Is The God Of The Old Testament The Same As The God Of The New?

[JahaRa]

What would you call proof?

God walking around actually talking to us face to face; us not being able to do what people claim "God" disapproves of, no war, no starvation, no murders, no religion, etc. There would be no need for rules because "God" would not allow us to even think about or want to do something it didn't approve of.

 

[kesavaross]

God walking around actually talking to us face to face; us not being able to do what people claim "God" disapproves of, no war, no starvation, no murders, no religion, etc. There would be no need for rules because "God" would not allow us to even think about or want to do something it didn't approve of.

So you are deciding what God should do to satisfy you? Maybe the process is the other way around.

Have you ever considered that there might be a reason there is suffering in this world that you are unaware of, and that maybe God is all around us in infinite ways but that it's you that doesn't have the eyes to see Him?

I'm just asking. I'm not accusing or pointing the finger or saying you are going to eternal damnation or anything like that, I'm just asking the question.

I'm not into the Christian concept of God btw although for Christians, that is fine.

 

[EnolaGaia]

Do we have any threads discussing gnosticism ... ?

We don't have any major threads dedicated to gnosticism in general. Beyond a couple of specific threads:

Gnosticism. Advice please!
https://forums.forteana.org/index.php?threads/gnosticism-advice-please.48583/

The Matrix As Gnostic Propaganda?
https://forums.forteana.org/index.php?threads/the-matrix-as-gnostic-propaganda.2930/

... there are occasional references to various forms of gnostic belief (etc.) in the Religions & Cults section.

 

[EnolaGaia]

Do we have any threads discussing ... sefirot?

The answer is essentially the same as for gnosticism - there are mentions scattered among many threads, but not many threads focused on the subject. The most focused discussions occur within threads addressing Kabbalah:

Kabbalah: Why Would Quantum Physicists Look Into It?
https://forums.forteana.org/index.p...-would-quantum-physicists-look-into-it.38761/

A Question of Kabbalah
https://forums.forteana.org/index.php?threads/a-question-of-kabbalah.16539/

 

[Floyd]

How could being concerned about disrepecting any omnipotent being be sane? If an omnipotent being could be insulted so easily there would be no humans on planet earth. Concern for disrespecting a god is attributing human frailty to that god which is even more disrespectful in my opinion.

I think you're missing the point. We don't know whether God would be annoyed by whatever we call him or not- but it's a sign of respect from religious people.

Did you call your teachers at school 'Sir' and 'Miss'? Do you call your doctor 'Doctor' or 'mate/buddy/pal'? If I want to speak to a copper in the street I'll call him 'officer'. Whether they would care if I called them 'mate' I don't know- some probably wouldn't care less, but I still wouldn't do it.

In Muslim countries you won't hear anyone say 'Goddamn' on tv. Religious Jews won't even say, let alone write the word 'God'. It doesn't matter whether you think this is pointless - I think lots of things in life are pointless that others don't.

And I certainly wouldn't call religious people 'frail'. Quite the opposite because (depending on the religion) sometimes even the most basic action means that commandments (Jews have 613) have to be adhered to- things that you and I would do without a second thought.

 

[Patrick30]

No two humans believe in the same identical God. They might tell each other they do but God is in the mind of the individual.

 

[JahaRa]

So you are deciding what God should do to satisfy you? Maybe the process is the other way around.

Have you ever considered that there might be a reason there is suffering in this world that you are unaware of, and that maybe God is all around us in infinite ways but that it's you that doesn't have the eyes to see Him?

I'm just asking. I'm not accusing or pointing the finger or saying you are going to eternal damnation or anything like that, I'm just asking the question.

I'm not into the Christian concept of God btw although for Christians, that is fine.

You asked me what would be proof, I gave you my list.

I have thought a lot about this as I was indoctrinated into a christian belief system as a child, and by the time I was 12 I realized that there was too much cognitive dissonance in all of it, and most of what people claimed was in the bible wasn't or was mis-quoted. I spent my young adulthood exploring a lot of different types of religion and none of them fit. I found something good in all of them, but not enough in any one of them to decide to join any organization, because, you know, people.

What is your answer to the question "If there is a god why is ther suffering in the world?"

