Jesus/God the same?

Now to complete the response which began with my message #28.
doctrbill writes:

quote:

---

Why does he learn from his mistakes?

---

If the creation was not a mistake, then why did he try to wipe the slate clean with Noah’s Flood? And why did that fail? But then, that was the Jehovah god, wasn't it?

quote:

---

Why does he change his mind?

---

Your statement may seem to be supported at 1 Samuel 15:29

quote:

---

The Strength of Israel will not lie nor repent: for he is not a man, that he should repent.

---

Do you think this is about Jehovah? I used to think so. But then I noticed that, in this very chapter, Jehovah is repenting:

quote:

---

I repent that I have made Saul king

---

Thus, Jehovah cannot be 'the Strength of Israel.' So: Who is this man? My point, exactly. So, Who is this man Jehovah?

quote:

---

Why does he carry a bloody sword?

---

He then kills (executes) them with what? A bloody metaphor? A ‘symbolic’ fire?
Does he also reward the righteous with a ‘symbolic’ paradise?

quote:

---

Why does he shoot rocks at his enemies?

---

I’m sure the dead don’t see a significant difference. There is nothing ‘natural’ about it. Natural hail may damage crops and dent cars but it doesn’t seek out and destroy soldiers.

quote:

---

Why does he have enemies?

---

This does not explain why he has enemies: And he can’t be much of a god if people are dangerous to him.

quote:

---

Why does he kill people?

---

He kills them because they don’t know him? Isn’t that special!

quote:

---

Why does he teach warfare?

---

This is simply a reiteration of fact, and does not answer the question.

quote:

---

Why does he behave like a man?

---

Backward logic. If we are made in his image we should behave like him, not vice versa.

quote:

---

Why is he called a man?

---

Are you sure that calling him ‘God’ is not a figure of speech? There is no reason for me to believe that Isaiah had Jesus of Nazareth in mind. Here is the passage in question: Isa. 9:6 KJV

quote:

---

For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given;
and the government shall be upon his shoulder:
and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counselor,
The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.

---

I reiterate: Where, in the New Testament, is Jesus called "The mighty God," "The everlasting Father," or "The Prince of Peace"? Nowhere, I think. Isn’t it worth it if you can support Jehovah’s claim to godhood? Doesn’t he need you defend his honor? Besides, How could it take longer than your explanation of the Trinitarian fallacy?db See message 28 reference to Exodus 28:8, should read: Exodus 25:8.[This message has been edited by doctrbill, 12-17-2003]

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Quoting Peter: "I know Jesus reworded the ten-commandments
to make them more contemporary."
----------------------------------------------------------------------Jesus is credited beginning at Luke 10:25 with regard to the pharisee lawyer's set-up question "which is the most important of all commandments" from among the huge compilation of Law with a concise reply that reduced the approximately 613 commandments down to only 2: "Love God with all your heart, mind, and soul; and love your neighbor as you love yourself." In Luke, this statement is followed with the "Good Samaritan" story wherein the priest on his way to the Temple would not dirty his hands helping the waylaid traveler (to do so would have required a period of ritual cleansing and postponement of the priest's appearance in the Temple). For similar reasons the rich man did not help the unfortunate and bloody victim ... the rich dude would not have been able to make his austentacious appearance at the Temple, etc. It was this parable and others like it that infuriated the pharisees, Temple politicians, and Roman/Herodian suck-butts that ran society in Judah and Israel at the time. Morals of the story: (1) In politics, once you've made your specific legal point, don't follow-up with anecdotes that rub salt in open wounds; or (2) Be a secular humanist and leave all the philosophising to pompous braying asses. You choose.By the way, Rabbi Hillel also is credited with "rewording the ten commandments" within the exact same time frame as is Jesus. Hillel was approached by a student from a Jewish theological school that opposed Hillel's teachings. The student question was a set-up just like the pharisee's question. The student challenged Hillel " if you can teach me the entire Torah (meaning of course the Laws of Moses) while standing on one foot, and I will become your faithful student." Hillel supposedly raised one foot off the ground and replied, "That which hurts you, do not do so to another ... all the rest (of the Torah) is commentary," and set his foot back down. Now this was probably considered more heretical a statement to the pharisees and Temple politicians than even Jesus's little story about the Samaritan. But Hillel survived the ensuing theopolitical debate and went on to accomplish a great deal of "contemporary" sociopolitical and legal reform. You be the judge.----------------------------------------------------------------------
Quoting Peter: "I would guess that
after the debacle with Jesus the resistant Jewish leaders
would have learned their lesson."
----------------------------------------------------------------------Nope, the Jewish leaders went on debating the Law, nitpicking social issues, and facilitating the Roman occupation while the street seethed with revolutionary turmoil until one particular uprising resulted in the Roman army destroying the Temple in 70 CE, and relocating the Jewish population to distant Roman provinces.----------------------------------------------------------------------
Quoting Peter: "I guess what Jesus was really saying was that you should love/
devote yourself to God ... not to a book."
----------------------------------------------------------------------Again, I would point out that Luke 10:25 - 37 indicates that "devotion to God" is one/half of the equation.[This message has been edited by Abshalom, 12-17-2003][This message has been edited by Abshalom, 12-17-2003]

