God of OT and God of NT

Off Topic Politics and World Issues
21

God does not and cannot change. Man is who changed because God changed him though it was the same gospel in the old testament as in the new. It wasn’t revealed or accomplished in time “yet”, but men were saved by grace though faith in BC days just like now. The whole of the history of OT Israel was an earthly type or illustration of God’s ultimate intention of fulfilling and summing up of all things in Christ.

I keep saying to read the book of Hebrews (or Romans or Galatians, but especially Hebrews), but nobody will. They’ll just keep on proclaiming how there are different god’s in the old and new testaments. The old testament is full of the loving kindness of God and the new testament is full of His judgment. God’s glorious design was the same since day one (before actually) and was progressively revealed until it’s culmination on the day of Pentecost in the second chapter of the acts of the apostles.

22

[quote]Sweet Revenge wrote:
Generally, the OT shows God much more jealous, vengeful, wrathful and angry.
The NT shows God more loving, generous, merciful.
Perhaps it’s just the writers or the way I was taught----right, wrong or indifferent.
So, its probably a matter of perception. There is a verse that says God is the same today, yesterday, always.[/quote]

Mankind attaches human emotion to deities in almost every religion. Is it not the same here?

To the simple minded like myself, it appears the Bible states that God created an atrocity, recognized it as such and found contempt in his creation. Then destroys it entirely to only start again with a refreshing attitude because of the catalyst (Himself/Jesus) he intends on - and finally interjects upon the world. Therefore correcting a mistake that a perfect God is incapable of making.

To the religious few that may read this, I am not attacking the notion of it all but simply portraying the mindset that many of us in doubt possess.

23

You know it’s interesting, I was just listening to a series of lectures from Prof. Bart Ehrman and he was speaking to the concept of God and basically he indicated that the earliest documents we have (though now labeled heretical) were of gnostics who explained the God of the OT as a lesser, messed up God who created this earth and kind of failed at it. The God of the NT sends Christ to fix everything, though Christ does not actually physically exist- he only appears to do so.

They apparently also believed in at least some of TULIP.

Not making a doctrinal declaration, just sharing something I learned a couple days ago.

24

[quote]byukid wrote:
You know it’s interesting, I was just listening to a series of lectures from Prof. Bart Ehrman and he was speaking to the concept of God and basically he indicated that the earliest documents we have (though now labeled heretical) were of gnostics who explained the God of the OT as a lesser, messed up God who created this earth and kind of failed at it. The God of the NT sends Christ to fix everything, though Christ does not actually physically exist- he only appears to do so.

They apparently also believed in at least some of TULIP.

Not making a doctrinal declaration, just sharing something I learned a couple days ago.[/quote]

I wasn’t aware of that. That’s pretty cool. If they were two separate Gods and I had to pick one, I would certainly pick the NT dude with his hippy peace and love vibe over the OT guy that kills you for masturbating.

25

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:
I’d say each is very much a product of the lives and times of its writers and editors. The oldest material in the OT probably dates from the 14th or 13th Century BCE, with most of the stories finding their way into the narrative around the 5th C BCE. Many sections could be even older–some are little more than recycled and refurbished versions of ancient Pagan myths (of which the flood myth is a prominent example).

The New Testament was written by different men in a different era. By 100 CE theories of jurisprudence, justice, and legality had been systematically developed by the Romans and spread throughout much of the Mediterranean world. The Romans had also indirectly kept at least certain aspects of Classical Greek Philosophy alive and well. You can argue about the extent to which Roman and Greek civilization influenced the Apostles, but the world was certainly a different place-- and the God men wrote about naturally became a different God.[/quote]

Except G-d is different. You assume He is, which He is not.[/quote]

What?[/quote]

G-d isn’t different. Sorry, don’t know what happened there.[/quote]

Your faith dictates that you must accept the OT and NT Gods as one and the same, so I won’t argue that. But do you think that, even if they are the same God, different men affected by different cultural/historical influences would naturally see their world and therefore their God through different lenses?