I get the feeling/idea/understanding that there is an energy that permeates everything but it is not judgemental or controlling like the gods people worship.

 

[JahaRa]

I think you're missing the point. We don't know whether God would be annoyed by whatever we call him or not- but it's a sign of respect from religious people.

Did you call your teachers at school 'Sir' and 'Miss'? Do you call your doctor 'Doctor' or 'mate/buddy/pal'? If I want to speak to a copper in the street I'll call him 'officer'. Whether they would care if I called them 'mate' I don't know- some probably wouldn't care less, but I still wouldn't do it.

In Muslim countries you won't hear anyone say 'Goddamn' on tv. Religious Jews won't even say, let alone write the word 'God'. It doesn't matter whether you think this is pointless - I think lots of things in life are pointless that others don't.

And I certainly wouldn't call religious people 'frail'. Quite the opposite because (depending on the religion) sometimes even the most basic action means that commandments (Jews have 613) have to be adhered to- things that you and I would do without a second thought.

I didn't miss the point, I made a different point. We don't know because if there is a "God" or "Gods" it/they don't ineract with us "lowly humans" do they? You can make up all kinds of stories or infer all kinds of things but it is all in your mind, not something that anyone else can verify. Everyone perceives the world around them differently.

As for respect, I respect people, but since there is no evidence of what you call God there is no need for me to worry about respecting it. If you choose to consider my beliefs disrespect of yours, consider the tables turned around and you can pretend like you have disrespected my beliefs. The fact that you take offense indicates you really do disrespect my beliefs because they don't match yours. And you say what you believe but take exception to what I say? Really?

I live in the southwestern U.S. we did not ever call anyone Sir unless we were in the military and our teachers we called Mr. or Mrs. or Miss with their last name attached. What is your point here? Every culture has different ideas of what is a display of respect and what is taboo. You can't judge me on my culture because it is different than yours. You are muddying the water of the discussion now with your rhetoric.

 

[Floyd]

I didn't miss the point, I made a different point. We don't know because if there is a "God" or "Gods" it/they don't ineract with us "lowly humans" do they? You can make up all kinds of stories or infer all kinds of things but it is all in your mind, not something that anyone else can verify. Everyone perceives the world around them differently.

As for respect, I respect people, but since there is no evidence of what you call God there is no need for me to worry about respecting it. If you choose to consider my beliefs disrespect of yours, consider the tables turned around and you can pretend like you have disrespected my beliefs. The fact that you take offense indicates you really do disrespect my beliefs because they don't match yours. And you say what you believe but take exception to what I say? Really?

I live in the southwestern U.S. we did not ever call anyone Sir unless we were in the military and our teachers we called Mr. or Mrs. or Miss with their last name attached. What is your point here? Every culture has different ideas of what is a display of respect and what is taboo. You can't judge me on my culture because it is different than yours. You are muddying the water of the discussion now with your rhetoric.

You say that I am judging you, being disrespectful of you and that I take offence. None of these are true. For a start you can never 'offend' me no matter what you say, and what you believe does not 'concern' me in the slightest. I am merely stating what I think (as are you)- that is called a 'discussion'. So if by 'take exception' you mean 'disagree' then yes, that is obvious, otherwise we would not be having this conversation.

I am not sure why you say I have 'taken offence' just because your beliefs don't match mine?

When did I judge you on your culture?

My only point about teachers/doctors/police/Mr/Mrs etc is that we call them by a respectful name (which was the o/p's original point concerning referring to God).

Also, even though I have not stated whether I am religious or not, we cannot say that God does not interact with 'lowly humans' - millions, maybe billions of people around the world would strongly disagree with that statement.

 

[Starry]

I agree that God Himself (or Herself) is incomprehensible and largely indescribable in human language. As, I think, Genesis tries to make clear. It's the most difficult part of the Bible to understand in many ways - not least that it implies more than once that there were other races apart from humans.

Jacob wrestled with God, so he was all too human there. The amazing thing is, he couldn't beat Jacob...even after he magicked J into dislocating his hip! People also heard the Voice of God. Given the time, I would have thought they would mention if it wasn't a male voice. Adam not only recognised his voice but also hid from him, suggesting he was recognisably a person. The whole, as Alan Partridge said, 'gas'-like being came a lot later.
I quite like Religion for Breakfast https://youtube.com/c/ReligionForBreakfast Made by (a) religion scholar(s) that study both the religious texts, as well as the all-important historical story. Some supposed eternal truths make a lot more sense when seen in the light of events that were current at the time.

