• We have updated the guidelines regarding posting political content: please see the stickied thread on Website Issues.

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

ZenDoc

Gone But Not Forgotten
(ACCOUNT RETIRED)
Joined
Jul 8, 2009
Messages
8
I had the thought that perhaps the old testament God was Lucifer. This version of God is portrayed as vengeful and harsh. After the coming of Christ God is portrayed as loving, forgiving and generous. Now remember the war that was in heaven, during which Micheal and his angels defect the dragon and his angels. Remember how Jesus is called victorious. Any thoughts?
 
Same God, better PR. Read the Book of Enoch for a fuller account of the war in Heaven.
 
Depends on what perspective one takes, historical, philosophical, religious Jewish, religious Xian, religious Islamic...etc etc...

Let's assume you men 'factual'. i suppose the evidence that the OT God derived from Baal is now almost overwhelming. Further this Volcano-God underwent a Judaizing process over a long period of time and transmuted into 'Jehovah' in the Xian tradition.

Actually, in the OT itself there are two distinct Gods with two distinct names and two conflicting personalities. One of these, the wrathful, vengeful God is quite distinct from the 'father' God and the names of the two are never interchanged.

This latter 'nice' God is in fact possibly the same as the NT God but the other is clearly not. Particularly in as much as He does not claim uniqueness but accepts other Gods also may possibly exist.

Further, the first of these Gods is unique to Israel. The NT God is not but is rathe universal.

Re Lucifer; there is a passage in the NT somewhere - forget where - where Peter equates Christ to Lucifer. Is quite interesting...
 
I was wondering if Lucifer, in wanting to be God, assumed the role with respect to humans. Later he had to be evicted from this self proclaimed position by the Ultimate One (so to speak). Have read the book of Enoch, several years ago. Those that left their first estate to become as gods on earth and to teach war, cosmetology, agriculture etc. etc, may well have been among the third of the stars/angels defeated by Micheal. Perhaps the legend of Prometheus hails back to these guys.
 
ZenDoc said:
I was wondering if Lucifer, in wanting to be God, assumed the role with respect to humans. Later he had to be evicted from this self proclaimed position by the Ultimate One (so to speak). Have read the book of Enoch, several years ago. Those that left their first estate to become as gods on earth and to teach war, cosmetology, agriculture etc. etc, may well have been among the third of the stars/angels defeated by Micheal. Perhaps the legend of Prometheus hails back to these guys.

That myth is also in Genesis where the 'Sons of God' arrived on earth and bred with humans to produce the old heroes.

Interesting note that 'Sons of God' always seems to apply to these non-human beings in the OT and yet is also used for Jesus in the NT.

In Islam, Satan is actually held in some quarters to be the perfect Muslim (a surprisingly widespread view) but then again he is not the same figure as in Xianity. He is not evil for example as such....and he is a Djinn of which there are many.

Essentially the Islamic mythos is that Satan was told to worship Adam by God after the creation but he refused saying he would worship nothing but God.

He was therefore thrown out of heaven for the crime of disobeying God but there is a widespread view that he did the right thing as one shouldn't in Muslim view, worship anything but God. He is therefore held as being a role model in some ways.

All the more so as he is not seen as inherently evil as in the Xian tradition. Nor is he responsible for sin. He has no powers that could approximate God's - that would be in opposition to Islamic belief (Satan's powers to harm are a major philosophical/theological contradiction in Xianity and one that has never been resolved).
 
The same God.

One expressed through the Law (man experiences firsthand the Wrath of God towards sin and disobedience and the benefits of obedience, man who can't beat nor defeat the wiles of the Devil and sinful natures).

One expressed through Grace (God spills his wrath upon His own Son as a blood substitute because He loves us, the Devil and death is defeated, Christ reigns over His victorious children).
 
The New Testament reflects a New Covenant between God and Man (the Gospels, anyway). In this 'reboot', He has decided not to go for direct smiting of the ungodly any more, but to appeal to our conscience. This suggests God is neither omniscient nor omnipotent, because the earlier Covenants obviously were found wanting and had to be replaced.

In fact, since He granted us free will, I suspect He has been wondering what the heck (I wonder what swear words He uses?) to do with us.

I'm a Christian, but a pretty relaxed one - I can't imagine the Big Feller really gets upset at the exact words used in rituals or anything of the sort. But I'm very definitly a New Testament Christian, and I bear very much in mind counsels like 'judge not that ye be judged'. and 'let he who is without sin cast the first stone'.
 