Ten witnesses of one event usually produce at least two conflicting accounts.[/quote]

I’ll make clear explanation of why G-d is not different from OT and NT and now, as someone put it earlier. The explanation of G-d is this: G-d be’s eternally arrived (be’s as in past present and will be). That is the simplest and most efficient statement to describe G-d I can think of theologically speaking, besides “I AM.”

Anyway, yes I do think that that different men with different cultures and historical influences will see G-d differently. That is why someone in Mexico sees G-d different than someone in NY city. That is why those in Israel see G-d different than someone in China. However, the view point is not because G-d is different, but different circumstances. Now, the reasons why may be right or wrong or one might be better or worse.

However, in the instance of NT and OT, the possible reason why G-d during OT seems different than NT is because G-d has become positive to us, he has become Jesus. A man, someone that we can touch, someone that we can kill, &c.

So, it could be said that G-d in the OT seemed at a distance from us, although He walked with his people. In the NT times Jesus walks with us, and we know it and it has become almost mundane to society it seems. Which is quite astonishing, I would think people would be more enamored with a G-d that would humble himself to basically the substance of dust for his creation (everyone love a romance story about the prince who saves a princess from dwelling in her step-mothers house for all eternity) than one that cared less about his creation and only “meddled” when he was angry (like the Greeks-Romans).

Is G-d different? No. Since Jesus have people changed their disposition to G-d, ultimately changing their views of G-d? Yes.

Does this translate to difference in how the writers in the Holy Scriptures wrote about G-d? Yes, in some ways, theologically speaking it hasn’t but what we call prejudices G-d allowed the authors to put into the Bible.

26

[quote]smh23 wrote:
If they were two separate Gods and I had to pick one, I would certainly pick the NT dude with his hippy peace and love vibe over the OT guy that kills you for masturbating.[/quote]

Fortunately there is only one G-d. Jesus’ love is not a love of receiving but of giving, or Jesus said of serving not to be served. Jesus came preaching self-sacrifice. Either way, He made an impression on the whole world.

27

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
It has been commented upon by scholars and skeptics alike that the God of the OT bears absolutely no resemblance to the God of the NT. I’d like to hear arguments for and against.

A typical argument I find absolutely unconvincing:

It has been said that the God of the OT was concerned with the infancy of Israel. That’s rather curious, for God to be concerned with one Nation above all others. It sounds to me that the Jews invented Judaism with a decidedly national slant and that Christianity was an awkward attempt to adopt the God of monotheism into their new doctrine.

For the believers, please reconcile the God of the OT and NT. For the skeptics, provide your evidence against. [/quote]

I read the additional material you offered.

Here is my opinion - The Bible serves well those who wish to enact war on any nation they deem in God’s judgement. The religious and political leaders of powerful nations solidify a singular view on self-righteous intentions to destroy the evil known as the opposing nation. Through the blinders of religion, the people of the nation intent on destroying the other, are mislead into professing their loyalty to the self serving intent of their leader(s). Holy War - is a loose term I have heard many times through historical events and even to this day, do I hear the same term used to gain favor to what is actively happening in the middle east. A nation’s people, acting on religious fervor, are a dangerous yet effective tool indeed, but the true motivations (money, power, political expansion) are conveniently concealed behind the cloak of religion.

Now, one only has to correlate my proposed concept with the times of the Bible and continued warfare that mankind has waged. Religious passions are undying and easily utilized by the kings of old and present. Is there not a version of the Bible produced/revised during the repective reign of each superpower and with it, a carried penalty of death or imprisonment if this imposed book is not read, believed, and professed as truth?

The origin and truths of the Bible are susceptible to the agenda of the person(s) who serve to present it to the permeable minds of the masses. “Ambiguity” or “Subjection to Interpretation”, scares the hell out of me and in these notions, mankind has effectively serviced evil throughout history.

28

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:
I’d say each is very much a product of the lives and times of its writers and editors. The oldest material in the OT probably dates from the 14th or 13th Century BCE, with most of the stories finding their way into the narrative around the 5th C BCE. Many sections could be even older–some are little more than recycled and refurbished versions of ancient Pagan myths (of which the flood myth is a prominent example).

