Yes Mith I was a believer but am not sure at this point. Searching and searching hard.
I just don’t get much evidence at this point.
I feel like there is not enough evidence.
Haven’t given up though. 0887
Which makes you wonder what the whole point of the plagues is, then.
Moses: Let my people go!
Pharoh: No.
Moses: Then I’ll make your water turn to blood.
<Does so>
<G-d hardens Pharoh’s heart so he doesn’t care it did>
Moses: Now, let my people go!
Pharoh: No.
And Urban Legend, the burnt offerings weren’t of people, but of animals.
Err…Ranger, Urban Ranger. Sorry.
Even if you don’t find enough proof of your God in the bible, I encourage you to keep seeking other texts and philosophies.
You may not find a religion that you agree with, but it doesn’t mean you can’t be a spiritual, reverent being.
Ah, the sudden shift of gears from the OT God and the NT God. I’ve given it much thought myself.
The Old Testament God was acting in the Person of God the Father (assuming you accept the Trinity, which is derived by taking note of the various ways in which God manifested himself). His focus seemed to be on justice. He made His covenant with the Hebrews. If the Hebrews broke this covenant, they would be punished for it, and if they kept his covenant, they would be rewarded for it. This is similar to how parents might raise their children - you break a rule, you get spanked, and if you do what you’re told, you get dessert after dinner, etc. Additionally, if someone was causing trouble for the Hebrews, His chosen people, His children, he’d bust out some heavenly wrath. I don’t think too many fathers would sit back and watch as some stranger assaulted or otherwise molested their child. But sometimes God would keep back, allowing these forces to act as the instrument of His justice - the Hebrews broke the covenant, so he’d let the Phillistines raid them crazy, etc.
And so forth. OT God = Father, justice.
Then we hit the New Testament God, the Person of the Son, Jesus. At this point God sets about fulfilling His promise of a messiah. The most significant thing to consider is that while the OT God was just kind of out there in His astral plane somewhere existing in His typical God brilliance or some such, Jesus took the form of a human. While the Father is free to meat out fire and brimstone on whoever he chooses, not having been bound by a higher power to act in a certain way, Christ had a human nature as well. As such, he acted as humans should act, according to God’s will - man should love, forgive, etc. Joe needs food. Feed him. Bob needs a home - shelter him.
And so forth. NT God = Son, forgiveness, compassion.
The Father acts as your typical big guy in the sky deity should act - adminsters justice, but also protecting his followers. The Son acts as man should act- forgiving, compassionate, loving.
To summarize, simplify, winzip… hold on, let me assume the lotus posture.
[Zen] The Father is the Father, and the Son is the Son. [/Zen]
To prove Moses’ words (i.e. that he was sent by God and not simply making the whole thing up…)
Zev Steinhardt
So, in that case, wouldn’t the first plague of his that the Egyptian magicians couldn’t duplicate do it?
Good explaination Gaijin
I like that answer best of all so far.
I am planning to study this.
0887
You would think…
Obviously Pharoh wasn’t all that impressed with physical miracles anyway. After all, if I’m chasing a group of people and I see that the sea has split for them, I’d stop and say to myself “Hey, wait a minute, maybe they were meant to get away!” Not Pharoh, apparently. He simply charges in after them.
Zev Steinhardt
If God is so all-knowing, why did it take him more than one plague to get the point across? And at what point did all the first-born sons quit being human and become expendable objects in a religious game of chicken?
I don’t understand how omniscience would relate to one’s ability to get the point across. If God is omnipotent, which the Judeo-Christian tradition we are discussing teaches, then it’s not that he couldn’t get the point across in one try, but did not will that the point would get across the first time. Quite obviously, if an omnipotent God wanted to, he could have whisked the Hebrews out of Egypt in an instant and safely planted them in the promised land, bada bing bada boom.
The question, then, is why didn’t he?
Not being God, I can’t say for sure. I would say that it was to enliven the salvation history of His people (I’m not sure if salvation history would apply to Judaism- I only know that it is a Christian term, so please forgive me if I’ve made a mistake here). By bringing plague after plague until Pharoah submits, He is showing His chosen that He’ll stick by their side and dish out whatever He needs to to get the job done. Such a display of wrath would also cause any groups that dealt with the Hebrews in the near future to think twice about messing with them if they heard of the fury poured out on the Egyptians, while at the same time showing the Hebrews what punishment God is capable of inflicting on them if they break their covenant. One could say that, in taking the time of several plagues of increasing severity, He was also teaching the Hebrews to be steadfast - God would get the job done if His faithful were faithful long enough.
