Even John and Paul disagree with the God of the OT

page: 2
6
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on Sep, 24 2012 @ 05:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by adjensen
reply to post by Akragon
 


I thought you didn't like Paul, why are you citing him in this inane argument?


For arguements sake...

I believe i have the right to cite whatever passages i choose...

When did you become the scripture police?


Can i see a badge please?

edit on 24-9-2012 by Akragon because: (no reason given)




posted on Sep, 24 2012 @ 05:54 PM
link   
reply to post by EnochWasRight
 


I'm often quite surprised people don't check out several commentaries when verses come up that seem contradictory or confusing when compared to others.



posted on Sep, 24 2012 @ 06:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by Akragon

Originally posted by adjensen
reply to post by Akragon
 


I thought you didn't like Paul, why are you citing him in this inane argument?


For arguements sake...

I believe i have the right to cite whatever passages i choose...

When did you become the scripture police?


Can i see a badge please?


Don't have one of those, but I do have one of these:





No, my question was more along the lines of "if you disagree with someone, why cite them in a disagreement with something else?" It seems like you're either showing that he's not all that wrong, or you're undermining the claim.



posted on Sep, 24 2012 @ 06:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by EnochWasRight
 


I'm often quite surprised people don't check out several commentaries when verses come up that seem contradictory or confusing when compared to others.


Even the commentary does not go deep enough into the mystery. For God to be one, we are all part of God. When Jesus says, "I and the Father are one," he is literally telling us the mystery behind the failures and problem in the Bible that we can easily see as similar in nature to David and his sin. Think about what I just said deeply.

1 Colossians 1:

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

The first born Son is the Father of the material world. Adam and Abraham were fathers of their own. Jesus is the last Adam. Again, think it through. It's a mystery.



posted on Sep, 24 2012 @ 08:33 PM
link   
reply to post by Akragon
 




Clearly the murder of a child is an "offence" to God


He was speaking to the ones above, Father would never order another "man" to kill humans. He will send ones from above to do this.

The angel of death, he is on the side of Father. But the work he does, is not looked upon in a good light to the others. Thus why he is not allowed into heaven, but is completely loyal to Father.
edit on 24-9-2012 by jhill76 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 24 2012 @ 08:36 PM
link   
reply to post by Akragon
 


Here is some information about the evolution of the concept of Deity throughout the course of the development of the Jewish people, which is where the Old Testament is derived from. Here are the following phases of the growth of the God idea:

1.Yahweh — the god of the Sinai clans. This was the primitive concept of Deity which Moses exalted to the higher level of the Lord God of Israel. The Father in heaven never fails to accept the sincere worship of his children on earth, no matter how crude their concept of Deity or by what name they symbolize his divine nature.

2. The Most High. This concept of the Father in heaven was proclaimed by Melchizedek to Abraham and was carried far from Salem by those who subsequently believed in this enlarged and expanded idea of Deity. Abraham and his brother left Ur because of the establishment of sun worship, and they became believers in Melchizedek’s teaching of El Elyon — the Most High God. Theirs was a composite concept of God, consisting in a blending of their older Mesopotamian ideas and the Most High doctrine.

3. El Shaddai. During these early days many of the Hebrews worshiped El Shaddai, the Egyptian concept of the God of heaven, which they learned about during their captivity in the land of the Nile. Long after the times of Melchizedek all three of these concepts of God became joined together to form the doctrine of the creator Deity, the Lord God of Israel.

4. Elohim. From the times of Adam the teaching of the Paradise Trinity has persisted. Do you not recall how the Scriptures begin by asserting that “In the beginning the Gods created the heavens and the earth”? This indicates that when that record was made the Trinity concept of three Gods in one had found lodgment in the religion of their forebears.

5. The Supreme Yahweh. By the times of Isaiah these beliefs about God had expanded into the concept of a Universal Creator who was simultaneously all-powerful and all-merciful. And this evolving and enlarging concept of God virtually supplanted all previous ideas of Deity in the Fathers’ religion.