The New Testament was written by different men in a different era. By 100 CE theories of jurisprudence, justice, and legality had been systematically developed by the Romans and spread throughout much of the Mediterranean world. The Romans had also indirectly kept at least certain aspects of Classical Greek Philosophy alive and well. You can argue about the extent to which Roman and Greek civilization influenced the Apostles, but the world was certainly a different place-- and the God men wrote about naturally became a different God.[/quote]

Except G-d is different. You assume He is, which He is not.[/quote]

What?[/quote]

G-d isn’t different. Sorry, don’t know what happened there.[/quote]

Your faith dictates that you must accept the OT and NT Gods as one and the same, so I won’t argue that. But do you think that, even if they are the same God, different men affected by different cultural/historical influences would naturally see their world and therefore their God through different lenses?

Ten witnesses of one event usually produce at least two conflicting accounts.[/quote]

I’ll make clear explanation of why G-d is not different from OT and NT and now, as someone put it earlier. The explanation of G-d is this: G-d be’s eternally arrived (be’s as in past present and will be). That is the simplest and most efficient statement to describe G-d I can think of theologically speaking, besides “I AM.”

Anyway, yes I do think that that different men with different cultures and historical influences will see G-d differently. That is why someone in Mexico sees G-d different than someone in NY city. That is why those in Israel see G-d different than someone in China. However, the view point is not because G-d is different, but different circumstances. Now, the reasons why may be right or wrong or one might be better or worse.

However, in the instance of NT and OT, the possible reason why G-d during OT seems different than NT is because G-d has become positive to us, he has become Jesus. A man, someone that we can touch, someone that we can kill, &c.

So, it could be said that G-d in the OT seemed at a distance from us, although He walked with his people. In the NT times Jesus walks with us, and we know it and it has become almost mundane to society it seems. Which is quite astonishing, I would think people would be more enamored with a G-d that would humble himself to basically the substance of dust for his creation (everyone love a romance story about the prince who saves a princess from dwelling in her step-mothers house for all eternity) than one that cared less about his creation and only “meddled” when he was angry (like the Greeks-Romans).

Is G-d different? No. Since Jesus have people changed their disposition to G-d, ultimately changing their views of G-d? Yes.

Does this translate to difference in how the writers in the Holy Scriptures wrote about G-d? Yes, in some ways, theologically speaking it hasn’t but what we call prejudices G-d allowed the authors to put into the Bible.[/quote]

I don’t know if I missed it or not , but why don’t you spell God ?

29

[quote]pittbulll wrote:
I don’t know if I missed it or not , but why don’t you spell God ?[/quote]

Basic answer, 2nd Commandment. More detailed answer, habit.

I would guess that it probably came specifically from two of my teachers when I was younger who were Jewish converts to the Catholic faith (one was my babysitter and a family friend, the other was a man that courted my grandmother for awhile after her late husband’s death and has taken care of our family since), both taught me to write the name of the Lord out as G-d. Never really pressed on to me, never demanded, I guess I just picked it up.

And, also I guess it has to do with the fact that I was taught to have reverence for the name of G-d, I still bow my head when the name of G-d, Mary and the Saints, and the mysteries are used or talked about.

30

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:
I don’t know if I missed it or not , but why don’t you spell God ?[/quote]

Basic answer, 2nd Commandment. More detailed answer, habit.

I would guess that it probably came specifically from two of my teachers when I was younger who were Jewish converts to the Catholic faith (one was my babysitter and a family friend, the other was a man that courted my grandmother for awhile after her late husband’s death and has taken care of our family since), both taught me to write the name of the Lord out as G-d. Never really pressed on to me, never demanded, I guess I just picked it up.

And, also I guess it has to do with the fact that I was taught to have reverence for the name of G-d, I still bow my head when the name of G-d, Mary and the Saints, and the mysteries are used or talked about.

[/quote]

Not that I understand the above whatsoever beyond its rather apparent appearance of strictness. In light of all that religious effort to not even spell the name of the Almighty, can you please explain to me the choice of your avatar? Why would an obviously deeply religious man such as yourself choose as the imagery to represent his online persona, a fictional black man that unlawfully imprisoned a promiscuous white woman in a movie that portrayed so much sexual violence and tension?

