-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
How much does the Christian God really love us?
- Thread starter Enoughie
- Start date
You are being extremely vague here. There is no mention in the Old Testament of heaven or of hell.
There is only mention of a Garden [east] of Eden (a place on earth, not in heaven). But that has nothing to do with heaven.
Your quote: "And your (Jesus)covenant with death shall be disannulled, and your (Jesus)agreement with hell shall not stand..." is a misquote. It doesn't say hell in the original text. It says "sheol."
The "sheol" is the underworld where people go when they die - is also a place on earth, "the earth swallows them" when they die.
So none of this suggests heaven or hell.
"Eternal life" for those who eat from the tree could also only be on earth, not in heaven. This was something that God considered undesirable! It is also evident that people in the O.T. did not think there can be life after death. That's why Abraham, for example, asks God "how will I know?" that God will fulfill his promise to multiply his seed. Why would God not tell Abraham that he'll be able to see for himself once he's in heaven? Because that was never in the original design.
There is also no mention of a Trinity anywhere in the O.T. and nowhere does it say that you have to believe in God. Only recognize God.
Which means that if you look at the texts of the O.T. you cannot conclude that Jesus' claims were in any way consistent with the existing holy texts. So you're essentially in the same position as I gave in my example. You choose to believe it even though there's no basis for this belief in the text that came before the N.T.
_____________________
Natural Philosophy of Life - a simple, elegant, and powerful alternative to religious dogma
Last edited:
Absolutely! You know why? Because as God, He (Jesus)was redeeming the world that was "Lost" back unto Himself.
You exist because of Adam and Eve, or the first set of parents. You are able to decide for yourself what you want or don't want to do.
That makes you like as a god! Regardless of what beliefs you espouse.
Being found, or for better understanding, you gained knowledge of your existence as being powerless to control the longevity of it, and determining that you are less than a perfect individual.
That places you in a condition of separation spiritually from the creator God resulting in death spiritually. You still exist in the flesh because of the spirit in you that drives you, but as soon as that spirit is gone out of you, you die. And if left as it was, your existence would have meant nothing except for the moment you existed in this world, and that's it.
So humanity became "Lost", or dead spiritually.
That was the problem for the creator to solve and in which He did.
As God, or as like having the power of an attorney as God, Jesus came to redeem "that which was lost" in the creative process.
All of humanity became lost by subjection, and all of humanity receives life also by subjection, meaning all are granted life, commencing here with knowledge of, or at the end of this existence when your spirt sees Jesus for who He really is.
Now, I don't see any religious belief on this whole earth who's founder would include all of humanity in the cost paid by the founder to set mankind free without any return affection.
But yet, if we should learn by knowledge gained of that wonderful gift, (Of life) we ought to be the most grateful and appreciative, for our existence, though as hellish as it may be, yet tolerable in the hopes of a better place.
Blessings, AJ
Because a glass of water is half full does not mean I can't say it is half empty.
Heaven is a place of abode as is hell.
Both have their place in the structure as pertaining to requirement.
Ref: Gen 14:19 And he blessed him, and said, Blessed be Abram of the most high God, possessor of heaven and earth:
Only God can posses the heavens and the earth, and yes, the abode of the possessor is somewhere not on this earth but in the heavens. So we term heaven the abode of the possessor the place of tranquility, peace, love and life everlasting.
Call it what you want, the fact is, it exists in light of a creator God.
The more proper word is prison, from thence is where the soul were liberated.
True, if you eat of the tree of life, meaning learn of Jesus and place your faith in, you will attain the benefits of eternal life while yet alive on this earth.
But your body will still die, as it is appointed once for all man to die, but after that, life.
The acknowledgment of a Father God in the Old Testament is in "I am who I am". The Father's administration as a Father was in the creation of all there is, and mankind.
The second part of the triune God is His Son. His administration as Son/God was to redeem the first by the second because of its lost condition.
The third part of the triune God is God the Holy Spirit whose administration is to indwell as many souls allowed.
So, because the term "Trinity " is used, does not mean God does not exists in three distinct administrations.
To believe in God is to recognize Him as God and to recognize the existence of a God and not believe in Him is the difference between life and death.
Abraham is stated to be the father of faith. Ref:Rom 4:16 Therefore it is of faith, that it might be by grace; to the end the promise might be sure to all the seed; not to that only which is of the law, but to that also which is of the faith of Abraham; who is the father of us all,
Though this verse is in the NT, yet Abraham is not.
Jesus is a type of Abraham, that by Jesus' faith, grace might be extended to all of us as apromise to all the seed ( believers) and those who were under the law as well. (Jews)
You have to look not so much at the details, but at the picture as a whole, to determine what the details really mean or how they aid in the make up of the big picture.
Blessings, AJ
Openness and honesty, I have no problem with, but how it is used.
How it is used is the part that either exalts you or degrades you.
That determination is what is telling.
Blessings, AJ
There was in the Old Testament the Tabernacle setting. The outer court, the inner court and the Holiest of Holies.
God's presence was in the Holiest of Holies behind a curtain, hidden, but yet present.
There was division between heaven and hell, inner court and Holiest of Holies.
The outer court had access to God's presence only through the high priests, who only had access to the presence of God through the inner court.
When Jesus p[aid the price, the curtain was ripped from top to bottom in half exposing mankind directly to the Father's presence via the Son, as God.
Therefore, the great gulf between the two is now bridged to where now, God is just as close as anyone's lips, just whisper His name, and He will be there.
The difference of which you speak, is in the gaining of that knowledge and accepting it or not.