6. The Father in heaven. And Jesus taught us to know God as our Father in heaven. His teaching provides a religion wherein the believer is a son of God. That is the good news of the gospel of the kingdom of heaven. Coexistent with the Father are the Son and the Spirit, and the revelation of the nature and ministry of these Paradise Deities will continue to enlarge and brighten throughout the endless ages of the eternal spiritual progression of the ascending sons of God. At all times and during all ages the true worship of any human being — as concerns individual spiritual progress — is recognized by the indwelling spirit as homage rendered to the Father in heaven.



posted on Sep, 24 2012 @ 09:51 PM
link   
For God to exist, He must be worthy of worship. So whatever object is worthy of worship is God. Where your argument breaks down, although it is not that obvious, comes from the fact that God, the object of worship, possesses infinite wisdom, among other attributes.

To challenge any of God's attributes or decisions based solely on the words of man, is not legitimate. This is because no man can know what infinite wisdom would produce or bring about, or how it would look to us here on earth, unless man possessed that wisdom for himself.

And as far as God being love, I have seen well-structured, logical, philosophical arguments that draw just that conclusion. I remember the gist of the argument, and although this particular piece was in an actual book, I'm sure similar arguments have been made online in the past.



posted on Sep, 24 2012 @ 10:14 PM
link   
reply to post by Akragon
 


Ah, the OT God.

Well, I see where you are trying to go with this Akragon, and I agree with your perspective..

This is my take on the particular subject: the authors of the books in the OT are human. Just like as mankind is imperfect, their views will be as well; although some see my statement having faulty logic, the evidence is right in your face and justified through mankind's beautifully disastrous history.

That being said, I really dislike when the bible thumpers say that the bible is 100 percent correct/perfect. How could the writings of man be 100% perfect? I feel as if bible thumpers worship the bible, instead of the Source of what those scriptures talk about.

Why would the bible not be 100% perfect/correct? So people can ask Father personally and receive the answers directly through that personal relationship we all have.

I think the writers of the OT put a lot of their own thoughts into their writings, and it is true; the emphasis of nationalistic pride in the OT is of no coincidence, ie "God will smite the enemies of Israel." Civilized nations control religion in order to control the people, and Israel is not exempt from these crimes. Israel became a spiritual nation to a physical one, and its people as well. That's why the pharisees and big wigs were not expecting Jesus Christ to be the Messiah and were expecting a physical messiah that would deliver them from the hands of Roman occupation.

To answer the OP: The "god" of the OT is the nationalistic pride of Israel.



posted on Sep, 24 2012 @ 10:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by jhill76
reply to post by Akragon
 




Clearly the murder of a child is an "offence" to God


He was speaking to the ones above, Father would never order another "man" to kill humans. He will send ones from above to do this.

The angel of death, he is on the side of Father. But the work he does, is not looked upon in a good light to the others. Thus why he is not allowed into heaven, but is completely loyal to Father.
edit on 24-9-2012 by jhill76 because: (no reason given)


the angel of death is not looked upon in a good light to who? To those above, or to those on earth? If the angel of death is not looked well upon in the perspective of men, I would understand and agree. To say that he is not allowed in heaven postulates that those in heaven don't really like Morty (reference to the movie Click starring Adam Sandler and Christopher Walkens playing the angel of death)

Isn't his "dirty" work the will of Father? Since it is so, why would he not be allowed into heaven?



posted on Sep, 24 2012 @ 10:34 PM
link   
reply to post by Akragon
 


Where do you think Paul got his information from ? Paul was a Jew and worshiped the God of the OT. He knew no other. as usual you are mixing apples with oranges. Dude, take a theology class or two or ten. Your smarter than this. one word, BORING!



posted on Sep, 24 2012 @ 11:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
Yes, God is love, but God is not only love. He is also holy and righteous. He is also anger against wickedness and rebellion. It's like saying about me: "Ron is a father", yes, I am a father that's true, but I am much more than that as well. Same with God, He is love, perfect love, but He is much more than that.

