) are no exception.

There is nothing inherently UNIVERSAL about the clan god of Israel who cares only about his socalled Chosen People (an idea Hitler also used, only he used a phrase which was later translated as "master race...")

'Nuff said...

I suggest you widen your reading habits young man.



posted on Jul, 21 2004 @ 12:01 PM
link   
I myself struggled with this question for a long time, being the son of a minister. I had a hard time, because my family called themselves Christians, yet they IMO did not act at all Christ like. They came across to me, as OT Christians. Judging everyone, full of anger, vengence etc.. So I tried to figure out why there was a difference in beliefs comming from the same Bible. When I looked at the big picture, I determined that there definately are OT Christians, and NT Christians. I was even able to see that Republicans tended to be OT Christians, and Democrats tended to be NT Christians. Just look at the political parties platforms, and it is mirrored in them. Democrats are for social programs, or helping the less fortunate. Republicans preach self reliance and accountability etc.. So I wanted to figure out why it is that way.

So I started to study what you are describing here. If you look at the God portrayed in the OT, like you stated, he is a God of vengence, judgement etc.. It is shown all through the OT. Adam and Eve kicked out of Eden, the flood of Noah, the Tower of Bable, the Isrealites wandering through the desert for 40 years, etc. etc. etc.. Then I looked at the NT after Jesus's arrival on the scene. As also has been stated, it was a 180 degree shift in my mind from what was being taught in the OT. Things like love your enemy as yourself, turning the other cheek etc. etc. etc.. So I was at the same point you are at now, trying to reconcile these distinct differences and why they exist.

The conclusion that I came to for myself was this. I tried to put myself in God's shoes, and understand what he must have felt at the time etc.. Imagine yourself being a father or mother if you aren't already. If you love your son or daughter very much, you tend to want the best for them. It also pains you very much to see them going through trials and tribulation. I am sure after God created Adam and Eve, that he was very disappointed in their disobedience of his guidance in the Garden of Eden. If it were me, I would be very upset with my creation as well. I created them, I know what is best for them, yet they want to ignore my guidance. So he booted them from the garden, and basically said fine, you don't want to listen to me? Then you can figure all of this out on your own, without my guidance.

The story as I stated before continues all throughout the OT. God commanding man to adhere to certain rules and guidlines, and man continually ignoring God and his will for man. So he passes judgement for their disobedience, through the great flood, etc.. Many people may disagree with what I am about to say, but I found the false statements being taught by many OT Christians about their faith. I.E. God is all knowing, God is perfect, and doesn't make mistakes etc.. Why do I say this, which I know is a bold statement? I read the story about Moses being on top of the mountain, while the Isrealites were wandering the desert. Moses while on the mountain was given the 10 commandments for the children of Isreal to follow.

After receiving the 10 commandments, Moses went back down the mountain to deliver God's commandments to the Isrealites. When he got back down the mountain, Moses found that the Isrealites in his absence, had created a golden idol and were worshiping it, and other things not of God. As you can imagine God wasn't very pleased with this turn of events. When Moses went back up the mountain to talk with God, God was pissed to say the least. God wanted to destroy all of the Isrealites for their disobedience of him. That's when Moses stepped in, and actually confronted God's decision. Moses told God, you can't destroy the Isrealites. You made a promise to them, that if they followed you out of their captivity, that you would lead them to the Holy land. If you destroy them now in this desert, who will follow you then? Basically saying that if you break the promise to the Isrealites, who will ever trust your promises in the future?

God listened to what Moses was saying to him, and in the end he didn't destroy the Isrealites in the desert. In essence, God changed his mind because of a mans intervention. So here's a question for you all. How is it that God is "all knowing" if this actually took place? Wouldn't God have known that the Isrealites were sinning, while Moses was carving the 10 commandments into stone? Why wasn't he mad then, why continue to have the 10 commandments carved out of stone, if God knew they were only going to be destroyed by Moses, when he saw what the Isrealites were doing, when he came back down from the mountain? Also if God is perfect an doesn't make mistakes or mis-judgements, why did Moses have to talk sense into God, and show him the error in his decision?

