robtex
Veteran Member
From His intro thread here:
http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/showthread.php?t=23908
http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/showthread.php?t=23908
Underhill said:
-
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!
Reconciliation of OT and NT ?
- Thread starter robtex
- Start date
Quiddity
UndertheInfluenceofGiants
This article helped me alot.
~Victor
CATHOLIC ANSWERS:
What does the Bible mean when it says that God repented? Or not to grieve the Holy Spirit? Or that God is angry? Or that he wills evil to someone?
These ideas are perplexing because they seem inconsistent with what we know about God and heaven. If God knows everything, why would he need to repent? If heaven is pure beatitude, how can someone there be angry, grieved, or crying? If God is all-good, how can he will evil?
The starting point for understanding the answers is recognizing a basic fact about God: He's really, really different than we are-a point stressed in Scripture (Num. 23:19, 1 Sam 15:29, Is 55:9).
Metaphor
Because God is so different, he uses accommodated language to help us understand what he is like. This language involves metaphor, because the human language and mind are not able to capture what God is.
The nature of a metaphor is that it speaks of one thing as if it is another and, in so doing, expresses a truth. For example, if I said, "General Longstreet was a lion," I would mean something like "General Longstreet was a fierce and effective commander in battle." I would not mean that he had four feet, claws, and fangs.
A key to understanding metaphorical language is identifying the points of similarity and dissimilarity between the metaphor and what it refers to. This is especially important when God is involved. The Catechism stresses, "God transcends all creatures. We must therefore continually purify our language of everything in it that is limited, image-bound, or imperfect, if we are not to confuse our image of God-'the inexpressible, the incomprehensible, the invisible, the ungraspable'-with our human representations" (CCC 42).
Scriptural language about God tends to be anthropomorphic; that is, it speaks of God as if he were human. Failure to grasp that these statements involve metaphor can lead to theological error and even heresy.
This is the case when Mormons note that God is described in the Bible as having a face (Ps. 27:8), hands (Ps. 8:6), arms (Ex. 15:16), and feet (Is. 66:1) and conclude that he therefore has a physical body-and in fact is simply "an exalted man."
One may point out that Scripture also describes God as having wings (Ps. 91:4)-which Mormons do not hold to be literally true. This means if they're honest they must recognize the presence of metaphor in Scripture when applied to God, depriving the various body-part passages of being serviceable proof-texts.
The best protection against failure to recognize metaphorical statements about God is an understanding of the nature and attributes of God as they have been worked out by Catholic theology. This makes it easier to "unpack" the various metaphors that are used concerning God and his actions-to figure out what they are and aren't saying.
God's Attributes
The First Vatican Council proclaimed: "The holy, Catholic, apostolic and Roman Church believes and acknowledges that there is one true and living God, creator and lord of heaven and earth, omnipotent, eternal, immeasurable, incomprehensible, infinite in will, understanding, and every perfection.
"Since he is one, singular, completely simple and immutable spiritual substance, he must be declared to be in reality and in essence, distinct from the world, supremely happy in himself and from himself, and inexpressibly loftier than anything besides himself which either exists or can be imagined" (De Fide Catolica 1).
Several divine attributes named here are relevant to the metaphors we are considering.
When the Church says that God is infinite in every perfection, it means that he has every possible perfection to a limitless degree. Every great-making quality is something that God possesses. He could not possibly be any greater than he is. Part of his perfection is absolute simplicity, immutability, eternity, and beatitude.
Simplicity is the attribute of not being composed of parts. When the Church proclaims God's simplicity, it means that God is entirely free from any composition, whether physical or metaphysical. Unlike us, he is not a composition of body and soul, act and potency, essence and existence, or substance and accident. He is metaphysically simple.
As a result, he is also immutable; that is, he cannot change in any respect. If he could change then it would imply that God is not pure act but that he is a composition of act and potentiality-since he would have the potential of changing, of acquiring and losing properties.
Because God is unchanging, he is therefore eternal. By this the Church does not mean that God has unlimited extension through time but is outside of time altogether. If he were extended through time, his existence could be divided into temporal parts, and he would lack the perfection of simplicity.
Finally, God's possession of every perfection includes perfect beatitude. This is what Vatican I means when it says that God is "supremely happy in himself and from himself." God does not need the world or anything in it to be perfectly happy. Therefore he created it "not with the intention of increasing his happiness, nor indeed of obtaining happiness" (ibid.). He already has infinite happiness in himself and because of his own perfection.
With this grounding in the nature of God, we can go on to interpret the metaphoric and anthropomorphic statements concerning God in Scripture.
Divine Suffering
A key to recognizing metaphor is the idea of divine suffering. Because of God's infinite perfection, he is incapable of suffering. Lacking a physical body, he cannot have physical pain. Possessing perfect beatitude, he has no mental pain.
This is the Church's historic and present teaching. John Paul II makes it clear that suffering is something "which we cannot attribute to God as God-except in an anthropomorphic metaphorical way whereby we speak of his suffering, regrets, et cetera" (General Audience, Oct. 19, 1988).
Even the sufferings of Christ in his human nature do not disturb the beatitude of the Godhead: "As the Word, a divine Person, he [Christ] confers an infinite value on his suffering and death, which thus falls within the mysterious ambit of the human-divine reality, and touches, without affecting, the infinite glory and bliss of the Trinity" (ibid.).
Whenever one encounters a statement that would suggest that God suffers in himself, rather than through the Passion of the Incarnate Christ, one is reading a metaphorical statement.
For example, Isaiah speaks of the sufferings of God's people and says "in all their affliction he was afflicted" (Is. 63:9a). Since this passage attributes suffering to God and its context does not indicate that we are talking about the Incarnation but about the history of Israel in general, we know it must be a metaphor.
Once this is recognized, it remains to determine its meaning. The starting point is to ask what would be meant if the same thing were said of a human being, then seek to determine which elements of thatcould be true of God as well. Anything precluded by his nature must be precluded from the meaning from the meaning of the metaphor. This gives us a sense of what is probably meant by the metaphor, but we must still look to the context of the passage to see if any additional light is shed on what the metaphor is meant to convey.
Applying this to the example just cited, if I were to tell you that "in all your afflictions, I was afflicted, too," I likely would mean something like the following: I was fully aware of your sufferings and how much they pained you. I cared about you, and the knowledge of your sufferings caused me pain as well. It may have even moved me to some sort of action.
Except for the part about being personally pained, all of this may apply to God. The affirmation that in all Israel's affliction God also was afflicted likely means that he was fully aware of Israel's sufferings and how intense they were, that he loved Israel, and that he may have been moved to action in connection with the sufferings.
The latter is confirmed by the context, which immediately goes on to state, "And the angel of his presence saved them; in his love and in his pity he redeemed them; he lifted them up and carried them all the days of old" (Is. 63:9b).
~Victor
CATHOLIC ANSWERS:
What does the Bible mean when it says that God repented? Or not to grieve the Holy Spirit? Or that God is angry? Or that he wills evil to someone?
These ideas are perplexing because they seem inconsistent with what we know about God and heaven. If God knows everything, why would he need to repent? If heaven is pure beatitude, how can someone there be angry, grieved, or crying? If God is all-good, how can he will evil?
The starting point for understanding the answers is recognizing a basic fact about God: He's really, really different than we are-a point stressed in Scripture (Num. 23:19, 1 Sam 15:29, Is 55:9).
Metaphor
Because God is so different, he uses accommodated language to help us understand what he is like. This language involves metaphor, because the human language and mind are not able to capture what God is.
The nature of a metaphor is that it speaks of one thing as if it is another and, in so doing, expresses a truth. For example, if I said, "General Longstreet was a lion," I would mean something like "General Longstreet was a fierce and effective commander in battle." I would not mean that he had four feet, claws, and fangs.
A key to understanding metaphorical language is identifying the points of similarity and dissimilarity between the metaphor and what it refers to. This is especially important when God is involved. The Catechism stresses, "God transcends all creatures. We must therefore continually purify our language of everything in it that is limited, image-bound, or imperfect, if we are not to confuse our image of God-'the inexpressible, the incomprehensible, the invisible, the ungraspable'-with our human representations" (CCC 42).
Scriptural language about God tends to be anthropomorphic; that is, it speaks of God as if he were human. Failure to grasp that these statements involve metaphor can lead to theological error and even heresy.
This is the case when Mormons note that God is described in the Bible as having a face (Ps. 27:8), hands (Ps. 8:6), arms (Ex. 15:16), and feet (Is. 66:1) and conclude that he therefore has a physical body-and in fact is simply "an exalted man."
One may point out that Scripture also describes God as having wings (Ps. 91:4)-which Mormons do not hold to be literally true. This means if they're honest they must recognize the presence of metaphor in Scripture when applied to God, depriving the various body-part passages of being serviceable proof-texts.
The best protection against failure to recognize metaphorical statements about God is an understanding of the nature and attributes of God as they have been worked out by Catholic theology. This makes it easier to "unpack" the various metaphors that are used concerning God and his actions-to figure out what they are and aren't saying.
God's Attributes
The First Vatican Council proclaimed: "The holy, Catholic, apostolic and Roman Church believes and acknowledges that there is one true and living God, creator and lord of heaven and earth, omnipotent, eternal, immeasurable, incomprehensible, infinite in will, understanding, and every perfection.
"Since he is one, singular, completely simple and immutable spiritual substance, he must be declared to be in reality and in essence, distinct from the world, supremely happy in himself and from himself, and inexpressibly loftier than anything besides himself which either exists or can be imagined" (De Fide Catolica 1).
Several divine attributes named here are relevant to the metaphors we are considering.
When the Church says that God is infinite in every perfection, it means that he has every possible perfection to a limitless degree. Every great-making quality is something that God possesses. He could not possibly be any greater than he is. Part of his perfection is absolute simplicity, immutability, eternity, and beatitude.
Simplicity is the attribute of not being composed of parts. When the Church proclaims God's simplicity, it means that God is entirely free from any composition, whether physical or metaphysical. Unlike us, he is not a composition of body and soul, act and potency, essence and existence, or substance and accident. He is metaphysically simple.
As a result, he is also immutable; that is, he cannot change in any respect. If he could change then it would imply that God is not pure act but that he is a composition of act and potentiality-since he would have the potential of changing, of acquiring and losing properties.
Because God is unchanging, he is therefore eternal. By this the Church does not mean that God has unlimited extension through time but is outside of time altogether. If he were extended through time, his existence could be divided into temporal parts, and he would lack the perfection of simplicity.
Finally, God's possession of every perfection includes perfect beatitude. This is what Vatican I means when it says that God is "supremely happy in himself and from himself." God does not need the world or anything in it to be perfectly happy. Therefore he created it "not with the intention of increasing his happiness, nor indeed of obtaining happiness" (ibid.). He already has infinite happiness in himself and because of his own perfection.
With this grounding in the nature of God, we can go on to interpret the metaphoric and anthropomorphic statements concerning God in Scripture.
Divine Suffering
A key to recognizing metaphor is the idea of divine suffering. Because of God's infinite perfection, he is incapable of suffering. Lacking a physical body, he cannot have physical pain. Possessing perfect beatitude, he has no mental pain.
This is the Church's historic and present teaching. John Paul II makes it clear that suffering is something "which we cannot attribute to God as God-except in an anthropomorphic metaphorical way whereby we speak of his suffering, regrets, et cetera" (General Audience, Oct. 19, 1988).
Even the sufferings of Christ in his human nature do not disturb the beatitude of the Godhead: "As the Word, a divine Person, he [Christ] confers an infinite value on his suffering and death, which thus falls within the mysterious ambit of the human-divine reality, and touches, without affecting, the infinite glory and bliss of the Trinity" (ibid.).
Whenever one encounters a statement that would suggest that God suffers in himself, rather than through the Passion of the Incarnate Christ, one is reading a metaphorical statement.
For example, Isaiah speaks of the sufferings of God's people and says "in all their affliction he was afflicted" (Is. 63:9a). Since this passage attributes suffering to God and its context does not indicate that we are talking about the Incarnation but about the history of Israel in general, we know it must be a metaphor.
Once this is recognized, it remains to determine its meaning. The starting point is to ask what would be meant if the same thing were said of a human being, then seek to determine which elements of thatcould be true of God as well. Anything precluded by his nature must be precluded from the meaning from the meaning of the metaphor. This gives us a sense of what is probably meant by the metaphor, but we must still look to the context of the passage to see if any additional light is shed on what the metaphor is meant to convey.
Applying this to the example just cited, if I were to tell you that "in all your afflictions, I was afflicted, too," I likely would mean something like the following: I was fully aware of your sufferings and how much they pained you. I cared about you, and the knowledge of your sufferings caused me pain as well. It may have even moved me to some sort of action.
Except for the part about being personally pained, all of this may apply to God. The affirmation that in all Israel's affliction God also was afflicted likely means that he was fully aware of Israel's sufferings and how intense they were, that he loved Israel, and that he may have been moved to action in connection with the sufferings.
The latter is confirmed by the context, which immediately goes on to state, "And the angel of his presence saved them; in his love and in his pity he redeemed them; he lifted them up and carried them all the days of old" (Is. 63:9b).
Quiddity
UndertheInfluenceofGiants
Divine Grief
A particular form of suffering that is ascribed in Scripture to God is grief. For example, we read that God's people "rebelled and grieved his Holy Spirit" (Is. 63:10a; cf. Eph. 4:30).
This is also a metaphor. John Paul II remarks, "In his [Isaiah's] anthropomorphic description, the attribution to God's spirit of the sadness caused by the abandonment of the people conforms to human psychology" (General Audience, February 21, 1990).
If we seek to interpret this metaphor, we come up with something similar to the example above. If I say that someone has grieved me by their actions, I mean that I feel the pain of sadness because I know someone has done something wrong that I feel acutely, usually because I had some kind of hope that now will be unfulfilled (as when a parent is sad because he hoped a child would make better choices than he did). I may even be prompted by this grief to take action of some sort.
Much of this carries over to the metaphor of divine grief. While God is not capable of literally feeling the pain of sadness, he is minutely aware of it when people do things that are wrong and thereby frustrate what God (in his antecedent will) wished for the people. In connection with this, he may also take action, as the context in Isaiah indicates, going on to say "therefore he turned to be their enemy, and himself fought against them" (Is. 63:10b).
Divine Anger
Sadness is related to anger. One who is grieved can become angry with the person who grieved him, and Scripture does indeed speak of God being angry on account of our sins (e.g., Num. 22:22, Deut. 4:25, 2 Sam. 6:7).
When a man is angry, his intense disapproval of something that someone has done triggers a particular set of physiological sensations and mental discomfort. A difference between anger and sadness is that the former tends to be provoked when we view the person's action as harming or threatening something we care about (as opposed to having a sense of loss or unfulfilled hope). Anger also is very likely to motivate us to act in some way, particularly by seeking to strike back at the one who has angered us.
Applying this to the divine, God does not have a body and so does not feel the physiological sensations we do with anger. Neither does he feel the mental discomfort associated with anger. He does intensely disapprove of sin and, when it is committed, will act. This action may take the form of allowing temporal calamity to befall those who engage in sin.
This allowing of temporal calamity on those who have sinned is sufficiently analogous to human anger for Scripture to apply the term to it. Thus when in the Old Testament people suffer on account of their sins, it is spoken of as the product of divine anger.
Alternately, God sometimes announced through the prophets that he was angry and would punish the people unless they repented. This also signifies God's disapproval of their sins together with the information on what God will do if they persist on their present course.
Divine Repentance
In modern speech, repentance refers to a sorrow over and conversion from one's sins. This kind of repentance is never ascribed to God, whose absolute holiness is unquestioned in Scripture.
The term repentance historically has been used in other senses, referring either to a change of course or a change of opinion, and in these senses Scripture does apply the concept of repentance to God. This is not literal because God's omniscience prevents him from ever having any cause of changing his opinion (he cannot gain new information that he previously was unaware of) and because his timelessness prevents him from ever changing in any way. The point elsewhere in Scripture is made explicitly: "God is not man, that he should lie, or a son of man, that he should repent" (Num. 23:19).
Nevertheless, it is fairly easy to unpack the metaphor of divine repentance when it is used in Scripture. For example, Exodus says "the LORD repented of the evil which he thought to do to his people" (32:14) following Moses' intercession for them. This fits the same pattern as all answered prayer: God has determined that he will give certain things to us only if we ask for them, otherwise not. Had Moses not interceded for the people of Israel, punishment would have come upon them. This avoidance of the calamity that otherwise would have occurred is spoken of as if it were a change of course on God's part. In actuality, there was no change. God had determined two possible paths to go down depending on the response of Moses. The prophet's intercession simply determined which path was taken.
Similarly, when Genesis speaks of God repenting of or regretting having created man (Gen. 6:6-7), it signifies not that God got new information on how bad men are but that he fully recognized how bad man's sins were (i.e., sufficiently bad to allow the race to be destroyed) and that he correspondingly chose to allow the calamity of the Flood.
Divine Malevolence
It is a more difficult to understand when Scripture speaks of God willing evil to someone (e.g., Jer 18:7-11). This must be squared with God's complete goodness. There would seem to be two ways of doing so.
The first solution is that God never wills moral evil to anyone. He only allows them to become morally evil. He may positively will physical evil (pain, hunger, sickness, death) when it will serve to achieve a greater good (e.g., repentance, avoidance of danger). This appears to be the historically more common explanation in Catholic thought.