A scholarly response to the question posed in the thread title.

These exegeses are interesting as to the ascribed first encounter between man and Yahweh in Genesis. It is an exploration of the etymology of the tetragramaton, or veiled name of the supreme Hebrew god YHWY/JHVH. Basically their answer is we don't really know. What emerges is the likelihood that the being first encountered by Moses self-identifies as One from among great Ones - plural. Seems obvious to us given the historiogeographical context we can place this all into today, but it is pertinent to the current belief systems that inform religious activity both locally and globally.

I've been on something of a gnostic kick for a year or so and the concept of Ialdabaoth / Yahweh being a bit of a bastard is now no secret. But I am curious as to how it informs the Christian spin on what the new commandment means and how it should be followed. Is it the case that current day mainstream Christianity is a schizophrenic offshoot with daddy issues? hm
 
There are 2 earlier episodes at their website. I wasn't aware how fringe this Paul Wallis is when i saw the above video. Their scope gets pretty woo when you look into it. Anyway, we're all grownups. I still think the Bible focussed content stands up.
https://5thkind.tv/
 
My opinion is not for anyone sensitive about their religion and please skip my comment.

But is God a man or woman, what skin colour, or not a solid figure but energy or light ?

Do all the many religions think they are the the right one ?
 
My opinion is not for anyone sensitive about their religion and please skip my comment.

But is God a man or woman, what skin colour, or not a solid figure but energy or light ?

Do all the many religions think they are the the right one ?
God Himself I suspect is neither man nor woman, but it seems disrespectful to refer to God as 'It'. One may choose he or she depending on inclination. I agree with the Muslims that it is nonsense to try and depict Him.

Jesus is definitely a He. But, from what I've seen of him, he has a typical Eastern Mediterranean medium brown skin. (I've never understood what people mean by 'olive-skinned' - I don't know anyone with green skin.) And a beard.

And his cloak is bright burning white.
 

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

It doesn't seem to be, nor does any book in the new testament describe God in the same way. It is just a big mess of differnt controlling people trying to tell others what they think god says or wants or did.
 
God Himself I suspect is neither man nor woman, but it seems disrespectful to refer to God as 'It'. One may choose he or she depending on inclination. I agree with the Muslims that it is nonsense to try and depict Him.

Jesus is definitely a He. But, from what I've seen of him, he has a typical Eastern Mediterranean medium brown skin. (I've never understood what people mean by 'olive-skinned' - I don't know anyone with green skin.) And a beard.

And his cloak is bright burning white.
The disrespect is a construct of a fragile mind. If there is a god, it is not male or female and could not care less whether it is being called it, he or she. Why would it? You are personifying something you imagine based on a story or few that others have told you.
 
The disrespect is a construct of a fragile mind. If there is a god, it is not male or female and could not care less whether it is being called it, he or she. Why would it? You are personifying something you imagine based on a story or few that others have told you.
No, that's what you are doing. Please do not impose your hang ups on other people. You don't have my experiences and you don't have the right to dismiss them.

I have no idea what God looks like or what form He takes. I refer to him as He because in my language higher beings are not referred to as 'it'.
 
No, that's what you are doing. Please do not impose your hang ups on other people. You don't have my experiences and you don't have the right to dismiss them.

I have no idea what God looks like or what form He takes. I refer to him as He because in my language higher beings are not referred to as 'it'.
We speak the same language but maybe we don't understand it the same way. If you can't identify a person by gender you use the word "they" or at least that is the way it used to work. Since I don't consider any god a person, I think "it" is appropriate. I aplogise for denigrating your beliefs. I don't think there is any god that a human could describe, the fact that people describe some omnipotent being with emotional attributes and human flaws tends to denigrate any actual omnipotent being that might exist (but we have no way of knowing about) in my opinion so it doesn't matter what pronoun you use. As for He and She, why is it that men need their god to be a He?
 
we speak the same language but maybe we don't understand it the same way. If you can't identify a person by gender you use the word "they" or at least that is the way it used to work. I aplogise for denigrating your beliefs. I don't think there is any god that a human could describe, the fact that people describe some omnipotent being with emotional attributes and human flaws tends to denigrate any actual omnipotent being that might exist (but we have no way of knowing about) in my opinion so it doesn't matter what pronoun you use.
'They' is a modern thing that I can't get my head around. To me it always indicates a plural - multiple entities.

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.
 