After reading this, I started to realize the teachings that were being taught in the church that weren't exactly acurate. So over time I came to a conclusion. To be honest, it came from, for the lack of a better term, a near death experience that I experienced. Durring this experience, I realized the limitations of the spiritual world. What do I mean by this? When you are in the spirit world, you are able to know everything. But "everything" is limited to that that is. You can not know what hasn't taken place. You can not know what has not already existed. You know what is, and anything that is, is derived from what has already taken place. For those that have experienced the Universal Mind, you will probably understand what I mean by this.

In the spirit world you are able to see all. The limitation of the spirit world though, is that there is no physical. You can wish, and hope, and pray, and alot of thinking. But without the physical body, you can't DO anything. It is a very emotional existance, with no means of doing anything about anything. Can you imagine being God, and not being able to force your will upon your own creation, when you know it is in their best interests? I'm not saying God has no recourse at all. He does have control over the air, water etc., like what we humans call Mother Nature. But that control is limited. It is like trying to paint a portrait with 6 inch brushes.

Now imagine, not being able to control your own creation. All you can do is see the error in their ways, but you can't force the correction to make everything right. So the conclusion I came to, was that God wasn't able to truely understand man, and why they were doing what they were. You only know what you know, and everything you know is through your experiences, or watching others experiences and learning from them. My opinion is that after all of the trials and tribulations of trying to force man to do Gods will, God probably realized that to truely understand man, he had to become man. That is when Jesus entered the scene. Jesus was a part of God in human form. Through Jesus and his experiences on Earth, God was able to understand man and his ways. When Jesus was on the cross, Jesus was still relaying this information to God, so that he could understand. God was mad when they were in the process of killing his own son. Jesus told God "forgive them for they know not what they do". Jesus understood the problems of man, and through his understanding, God was able to understand as well.

IMO that is why there is the 180 degree shift in the nature of God in the OT, to the God of the NT. They are both the same God. God changes and evolves in his understanding, just as man does through his life. If he didn't change and evolve in his understanding, he would have never listened to Moses on the mountain, when Moses told God that he couldn't destroy the Isrealites in the desert. He would have just destroyed Moses right then and there, for having the nerve to question him and his decisions. Isn't that how he delt with man all through the OT? He was growing in his understanding of man, and it continued through Jesus.

The question that you have posed in this thread, is also IMO the biggest problem facing man today. We have fundamentalist Muslims, Christians, Jews, etc.. Fundamentalists tend to follow the OT. The Jewish people follow the first five books of the Bible, the Muslims also follow the first five books. It explains why Jews are more OT in their views of life, and how it is to be lived. Fundamentalist Christians also are this way, following the teachings of the OT with little reguard for the teachings of Christ in the NT. It is the difference in these teachings from OT to NT, that is causing all of the strife in the world today. Democrats can't understand why the Republicans are so "cold hearted", and don't appear to have any compassion for their common man. The Republicans can't understand why the Democrats are "girly men", or "bleeding heart liberals". It's because the two sides are adhering to different teachings in the same Bible.

Fundamentalists, are the terrorists trying to adhere to the strict teachings of the OT. How women are to be subservant to man etc.. They are also the Evangelists teaching their hatred of gays, etc.. What's kind of ironic about it, is the Evangelicals in the US etc., say the the Fundamentalist Muslims are living in the dark ages and need to catch up with the times etc.. When they themselves are the same to NT Christians following the teachings of Christ. They all wonder, why don't the Evangelicals follow Christs teachings? Why are they teaching their hate of everyone that doesn't agree with them, which goes against all of Christ's teachings. They feel that the Evangelicals are living in the dark ages spiritually as well. It is even reflected in Conservative view points, and Progressive view points. If everyone would "catch up with the times", and follow the teachings of Christ, Mohammed, Buddha etc., the world would be a much more loving, and compasionate place to live. Like U2 says in their song, they are "stuck in a moment, and can't get out of it". IMO they have failed to progress and evolve, as God has obviously done throughout time. I am so greatful for the compassion God has given man throughout this process, for which he never had to do. I am glad God evolved into a God of love, compassion, kindness, goodness etc.. It is our only saving grace.

If this rings true for you, own it for yourself. If it doesn't, I hope that you find your own path, as it is in all of our best interests.
Peace to you all,

Tom Sawyer



posted on Jul, 21 2004 @ 12:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by RANT
And now some random KJV Bible quotes that remain as relevant today as ever:




Deu 28:53 And thou shalt eat the fruit of thine own body, the flesh of thy sons and of thy daughters, which the LORD thy God hath given thee, in the siege, and in the straitness, wherewith thine enemies shall distress thee:

Child Rearing
Psa 137:9 Happy shall he be, that taketh and dasheth thy little ones against the stones.


[edit on 20-7-2004 by RANT]



Israel had rejected God and He removed His protection from them. God didn't tell them to eat their own children. Their city was under seige and they ran out of food. They ate their own children because they were filled with sin. Sin keeps you from seeing clearly and it so destoyed their sense of right and wrong that when they ran out of food in the city they were faced with starvation. So they compounded their sin even more by adding more sin to it by eating there children. As far as dashing their children against the rocks that is what the enemies of Israel did when the invaded them. they came to destroy and God is telling us that the invaders were enjoying killing the children.


I've said this before, some of the things in the Bible aren't there because God approves of them. He put them into the Bible to show us what sin does. He puts the stuff in to show us what happens to the nation that forgets God.

He showed the U.S. the same thing on Sept. 11. We have told Him He is no longer welcome here. He removed His hand of protection that day to show us what will happen to us if we don't repent and turn from our sin. People who don't know God suddenly cried out God Bless America. But God can't bless disobedience. And now we are even being more arrogant than before Sept. 11th. He is going to remove His hand of protection again, and more destruction will follow.



posted on Jul, 21 2004 @ 01:22 PM
link   
i personally subscribe to the gnostic take on the bible. wheras the old testament god, the god that created this world was a force bent on enslaving us that posed as the true "god". whereas jesus represented the true infinite god and came here to set us free from the tryany of the evil god. personally i believe the so called evil god is actually some sort of alien force (reptoids, greys, ect) that is enslaving humanity.



posted on Jul, 21 2004 @ 08:33 PM
link   
I don't agree that Jesus was worshipping the same God as that in the Old Testament. In his teachings, he seems to be redefining Yaweh and therefore he becomes a different deity.
As I've written elsewhere, the evidence points to the Hewbrews doing the same thing with Canaanite gods so there is a precedence.

Jesus was not an Orthodox jew. There are many sects which he could have belonged to and not all of them had views which coincided with the mainstream. In fact some of them are hardly recognised as Judaic.

Although there are instances in the OT where the personality of the old Yahweh shines through there is much that has been altered. The old personality and the favouritism that he shows towards the Israelites could be seen as a carrot that is being used to tempt the mainstream Jewish faith into following the re-definition.

I do not believe that the Old Testament god has any relevance to Christianity after he morphs from the Canaanite El and turns into Yaweh when Moses encounters him on the mountain. The Old Testament Yahweh is exlusively Jewish and has no tolerance of any other faith. When we look at Leviticus, that thought is reinforced through the laws that are passed down. Jesus' god, on the other hand, accepts the redefining of the laws and could even be said to positively welcome them. There is some contradiction with Jesus stating that he comes to enforce Jewish law, but it is overwhelmed by the number of times that he reinterprets them - just one example are the food laws. Jewish law stated that many foods could not be eaten. Jesus refuuted this and stated that it wasn't what went into a man that should matter, but what came out. We also see the same sort of disregard for the Sabbath. One has to remember that in it's day, working on the Sabbath was just about one of the worst things that a Jew could do - it was tantamount to blasphemy and had been punishable by death for centuries. By all evidence, it was also a law that was strictly enforced.
Jesus' teachings that these laws were no longer applicable could definitely be seen as a redefining of the Jewish god's personality - you could even say that if his god was Yahweh, he had broken the covenant with the Israelites as the laws were a major part of this pact. The Old Testament's Yahweh was known for contradictory actions, but throughout his history, the one thing that stood sacred were the laws of Leviticus. To break that covenant, Jesus must have had a different god.

To my mind, this redefintion of god was why Jesus was seen as a heretic by the Jewish mainstream and this is why he would have been put to death.



posted on Jul, 21 2004 @ 08:51 PM
link   
Lol whoever said the Anglo-Saxon people are the 10 Lost Tribes of Israel needs to get a reality check.

If the Jews of today aren't the true seed of the Prophet Abraham, then what makes you think the Anglos are?



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join