It's the god Christians believe in.
_____________________
Natural Philosophy of Life - a simple, elegant, and powerful alternative to religious dogma
-
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
It's the god Christians believe in.
_____________________
Natural Philosophy of Life - a simple, elegant, and powerful alternative to religious dogma
I'm not arguing that that's not what Jesus said. I'm arguing that Jesus' claims for a Kingdom out of this world cannot be derived from the Old Testament, because the Old Testament never even suggests that such a dimension exists. Which means that Jesus created a fundamentally new and different theology from that of the O.T., and created new dimensions that never existed in the original texts.
Which means that if you want to evaluate the credibility of what Jesus says based on the texts of the O.T., you see that he created a new theology, and new dimensions (ie. the Spirit, Heaven, Afterlife, belief in God).
I'm not saying that you can only read the Bible literally. What I am saying is that however you choose to read the O.T. - literally or figuratively - you still can't find the theological foundation for Jesus' claims.
In fact, in places where you'd be most likely to see some clue (or foreshadowing) for Jesus' claims and sacrifice, you find nothing.
The most prominent example of this, I would say, is the Binding of Isaac. You'd think that God telling Abraham to sacrifice his "one and only Son," would include some hint of God intending to do the same to his own Son.
Instead, one of the reasons for the Binding of Isaac was God telling the world that a new era has come, and that no more human sacrifice is necessary.
Jesus' sacrifice on the cross can only be viewed in that light as a step backward to darker ages of civilization where human sacrifice was a common practice.
This is again an inference that has no basis in the Old Testament.
Where does it say in the Old Testament that there is something fundamentally wrong with the existing Covenant, and that one day it must be replaced? Nowhere.
Remember. I'm asking you to demonstrate the O.T. basis for Jesus' new theology. If you cannot demonstrate this, then belief in Jesus can be viewed the same as belief in the "Father God" from the example I gave you in the following post: http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/2287415-post54.html - it has no basis in the holy texts that preceded it.
I have a pretty good insight of how the New Testament interprets the Old Testament. That is not what the argument is about.
The argument is about the New Testament creating new "dimensions" that never existed in the Old Testament - such as believing in having a "Spirit," the Trinity, Heaven, and belief in God. These are all new dimensions that the New Testament invented. They have no basis in the Old Testament. Which means that if we want to establish the credibility of the N.T. by looking at the O.T., we cannot substantiate the N.T.'s claims by doing so.
Which means that belief in Jesus is based on the same foundation as belief in the Deity I postulated in the other post (http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/2287415-post54.html). You either believe in him or you don't. And you can claim that belief in this new theology is entirely consistent with the preceding holy texts (even when there are evident contradictions). But you cannot demonstrate how this belief is grounded in existing holy texts.
_____________________
Natural Philosophy of Life - a simple, elegant, and powerful alternative to religious dogma
Last edited:
That is exactly right. But you need to understand why. Without that understanding, one can not make the connection between the OT and the NT.
The OT is the Father's creation.
The New Testament is the Son's creation and together with the Father is the Holy Spirit who is the administrator of the New Testament.
All three have their purpose and administration.
But it is the same God in all, the same spiritual government of the Creator God.
The number 10 signifies that heavenly government. the number one stands alone and none other as the zero.
God is a wonderful and an awesome God, not to have knowledge of that is surely missing out on some great blessings.
Blessings, AJ
How about this one: 2SAMUEL 7:13 He shall build an house for my name, and I will stablish the throne of his kingdom for ever.
Because the Jewish mentality was an earthly one, they always questioned God's salvation as pertaining to deliverance from the enemy and the setting up of an earthly Godly kingdom.
But as you will see in the following verse a clue to God's kingdom being one that is established forever, meaning for all time.
We know that King Salomon's temple was destroyed and his kingdom did not last.
Therefore, the house to be built was built without hands quote: Psa 127:1 <A Song of degrees for Solomon.> Except the LORD build the house, they labour in vain that build it: except the LORD keep the city, the watchman waketh but in vain.
Only God can build a house that lasts along with its kingdom.
That was the promise given to King David.
But before any of that could happen, God Himself in the form of flesh had to come down and perform it.
Hence the rejection by the Jewish nation, for they could not envision a kingdom outside the earth.
Blessings, AJ
That is a picture metaphor of the God's giving of His Son as the sacrificial lamb instead of Issac. Issac in that picture represents us.
Literally happened, I can not say, but figuratively, Yes, for it co-en-sides with the whole plan of God.
Blessings, AJ
Gen 6:18 But with thee will I establish my covenant; and thou shalt come into the ark, thou, and thy sons, and thy wife, and thy sons' wives with thee.
You see, there again is another picture of God's plan for the salvation of mankind.
"I establish my covenant" is a working promise, first to the Jewish an earthly salvation, and to the believers, a covenant that is not earthly.