Last edited:
We speak the same language but maybe we don't understand it the same way. If you can't identify a person by gender you use the word "they" or at least that is the way it used to work. Since I don't consider any god a person, I think "it" is appropriate. I aplogise for denigrating your beliefs. I don't think there is any god that a human could describe, the fact that people describe some omnipotent being with emotional attributes and human flaws tends to denigrate any actual omnipotent being that might exist (but we have no way of knowing about) in my opinion so it doesn't matter what pronoun you use. As for He and She, why is it that men need their god to be a He?

Actually, I use the reference term "he or she." "They" implies more than one. But I am old and out of touch with modern language.

Since God is unknowable to us in the flesh in his/her/its full power, any emotional attributes or flaws would be a guess. Your guess, my guess, etc.

In my two personal experiences with the afterlife or God, what I experienced an overwhelming peace, love, energy, and glory. Indescribable.

To respond to the original question: no, the "God" of the old testament is different than the new testament in the sense that our human understanding of God has changed. I doubt whether God actually changed much.
 
The Old Testament explains it.

Exodus 3:14

“ I am who I am “

The New Testament explains it.

Revelation 1:8

“ I am the Alpha and the Omega “
 
Last edited:
The disrespect is a construct of a fragile mind. If there is a god, it is not male or female and could not care less whether it is being called it, he or she. Why would it? You are personifying something you imagine based on a story or few that others have told you.
Why do you say that someone who would refuse to call G-d 'it' is of fragile mind? It is a sign of reverence in some religions - in the same vein that Christians always use capital letters when writing 'G-d'. Would G-d care if we didn't use capitals? Maybe not, but we still do it as a sign of respect. And can you really be sure that G-d is neither male or female- do you have some insider knowledge about this?
 
Revelation 1:8

“ I am the Alpha and the Omega “
Random Thought. In McGilchrist's 'Divided Brain' the left is the province of reading and literacy, and writing was emerging and becoming more common around they times.
 
Do we have any threads discussing gnosticism or sefirot?
The God of the OT may not even be the same God of current mainstream Judaism.

There appear to be several forms or emanations of the ancient OT deity/paradigm being given worship by modern streams that even their adherents might not comprehend. My Da is an NT theologian who has always as far as I know held to and preached the doctrinal line of a triune godhead embodied in the person, teachings and actions of Christ. One night I got the balls up to ask him if there was ever anything he learned in bible college about the origins of his faith which he was instructed not to reveal to the laity? He got a very frosty look on his face and sternly said "No! ... Is that all?" End of discussion.

I thought to myself, methinks the lady doth protest too much, but I've never broached the subject since.
 
The Old Testament explains it.

Exodus 3:14

“ I am who I am “

Is Popeye revealing his claim to be Yahweh with the clever insertion of a Y?

popeye.jpg
 
Am I right in thinking that the Cathars believed that the god of the O.T. was a baddy who made the earth to capture the souls of humankind in corporal form.

Or have I just made that up?

Edited to add: them olives looks nice :p
 
Why do you say that someone who would refuse to call G-d 'it' is of fragile mind? It is a sign of reverence in some religions - in the same vein that Christians always use capital letters when writing 'G-d'. Would G-d care if we didn't use capitals? Maybe not, but we still do it as a sign of respect. And can you really be sure that G-d is neither male or female- do you have some insider knowledge about this?
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.
 
Am I right in thinking that the Cathars believed that the god of the O.T. was a baddy who made the earth to capture the souls of humankind in corporal form.
Or have I just made that up?
You don't seem to be all that far from the truth.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catharism#Cosmology
Cathar cosmology identified two twin, opposing deities. The first was a good God, portrayed in the New Testament and creator of the spirit, while the second was an evil God, depicted in the Old Testament and creator of matter and the physical world.[20] The latter, often called Rex Mundi ("King of the World"),[21] was identified as the God of Judaism,[20] and was also either conflated with Satan or considered Satan's father, creator or seducer.[6] They addressed the problem of evil by stating that the good God's power to do good was limited by the evil God's works and vice versa.[22]
 
Surely the God(s) described in the O/T and N/T are just different facets one the one God?
 
Surely the God(s) described in the O/T and N/T are just different facets one the one God?
Why? Surely if there were only one God we would have proof of it by now. There is no reason to think that multiple gods is less likely than one.
 
Why? Surely if there were only one God we would have proof of it by now. There is no reason to think that multiple gods is less likely than one.
What would you call proof?
 
Back
Top