However, it is also possible to hold that even in the case of physical evil God is merely allowing it for a greater end, not positively willing it. It seems better to accord with God's absolute benevolence that God would merely allow evil, whether physical or moral, rather than will evil.
This distinction has an impact on how one reads statements regarding God willing evil in Scripture. Statements suggesting that God willed or brought moral evil on someone (e.g., "the Lord hardened the heart of Pharaoh"; Ex. 9:12) must be interpreted in the sense that God allowed the moral evil (e.g., by withdrawing his grace from one who has resisted it). Statements that he willed or brought about physical evil (e.g., a plague) could be interpreted either to mean that he willed the evil to achieve a good or that he allowed the evil to achieve the good.
A particular form of suffering that is ascribed in Scripture to God is grief. For example, we read that God's people "rebelled and grieved his Holy Spirit" (Is. 63:10a; cf. Eph. 4:30).
This is also a metaphor. John Paul II remarks, "In his [Isaiah's] anthropomorphic description, the attribution to God's spirit of the sadness caused by the abandonment of the people conforms to human psychology" (General Audience, February 21, 1990).
If we seek to interpret this metaphor, we come up with something similar to the example above. If I say that someone has grieved me by their actions, I mean that I feel the pain of sadness because I know someone has done something wrong that I feel acutely, usually because I had some kind of hope that now will be unfulfilled (as when a parent is sad because he hoped a child would make better choices than he did). I may even be prompted by this grief to take action of some sort.
Much of this carries over to the metaphor of divine grief. While God is not capable of literally feeling the pain of sadness, he is minutely aware of it when people do things that are wrong and thereby frustrate what God (in his antecedent will) wished for the people. In connection with this, he may also take action, as the context in Isaiah indicates, going on to say "therefore he turned to be their enemy, and himself fought against them" (Is. 63:10b).
Divine Anger
Sadness is related to anger. One who is grieved can become angry with the person who grieved him, and Scripture does indeed speak of God being angry on account of our sins (e.g., Num. 22:22, Deut. 4:25, 2 Sam. 6:7).
When a man is angry, his intense disapproval of something that someone has done triggers a particular set of physiological sensations and mental discomfort. A difference between anger and sadness is that the former tends to be provoked when we view the person's action as harming or threatening something we care about (as opposed to having a sense of loss or unfulfilled hope). Anger also is very likely to motivate us to act in some way, particularly by seeking to strike back at the one who has angered us.
Applying this to the divine, God does not have a body and so does not feel the physiological sensations we do with anger. Neither does he feel the mental discomfort associated with anger. He does intensely disapprove of sin and, when it is committed, will act. This action may take the form of allowing temporal calamity to befall those who engage in sin.
This allowing of temporal calamity on those who have sinned is sufficiently analogous to human anger for Scripture to apply the term to it. Thus when in the Old Testament people suffer on account of their sins, it is spoken of as the product of divine anger.
Alternately, God sometimes announced through the prophets that he was angry and would punish the people unless they repented. This also signifies God's disapproval of their sins together with the information on what God will do if they persist on their present course.
Divine Repentance
In modern speech, repentance refers to a sorrow over and conversion from one's sins. This kind of repentance is never ascribed to God, whose absolute holiness is unquestioned in Scripture.
The term repentance historically has been used in other senses, referring either to a change of course or a change of opinion, and in these senses Scripture does apply the concept of repentance to God. This is not literal because God's omniscience prevents him from ever having any cause of changing his opinion (he cannot gain new information that he previously was unaware of) and because his timelessness prevents him from ever changing in any way. The point elsewhere in Scripture is made explicitly: "God is not man, that he should lie, or a son of man, that he should repent" (Num. 23:19).
Nevertheless, it is fairly easy to unpack the metaphor of divine repentance when it is used in Scripture. For example, Exodus says "the LORD repented of the evil which he thought to do to his people" (32:14) following Moses' intercession for them. This fits the same pattern as all answered prayer: God has determined that he will give certain things to us only if we ask for them, otherwise not. Had Moses not interceded for the people of Israel, punishment would have come upon them. This avoidance of the calamity that otherwise would have occurred is spoken of as if it were a change of course on God's part. In actuality, there was no change. God had determined two possible paths to go down depending on the response of Moses. The prophet's intercession simply determined which path was taken.
Similarly, when Genesis speaks of God repenting of or regretting having created man (Gen. 6:6-7), it signifies not that God got new information on how bad men are but that he fully recognized how bad man's sins were (i.e., sufficiently bad to allow the race to be destroyed) and that he correspondingly chose to allow the calamity of the Flood.