The ark is Jesus, the waters are bearing up the ark (Jesus) and all those in the ark, (In Jesus) go on to the other side of the flood.
ref: Mat 4:6 And saith unto him, If thou be the Son of God, cast thyself down: for it is written, He shall give his angels charge concerning thee: and in their hands they shall bear thee up, lest at any time thou dash thy foot against a stone.
Their hands are the Jewish people who were commissioned by God to be as like the flood, bearing the ark up, Jesus.
Bound hand and foot. Ref: Mat 22:13 Then said the king to the servants, Bind him hand and foot, and take him away, and cast him into outer darkness; there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth.
You see enoughie, there needs to be a spiritual understanding of the things in the bible and not so much a literal one.
The Jewish nation to this day still hold to the literal views as pertaining to things here on this earth.
But to the believer, our views are not of this world but of God's kingdom.
You got to make the transition by gaining understandings of the works of God.
Blessings, AJ
I could not in any sense determine the difference between the two had I not first have an understanding of the foundation of the first.
Without the first, the second has no credibility.
The one was placed into existence first, the second is the salvation of the first.
That's the hope we have, that when this life time is over, as the first creation, we have the next, as the second "new dimensional" to live forever with no ending.
Blessings, AJ
Well, it's up to you to make that determination.
I mean, I've tried to explain as carefully as I could my views on the subject, being firmly convinced of all of them as being such, only leaves you top your own mind.
My testimony to its reality is all I can give, show and or explain. The rest is up to the Holy Spirit to determine what it is in each persons heart that either allows entrance or rejection.
I pray that the Holy spirits promptings (Knocking at your heart's door) will invite you to open.
Blessings, AJ
There is much more evidence in this world of an "evil" supreme being, than in a "kind and loving God"
Take airplane accidents, which kill many; how about "drive-by gang killers'? How about other disasters, which take the lives of the innocent? How about rape and murder of innocent children?
Are THESE the workings of a "loving" God? OR --- are they the workings of an evil supreme being?
The answer? There is none. One can only ponder this post. I'm neither an aetheist nor agnostic. Just wondering. As, maybe, you are.
jimdand
Take airplane accidents, which kill many; how about "drive-by gang killers'? How about other disasters, which take the lives of the innocent? How about rape and murder of innocent children?
Are THESE the workings of a "loving" God? OR --- are they the workings of an evil supreme being?
The answer? There is none. One can only ponder this post. I'm neither an aetheist nor agnostic. Just wondering. As, maybe, you are.
jimdand
I don't wonder, I know to understand based on Gods works that He is a loving God.
Now, this world was not deigned for mankind's comfort but rather his discomfort.
It is in the discomfort that mankind's attempts to find solace in a higher being.
The earth is set in motion to its own schedule and has nothing to do with our being here.
Airplane crashes and "man made disasters", a quote from President Obama's people, are just that.....man made.
To say that God is at fault for that and or many like them is disingenuous.
After all, all that is, caters to the flesh and given the opportunity, destruction to self follows.
God can and in many instances delayed, or averted situations by intervention.
For an example, as are many, but one in particular, the airline that landed on the water on the Hudson was averted and all were saved.
The reasons why?????? Only God knows.
To me, I see God as only what He demonstrated Himself to be, loving.
I'm sorry that you don't see it that way, but then again, who am I to say that you should?
I can only relate to my life's experiences, the word of God (Bible) and see nothing but good.
Blessings, AJ
Your speculation is partly right. Ever since Adam fell humans were driven out of God's Kingdom, we are thus urged to return.
Of course, there is always a difference between inside of His Kingdom and outside of Kingdom, otherwise we don't need to return back to His Kingdom in Heaven at all.
That said, we are more like living in the wilderness full of wolves. And under this circumstance, God's sheep will choose to return to their Sherpherd.
Again, as long as you do not address my question (ie. where in the Old Testament does it say that the Covenant should be replaced, or that it is incomplete? Where does it say anything about the Trinity? Where does it say anything about eternal life in heaven? Where does it say anything about us having to believe in God?), then you cannot substantiate the credibility of the N.T.
What you're doing is this:
You have X (O.T.)
Now you say, X is incomplete. Therefore, you also need Y (N.T.) to supersede X.
Now you say that once you have X + Y you can understand why you needed Y in the first place.
But this is a faulty argument.
You cannot conclude from Y alone that you need Y. It makes no difference WHY you think X needs Y, if the answer is not within X itself.
If nowhere in X does it say that X is incomplete, then you must conclude that it is complete, and that any addition or subtractions from X would only corrupt it.
You have to demonstrate where X suggests that it is incomplete, and that it requires Y.