One the one hand, you won’t even spell the name God.

On the other hand, you’ll happily use the image from a sexually charged movie featuring sexual violence, imprisonment, “Ricci Porn”, and archaic racial stereotypes? WTMF (What the mother fuck)?

Are you feeding this lore that catholics are indeed sexually repressed, with your own suppression leaking out in the form of your avatar? You have to admit that your avatar is a curious choice from a man that won’t even spell God. I known the character was deeply religious, but couldn’t you choose a better representation of service and redemption? For crying out loud, the man kept a half-naked white woman chained to his radiator against her will, in the deep south, with her writhing about the floor in orgasmic frenzy, desperately wanting black cock - LOL the movie is pretty fucked.

31

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

For crying out loud, the man kept a half-naked white woman chained to his radiator against her will, in the deep south, with her writhing about the floor in orgasmic frenzy, desperately wanting black cock - LOL the movie is pretty fucked. [/quote]

You talking shit about Oleena again?

32

[quote]bigflamer wrote:
Uh oh…[/quote]

aahhahahaha!

sigh, T-Nation Forums, providing me with desktop backgrounds since 2002.

33

[quote]dk44 wrote:

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

For crying out loud, the man kept a half-naked white woman chained to his radiator against her will, in the deep south, with her writhing about the floor in orgasmic frenzy, desperately wanting black cock - LOL the movie is pretty fucked. [/quote]

You talking shit about Oleena again?[/quote]

No. You’ll notice in the above the qualifying phrase, “against her will”. Oleena would have happily complied and posted pics in SAMA.

34

400×544 33.5 KB

Following BC’s lead, I may just make this my new avatar whilst accepting the faith. Whaddya guys think? I’m just messin’ with ya BC (kinda). You have to admit your avatar is somewhat incongruous to your strict beliefs. And besides, for a man that won’t spell “God”, Samuel Jackson gives the best profanity in Hollywood! A curious choice sir! :slight_smile:

PS:

I almost forgot about her Confederate Flag shirt. Can the “cleverness” of the movie be any more transparent?!

Cliff Notes to the profane parts of the movie:

White woman raped by White man.
White woman found on side of the road by Black man. Rather than call authorities and seek medical assistance, religious, lonely black man abducts raped white woman.
Black man chains White woman half naked to radiator, wearing Confederate Flag shirt and panties.
White woman “meesoohawny” and craves black cock. She writhes and moans (for da black snake) alot. Boner alert.
Black man withholds the black snake lest the white woman moan.
Black man caters to his chained up white woman and buys her a dress, among other things - thank god he got rid of that horrific t-shirt!
Black man mediates the reunion of dysfunctional white woman with dysfunctional (and terrible actor Justin Timberlake) white man, to be married and presumably pass along their polluted genes to their inevitable offspring.

The critical scenes from Black Snake Moan II takes place largely during the before and after of our young couple’s appearance on the set of the Maury Povich show, “climaxing” if you will, with Maury’s all-too-familiar delivery of “the news” - “The DNA tests results are back…Justin, when it comes to mulatto baby boy Mustafa Muhammed-El with the curiously curly dark hair, yuuuuuuuuuuuu are…NOT THE FATHER”. Mayhem ensues, the crowd chants “whore whore whore whore”, Justin suffers another PTSD breakdown and melts into a pile of quivering tears right there on stage. Justin’s great grand ma ma had fathered his grandfather out-of-wedlock from an inter-racial dalliance. She lied for years and claimed the boy’s father was from Sicily and that the boy was Italian. Justin’s minuscule black heritage gave him hope against all odds that he could be the father of the young boy.
Episode garners highest ratings for day time “talk show” and Ricci’s character soon thereafter loses her child to the State after police are called to her trailer home for a noise complaint only to find Ricci in the middle of an inter-racial tryst with two neighbors while her baby boy Mustafa sits in his own piss just a few feet from the exchange of bodily fluids. After losing her son, Ricci later goes into porn, mostly starring in inter-racial flicks with such creative titles as “Black Snake Bone” and “Black Snake Gang Bang 4”. The movie ends with Samuel Jackson’s character in his living room after dark, the room dimly lit by the images of Ricci’s Gang Bang performance on the TV, with the radiator where she was once chained framed in the shot of the TV. Out of focus blurry bodies having sex are visible. Fade to “black”