Divine Malevolence
It is a more difficult to understand when Scripture speaks of God willing evil to someone (e.g., Jer 18:7-11). This must be squared with God's complete goodness. There would seem to be two ways of doing so.
The first solution is that God never wills moral evil to anyone. He only allows them to become morally evil. He may positively will physical evil (pain, hunger, sickness, death) when it will serve to achieve a greater good (e.g., repentance, avoidance of danger). This appears to be the historically more common explanation in Catholic thought.
However, it is also possible to hold that even in the case of physical evil God is merely allowing it for a greater end, not positively willing it. It seems better to accord with God's absolute benevolence that God would merely allow evil, whether physical or moral, rather than will evil.
This distinction has an impact on how one reads statements regarding God willing evil in Scripture. Statements suggesting that God willed or brought moral evil on someone (e.g., "the Lord hardened the heart of Pharaoh"; Ex. 9:12) must be interpreted in the sense that God allowed the moral evil (e.g., by withdrawing his grace from one who has resisted it). Statements that he willed or brought about physical evil (e.g., a plague) could be interpreted either to mean that he willed the evil to achieve a good or that he allowed the evil to achieve the good.
Scuba Pete
Le plongeur avec attitude...
I didn't even know they were fighting! 
nutshell
Well-Known Member
The OT represents the lower or lesser law. When Christ came he brought with him the higher law, fulfilling the old and bringing something new.
Another way to look at it is that God demands a perfect balance of justice and mercy. The OT is the justice side of things, but through Christ, mercy comes into play if we accept the Savior and repent of our sins.
Another way to look at it is that God demands a perfect balance of justice and mercy. The OT is the justice side of things, but through Christ, mercy comes into play if we accept the Savior and repent of our sins.
nutshell
Well-Known Member
I would say it was lesser in that it did not contain the higher law (which comes with additional blessings), making it incomplete. Fulfillment came by adding the higher law and fulfilling the prophesies of OT prophets. Please let me know if I'm making any sense because I'm not sure myself.Victor said:
The lesser law was certainly needed and I don't want to take anything away from it. All aspects of the law point to Jesus Christ.
Quiddity
UndertheInfluenceofGiants
I guess it's word of "lesser" that doesn't sit right with me. It's lesser but it's needed...see what I mean?nutshell said:I would say it was lesser in that it did not contain the higher law (which comes with additional blessings), making it incomplete. Fulfillment came by adding the higher law and fulfilling the prophesies of OT prophets. Please let me know if I'm making any sense because I'm not sure myself.
The lesser law was certainly needed and I don't want to take anything away from it. All aspects of the law point to Jesus Christ.
By higher law, Im assuming you mean "supernatural law"?
nutshell
Well-Known Member
Those who adhere only to the "lesser" law will receive a "lesser" portion of God's blessings.Victor said:
From an LDS perspective, these terms are used when refering to the priesthood. The lesser law being the lower priesthood that deals with the physical aspects of God's plan, while the higher priesthood deals with the spiritual aspects of the plan.
A popular misconception is that, where as the God of the inspired Christian Greek Scriptures is kind and loving, the God of the inspired Hebrew Scriptures is cruel and vengeful
Unfortunately, that same opinion is shared by many who call themselves Christians, including some clergymen. but when we look at it closer we can see that is not the case ,as an example ,the flood of noahs day , some might say leave people alone , let them get on with it ,if thats what they want .let them ruin the earth. But for the sake of the ones that were true to God the honest, morally upright people it would have been cruel for God to allow the wicked to exterminate the last vestige of morality left on earth, so he had to get rid of the ruiners, and they could have been saved themselves if they had listened to noah noah preached for 40 or 50 years telling them that there was going to be a flood ,and he also told them where the place of safety was , but they did not want it
A cruel God would have made no provision for the survival of man or beast,but he did
and he did not hold back from punishing an ancient world, but kept Noah, a preacher of righteousness, safe with seven others when he brought a deluge upon a world of ungodly people; 2 peter2;5 .......and then there was sodom and gomorrah ,remember God can read hearts
not even ten righteous men could be found in Sodom! (Genesis 18:32) The conduct of the Sodomites posed a real threat to righteous Lot and his family. Therefore, Gods rescue of Lot and his daughters was an act of love!Genesis 19:12-26
then there was the executing of the canaanites