Otherwise, Y just creates new dimensions (Trinity, belief in God, Heaven, Eternal life, New Covenant), and then claims that X was incomplete without these dimensions.
It's like taking the Mona Lisa painting, and then adding another canvas to it, drawing another person there (her husband, for example) and then saying that the Mona Lisa was incomplete without it. And now, that you have this additional person you understand "why" the Mona Lisa was incomplete. You can't do that! You have to show where Leonardo Da Vinci said that the Mona Lisa is incomplete!
Similarly, I can also say that X + Y are incomplete. Therefore, you need Z to supersede X + Y. Then I can say that once you have X + Y + Z you can understand why Z was required.
But I can't just do that!! Unless I show you where in X or Y does it say that X + Y are incomplete, I cannot claim that Z is also required.
Your "understanding" is based on a faulty argument. So unless you provide evidence from within X (O.T.) that suggests X is incomplete, you cannot conclude the need for Y (N.T.).
_____________________
Natural Philosophy of Life - a simple, elegant, and powerful alternative to religious dogma
Last edited:
Your conclusions are again erroneous. Just because it says " Except the LORD build the house, they labour in vain that build it" that does not imply that God has to come down in the form of flesh to build it.
Here's an example why your statement is erroneous: who sent the ten plagues on Egypt, God or Moses?
Obviously it was God. But does God send those plague on his own? No, he needs Moses to act on his behalf first.
Here are a few verses that would make you understand (Exodus 9:13-22):
13 And the LORD said unto Moses: 'Rise up early in the morning, and stand before Pharaoh, and say unto him: Thus saith the LORD, the God of the Hebrews: Let My people go, that they may serve Me.
14 For I will this time send all My plagues upon thy person, and upon thy servants, and upon thy people; that thou mayest know that there is none like Me in all the earth.
. . .
18 Behold, tomorrow about this time I will cause it to rain a very grievous hail, such as hath not been in Egypt since the day it was founded even until now.
...
22 And the LORD said unto Moses: 'Stretch forth thy hand toward heaven, that there may be hail in all the land of Egypt, upon man, and upon beast, and upon every herb of the field, throughout the land of Egypt.'
God causes hail, God causes plagues, but he doesn't have to come down himself to do it. He does it through Moses.
Similarly, the verse you brought up: "Except the LORD build the house, they labour in vain that build it." All it means is that only God can build the Temple (through men). Just like only God could cause the plagues through Moses.
If Moses decided to stretch out his hands, without God's request, there would be no hail, and no plagues.
Similarly, without God's request, the Jews could not build the Temple on their own. Because whatever they build would not have God's blessing.
It doesn't require God to come down himself and do the actual work.
_____________________
Natural Philosophy of Life - a simple, elegant, and powerful alternative to religious dogma
Last edited:
well, thats a morale question, creator of the human race put man on this earth and then ignored and left man to fend for himself. That is very poor parenting skills. Ignorance of the highest degree. shamefull.
So in answer to the question, not at all as he does not exsist.
Enoughie,
As much as I enjoy chating with you I can not come up with words to paint you a clear picture without giving you what you want, and that is for the OT to state in direct terms, Jesus came to change the law, or Jesus came to redo what has already been done or something to that effect before you can even try to reason with me.
You see, if the bible were written in direct terms, then their would be no excuse for the many differing beliefs.
It was spoken by a masterful creator who knew the very thoughts of mankind, and used the foolishness of mankind to define His works, Himself and His believers.
The bible and Jesus' works are foolishness to you, thus not having the spirit to see passed it.
That being the case, I explain in vain, hoping that perhaps you might let up a little and try to see how wonderful God really is.
1Co 3:19 For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God. For it is written, He taketh the wise in their own craftiness.
Blessings, AJ
Here's a verse to verify what I just said:
As much as I enjoy chating with you I can not come up with words to paint you a clear picture without giving you what you want, and that is for the OT to state in direct terms, Jesus came to change the law, or Jesus came to redo what has already been done or something to that effect before you can even try to reason with me.
You see, if the bible were written in direct terms, then their would be no excuse for the many differing beliefs.
It was spoken by a masterful creator who knew the very thoughts of mankind, and used the foolishness of mankind to define His works, Himself and His believers.
The bible and Jesus' works are foolishness to you, thus not having the spirit to see passed it.
That being the case, I explain in vain, hoping that perhaps you might let up a little and try to see how wonderful God really is.
1Co 3:19 For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God. For it is written, He taketh the wise in their own craftiness.
Blessings, AJ
Here's a verse to verify what I just said:
The very fact that you can say such words is a gift of God. Not the words, but the ability to think for yourself.
Like being your own god, lower case g, because you have the ability as like God to think and reason between what is good and what is evil.
Now, that you are alive, not willingly of course, since you had no choice in the matter.
And again, because you were subjected into a world that is as like you see it, in-just and one where God the creator is questioned for His loving kindness.