Watch for Black Snake Moan 3 in a theater near you! :slight_smile: Samuel Jackson travels to CA and gets all Dirty Harry on the seedy porn industry. He’s back, and with a vengeance, to save that poor white woman. A highlight clip portrays a visibly enraged Jackson barking at a pasty white, fearful porn director.

Jackson: What does indecency look like?
Director: What?
Jackson: Where you from boy?
Director: uh-what?
Jackson: What ain’t no State I ever heard of! They speak English in What?
Director: What?
Jackson: English, motherfucker! Do you speak it?!
Director: Yes.
Jackson: Then you know what I’m saying?!
Director: Yes.
Jackson: Describe what indecency looks like!
Director: What?
Jackson: Say “what” again! Say “what” again! I dare you, I double dare you, motherfucker!

35

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:
I don’t know if I missed it or not , but why don’t you spell God ?[/quote]

Basic answer, 2nd Commandment. More detailed answer, habit.

I would guess that it probably came specifically from two of my teachers when I was younger who were Jewish converts to the Catholic faith (one was my babysitter and a family friend, the other was a man that courted my grandmother for awhile after her late husband’s death and has taken care of our family since), both taught me to write the name of the Lord out as G-d. Never really pressed on to me, never demanded, I guess I just picked it up.

And, also I guess it has to do with the fact that I was taught to have reverence for the name of G-d, I still bow my head when the name of G-d, Mary and the Saints, and the mysteries are used or talked about.

[/quote]

Thanks :slight_smile:

36

[quote]heavythrower wrote:

[quote]bigflamer wrote:
Uh oh…[/quote]

aahhahahaha!

sigh, T-Nation Forums, providing me with desktop backgrounds since 2002.[/quote]

For sure! lol

37

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:
I don’t know if I missed it or not , but why don’t you spell God ?[/quote]

Basic answer, 2nd Commandment. More detailed answer, habit.

I would guess that it probably came specifically from two of my teachers when I was younger who were Jewish converts to the Catholic faith (one was my babysitter and a family friend, the other was a man that courted my grandmother for awhile after her late husband’s death and has taken care of our family since), both taught me to write the name of the Lord out as G-d. Never really pressed on to me, never demanded, I guess I just picked it up.

And, also I guess it has to do with the fact that I was taught to have reverence for the name of G-d, I still bow my head when the name of G-d, Mary and the Saints, and the mysteries are used or talked about.

[/quote]

Not that I understand the above whatsoever beyond its rather apparent appearance of strictness. In light of all that religious effort to not even spell the name of the Almighty, can you please explain to me the choice of your avatar? Why would an obviously deeply religious man such as yourself choose as the imagery to represent his online persona, a fictional black man that unlawfully imprisoned a promiscuous white woman in a movie that portrayed so much sexual violence and tension?

One the one hand, you won’t even spell the name God.

On the other hand, you’ll happily use the image from a sexually charged movie featuring sexual violence, imprisonment, “Ricci Porn”, and archaic racial stereotypes? WTMF (What the mother fuck)?

Are you feeding this lore that catholics are indeed sexually repressed, with your own suppression leaking out in the form of your avatar? You have to admit that your avatar is a curious choice from a man that won’t even spell God. I known the character was deeply religious, but couldn’t you choose a better representation of service and redemption? For crying out loud, the man kept a half-naked white woman chained to his radiator against her will, in the deep south, with her writhing about the floor in orgasmic frenzy, desperately wanting black cock - LOL the movie is pretty fucked. [/quote]

Yes, it is a fucked up story. I’ll keep my criticism of the movie to myself, but I put up a picture of Samuel L. Jackson at the beginning of Black History Month after some jokes in the BHM thread by Prof. X with Lew, Prof. X and some of the other black guys on T-Nation. I just haven’t taken it down because I haven’t had the patience to go through the slow Hub to change it and the picture itself is not very provocative.