Again, though, this is all speculation. One could think of dozens of reasons, I’m sure.
As for the first born expendables- I refer again to my point about God acting in the person of the Father. He was bound by no law, is bound by no law or restriction, and for God to end a life is simply to transfer the soul into the next phase of existence.
And I’m glad that I’m helping, 0887. Keep studying. ;j
Gaijin, I like the way you think. Maybe you can help me out sometime.
Welcome to the board, by the way. I missed your grand entrance.
Gaijin, there’s one problem with your God the Father/God the Son O.T./N.T. dichotomy – we’re told by Jesus Himself in the dialogue at the Last Supper reported in John 13-16 that it’s the Loving Father whose will Jesus does – that the Father is merciful, and that the Pharisees who saw Him as a stern Lawgiver/Judge were mistaken in their conception of Him.
Long before the doctrine of the Trinity was formalized with all the appropriate Greek metaphysical terms – ousia, hypostases, and the rest – the teaching of the early Church was, quite simply, “In Jesus we see God. When we see Him, we see God Himself acting out what it means to be a sinless human.” I am by no means thrilled with the doctrine of the Trinity – it attempts to unscrew the inscrutable in terms of Aristotelian conceptualization. But I believe with all my heart in the Trinty – the one God who reveals Himself to us poor jokers in three modes: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. (And before some student of early heresies asks, “modes” there does not mean I’m preaching Modalism – it’s a convenient term for the statement, that’s all.)
And also – which I meant to say at the end of the previous post and forgot – to echo what Jersey said – it’s a pleasure to read your posts and think about the implications, and it’s great to have you here! 
**
Because when you’re dealing with free-willed beings, they can choose not to listen. So, Pharoh chose not to listen after plague after plague.
Good question. I’m not going to pretend that I have the answer to that question.
Zev Steinhardt
But we’re also dealing with an all-knowing being who couldn’t help but know which plague it would take to get the job done right the first time, aren’t we?
Well, maybe He liked spectacle, Czar!
I would agree with that statement.
As such, one can posit that there were other reasons for the plagues besides simply facilitating the Exodus. Indeed, by reading the text, one finds several reasons given for the plagues.
Zev Steinhardt
Going back to the “eye for an eye” vs. love thing:
I don’t think the two can be compared. The “eye for an eye” principle (which as explained above means that the punishment must fit the crime) was supposed to be carried out by the government whose laws were being set up. The NT makes no provision for a Christian government, but focuses on individual action. Therefore, in our hypothetical scenario, Bad Man plucks out the eye of Christian. Christian should turn the other cheek, and Bad Man after being convicted by the Israelite court should be punished by paying the injured man for the loss of his time and making sure he heals (Ex. 21:18-19).
There are regulations in the law relating to individuals, of course. But AFAIK none of them require violence.
Thank you for your welcomes, Poly and Jersey (teehee! That’s funny! Thank you and your- aw, nevermind).
Hmm… not sure which passages you mean in particular, Polycarp. I’m thinking you might be talking about John 14:10-11…
In which case it is evident that this isn’t just the Person of the Son acting this way, but also the Father. But I wouldn’t say that this is indicative that the Person of the Father has been thought of incorrectly (a la law/judgement), but re-emphasizing that Christ is one with the Father, the Father one with Christ, giving more credence to the concept of the Trinity.
Or further John 14:24.
In which case I would say that same as above, as well as that in this point, in order to fulfill the scriptures and salvation history, the Father must act/speak in this way so that Christ’s salvific action will be absolute. If, say, God the Father and God the Son are both speaking different messages at the same time, His followers would be a bit confused. Additionally, as God is Truth, two simultaneous, contradicting messages (if God can even be contradicting) may very well cause the universe to collapse upon itself, or some other crazy astrophysical/philosophical problem similar to that.
And possibly John 16:1-3.
To which I would respond that this is not saying that all of those who had the law/justice conception of the Father did not know/understand him, but simply that those who kill the disciples and think they are offering worship to God have misunderstood him (terribly, terribly misunderstood him). True Scotsman, yadda yadda yadda.
More than likely, however, I don’t have the passages that you were referring to. :smack: Which did you mean?
And, since you don’t accept the OT/NT Father/Son dichotomy, how do you reconcile the differences? Dichotomy or not, we could always fall back on “He’s God, what He does is what He does, so what?”, but I’m guessing you’ve got something a bit deeper than that. Please, tell me what you think.
Pax Cristus,
;j