Jehovah promised Abraham that his seed would eventually occupy the land of Canaan. Note, though, that no execution was to take place in Abrahams day. Why not? "Because the error of the Amorites [the dominant Canaanite tribe] has not yet come to completion," said Jehovah. (Genesis 15:16) Some 430 years would pass before the wickedness of that nation had reached such proportions that Moses could say: "It is for the wickedness of these nations [of Canaan] that Jehovah your God is driving them away from before you."Deuteronomy 9:5 but Jehovah always spares the rightous
some sayGod underwent a personality change in the "New Testament." Jesus teachings focused on love, they say.Matthew 5:39, 44, 45
The Bible record stands, not as a proof of Gods being cruel, but as evidence of his deep and abiding love for mankind and yes there is going to be another tribulation and yes it will be ..... the war of the great day of Jehovah ...... against the wicked ,and yes we can survive if we want to , but the question is do we love this imoral corupt dishonest world and want to be a part of it ,or do we prefer to be with the survivors of the great tribulation instead
And he said to me: "These are the ones that come out of the great tribulation, ...revelation 7;9
(Mark 13:19) for those days will be [days of] a tribulation such as has not occurred from [the] beginning of the creation which God created until that time, and will not occur again
(Daniel 12:1) "And during that time Mi´cha·el will stand up, the great prince who is standing in behalf of the sons of your people. And there will certainly occur a time of distress such as has not been made to occur since there came to be a nation until that time. And during that time your people will escape, every one who is found written down in the book
It is because of his love for mankind that Jehovah purposes to cleanse this earth of all wickedness ,and he will , make no mistake about it
Actually, it is because of Gods love that the battle of Armageddon must be fought.
And they gathered them together to the place that is called in Hebrew HarMa·ged´on revelation 16;16
(Revelation 19:19) And I saw the wild beast and the kings of the earth and their armies gathered together to wage the war with the one seated on the horse and with his army.
Jehovah Gods purpose for the earth is to restore it to its original Paradise state and to have mankind live on it in peace and perfection "with no one to make them tremble
so the God of the bible is not a split personality he has always been a just God and he has and will not change
He that exercises faith in the Son has everlasting life; he that disobeys the Son will not see life, but the wrath of God remains upon him ....john 3;36
Unfortunately, that same opinion is shared by many who call themselves Christians, including some clergymen. but when we look at it closer we can see that is not the case ,as an example ,the flood of noahs day , some might say leave people alone , let them get on with it ,if thats what they want .let them ruin the earth. But for the sake of the ones that were true to God the honest, morally upright people it would have been cruel for God to allow the wicked to exterminate the last vestige of morality left on earth, so he had to get rid of the ruiners, and they could have been saved themselves if they had listened to noah noah preached for 40 or 50 years telling them that there was going to be a flood ,and he also told them where the place of safety was , but they did not want it
A cruel God would have made no provision for the survival of man or beast,but he did
and he did not hold back from punishing an ancient world, but kept Noah, a preacher of righteousness, safe with seven others when he brought a deluge upon a world of ungodly people; 2 peter2;5 .......and then there was sodom and gomorrah ,remember God can read hearts
not even ten righteous men could be found in Sodom! (Genesis 18:32) The conduct of the Sodomites posed a real threat to righteous Lot and his family. Therefore, Gods rescue of Lot and his daughters was an act of love!Genesis 19:12-26
then there was the executing of the canaanites
Jehovah promised Abraham that his seed would eventually occupy the land of Canaan. Note, though, that no execution was to take place in Abrahams day. Why not? "Because the error of the Amorites [the dominant Canaanite tribe] has not yet come to completion," said Jehovah. (Genesis 15:16) Some 430 years would pass before the wickedness of that nation had reached such proportions that Moses could say: "It is for the wickedness of these nations [of Canaan] that Jehovah your God is driving them away from before you."Deuteronomy 9:5 but Jehovah always spares the rightous
some sayGod underwent a personality change in the "New Testament." Jesus teachings focused on love, they say.Matthew 5:39, 44, 45
Yet, the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 C.E. came as a judgment from Jehovah, even as Jesus foretold. (Matthew 23:37, 38; 24:2) Further, unrighteous individuals such as Ananias, Sapphira, and Herod were put to death. God had not changed. (Acts 5:1-11; 12:21-23; Malachi 3:6) Nor were Jesus teachings about love a new development. Much earlier, the Mosaic Law had commanded: "You must love your fellow as yourself." (Leviticus 19:18) Jesus teachings about self-sacrificing love, though, went further than this command. (John 13:34) Remember, too, that he also pronounced strong denunciations on hypocritical religious leaders. Read all of Matthew chapter 23 for yourself and see how powerfully Jesus denounced such ones.