Blessings, AJ
This is not a question of a halffull vs. half empty glass. You are attributing things to the O.T. that are simply not there.
For example, you've just misquoted the O.T. to support your claim for a heaven.
The original verse in the O.T.: "Blessed be Abram of the most high God, possessor of heaven and earth"
The original word for "heaven" - "shamaim" means "skies." It has nothing to do with a heaven (unless you're suggesting that after Jesus' sacrifice people who were in the underworld would now float in the sky)
The word "shamaim" is actually derived from the creation story itself. God separated the waters:
"And God said: 'Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.
And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament; and it was so."
(Genesis 1:6-7)
"sham" = there, "ma-im" = water --> "shamaim" = the waters above/skies.
That is your interpretation to make it consistent with Jesus' claims. But it has no relation to the original text. If you want to demonstrate how the "sheol" is actually a "prison" you have to show where in the O.T. it is viewed in that way.
Again, this has no basis in the O.T., this view is entirely derived from the N.T.
I asked you to show sources in the O.T. that support these claims.
I'm not asking you to show the word "Trinity" in the O.T., merely to show where it suggested in the O.T. that God is one part Father, one part Son, and one part Holy Spirit.
The O.T. doesn't suggest this anywhere
Believe and recognize are two very different things. The O.T. doesn't ask you to believe in God, so this new theology is entirely derived from the N.T.
So far you haven't provided any source in the O.T. to support the claims of the N.T.
Reinterpreting the O.T. and attributing things to the O.T. that were never there is not the same as providing sources from the O.T. to support Jesus' claims.
Well, I don't think that either the details, or the picture as a whole in the O.T. supports Jesus' claims.
Nowhere does it say anything about, a Trinity, eternal life in heaven/hell, or belief in God.
All these are entirely based in the N.T. without any grounding in the O.T.
_____________________
Natural Philosophy of Life - a simple, elegant, and powerful alternative to religious dogma
EtuMalku
Abn Iblis ابن إبليس
I'm not buying this 'God is Love' thing . . . Love is a real objective emotion, we know it is what it is, there is no faith that love exists . . . your god on the other is fiction.
Rainbow Mage
Lib Democrat/Agnostic/Epicurean-ish/Buddhist-ish
Like I said before, the Abrahamic god is love, within the limits of his being. He is a personal god, and hence to me, he's just as limited as my personal gods. My gods are not all loving, and I wouldn't assume he is either. The OT sure doesn't make it sound like it.
EtuMalku
Abn Iblis ابن إبليس
I would disagree with this, the Abrahamic god or whatever Divine entity you wish to call god, is nothing more than the Natural Ordering of the Universe that we have personified and empowered. Rational thought doesn't entertain fictional beings nor trust in faith.
There's no argument that the skies are the heavens as written. But you see, if you want to be where God is, and because Jesus said that His kingdom is not of this world, then we have to conclude that His kingdom is in the heavens, meaning not literal but a spiritual heaven.
I have to give you credit for looking up the definition of those words in order to make some kind of sense.
What I do is look at the scope of the works of God to determine what those words mean.
For examples: "The hills"= positions of authority, "tree" not necessarily a literal tree,
"This is my blood, drink"....not His literal blood.
There are plentiful examples of those that are not to be understood literally.
So, in your quest to understand the definitions of words and it's literal meanings, you are missing out on the intended spiritual meanings.
The Old Testament story of the garden and both trees mentioned.
The one tree, the tree of knowledge of good and evil is what gave us our individuality as gods.
The tree of life was with held from them to a later time and introduced to Israel first in the form of one like us, as Jesus, and of which is representative of the tree of life.
In both cases, eating of the fruit (Not literal fruit) of the tree, (Not literal either) and eating, Not literal) but instead meaning gaining knowledge and digesting it into understanding.
Looking at it that way is the only way you are going to get at the truth of it all.
Again, you have to look at the works that God did in order to see the three distinct administrations of God.
Otherwise, you will have difficulty understanding as you now have of the triune God.
The Old Testament requires you to live by the Ten Commandments, and if not, you could face physical death, as the story of the man who picked up sticks for a fire on the Sabbath.
Required obedience:
Ref: Num 15:32 And while the children of Israel were in the wilderness, they found a man that gathered sticks upon the sabbath day.
Num 15:35 And the LORD said unto Moses, The man shall be surely put to death: all the congregation shall stone him with stones without the camp.
Today, obedience is not required for salvation as was in the OT, but in the NT, faith in the obedience of Jesus does.
Not reinterpreting, but understanding.
Well, what else can I say? I mean I tried to give you some insight into the workings of God, but somehow understanding is not forthcoming.
Blessings, AJ
Rainbow Mage
Lib Democrat/Agnostic/Epicurean-ish/Buddhist-ish
Oh so you don't believe Set is a real god?
EtuMalku
Abn Iblis ابن إبليس
Define a 'real' god?
Rainbow Mage
Lib Democrat/Agnostic/Epicurean-ish/Buddhist-ish
I mean do you believe Set is an actual existing entity with emotions, etc.? Because we Kemetics do. We believe when we address Set, we're addressing a real being.
EtuMalku
Abn Iblis ابن إبليس
Thank you for clarifying. No, I do not believe in gods.
Rainbow Mage
Lib Democrat/Agnostic/Epicurean-ish/Buddhist-ish
Is this how all Setians are, or just yourself personally? I guess I don't understand why someone would want to borrow a deity from a theistic belief system and turn him into an archetype.