 

[Frideswide]

it is not judgemental or controlling like the gods people worship.

Not everyone. Why do you keep making these generalisations?

 

[Victory]

Jacob wrestled with God, so he was all too human there.

Jacob wrestled with an angel.

@JahaRa

There is lots of evidence.

Like a court case, it is presented before us.

You have judged to not believe it is proof of G-D.

I have judged to believe it is proof of G-D

 

[charliebrown]

Genesis 1:27

God created man in his own image.

It is up to the individual to interpret the Bible and religion the way they want to.

A thousand different people will have a thousand different interpretations.

 

[Starry]

Jacob wrestled with an angel.

@JahaRa

There is lots of evidence.

Like a court case, it is presented before us.

You have judged to not believe it is proof of G-D.

I have judged to believe it is proof of G-D

Jacob later states (Genesis 32:30) "“For I have seen God face to face", which is generally interpreted by scholars as the angel being God.
This doesn't have much to do with my beliefs however. The very first page where night and day are created before the Sun and the Moon (which are created at the same time), all after the Earth is created, including plant life, sets the seed of doubt. It's not how it happened. If page one is wrong, why trust page 100? Yes, modern believers have tried to come up with ways around this as it's patently not true, but that means generations of followers, including saints, priests and popes, have followed the wrong teachings. At the very best, unreliable.

 

[Frideswide]

At the very best, unreliable.

that's rather like saying modern medicine has nothing to offer

 

[Starry]

that's rather like saying modern medicine has nothing to offer

It's really not.

 

[Frideswide]

It's really not.

Please explain why.

edit to add: analogy not homology.

 

[Starry]

Please explain why.

edit to add: analogy not homology.

Virtually all followers have treated the Bible as unwavering truth. It's the Word of God, not a philosophy. Every word and phrase is deemed to be meaningful and true, with scholars defining every nuance. For a good portion of time, any deviation from that, such as atheism, could be punished severely.
Medicine, and science in general, is forever changing. It should evolve. Even be completely ripped up for new theories. If page 1 has been shown to be wrong by new discoveries, that's to be welcomed. No-one is claiming we know everything and that the original text contains all knowledge.

 

[Yithian]

Virtually all followers have treated the Bible as unwavering truth. It's the Word of God, not a philosophy. Every word and phrase is deemed to be meaningful and true, with scholars defining every nuance. For a good portion of time, any deviation from that, such as atheism, could be punished severely.
Medicine, and science in general, is forever changing. It should evolve. Even be completely ripped up for new theories. If page 1 has been shown to be wrong by new discoveries, that's to be welcomed. No-one is claiming we know everything and that the original text contains all knowledge.

What language does God speak/write then?

Presumably a perfect one.

Yet his words are translated into imperfect Hebrew, Aramaic, Koine Greek, Latin and many modern languages.

By imperfect translators.

And it remains the Word of God?

 

[Frideswide]

Yet his words are translated into imperfect Hebrew, Aramaic, Koine Greek, Latin and many modern languages.

@Yithian This is understood by every christian religious scholar I've ever met, except for some people who think that the KJV is the way it is meant to be and everything before and after was just marking time Protestant and catholic.

Virtually all followers have treated the Bible as unwavering truth. It's the Word of God, not a philosophy. Every word and phrase is deemed to be meaningful and true, with scholars defining every nuance.

@Starry The nuances aren't fixed though, are they? Lollardry, the Hussites, eventually the Reformation and the rise of Protestantism. Where does the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints fit into your overall picture?

Christian scholarship sees the Word as perfect. What is imperfect is our finding, preserving, administration, translation and understanding. The words we have were recorded in that place and time and have to be so understood.

Is most/much of your experience with a Christian sect that is fundamentalist @Starry? Like the KJV people I mentioned above?

 

[Cochise]

God walking around actually talking to us face to face; us not being able to do what people claim "God" disapproves of, no war, no starvation, no murders, no religion, etc. There would be no need for rules because "God" would not allow us to even think about or want to do something it didn't approve of.