The Bible record stands, not as a proof of Gods being cruel, but as evidence of his deep and abiding love for mankind and yes there is going to be another tribulation and yes it will be ..... the war of the great day of Jehovah ...... against the wicked ,and yes we can survive if we want to , but the question is do we love this imoral corupt dishonest world and want to be a part of it ,or do we prefer to be with the survivors of the great tribulation instead
And he said to me: "These are the ones that come out of the great tribulation, ...revelation 7;9
(Matthew 24:21) for then there will be great tribulation such as has not occurred since the worlds beginning until now, no, nor will occur again.
(Mark 13:19) for those days will be [days of] a tribulation such as has not occurred from [the] beginning of the creation which God created until that time, and will not occur again
(Daniel 12:1) "And during that time Mi´cha·el will stand up, the great prince who is standing in behalf of the sons of your people. And there will certainly occur a time of distress such as has not been made to occur since there came to be a nation until that time. And during that time your people will escape, every one who is found written down in the book
It is because of his love for mankind that Jehovah purposes to cleanse this earth of all wickedness ,and he will , make no mistake about it
Actually, it is because of Gods love that the battle of Armageddon must be fought.
And they gathered them together to the place that is called in Hebrew HarMa·ged´on revelation 16;16
(Revelation 19:19) And I saw the wild beast and the kings of the earth and their armies gathered together to wage the war with the one seated on the horse and with his army.
Jehovah Gods purpose for the earth is to restore it to its original Paradise state and to have mankind live on it in peace and perfection "with no one to make them tremble
so the God of the bible is not a split personality he has always been a just God and he has and will not change
Jehovah is guarding all those loving him, but all the wicked ones he will annihilate psalm 145;20
He that exercises faith in the Son has everlasting life; he that disobeys the Son will not see life, but the wrath of God remains upon him ....john 3;36
greatcalgarian
Well-Known Member
Whatever the explanation or arguement, it is originating from Human.
So all those arguements could be totally wrong.
The best explanation I find, or the most comfortable explanation is:
Human being limited knowledge cannot fathom the infinite wisdom of God.
The other explanation is:
Human created God, since human beings are imperfect, so the God created cannot be perfect, and hence you have all those contradictions between the NT and OT.
Of course you can accept the lengthy explanation by the Catholics, which have spent much time trying to explain away those contradiction by various very convincing arguemnets.
So all those arguements could be totally wrong.
The best explanation I find, or the most comfortable explanation is:
Human being limited knowledge cannot fathom the infinite wisdom of God.
The other explanation is:
Human created God, since human beings are imperfect, so the God created cannot be perfect, and hence you have all those contradictions between the NT and OT.
Of course you can accept the lengthy explanation by the Catholics, which have spent much time trying to explain away those contradiction by various very convincing arguemnets.
Quiddity
UndertheInfluenceofGiants
GC, you don't have to accept anything you aren't convinced of. Just understand that the Catholic Church has always been trying to explain what she teaches. The mass amounts of historical data is there to show it. So it's not about "trying to explain away" GC. It's always been about trying to explain what we believe. And please don't take my word for it, there is much for you to read to show it.greatcalgarian said:
~Victor
Quiddity
UndertheInfluenceofGiants
By "Tri-celestial" I was speaking of the 3 possible places you can end up in after death in LDS theology. So when you were using words like "lesser", it sub-consciously is attached with LDS view of the afterlife. The more you do, [do can be equated to faith and works] will determine where you end up. Do I got that right?nutshell said:
~Victor
nutshell
Well-Known Member
Ah, got it.Victor said:
Yes, we believe in what we call the "Three Degrees of Glory," but this is only partially related to the idea of a lesser and higher law (which is administered by a lesser and higher priesthood).
I guess I should stop using the word "lesser," because it does seem to have a negative connotation in current English, but the lesser law or priesthood is in no way a negative thing. Is lower a better word?
Quiddity
UndertheInfluenceofGiants
I don't know. I don't believe people's efforts can be necessarily equated to satisfy God. You either have Grace, or you don't. This is RC theology.nutshell said:Ah, got it.
Yes, we believe in what we call the "Three Degrees of Glory," but this is only partially related to the idea of a lesser and higher law (which is administered by a lesser and higher priesthood).
I guess I should stop using the word "lesser," because it does seem to have a negative connotation in current English, but the lesser law or priesthood is in no way a negative thing. Is lower a better word?
~Victor