Who is your God or Jesus?

Great Debates
41

Genesis 22:2-13. Read and weep.

22:2 And he said, Take now thy son, thine only son Isaac, whom thou lovest, and get thee into the land of Moriah; and offer him there for a burnt offering upon one of the mountains which I will tell thee of.

22:3 And Abraham rose up early in the morning, and saddled his ass, and took two of his young men with him, and Isaac his son, and clave the wood for the burnt offering, and rose up, and went unto the place of which God had told him.

22:4 Then on the third day Abraham lifted up his eyes, and saw the place afar off.

22:5 And Abraham said unto his young men, Abide ye here with the ass; and I and the lad will go yonder and worship, and come again to you.

22:6 And Abraham took the wood of the burnt offering, and laid it upon Isaac his son; and he took the fire in his hand, and a knife; and they went both of them together.

22:7 And Isaac spake unto Abraham his father, and said, My father: and he said, Here am I, my son. And he said, Behold the fire and the wood: but where is the lamb for a burnt offering?

22:8 And Abraham said, My son, God will provide himself a lamb for a burnt offering: so they went both of them together.

22:9 And they came to the place which God had told him of; and Abraham built an altar there, and laid the wood in order, and bound Isaac his son, and laid him on the altar upon the wood.

22:10 And Abraham stretched forth his hand, and took the knife to slay his son.

22:11 And the angel of the LORD called unto him out of heaven, and said, Abraham, Abraham: and he said, Here am I.

22:12 And he said, Lay not thine hand upon the lad, neither do thou any thing unto him: for now I know that thou fearest God, seeing thou hast not withheld thy son, thine only son from me.

22:13 And Abraham lifted up his eyes, and looked, and behold behind him a ram caught in a thicket by his horns: and Abraham went and took the ram, and offered him up for a burnt offering in the stead of his son.

Say what? You either do have freewill or you don’t.

So you are positing that free will makes one prefer getting bashed to death instead? I don’t know about that.

42

Interesting take. My belief on this was less refined. Simply that God knew that particular Pharoah would not worship him anyway, so hardening his heart was of no real consequence.

43

So that means you don’t know, yes?

44

**

Urban Ranger, I think you missed what I said above. I said don’t mention Isaac because it was clearly (as per verse 1) a test and God never intended to have Isaac sacrificed.

Now then, let’s try again… where do you see that God wanted human sacrifices?

**

No, there are circumstances under which one’s free will can be taken away. The risk of one’s life or severe punishment tends to do that.

Where do you see that I posited that? All I said was that threats of severe punishment can cause free will to be taken away. God was simply restoring Pharoh’s free will.

Zev Steinhardt

45

No, read the text. God gives several reasons for the plagues, the Exodus only being one.

If you’re asking why it had to come down to the Egyptian first born, then yes, I’ll admit I don’t have the final end-all answer for you.

Zev Steinhardt

46

TADA!

I’ve been reading down this thread waiting to see this type of response.

In a nutshell, the Old Testament deals with the nation of worshipers and the New Testament deals with the individual.

Jesus himself had to answer this question and responded that he came not to replace the law, but to fulfill it.

At this point, it gets confusing for those on the outside of Christianity looking in. After all, the Old Testament says to execute people for certain things, but Christ saved a woman who was worthy of death under the law.

We are no longer under the law, but under grace because Jesus has fulfilled the law’s requirements – a final perfect sacrifice for our sins.

47

Like all the plagues, the point here is not that God wanted Abraham to kill Isaac, but that God wanted Abraham to get the whole trust God fully thing down straight. Abraham is one Very, VIP and had to be ready to do all that he was asked.

There’s a saying in evangelical Christian circles: Never pray for patience. The only way to learn patience is to weather trials. Abraham was going through a growth experience.

BTW, the point of the plagues was to bring glory and honor to God. Everyone around would have heard about it and credited God. Not only that, the Jews would have one heck of a story and a massive amount of evidence that their God was worthy of their faith.

48

Yeah, well, notice how conveniently Urban Ranger left verse 1 off of his quote, where is explicitly states that it was only a test!. :rolleyes:

Zev Steinhardt

49

So could the God of the old testament say hey I have been harsh,I think i will loosen up?
so then he sent a part of him Jesus and had him to die as a man so he could understand the pain we as humans are going through.
To make a better life for us?
To give us everlasting life? So though even though we die in the flesh that our spirits never die??? 0887

50

Hey, Gaijin, you know it’s gotta be right when Poly and Jersey agree on something!! :smiley:

Your references from John are a good sample of the sort of thing I was talking about, where Jesus claims to express the real mind of the Father – probably the best ones.

Hmmm…this will, I think, cause some disagreement between me and the “Bible-believing” group here, but here goes…

None of us on this board understand the totality of God. Nobody in the world does. And (with the presumable exception of Jesus) nobody human ever has.

So what I make of the apparent dichotomy is that God had a hard time getting His message through to the Jews – and in place after place in the Old Testament, He speaks of returning to Him and showing compassionate love towards others as what He is really looking for. It’s mixed in with situation-specific strictures in the Law, all over the place in the Prophets – particularly Isaiah and Micah.

Yet the principal characteristic of God that the reader of what the authors of the O.T. books wrote gets from them is one of a Righteous Judge, who commands the keeping of His Law and is prepared to punish the disobedient.

I submit that this latter concept is in error – that it results from the human authors misinterpreting, or more precisely misemphasizing, what they were hearing from Him in their hearts. That He is a loving Father, in O.T. as in New, looking to correct the errors and misbehaviors of His children, not to sit in judgment over them. That the Law was an attempt by Him to show what moral behavior entailed – and accreted tribal custom and community prejudice, and became enshrined as God’s Word to be accepted blindly, rather than as reportage of His compulsion in our hearts to do right in His Name.

51

Hmm… I think I agree completely. I tend to discuss with critics in the same ‘stern lawgiver’ terms because it is quite easy to get that impression. Although now that I think about it, I believed my father was the same way when I was a child and received punishment. But now that I have grown, I realize it was necessary, if he really loved me, to correct me in a way that would facilitate more quickly my proper behavior, and I’ll probably do the same to my children in similar circumstances.

What seems to cause the stickiness in this debate is that the OT Father would inflict death and physical suffering to get the point across, whilst Christ healed and forgave. Some pounce on it and say “Ah-ha! Jesus says not to do that, but the Father did it! It’s crazy! Smash capitalism!” I mean, umm… forget the capitalism part. Others get terribly confused, and still others try to resolve the issue on various internet message boards. So here we are.

As for God killing, I again say, what is death to God? Simply the passage to the next, and final phase of existence. For humans, though, the matter is fundamentally different, and requires fundamentally different behavior. Christ, as a man, acted the way man should act to provide a proper example.

Let me reword my dichotomy argument… I think we’re essentially saying the same thing, but your way is easier to understand, I think. Thank you for your view, Polycarp. It was quite refreshing. :slight_smile:

Pax Cristus!

52

I wouldn’t say that it was God ‘loosening up.’ As Poly put it, God was only correcting His children, as any loving father should. We may misunderstand that correction and take it as overbearing and terrible. Let’s rewind a bit.

God creates world. God creates Adam and Eve. Both are in perfect union with God.

Adam and Eve sin- eat the apple. Boom, Adam and Eve fall away from God. They are now liable to illness, death from aging, must work for food, and these weakness are passed on to their children- Original Sin. All men, then, would inherit this now fundamental part of the human character, and be born separated from God.

Somewhere along the line, God forms a covenant with Abraham, and promises a messiah that will end this separation. Later, He sends Jesus, Himself, who dies and rises, ending the permanency of this separation, which can now be bridged through the sacrament of baptism because of Christ’s sacrifice.

So, yes, this did essentially give us eternal life, and he showed us, not a better way to live, but the best way. Know, also, that this is simplification and generalization at its… well, most simple and general.

53

Sort of. He picked the Jews as his people to be their god for his own reasons. It was possible for others to worship him (Melchizadek), but mainly the Jews were favored.

He gave them the law to show them that they, as humans, were incapable of meeting his requirements and to get them to trust in him rather than in themselves. (Faith was credited to Abraham as righteousness, we’re told. Righteousness being a state of acceptable to God.)

Adhering to the details of the law was how people demonstrated obedience to God to win his favor. Whether you did or not is sort of a chicken and egg thing. Faith is the requirement, not works. But if you have faith, you’re going to do the works.

The law still has its place today, but the ornerous details are no longer required because we demonstrate obedience by accepting Jesus Christ.

Sort of an aside, the Scribes and Pharisees were routinely chastised by Jesus for, not only adhering to the details to unreasonable extremes, but for adding their own laws and calling them God’s – the number of steps one can walk on the Sabbath, for example. (If I recall that correctly. Perhaps an Orthodox Jew can provide some Sabbath restrictions.)

54

Polycarp I don’t know for sure if you were refering to me that I don’t believe the old or new testament??
I am telling you I am searching for the truth nothing more nothing less.
I never once said I didn’t believe.
I am searching. 0887

55

0887, as smart as a lot of people on this board are, you will find your answers through your own study of the Bible.

Sunday school materials are usually very simple, theologically, but if you can discuss the issues with others, some light can usually be shed on questions. I found I learned the most in the older men’s class, because several of them had been studying the Bible for decades and could shed light on more difficult questions.

Don’t know about churches in your area, but around here, we usually have Bible study on Wednesday nights. That’s always a much better way to engage the brain than Sunday mornings.

Personally, I’m to the point where I know more facts than several of the deacons. (Faith is another issue, as they’re all godly men) I have to find books and radio shows and other preachers to engage me.

56

Yes thank you Mithrilhawk I am studing but looking for insight anywhere I can find it.
I do have discernment in who to listen to and who not.
So I believe my search is working.
Thanks for the advice see my discernment working. 0887

57

Could part of the difference be:

In the “Old Testament”, G-d is a national god. The “OT” has the message “This is our G-d, who created the universe, and entered into a covenant with us. He brought us out of slavery, gave us laws, led us to victory against our enemies in the land promised to us. When we are defeated, it isn’t because He is weak, but because we have become wicked and forgotten His commandments.”

The “New Testament” was written by and for a different audience. The first Christians are doubly marginalized. Not only do they start out as members of a subject people recently occupied by Rome, but primarily as members of some of the lowest social strata of society…the poor, slaves, women, beggars, fishermen. They don’t have any use for a national G-d who leads armies into battle, and punishes people who disobey Him…their daily lives are punishment enough. Their G-d loves them more because they are poor. Their G-d came down from heaven, and became a poor man himself, so that by his death, he could make sure that they all were rewarded…not in this life, as painful and unpleasant as it is, but in the next, where there will be no more pain, or masters, or hunger, but happiness forever.

58

Nah. The Jews were looking for a Messiah to sit on a physical throne, to overthrow the Romans and restore their national pride. Christ and the Apostles went to the Jews first before the Gentiles. In fact, the went to the synagogues first, where the Jewish leaders were.

59

I know that, but what I mean is, if you look at the early Christians, they don’t tend to be important or leaders. They tend to be poor and marginalized.

60

:slight_smile: Makes good sense Captain Amazing. 0887