God granted us free will. (Genesis). Or maybe we stole it. He tried threatening us to behave (Later Genesis, Exodus) , didn't work. He's tried to preoccupy us with ritual and guilt (Later Old Testament) , didn't work. Then he sent us Jesus with counsel but no threats. That's worked for some - but then the humans tried to drown Jesus's advice with hatred, schism and threat - starting with the New Testament after the Gospels.

I'm entirely happy with other interpretations as long as they follow Jesus's basic strictures - that actually includes some other religions like Buddhism, even though they don't exactly believe in God. The main point is to try and encourage humans to stop behaving like stupid violent monsters obsessed with power, possessions and control, and to use their free will to love cherish and protect one another. Regardless of their personal beliefs, as long as those beliefs do not involve transgressing the secular commandments - in particular 'thou shalt not kill'. I do not accept that means 'thou shalt not murder' - I absolutely believe it means 'thou shalt not kill another human on any pretext'. I might wobble a bit over mercy killings.

 

[Starry]

So St Francis of Assisi got it wrong? The millions through history that lived their lives through the text were actually following a false interpretation? The sacrifices made were in vain, as the most learned men in their history didn't understand the vague text? Yeah, the nuances aren't fixed. That's why it's unreliable. When God gave his message, didn't he understand it could be interpreted in many ways, is inconsistent and left out aspects? Not so omnipotent then.

He tried threatening us to behave etc.

Why? Wasn't he all-knowing?

I'm entirely happy with other interpretations as long as they follow Jesus's basic strictures - that actually includes some other religions like Buddhism, even though they don't exactly believe in God

I'm also happy for anyone to believe what they want but it's not how religion has worked through history. "I won't because of my God, therefore you shouldn't either"

to use their free will to love cherish and protect one another

The Bible gives instructions for raping a slave. It instructs followers to kill men, women and children. Stoning women for having sex is allowed. I'm entirely happy that modern Christians like Cliff Richard or Frank Skinner concentrate on the nice passages but it does ignore a lot of horrific ones. It all sounds very human to me.

 

[Cochise]

So St Francis of Assisi got it wrong? The millions through history that lived their lives through the text were actually following a false interpretation? The sacrifices made were in vain, as the most learned men in their history didn't understand the vague text? Yeah, the nuances aren't fixed. That's why it's unreliable. When God gave his message, didn't he understand it could be interpreted in many ways, is inconsistent and left out aspects? Not so omnipotent then.

Why? Wasn't he all-knowing?


I'm also happy for anyone to believe what they want but it's not how religion has worked through history. "I won't because of my God, therefore you shouldn't either"

The Bible gives instructions for raping a slave. It instructs followers to kill men, women and children. Stoning women for having sex is allowed. I'm entirely happy that modern Christians like Cliff Richard or Frank Skinner concentrate on the nice passages but it does ignore a lot of horrific ones. It all sounds very human to me.

He is obviously neither all-knowing nor omnipotent. Yes, St Francis of Assisi got it totally wrong. He was human. He placed the bible - much of which is of dubious pedigree - ahead of the direct advice of God given through Jesus.

No-one has the right of imposing their beliefs on another (judge not that ye be judged) . Practicality says we have to restrict those intent on causing death to others, but I for one am quite happy to let anyone else believe whatever they want as long as they don't use it to physically harm or mentally abuse others. By mental abuse I mean indoctrination or gaslighting, not simple disagreement that might cause upset.

 

[Frideswide]

So St Francis of Assisi got it wrong? The millions through history that lived their lives through the text were actually following a false interpretation? The sacrifices made were in vain, as the most learned men in their history didn't understand the vague text? Yeah, the nuances aren't fixed. That's why it's unreliable.

To return to medicine. The analogy is that we are getting better at it, on the whole. Of course, you still get non-evidence based stuff and individuals, groups of people panic and start believing all sorts of things. Please explain why the analogy doesn't work - in a bit more detail than

It's really not.

What you are describing @Starry, isn't it the human tendency to attempt personal and group fascism at every opportunity or none?

I have no idea why god created the circumstances which mean we exist. I'm happy it is so, and presumably all things will become known in time.

 

[Starry]

I answered the medical analogy above at 3:47

What you are describing @Starry, isn't it the human tendency to attempt personal and group fascism at every opportunity or none?

I would say 'yes' as I don't see the Bible as anything more than the word of Man, not God. If you do believe in the Bible, then the fascism is directed by God. For example: Leviticus 20:13 "If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them"
Exodus 31:15 "Six days may work be done; but in the seventh is the sabbath of rest, holy to the Lord: whosoever doeth any work in the sabbath day, he shall surely be put to death"
Ezekiel 9:6 "Slay utterly old and young, both maids, and little children, and women: but come not near any man upon whom is the mark; and begin at my sanctuary. Then they began at the ancient men which were before the house"
Pretty horrific stuff, and that's not even getting into sanctifying rape and slavery.

If, like Cochise, you do not view the Bible as divine, then it goes against centuries of what being a Christian is. I'm in complete agreement with that.

 

[pelgrane]

What language does God speak/write then?

Mathematics, it has been suggested.

 

[Frideswide]

Mathematics, it has been suggested.

Or music?

 

[Frideswide]

I don't see the Bible as anything more than the word of Man, not God. If you do believe in the Bible, then

Ah! so you, a person who doesn't have the inside view of the traditions, are telling people who do have that inside view and knowledge what The Answer Must Be? That's a very absolutist, fundamentalist way of looking at the world. Can you expand on this please?

It would be helpful if you could explain what flavour of religion has led you to this position - I could understand it better if I knew you were working from an intimate knowledge of the Church of Lord Jesus with Signs Following for example.

I'm very happy to say what my experience and formal studies have been, if you think it might help you understand where I am coming from?

So we don't lose interesting parts of the discussion, I can't see that you've responded to the idea of the sects/movements I listed above, nor can I find where you explain why the medical science analogy doesn't work.

edit to add: Gnosis and Mysticism! where do you stand on these strands of Christianity? and other religions.

 

[Starry]

who doesn't have the inside view of the traditions, are telling people who do

Hell of an assumption. I'll assume then you don't know anything about modern science shall I?

That's a very absolutist, fundamentalist way of looking at the world

Pretty insulting given how little I have written. Shall I accuse you of the same? The only thing you know about my world view is that I see the Bible as untrustworthy, with some horrific verses instructing followers to kill men, women and children. I've not heard any argument against that.

I can't see that you've responded to the idea of the sects/movements

If there are different sects following the same texts but coming to fundamentally different beliefs, then it displays how unreliable the Bible is. Again it suggests that the writers were not writing the word of an omniscient God who would have anticipated this and made these important teachings clear, but it is very human, written for their age. Yet people have sacrificed and killed over this. I'm glad most Christians now only believe the 'God is love' part, rather than the 'sell your daughter as a slave' part. But these are in it.

medical science analogy

Medicine, and science in general, is forever changing. It should evolve. Even be completely ripped up for new theories. If page 1 has been shown to be wrong by new discoveries, that's to be welcomed. No-one is claiming we know everything and that the original text contains all knowledge. If I want to know more about cell structure, I wouldn't go to Leeuwenhoek's original sketches.
Other religions I'm familiar with can have a lot in common, but also too many differences for here. Indeed, there's a million things to say about this subject but I'm tired and I have other things to do.

 

[Victory]

Jacob later states (Genesis 32:30) "“For I have seen God face to face", which is generally interpreted by scholars as the angel being God.
This doesn't have much to do with my beliefs however. The very first page where night and day are created before the Sun and the Moon (which are created at the same time), all after the Earth is created, including plant life, sets the seed of doubt. It's not how it happened. If page one is wrong, why trust page 100? Yes, modern believers have tried to come up with ways around this as it's patently not true, but that means generations of followers, including saints, priests and popes, have followed the wrong teachings. At the very best, unreliable.

There is nowhere in the Torah that states Jacob wrestled with G-D himself.
Jacob wrestled with the angel who represents those who strive for materialism for it's own sake, and baseness.

Possibly scholars of your religion interpret this as G-D, certainly none of mine do.


The first page tells us about relativity; that there exists a divine space time, which is parallel to the planet earth time/calendar governed by the rotations and orbits of the sun and moon.
There's no mistake.