Nice thread idea tho, S & F.
edit on 24-9-2012 by NOTurTypical because: (no reason given)


If anything...

God is contradictory, god is cruel, god is vengeful, god is punishing, god is spiteful, god un-just.

He kills millions with his floods and plauges and dose not discriminate good from evil.

Only those who worship god are shown love and mercy and those who do not will burn (weather they are bad or good). This also in my opinion means that god is Vain..



posted on Sep, 25 2012 @ 04:10 AM
link   
reply to post by DelayedChristmas
 




the angel of death is not looked upon in a good light to who? To those above, or to those on earth? If the angel of death is not looked well upon in the perspective of men, I would understand and agree. To say that he is not allowed in heaven postulates that those in heaven don't really like Morty (reference to the movie Click starring Adam Sandler and Christopher Walkens playing the angel of death)


The ones above understands his work. But, it is the ones (man) who come above and will not understand, how can someone do such horrible work. When he is called to do the will of Father, no one is allowed near. He also does some other things that doesn't have to do with man, in which I cannot mention on here.



Isn't his "dirty" work the will of Father? Since it is so, why would he not be allowed into heaven?


Yes, he is only called when certain ones here need to be taken out. (Car accident, sudden loss of life, horrible accidents, etc.) Heaven is pure. When ones here from above return to above to get word or other tasks, they even must change garments before entering. It is mainly for the others (man) who does not need to see him.

He doesn't look like the others either, his appearance will frighten you.



posted on Sep, 25 2012 @ 04:12 AM
link   
reply to post by Ironclad
 




Only those who worship god are shown love and mercy and those who do not will burn (weather they are bad or good). This also in my opinion means that god is Vain..


This is not correct. Worship is not a requirement to enter heaven. Ones can be good and learn what they needed to have learned here are eligible to enter. For the ones who have done bad, well, they will learn one way or the other. In the end, all will confess Jesus is Lord, and no, I am not speaking of this current end as others will speak of.



posted on Sep, 25 2012 @ 06:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by Akragon
reply to post by MamaJ
 



Also, when someone freely speaks their opinion regarding what God did for them, for example. "God saved my son from cancer because...... "

I then think, my son battled cancer for five long years and God didn't "save" him. My journey began because people claim to KNOW God and in doing so they believe he plays favoritism. I just don't buy that...AT ALL!.


I feel for your loss my friend...

Perhaps God did bless you with the time you had with your son... he said children are of the kingdom of God

Did his death change your beliefs?

There is a reason behind everything, even though that reason might elude us...

Love ya Mama! You will see him again...




Love you!!!!


Yes, my beliefs did change and they changed for the better as it brought me closer and now I can honestly say that I have a personal relationship with Him.

When he passed I had been working for a church and also attended the church. I had been a "christian" all of my life, or so I thought. By the time he passed I had read the Bible twice and when I needed comfort from the church I received despair instead. My journey began hard core when I was told that Heaven is a mystery (by my minister).

I became very angry and didn't want to be angry at God but I was and felt very shattered and "away" from him.

I found though that even when we are "away" from him, he is still there with his arms out waiting.

Like I said, no doubt Joshua was an old soul and his time spent here was enough as his "job" was done.

God of the OT does not describe the God I know and love. The OT God sounds like a jealous and conflicted child that needs to grow up. My little mind is nothing compared to the creators mind and for that reason it is illogical for me to place humanistic traits on Him. He is not human and does not want any of us to perish, but for us to come to know eternal life within our spirit, soul, and flesh while on Earth.

When we are "away" from Him it is us that separates our self ( once again) and for this reason we are not as protected as if we were close. It creates an imbalance in our energies as a law, not because he is punishing us. Being close to the Light equals more energy.

The laws of creation stand and the will in the very beginning is done.



posted on Sep, 25 2012 @ 07:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by DelayedChristmas
reply to post by Akragon
 


Ah, the OT God.

Well, I see where you are trying to go with this Akragon, and I agree with your perspective..

This is my take on the particular subject: the authors of the books in the OT are human. Just like as mankind is imperfect, their views will be as well; although some see my statement having faulty logic, the evidence is right in your face and justified through mankind's beautifully disastrous history.

That being said, I really dislike when the bible thumpers say that the bible is 100 percent correct/perfect. How could the writings of man be 100% perfect? I feel as if bible thumpers worship the bible, instead of the Source of what those scriptures talk about.

Why would the bible not be 100% perfect/correct? So people can ask Father personally and receive the answers directly through that personal relationship we all have.

I think the writers of the OT put a lot of their own thoughts into their writings, and it is true; the emphasis of nationalistic pride in the OT is of no coincidence, ie "God will smite the enemies of Israel." Civilized nations control religion in order to control the people, and Israel is not exempt from these crimes. Israel became a spiritual nation to a physical one, and its people as well. That's why the pharisees and big wigs were not expecting Jesus Christ to be the Messiah and were expecting a physical messiah that would deliver them from the hands of Roman occupation.

To answer the OP: The "god" of the OT is the nationalistic pride of Israel.


Amen and Amen to this above! Love it! Why? Because I feel the same way!

We clearly can see in the bible mans mind evolving from the old to the new- way of thinking in imagining God.

They believed God to be that cruel in the OT and then in the NT we see God simmering down and chilling out with a lot of Love and Light!!!

Man is and has been corrupted from the very beginning within his own heart and many life times does it take to become at one once again with our father! This is had when we trust, love, and obey the laws within.

Our fellow man when contemplating God can imagine all sorts but as we manifest each thought we must first consider what the thoughts intent is. Is it of Love?

God is Love! Pure love and nothing more than an equal opportunity father who wants the best for each one of us. He doesn't care what color you are, what religion you are as long as you help your fellow man and have an intent of love with each and everything you do and say.

When the above does not happen and your heart in not in line with the pure love he represents then your energy level within goes down and you are open to bad energies. They have to go somewhere.

Just my take on it.



posted on Sep, 25 2012 @ 09:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by Akragon



IF God is love... And Love keeps no record of wrongs as Paul says...

Are you sure this OT God is actually your God?

edit on 24-9-2012 by Akragon because: (no reason given)


Psst....Jesus is the Author and finisher of our faith.
Yes, the God of the OT is actually our God, because it was to those scriptures Jesus was always referring to. When He said "It is written" or "So that Scripture might be fulfilled", it was the Torah that Jesus was talking about.

The writers of the NT are Matthew, Mark, Luke, John the Beloved, Paul, Peter, James and John the Revelator. Paul, Peter and James all have a different view of the purpose of the Gospel, or how to minister. Paul was speaking primarily to a gentile church, so therefore would have had a completely different view because they were not Jewish and were not intended to be Jewish.

Peter spoke to gentiles, but from a Jewish perspective. He spoke primarily to Jewish believers in Christ. James spoke to the twelve tribes which are scattered abroad, so he also spoke primarily to Jewish believers in Christ. John the Revelator spoke to Hellenized Christians in Turkey, so he spoke to their Greek influence, but he presented a very Jewish messiah.

I think what may have happened to you is this, you find Paul seems to be contrary to Jesus and cannot reconcile that. But you have to understand that Paul himself often admitted much of what he said was his own opinion. So if you read something that is opinion, you can disagree with his opinion. You just have to rely on what Jesus said, primarily. You don't have to agree with Paul's opinion or Peter's opinion, for that matter. But you should know what their opinions were.

I, myself, have come across passages where Paul says "but we have no such customs" and "the Lord does not say, but I", those are things you are allowed to disagree with. The Gospel of Jesus does not suffer because of Paul's opinion, but the church found many doctrinal decrees based on opinion, and that should have never happened.

If you disagree with Paul, most likely you are disagreeing with his opinions. That is fine as long as you are aware it was just his opinion. I find myself in disagreement with Paul's opinions, but I make sure I know which ones are before discounting them. Then I always go back to see what Jesus said, it is His authority in matters that counts, because He is the Word of God.



posted on Sep, 25 2012 @ 09:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by adjensen

Originally posted by Akragon

Originally posted by adjensen
reply to post by Akragon
 


I thought you didn't like Paul, why are you citing him in this inane argument?


For arguements sake...

I believe i have the right to cite whatever passages i choose...

When did you become the scripture police?


Can i see a badge please?


Don't have one of those, but I do have one of these:





No, my question was more along the lines of "if you disagree with someone, why cite them in a disagreement with something else?" It seems like you're either showing that he's not all that wrong, or you're undermining the claim.


I love that badge!! That needs to be my avatar picture. I just recently joined an online literary critique group. When I read a biography about a particular artist that had direct quotes without citing the sources, I was shocked that this was allowed. When I wrote my article, I provided a space at the bottom that included everyone of my citations, as you are supposed to do. People were shocked that I did that.

I generally always post links for the ex-text. Let me tell you what can happen without source citation...I (would not do it, only using it as an example) could read a post by so-an-so on ATS, then I could borrow that information and post it elsewhere, or even write a book or article with that information. I could make money off of it and it would be up to the person I took the information from to prove it. If I say this site is not for publication rights, then the person would have to concede there is no way to recoup money, even though I ripped them off.

If a person borrows information, even if the source was not making money off it, that is still stealing the information. One can borrow information if it is generalized. But at the same time, even if it is generalized, it does not mean the information is accurate, in that case the person is passing false information. Wikipedia is notorious for that, and that is why NO university allows Wikipedia as a source. Anytime someone posts a link to Wikipedia I never read that link because, chances are, the information is incorrect.

@Akragon, yes, you have the right to cite whatever verses you wish, but it would be more proper to cite the context also. What you are proposing is "cherry-picking" that leads to literary dishonesty. Who was the verse written to, where were those people at, and what were they doing when the verse was given? Those are things you need to address before you post a verse and say it is true, because it is nothing more than your opinion, and why is your opinion greater than the writers' opinion?
edit on 9/25/2012 by WarminIndy because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 25 2012 @ 09:40 AM
link   
reply to post by MamaJ
 





God is not hateful and unjust. He is not on an ego trip nor does he play favorites. He is not human


Hold up, you just contradicted yourself. How do you know what God is like if he is not human? You have nothing to base your assumptions on other than your own experiences as to what being a human is like. So if he is not human, and you are not God how do you know what he is like? If he hates, is his hate different than ours? If he loves is his love different than ours? Is his justice and righteousness different than ours? If he is above us and his ways and thoughts not like our own then we cannot make a judgement as to what he is and is not like and not look like fools. The only thing you can do is accept scripture and go 100% on faith. It's from scripture we see who he is and what he is like. Just like people who try to make moral judgements against him, it's impossible, you cannot judge what you do not know and a finite mind cannot fathom an infinite mind.



posted on Sep, 25 2012 @ 09:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by WarminIndy
I love that badge!! That needs to be my avatar picture.


Yeah, if I was less lazy, I'd edit it to say "Scripture Police", but I've been accused of making fun of poor grammar in the past, so it works anyway.



I generally always post links for the ex-text.


That's actually required by the site's Terms & Conditions:


15c.) Intellectual Property: You will not Post any copyrighted material owned by others, material belonging to another person, material previously Posted by you on another website, or link to any copyrighted material without providing proper attribution*, as defined by TAN, to its original source. You will not Post any material that infringes, misappropriates, or violates any patent, trademark, trade secret, or other proprietary rights of TAN or any third party. You will not use your Postings on the Websites to promote your own personal website or any other website with which you may be associated without first receiving permission from TAN.

* Proper Attribution for the posting of copyrighted material owned by others is defined as posting a relevant snippet of the online content not to exceed 10% of the entire piece, a properly formed link back to the source website, and a clear indication of the name of the source website. The posting to these websites of any copyrighted material owned by others that is not found elsewhere online is prohibited. (Source)


And I note that I routinely violate that one by using "Source" instead of the name of the site. Oopsies.

It should also be noted that most (if not all) modern Bible translations are copyrighted, though I believe that it is sufficient to cite them, as I do, along the lines of "Romans 1:15-17 NIV", indicating the "New International Version", whose copyright includes this:


The NIV text may be quoted in any form (written, visual, electronic or audio), up to and inclusive of five hundred (500) verses without express written permission of the publisher, providing the verses do not amount to a complete book of the Bible nor do the verses quoted account for twenty-five percent (25%) or more of the total text of the work in which they are quoted. (Source)



posted on Sep, 25 2012 @ 10:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by adjensen

Originally posted by WarminIndy
I love that badge!! That needs to be my avatar picture.


Yeah, if I was less lazy, I'd edit it to say "Scripture Police", but I've been accused of making fun of poor grammar in the past, so it works anyway.



I generally always post links for the ex-text.


That's actually required by the site's Terms & Conditions:


15c.) Intellectual Property: You will not Post any copyrighted material owned by others, material belonging to another person, material previously Posted by you on another website, or link to any copyrighted material without providing proper attribution*, as defined by TAN, to its original source. You will not Post any material that infringes, misappropriates, or violates any patent, trademark, trade secret, or other proprietary rights of TAN or any third party. You will not use your Postings on the Websites to promote your own personal website or any other website with which you may be associated without first receiving permission from TAN.

* Proper Attribution for the posting of copyrighted material owned by others is defined as posting a relevant snippet of the online content not to exceed 10% of the entire piece, a properly formed link back to the source website, and a clear indication of the name of the source website. The posting to these websites of any copyrighted material owned by others that is not found elsewhere online is prohibited. (Source)


And I note that I routinely violate that one by using "Source" instead of the name of the site. Oopsies.

It should also be noted that most (if not all) modern Bible translations are copyrighted, though I believe that it is sufficient to cite them, as I do, along the lines of "Romans 1:15-17 NIV", indicating the "New International Version", whose copyright includes this:


The NIV text may be quoted in any form (written, visual, electronic or audio), up to and inclusive of five hundred (500) verses without express written permission of the publisher, providing the verses do not amount to a complete book of the Bible nor do the verses quoted account for twenty-five percent (25%) or more of the total text of the work in which they are quoted. (Source)


Could there be people who use their own website to advance their own opinions? Wow.



My parents owned a KJV from 1887 that included the Apocrypha. The modern ones are missing it because Thomas Nelson removed it. I have no problem citing the Wycliffe Bible, which came earlier. You could also cite from the Kirkbride Bible Company or Zondervan

I think Biblegateway is owned by Zondervan. I see here that the Hungarian Karoli has no copyright information. How would you cite this one? You would then have to link to the BibleGateway website, unless you are holding a physical Hungarian Karoli in your hands. And if there is no copyright, then you could in essence print off every page and use that.

I don't think it is possible they own exclusive rights, I think that if you are citing them, then they are requiring you do so simply because they posted the Bible on their website. If they have exclusive rights, then that is a monopoly and they would be breaking the law.

Publication Rights

The KJV does not have to be cited, because it cannot be copyrighted. The NIV is recent, therefore it must be cited. Most people do say KJV when citing it.





new topics
top topics
 
6
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join