However, it does ring tones of religiosity, tradition, sexual morals, divorce, societal corruption, and redemption (and other themes) where I did find commonalities with SLJ. And, he was one hell of a blues man in the movie.

38

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
And besides, for a man that won’t spell “God”, Samuel Jackson gives the best profanity in Hollywood!)[/quote]

I taught both SLJ and R. Lee Ermey how to cuss.

39

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:
I don’t know if I missed it or not , but why don’t you spell God ?[/quote]

Basic answer, 2nd Commandment. More detailed answer, habit.

I would guess that it probably came specifically from two of my teachers when I was younger who were Jewish converts to the Catholic faith (one was my babysitter and a family friend, the other was a man that courted my grandmother for awhile after her late husband’s death and has taken care of our family since), both taught me to write the name of the Lord out as G-d. Never really pressed on to me, never demanded, I guess I just picked it up.

And, also I guess it has to do with the fact that I was taught to have reverence for the name of G-d, I still bow my head when the name of G-d, Mary and the Saints, and the mysteries are used or talked about.

[/quote]

Not that I understand the above whatsoever beyond its rather apparent appearance of strictness. In light of all that religious effort to not even spell the name of the Almighty, can you please explain to me the choice of your avatar? Why would an obviously deeply religious man such as yourself choose as the imagery to represent his online persona, a fictional black man that unlawfully imprisoned a promiscuous white woman in a movie that portrayed so much sexual violence and tension?

One the one hand, you won’t even spell the name God.

On the other hand, you’ll happily use the image from a sexually charged movie featuring sexual violence, imprisonment, “Ricci Porn”, and archaic racial stereotypes? WTMF (What the mother fuck)?

Are you feeding this lore that catholics are indeed sexually repressed, with your own suppression leaking out in the form of your avatar? You have to admit that your avatar is a curious choice from a man that won’t even spell God. I known the character was deeply religious, but couldn’t you choose a better representation of service and redemption? For crying out loud, the man kept a half-naked white woman chained to his radiator against her will, in the deep south, with her writhing about the floor in orgasmic frenzy, desperately wanting black cock - LOL the movie is pretty fucked. [/quote]

Yes, it is a fucked up story. I’ll keep my criticism of the movie to myself, but I put up a picture of Samuel L. Jackson at the beginning of Black History Month after some jokes in the BHM thread by Prof. X with Lew, Prof. X and some of the other black guys on T-Nation. I just haven’t taken it down because I haven’t had the patience to go through the slow Hub to change it and the picture itself is not very provocative.

However, it does ring tones of religiosity, tradition, sexual morals, divorce, societal corruption, and redemption (and other themes) where I did find commonalities with SLJ. And, he was one hell of a blues man in the movie.[/quote]

LOL fair enough.

But admit…it was one fucked up movie.

40

[quote]byukid wrote:
You know it’s interesting, I was just listening to a series of lectures from Prof. Bart Ehrman and he was speaking to the concept of God and basically he indicated that the earliest documents we have (though now labeled heretical) were of gnostics who explained the God of the OT as a lesser, messed up God who created this earth and kind of failed at it. The God of the NT sends Christ to fix everything, though Christ does not actually physically exist- he only appears to do so.

They apparently also believed in at least some of TULIP.

Not making a doctrinal declaration, just sharing something I learned a couple days ago.[/quote]

If you are interested in what the gnostics thought about God, read this:

The other thread about Muslims and Jesus…a lot of ideas Muslims have about Jesus come from the gnostic beliefs. They also use the gnostic texts to try and prove Christianity as being false because the Bible was edited at the Council of Nicea. All they did was take out books like the one I posted above. No Muslims or Christians believe ANY of that.

question: where did the ideas put forth in the book I posted originate? They are totally different from anything Christians believe. It’s almost like it’s another whole branch of Christianity which died out. (or was wiped out.)