It's like the ungrateful child telling the parent, why did you bring me into this world?
Being born as a god, meaning an individual soul with a spirit that is all you, I mean you are somebody in the scheme of all things that was the crowning glory of the Creator.
That was the gift of "you" as a god, or in the image of God, separate entity, alive in the flesh for the nurture, instruction, guidance so that you may grow in love via all the testings of this world.
Count it worthy to be tested, for if you tap the power of God in this life, your victory over the things of this world will be glorious.
Ref: Luk 21:36 Watch ye therefore, and pray always, that ye may be accounted worthy to escape all these things that shall come to pass, and to stand before the Son of man.
Suffering is not avoidable, for both believer and unbeliever suffer, the difference being that suffering in Jesus, the burden is made light.
Ref: Mat 11:29 Take my yoke upon you, and learn of me; for I am meek and lowly in heart: and ye shall find rest unto your souls.
Mat 11:30 For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light.
Jesus took the power of evil away, the one which sentenced us to eternal death?
Yes, that power has Jesus overcome for us all.
For that I can proudly say, "Thank you Lord for giving me life"!!
And bless my mother who bore me and my father who gave me instruction.
I owe my soul to my God who gave it, bought it with a price, so that I could be "me" with a personal name that will last forever in the klingdom of God by my name.
To God be all the glory, power and praise.........AMen.
Blessings, AJ
waitasec
Veteran Member
don't you think you are actually limiting yourself by placing a reason behind why things happen?
our psychology tells us if we are told what we are we will become that. don't you think when the bible tells you that every inclination of man is evil, we become that. however, god was wrong when he made that statement, children are good innately as well, they are giving, forgiving, kind and with out any prejudice...
why limit the possibilities...?
Luminous
non-existential luminary
I find it disgusting and pitiful that people turn to idol scriptures for answers to the essance of reality. The Christian God is nothing more than an idea, and a loosely defined and denominational idea at that.
One anti-agnostic idea is equal to the other: i could say that the Christian god gave us the ability to be as we are, or i could say that the Flying Spaghetti Monster did.
i could say we have a soul and spirit, or i could say that we have Karma and Chakra and Habubaloo.
A pity really, one could be consentrating on more scientific and actual things.
One anti-agnostic idea is equal to the other: i could say that the Christian god gave us the ability to be as we are, or i could say that the Flying Spaghetti Monster did.
i could say we have a soul and spirit, or i could say that we have Karma and Chakra and Habubaloo.
A pity really, one could be consentrating on more scientific and actual things.
I'm certainly well aware that the Bible is not always explicit in what it says. But as I've made clear from my posts, and my questions, I'm not asking you for something that is impossible.
I'm asking for something very reasonable, and that it to show instances where the O.T. unambiguously supports the concepts that are at the foundation of the N.T. (ie. the Trinity, eternal life in heaven/hell, belief in God, the need to replace the existing Covenant).
That shouldn't be difficult.
If you look at each book in the O.T., and consider the most important events/concepts, and then ask to demonstrate how the previous book (for example, Exodus and Genesis) supports the concepts at the foundation of the next book, it is very easy to do. Why is it then such an impossible task for the O.T. to demonstrate the concepts at the foundation of the N.T.?
This is not a serious response.
Yes, some claims are foolish. That fact alone does not in any way support the truth of those claims. This is nothing but "psychological warfare" to compensate for lack of supporting evidence.
But interestingly enough, the N.T. is not unique in saying that its claims appear foolish to those who don't believe in it. In fact the Quran says very similar things about unbelievers. For example:
"And when it is said unto them: believe as the people believe, they say: shall we believe as the foolish believe ? are not they indeed the foolish ? But they know not." (Quran 2:13)
So whom should I believe? Neither Christianity nor Islam present any convincing evidence. Should I believe in whatever appears more foolish to me?
That doesn't sound like a good technique for getting to know truths about this world.
As I said, I welcome with an open heart and mind any information you may present where the O.T. corroborates the fundamental claims in the N.T. (ie. the Trinity, eternal life in heaven/hell, belief in God, the need to replace the existing Covenant).
But you have not done so. If you cannot present any evidence, how can I accept the claims of the N.T.? On faith?
I've already explained why your "understanding" and "explanation" were faulty here: http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/2300589-post132.html
Now, about this statement: "try to see how wonderful God really is"
This world is wonderful enough for me - whether I think God created it or not, I don't know - but I don't see anything wonderful in a heaven or hell.
Both these [imaginary] dimensions were created to pander to our vanity ("don't you want to live forever? In eternal bliss?"), and I could not imagine a loving God who would do such an ungodly thing.
_____________________
Natural Philosophy of Life - a simple, elegant, and powerful alternative to religious dogma
Last edited: