How can YHWH be the FATHER?

[Feedmysheep]

The Bible does not support YHWH as the FATHER. It does however support him as the Adversary.

Here I do believe in the OT the Bible teaches God was a Father to His elect Hebrew believers.

For You are our Father, / Since Abraham does not know us, / And Israel does not acknowledge us. / You, Jehovah, are our Father; / Our Redeemer from eternity is Your name. (Isaiah 63:16)

But now, Jehovah, You are our Father; / We are the clay; and You, our Potter; / And all of us are the work of Your hand. (Isaiah 64:8)

A son honors his father, and a servant his lord. Therefore if I am a Father, where is My honor? (Malachi 1:6a)

And in the New Testament the Bible teaches that to be begotten of God receiving His divine life in Christ
makes God the Father and gives the reborn one authority to become the Father's child.

He came to His own, yet those who were His own did not receive Him.
But as many as received Him, to them He gave the authority to become children of God, to those who believe into His name,
Who were begotten not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God. (John 1:11-13)

 

[Feedmysheep]

That would mean that YHWH murdered them, slowly, for over 900 or so yrs. Kind of cruel really. I guess us modern ppl are lucky, we get a quicker sentence.

If I adapted this kind of understanding I would be agreeing with the serpent. The serpent slandered God's motives and God's heart.
The serpent assured Eve that God was evilly withholding blessing from her out of envious motives.

Now the serpent was more crafty than any other animal of the field that Jehovah God had made. And he said to the woman, Did God really say, You shall not eat of any tree of the garden? (Gen. 3:1)

And the serpent said to the woman, You shall not surely die!
For God knows that in the day you eat of it your eyes will be opened,
and you will become like God, knowing good and evil. (vs. 4,5)

Your accusing YHWH of slow cruel murder is really a similar slandering of the heart, motive, and intention of YHWH.

If I keep reading, the serpent is identified with Satan who deceives the whole world.

And the great dragon was cast down, the ancient serpent, he who is called the Devil and Satan, he who deceives the whole inhabited earth; he was cast to the earth, and his angels were cast down with him. (Rev. 12:9)

How do I know that your suggestion of the cruel murdering YHWH isn't rather a continuation of the slander against God by the serpent?

Of all people in the Bible the most qualified one to condemn God in the Old Testament would have been Jesus Christ who called this
God "Righteous Father".

Righteous Father, though the world has not known You, yet I have known You, and these have known that You have sent Me. (John 17:25)

I don't understand! Christ called God "Righteous Father" but you want to teach YHWH was a murdereous lying cruel one?
What's up with this??

 

[Feedmysheep]

This is false dichtomy.

We don't know if Adam was real.

If I do not believe there was a FIRST man that really presents some problems to the Bible.
I intitally came to the Bible through the New Testament gospels. I had a big modernist filter to sift out all
that I considered mythological.

Gradually I notyiced that Jesus Christ took the Old Testament seriously as history in many key places.
I decided first that the integrity of Jesus Christ was beyond my questioning.
And if He took the Genesis in several places so seriously, it must be good enough for me too.

This was a gradual process though through learning to trust what came from the mouth of Jesus.

Adamah may just mean 'earth,ground'.

There's no problem with his name meaning something significant.

We don't know if Eve was real.

I believe if there is not a FIRST man and a FIRST woman too much else in the Bible falls apart.

My Christian understanding of a first man and a second man is critical.
That is two heads of a race of human beings.
Adam as the head of the first humanity that become fallen into sin.
And then Christ as the second man or "last Adam" who resurrected after accomplishing eternal redemption
and transfiguring Himself into a spiritual form in which He could be received into our being as "life giving Spirit".

So also it is written, “The first man, Adam, became a living soul”; the last Adam became a life-giving Spirit. (1 Cor. 15:45)

This life giving Spirit is Jesus Christ in His "pneumatic" form to bring about a new humanity with God living in this humanity.

If there is no first man, Adam that does cause the teaching of a second man who is God (the Lord) out of heaven incarnated as a man
to become divine life imparting Spirit into us, to be weakened.

The first man is out of the earth, earthy; the second man is out of heaven. (1 Cor. 15:47)

As far as i know the word 'hawwah' is etymologically connected with the word 'life'.
So out of this Earth , came life.
That's how i understand it.

If you look a bit deeper about life coming out of the earth, you may notice that it was
out of the land which rose up from underneath the death waters on the THIRD DAY.

And God said, Let the waters under the heavens be gathered together into one place, and let the dry land appear; and it was so.

And God called the dry land Earth, and the gathering together of the waters He called Seas; and God saw that it was good.

And God said, Let the earth sprout grass, herbs yielding seed, and fruit trees bearing fruit according to their kind with their seed in them upon the earth; and it was so.

And the earth brought forth grass, herbs yielding seed according to their kind, and trees bearing fruit with their seed in them according to their kind; and God saw that it was good.

And there was evening and there was morning, a third day. (Gen. 1:9-13)

The life coming up on the THIRD DAY I cannot help but believe the Holy Spirit is signaling how man can receive
the divine and eternal life of God because of the Son of God rising from death on the third day.

Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who according to His great mercy has regenerated us unto a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead, (1 Pet. 1:3)

God is way, way ahead of us. In the inspired account is the hint of the life imparting resurrection.
That is the life that is really life - the uncreated divine life which became our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.

 

[Dimi95]

If I do not believe there was a FIRST man that really presents some problems to the Bible.

We will see what kind of problems are there in your answer.

I intitally came to the Bible through the New Testament gospels. I had a big modernist filter to sift out all
that I considered mythological.

Ok , so you think you got it all?

Gradually I notyiced that Jesus Christ took the Old Testament seriously as history in many key places.

The first thing i noticed when i was reading it was that these writings are biographies in History.

I decided first that the integrity of Jesus Christ was beyond my questioning.
And if He took the Genesis in several places so seriously, it must be good enough for me too.

Like for example?

I know Jesus as God in these biographies , well he certainly claims to be one if not the only..

This was a gradual process though through learning to trust what came from the mouth of Jesus.

What came out of the mouth of Jesus?

There's no problem with his name meaning something significant.

I don't have any problem talking about writings that are considered to be myth.
Go on ,

I believe if there is not a FIRST man and a FIRST woman too much else in the Bible falls apart.

The Bible falls apart?
Who says that?
The Bible is just a collection of Book and it has stories in it.Some are reliable , some not.
We study them in the way of History.

My Christian understanding of a first man and a second man is critical.
That is two heads of a race of human beings.

This does not say much to me..
So you don't belive that it's a myth?
It does not matter who are the first man and woman , when one sins it does not matter if he was the first or the second or he was a man or a woman.

We know that man sinned , we see that man sins today.
Someone had to start it , for sure..
I agree to that.

I am also a Christian and i don't agree that the stories are to be read as literal as they have been changed for sure.
That's also an area that is part of the study in History.
We study events in History , not just the New Testament.

Adam as the head of the first humanity that become fallen into sin.
And then Christ as the second man or "last Adam" who resurrected after accomplishing eternal redemption
and transfiguring Himself into a spiritual form in which He could be received into our being as "life giving Spirit".

Life that came out the ground , Earth is just a name that we gave to our planet , ground explains things better.
Ground means the solid surface of the earth.
To me if we take that literally , then all the animals sinned also , these nasty dinosaurs , they killed everything.
It is normal to me that man made mistakes while being instructed not to.

We are born with the ability to learn , and you can't learn if you don't make mistakes.

The point of that story to me is to destinguish good from bad choice.
So literally, Eve made her choice and it was her own, not God's.

So also it is written, “The first man, Adam, became a living soul”; the last Adam became a life-giving Spirit. (1 Cor. 15:45)

Many Engliah Bible translators don't understand the word psoo-khay which is Phonetic Spelling of the word psuché.
In Cyrilic is 'Психа'.
Cyrilic 'Х' is in latin 'H' and 'KH' and 'Ch'.
There is no Krajst in Koine , it is Христос.

This life giving Spirit is Jesus Christ in His "pneumatic" form to bring about a new humanity with God living in this humanity.

To me this life giving Spirit is God which we know in the persons of the holy Trinity.
The trinity is holy , that is holy , not the Bible.
The trinity is God in three persons , as The Father , The Son and the Holy Spirit.
You have read the Nicene Creed , i suppose?
You say that you are a Christian , that is why i ask..

Maybe we don't agree here:
"And in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the Creator of life, Who proceeds from the Father, Who together with the Father and the Son is worshipped and glorified, Who spoke through the prophets."

I don't accept the doctrine of the Filioque.
The Father is the first person of the Trinity.
It is the unseen.
The Son is the second and we know him in the person of Jesus Christ.
The Spirit , well what should i say about the Spirit.
Before the Father and the Son we know that God is described as Spirit in the OT.
So the thing about the Son is his Spirit.
No one questions the spirit of the person of the Father , everybody questions the Spirit of the Son.
But just quoting John 30:10 , then 1 Corinthians 12:13 will make things more clear.

If there is no first man, Adam that does cause the teaching of a second man who is God (the Lord) out of heaven incarnated as a man
to become divine life imparting Spirit into us, to be weakened.

No , i can't trust Genesis on names , sry the meaning is only simbolic to me and i get that and take what is to be taken and that's it.
I don't know if Adam really existed , and the story in Genesis may be much different from what is now.

The first man is out of the earth, earthy; the second man is out of heaven. (1 Cor. 15:47)

You don't havw to explain verses to me , i have read them like many many many times

If you look a bit deeper about life coming out of the earth, you may notice that it was
out of the land which rose up from underneath the death waters on the THIRD DAY.

We don't know the measure of day in that sense.
One may be a year , or maybe more a bilion , we don't know.
2 Peter 3:8

And God said, Let the waters under the heavens be gathered together into one place, and let the dry land appear; and it was so.

And God called the dry land Earth, and the gathering together of the waters He called Seas; and God saw that it was good.

And God said, Let the earth sprout grass, herbs yielding seed, and fruit trees bearing fruit according to their kind with their seed in them upon the earth; and it was so.

And the earth brought forth grass, herbs yielding seed according to their kind, and trees bearing fruit with their seed in them according to their kind; and God saw that it was good.

And there was evening and there was morning, a third day. (Gen. 1:9-13)

The life coming up on the THIRD DAY I cannot help but believe the Holy Spirit is signaling how man can receive
the divine and eternal life of God because of the Son of God rising from death on the third day.

Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who according to His great mercy has regenerated us unto a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead, (1 Pet. 1:3)

God is way, way ahead of us. In the inspired account is the hint of the life imparting resurrection.
That is the life that is really life - the uncreated divine life which became our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.

I don't need the sermon of Christianity , thank you , i am Christian myself
I don't belive it as literal and that's it.

 

[1213]

The NT actually says: ‘The Lord said to my Lord, sit on my right hand, until I make your enemies a footstool for your feet’ - no mention of YHWH at all.

In original text the first Lord is YHWH.

 

[teage]

If I adapted this kind of understanding I would be agreeing with the serpent. The serpent slandered God's motives and God's heart.
The serpent assured Eve that God was evilly withholding blessing from her out of envious motives.

Now the serpent was more crafty than any other animal of the field that Jehovah God had made. And he said to the woman, Did God really say, You shall not eat of any tree of the garden? (Gen. 3:1)

And the serpent said to the woman, You shall not surely die!
For God knows that in the day you eat of it your eyes will be opened,
and you will become like God, knowing good and evil. (vs. 4,5)

Your accusing YHWH of slow cruel murder is really a similar slandering of the heart, motive, and intention of YHWH.

If I keep reading, the serpent is identified with Satan who deceives the whole world.

And the great dragon was cast down, the ancient serpent, he who is called the Devil and Satan, he who deceives the whole inhabited earth; he was cast to the earth, and his angels were cast down with him. (Rev. 12:9)

How do I know that your suggestion of the cruel murdering YHWH isn't rather a continuation of the slander against God by the serpent?

Of all people in the Bible the most qualified one to condemn God in the Old Testament would have been Jesus Christ who called this
God "Righteous Father".

Righteous Father, though the world has not known You, yet I have known You, and these have known that You have sent Me. (John 17:25)

I don't understand! Christ called God "Righteous Father" but you want to teach YHWH was a murdereous lying cruel one?
What's up with this??

Questions I have that shape MY understanding of the OT, why did Yhwh plant that tree in the first place unless to tempt? why did Yhwh not want Adam and Eve to know the difference between good and evil? why did Yhwh ask "Who told you that you are naked" suggesting that he is not all knowing? Why does Yhwh tell us not to kill, then go about killing, is not hypocrisy a sin, aren't you supposed to "practice what you preach"? And if the FATHER is Pure, Perfect, Holy, and without sin, then how can Yhwh possibly be the FATHER? Yhwh is never mentioned by name in the NT, and there is a striking difference in description between the God of the OT and the God of the NT.

Jesus warned against blind faith.

 

[Sumadji]

Perhaps the God of this world moves onward and upward after a period of time, and is replaced by a new one, appointing angels?

 

[teage]

Perhaps the God of this world moves onward and upward after a period of time, and is replaced by a new one, appointing angels?

The God of this world is Satan according to 2 Corinthians so hopefully onward but not upward.

 

[teage]

Perhaps the God of this world moves onward and upward after a period of time, and is replaced by a new one, appointing angels?

The God of this world is Satan according to 2 Corinthians so hopefully onward but not upward.

 

[teage]

The God of this world is Satan according to 2 Corinthians so hopefully onward but not upward.

sorry about the double post, internet has not been right since the hurricane.

 

[Sumadji]

Ever onward, ever upward, ever closer to the One

 

[IndigoChild5559]

I won't argue. I said that the concept of God as Father was occasionally used in the Old Testament. But it doesn't predominate. I think Isiah is addressing God as the Father of the nation of Israel (us), as a king or sovereign ruler, and not as his own personal Father? David in the psalms sometimes addresses God personally entreating his own personal assistance, but David does not use the word Father? I'm open to correction.

It is Jesus who brought the idea of God as personal Father to front and centre?

It's just a thought

And because you are sons, God has sent forth the Spirit of His Son into your hearts, crying out, “Abba, Father!”
Galatian 4:6

I don't think you can claim that Jesus did anything unique about calling God "Father," just like Jesus was not the source for calling God "Lord." The "Father" tradition predated him. Since Jews do not call God by name out of respect, our most common address is Lord, followed by Father and The Name.

Yesterday was Yom Kippur, and a couple of the mainstays are a prayer and song both called Avinu Malkeinu, which means, Our Father Our King. It is perhaps the best known Yom Kippur song outside the Jewish community because Barbara Streisand used to sing it. In the prayer, God is addressed as Father 49 times. In the song, he is addressed as Father 14 times. Compare this to the Lord's Prayer, which addresses God as Father only one time.

I went to the following online ashkenaz Siddur (prayer book) using the search for feature. Avinu (our Father) is used 13 times.

https://images.shulcloud.com/886/uploads/Documents/TransliteratedSiddur-LevShalem.pdf

As a comparison, this liturgy of the Catholic mass mentions "Father" 19 times (partly because they end their prayers using the trinitarian formula). So pretty much the same.

https://www.liturgyoffice.org.uk/Missal/Text/MCFL.pdf

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

I don't think you can claim that Jesus did anything unique about calling God "Father," just like Jesus was not the source for calling God "Lord." The "Father" tradition predated him.

Avinu Malkeinu was a great reference (although, to be honest, I preferred our Cantor's rendition to that of Barbara Streisand).

 

[Feedmysheep]

Ok , so you think you got it all?

Well the riches of Christ are "unsearchable". (Eph. 3:8)
So I don't think I "got it all". But I do feel I am on the right track.
It will take eternity and we still will not have gotten it all - reality, truth, and the vast dimensions of this Christ.

The first thing i noticed when i was reading it was that these writings are biographies in History.

Me too.

Like for example?

One example is Jesus saying at a day of divine judgment Ninevites preached to by Jonah would be there with the
contemporary audience of Jesus.

Ninevite men will stand up in the judgment with this generation and will condemn it, because they repented at the preaching of Jonah, and behold, something more than Jonah is here. (Matt. 12:41)

I thought "Hmmm. Jesus must have taken the book of Jonah as history. How could mythic people stand with historical people
to be judged by God?"

And you, Capernaum, who have been exalted to heaven, to Hades you will be brought down. For if the works of power which took place in you had taken place in Sodom, it would have remained until today.
But I say to you that it will be more tolerable for the land of Sodom in the day of judgment than for you. (Matt. 11:23,24)

I thought "Hmmm. Jesus said Sodom would have remained until His day had they heard what Capernaum heard. And it
would be more excusable for Sodom on judgment day than for Capernaum. How could a mythic city be at the same judgment
of God with a historical one? Jesus must have taken Genesis 19 about Sodom as history."

There are other examples revealig Jesus certainly believed various signal accounts of the Hebrew Bible.

I know Jesus as God in these biographies , well he certainly claims to be one if not the only..

Me too. What a miracle that God has granted us the faith to actually believe these Gospels.

What came out of the mouth of Jesus?

The words which you just told me caused you to believe He what claimed about Himself.
You said " I know Jesus as God in these buographies, well he certainly claims . . . ".

Should I gather than you also count His claims to be words out of His mouth?

I don't have any problem talking about writings that are considered to be myth.
Go on ,

I think where we are to understand fictional mythology in the Bible we should.
Some mythic things are alluded to as well as pagan poets.
But Genesis, as I said, in my case I eventually regarded as I ascertained Christ regarded.

Because it was a process of gradual persuasion to me, I empathize with others who may be undergoing a similar journey.

The Bible falls apart?

Perhaps not completely. But certain pillars of its overall message are weakened.
As shown above - Would Christ upon Whom I entrust my eternal destiny, be mistaken, or deceived about who was
to stand before God in the last judgment?

Ninevite men will stand up in the judgment with this generation and will condemn it, because they repented at the preaching of Jonah, and behold, something more than Jonah is here. (Matt. 12:41)

You know the story of Jonah being three days in the belly of some especially appointed fish.
Jesus being dead for three days in the heart of the earth must be the antitype of the experience of the historical Jonah.

For just as Jonah was in the belly of the great fish three days and three nights, so will the Son of Man be in the heart of the earth three days and three nights. (Matt. 12:40)

If Jesus didn't have the facts of Jonah correct that undermines confidence in His words about His redemptive death and resurrection.

Who says that?

Wouldn't you agree that the "Who says?" is Jesus Christ Himself? He said that "Scripture cannot be broken."

If He said they were gods, to whom the word of God came, and the Scripture cannot be broken, (John 10:35)

 

[Feedmysheep]

Continued -

The Bible is just a collection of Book and it has stories in it.Some are reliable , some not.
We study them in the way of History.

Song of Songs is poetry.
Proverbs are wise sayings rather than history.
Ecclesiastes are also wise sayings of a philosohical flavor.
Psalms are songs many of which are for encouragement rather than historical.

These books are part of this collection, this "library" .

I find Christ's moral integrity beyond questioning. He doesn't come accross as not having a sober mind.
Neither does He come across as foolish, deceived, or given to sensational rumors.

Rather He said the things in the OT confirmed His life, death, and entire mission - a mission built up the truth not fancy stories of imagination.

And He said to them, O foolish and slow of heart to believe in all that the prophets have spoken!
Was it not necessary for the Christ to suffer these things and enter into His glory?
And beginning from Moses and from all the prophets, He explained to them clearly in all the Scriptures the things concerning Himself. (Luke 24:25-27)

And He said to them, These are My words which I spoke to you while I was still with you, that all the things written in the Law of Moses and the Prophets and Psalms concerning Me must be fulfilled.
Then He opened their mind to understand the Scriptures;
And He said to them, Thus it is written, that the Christ would suffer and rise up from the dead on the third day, (Luke 24:44-46)

This does not say much to me..
So you don't belive that it's a myth?
It does not matter who are the first man and woman , when one sins it does not matter if he was the first or the second or he was a man or a woman.

Let me put it this way. I don't think believing in a Adam and Eve is taught as a requirement for receiving Christ as Savior, Lord and salvation.
But when I go ON from there seeking spiritual growth and a deepening enjoyment of the Spirit of Christ who indwells me, trust in the Bible
nourishes that enjoyment, experience, and understanding.

I follow the nourishment. I follow the sense of His presence and the enjoyment of trusting fellowship with God.

My rule of thumb goes something like this:

If an interpretation warms up my love for God inclining me towards more communion with God, it is at least a safe teaching, even if it
is not the best.
It an interpretation cools down my love for God, bothers me, agitates me, makes me feel more independent FROM God, there is
something wrong with that interpretation no matter how good it sounds.

This has kept me in good stead for many years. I don't say every interpretation I have heard of Scripture was necessarily the best.
But plenty of good sounding ones that tickled my intellectual fancy chilled down my heart of love for Jesus Christ.
Something is wrong with such a "good sounding" teaching.

We know that man sinned , we see that man sins today.
Someone had to start it , for sure..
I agree to that.

The problem of sin and forgiveness is one aspect of the Bible. It is not the only aspect.
And meaning of life, meaning of creation, and the eternal purpose of God is more basic than that.

Often overlooked, the meaning of human creation revealed with the first man and woman governs the whole revelation of the Bible.
God made man to express His image and exercise deputy authority over His creation - image and dominion.

And God said, Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of heaven and over the cattle and over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps upon the earth.
And God created man in His own image; in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them. (Gen. 1:26,27)

This expression of God in man and this kingdom dominion of man over creation is what was lost.
It is the meaning of humanity as God indicates in Genesis 1:26,27.

I have never met any philosopher who could definitively explain WHY humanity came into existence.
Invariably the answer is something like "Well, why does there have to be a purpose for man anyway?"

I think this is capitulating to vanity, futility, and abject empty dispair. And it renders the existence of man
as absurd along with the entire absurd universe.

So I have never met anyone not wanting to believe Genesis 1:26,27 about the creation of the first humans
who had a sense of any meaning for humanity.

Maybe you'll be the first?

I am also a Christian and i don't agree that the stories are to be read as literal as they have been changed for sure.
That's also an area that is part of the study in History.
We study events in History , not just the New Testament.

Doesn't that immediately weaken your trust in this One whom you said claimed to be God?

I mean if He has to come and sit at our feet to get clear that all that was written in Moses' writings and all the propets
was mostly poppycock, how can you trust His self proclamation?

And He said to them, O foolish and slow of heart to believe in all that the prophets have spoken!
Was it not necessary for the Christ to suffer these things and enter into His glory?
And beginning from Moses and from all the prophets, He explained to them clearly in all the Scriptures the things concerning Himself. (Luke 24:25-27)

Maybe we ought to beware that we are not "foolish and slow of heart to believe" the OT scriptures.

We are born with the ability to learn , and you can't learn if you don't make mistakes.

I don't count believing Genesis or other OT books to be against learning.
I count that God has told us the most essential things related to His eternal purpose and salvation.

It obviously is not an exhaustive explanation of how God made everything. If that were the case then maybe
66 books would have been dedicated just to explaining what water is or what air is.

I don't take Genesis as an exhaustive scientific explanation of creation.
Much of what our curiosity would like to know was not told us.

But that an orderly, purposeful Creator with a purpose created and made our environment.
And the NT tells us that before the foundation of the world, before He created the universe He had a heart's desire and plan.
In fact the plan came first. And then the creation for the accomplishing of that eternal purpose took place.

Even as He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world to be holy and without blemish before Him in love,
Predestinating us unto sonship through Jesus Christ to Himself, according to the good pleasure of His will, (Eph. 1:4,5)

The strong implication here is that FIRST God had an eternal purpose. And then based on that hearts desire
He went on the create time and space, the cosmos and the earth. Revelation also says that all things were created for His will.

You are worthy, our Lord and God, to receive the glory and the honor and the power, for You have created all things, and because of Your will they were, and were created. (Rev. 4:11)

This post is long. And I will stop here and maybe respond to your other points latter.

 

[InChrist]

Questions I have that shape MY understanding of the OT, why did Yhwh plant that tree in the first place unless to tempt?

I believe the tree was placed to test, not tempt.

why did Yhwh not want Adam and Eve to know the difference between good and evil?

I don’t doubt God would have shared His wisdom concerning good and evil with Adam & Eve. I think what He was giving them an opportunity to trust Him and avoid evil in an experiential sense.

why did Yhwh ask "Who told you that you are naked" suggesting that he is not all knowing?

I believe others have appropriately answered this; God knew where they were, they question was for their benefit to have them contemplate the fact they were hiding- something they never did before.

Why does Yhwh tell us not to kill, then go about killing, is not hypocrisy a sin, aren't you supposed to "practice what you preach"?

God is the Creator of life and the ultimate Judge. He doesn’t kill randomly for selfish reasons like human beings do. God only brings judgment and/or kills humans when their wickedness has gone past the point of no return. Besides, that the biblical accounts show He always gave warning and time for people to turn from their evil ways before bringing judgment.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

This post is long.

So, too, the thread.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Avinu Malkeinu was a great reference (although, to be honest, I preferred our Cantor's rendition to that of Barbara Streisand).

Same here. Our cantor has a voice beyond that of mortal men.

 

[teage]

I believe the tree was placed to test, not tempt.

I don’t doubt God would have shared His wisdom concerning good and evil with Adam & Eve. I think what He was giving them an opportunity to trust Him and avoid evil in an experiential sense.

I believe others have appropriately answered this; God knew where they were, they question was for their benefit to have them contemplate the fact they were hiding- something they never did before.

God is the Creator of life and the ultimate Judge. He doesn’t kill randomly for selfish reasons like human beings do. God only brings judgment and/or kills humans when their wickedness has gone past the point of no return. Besides, that the biblical accounts show He always gave warning and time for people to turn from their evil ways before bringing judgment.

So killing the Pharaoh's son, a child, that would not be seen as barbaric in your eyes? So If I am to emulate YHWH, well, that would perfectly explain the state of the world today.

 

[Dimi95]

Well the riches of Christ are "unsearchable". (Eph. 3:8)

I disagree , we can learn feom his sayings in many ways and not limit to certain one.

So I don't think I

"got it all". But I do feel I am on the right track.
It will take eternity and we still will not have gotten it all - reality, truth, and the vast dimensions of this Christ.

Well to me is what he teaches is reality and truth.
I don't try to persue other dimensions.
I think the he left enough in the Gospels.
The OT and the NT , i see them with different eyes.I am probably the one that most oftenly uses the first part in our canon which is the OT.But The Bible was canonized completly in 4th century CE and it became matter of History as a whole.
So i really don't see the point in Genesis.
I can always show an alternative..

Me too.

One example is Jesus saying at a day of divine judgment Ninevites preached to by Jonah would be there with the
contemporary audience of Jesus.

Ninevite men will stand up in the judgment with this generation and will condemn it, because they repented at the preaching of Jonah, and behold, something more than Jonah is here. (Matt. 12:41)

Yes , but Jonah is not the same as Genesis.
Exodus is a also different feom Genesis.

I thought "Hmmm. Jesus must have taken the book of Jonah as history. How could mythic people stand with historical people
to be judged by God?"

Jesus is God , he does not have to read History.
He witnessed it

You say mythic people , can you define mythic?
I don't judge you btw.

And you, Capernaum, who have been exalted to heaven, to Hades you will be brought down. For if the works of power which took place in you had taken place in Sodom, it would have remained until today.
But I say to you that it will be more tolerable for the land of Sodom in the day of judgment than for you. (Matt. 11:23,24)

I thought "Hmmm. Jesus said Sodom would have remained until His day had they heard what Capernaum heard. And it
would be more excusable for Sodom on judgment day than for Capernaum. How could a mythic city be at the same judgment
of God with a historical one? Jesus must have taken Genesis 19 about Sodom as history."

There are other examples revealig Jesus certainly believed various signal accounts of the Hebrew Bible.

This is just silly.
Jesus is God , he does not have to know the accounts of Genesis
Sodom and Gamora existed , and someone there did some staff that Sodom and Gamora were 'famous' for
I don't belive in such literal reading and anyone who tries to make them more then mythical is doing heresy.

Me too. What a miracle that God has granted us the faith to actually believe these Gospels.

I belive that the Gospels are reliable because of History , not because of faith.
You have confused Theology with History.

The words which you just told me caused you to believe He what claimed about Himself.
You said " I know Jesus as God in these buographies, well he certainly claims . . . ".

Ok , so Jesus is God.
We both agree , what's the issue , the literal reading?
I don't agree with it , there is much evidence to think otherwise , much more then the literal one.

Should I gather than you also count His claims to be words out of His mouth?

Yes , but if you misuse transliteration , i will notice it.
Have you been to Manchester , have you seen P52?
And most importantly , can you read it in its original written form.

I think where we are to understand fictional mythology in the Bible we should.
Some mythic things are alluded to as well as pagan poets.
But Genesis, as I said, in my case I eventually regarded as I ascertained Christ regarded.

Because it was a process of gradual persuasion to me, I empathize with others who may be undergoing a similar journey.


Perhaps not completely. But certain pillars of its overall message are weakened.[/QUOTE]
The Bible is not the message.
The story of the cross is the message.
You are saved by grace , not by faith.
Grace is a gift , you don't have to work for it.
However,grace works within faith and works so we might achieve union with God.
It's still personal choice.

As shown above - Would Christ upon Whom I entrust my eternal destiny, be mistaken, or deceived about who was
to stand before God in the last judgment?

Ninevite men will stand up in the judgment with this generation and will condemn it, because they repented at the preaching of Jonah, and behold, something more than Jonah is here. (Matt. 12:41)

'With this generation and will condemn it...'
It means the generation in which Jesus Christ lived.

The judgment day is not a day it's a moment on the cross.
Christ came , twice , once as a man , once ressurected.
He is not comming back as he never left in the first place.
Christianity is not a belief based on loss it's a belief based on victory.

You know the story of Jonah being three days in the belly of some especially appointed fish.
Jesus being dead for three days in the heart of the earth must be the antitype of the experience of the historical Jonah.

Jesus does not mention specific things about the Book of Genesis.
You mentioning Jesus all the time will not help solve the dillema

For just as Jonah was in the belly of the great fish three days and three nights, so will the Son of Man be in the heart of the earth three days and three nights. (Matt. 12:40)

If Jesus didn't have the facts of Jonah correct that undermines confidence in His words about His redemptive death and resurrection.

Yes , because Jesus is God , not because of anything else.

Wouldn't you agree that the "Who says?" is Jesus Christ Himself? He said that "Scripture cannot be broken."

If He said they were gods, to whom the word of God came, and the Scripture cannot be broken, (John 10:35)

Oh boy..

John 10:30-36
I and my Father are one.
Then the Jews took up stones again to stone him.
Jesus answered them, Many good works have I shewed you from my Father; for which of those works do ye stone me?
The Jews answered him, saying, For a good work we stone thee not; but for blasphemy; and because that thou, being a man, makest thyself God.
Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods?
If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken;
Say ye of him, whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am the Son of God?[/QUOTE]
He is adressing the Jews here , i see also these things to be fullfilled , what's the issue again?
But this again does not say much about the account of Genesis.That line of tradition is different and the evidence for these writings is not the same.