On Biblical usage of the term 'god' you stated;

quote:

---

You can't have it both ways bud. It is exclusive or it is not. I say NOT.

---

1 Corinthians 8:5-6 "just as there are many "gods" and many "lords," there is actually to us one God the Father"

quote:

---

("Grand Creator"Ecclesiastes 12:1) You assume this is a reference to Jehovah. Can you support it? I don't think so. .

---

Isaiah 42:5 "This is what the [true] God, Jehovah, has said, the Creator of the heavens and the Grand One stretching them out;
"Have you not come to know or have you not heard? Jehovah, the Creator of the extremities of the earth" Isaiah 40:28 Which would mean that the God meantioned at Genesis 1:1 is of course Jehovah.

You've been making good sense and using the quoted texts masterfully, Wmscott! This Genesis 1 thing is like I had a dog in the yard. The dog's name is Butch. I could either say I'm going to feed doggie, or I'm going to feed Butch because Butch is the dog. Jehovah/YHWH is the god/Elohim of Genesis as well as the NT. The text makes it clear that Jehovah is being referenced.

quote:

---

Isaiah 42:5 "This is what the [true] God, Jehovah, has said, the Creator of the heavens and the Grand One stretching them out;
"Have you not come to know or have you not heard? Jehovah, the Creator of the extremities of the earth" Isaiah 40:28 Which would mean that the God meantioned at Genesis 1:1 is of course Jehovah.

---

No. It would mean that people at the time of Isaiah believed YHVH to be the God mentioned in Genesis 1:1 - not the other way around. There's a telling silence on the subject in Genesis.------------------
"Illuminant light,
illuminate me."

quote:

---

If the creation was not a mistake, then why did he try to wipe the slate clean with Noah's Flood? And why did that fail?

---

Genesis 1:31 "After that God saw everything he had made and, look! [it was] very good" God's creation was perfect, all the problems started with the rebellion against God's authority. The flood succeeded in it's purpose, see any Nephilim?

quote:

---

Why does he change his mind?- 1Samuel 15:11

---

In the account you mentioned about Saul, he changed, God didn't. Therefore Saul was no longer viewed as worthy of being Israel's king, the change in the relationship was caused by Saul's failure to obey God's commands. Basically if a righteous person turns wicked, God will regret having to punish him. In all the instances in the Bible where God is spoken of as changing his mind or feeling regrets, it is always due to some one else failing him. God never has the need to change his values or his way of thinking.

quote:

---

He then kills (executes) them with what? A bloody metaphor? A 'symbolic' fire?
Does he also reward the righteous with a 'symbolic' paradise?

---

God's sword is a metaphor for the various means and ways he uses in executing his judgments as shown by; 1 Chronicles 21:12-14 "or for three days there is to be the sword of Jehovah, even pestilence, in the land, with Jehovah's angel bringing ruin in all the territory of Israel."

quote:

---

There is nothing 'natural' about it. Natural hail may damage crops and dent cars but it doesn't seek out and destroy soldiers.

---

Just depends on how you define 'natural' and 'supernatural', the hailstones were natural in that they were just hailstones, the targeting of the hailstones was of course supernatural. God used a natural thing, hailstones, to execute a supernatural intervention.

quote:

---

This does not explain why he has enemies: And he can't be much of a god if people are dangerous to him.

---

A enemy or opposer doesn't have to be a threat, it is merely a position they take against God, they have no real hope of success.

quote:

---

(2 Thessalonians 1:6-10) He kills them because they don't know him? Isn't that special!

---

As someone who claims to know the Bible, you should know that in the Bible the word know has different meanings. In this case the word is used like it is at Jeremiah 9:6 ""they have refused to know me," is the utterance of Jehovah." in that they refused to acknowledge Jehovah's authority and obey his laws and serve him.

quote:

---

Why does he teach warfare?

---

Not teach, taught, past tense, this only applies to David and ancient Israel. The teaching was not a literal instruction in warfare either, in that their success depended on obeying Jehovah and not on their military skills. Jehovah's teaching them warfare is a figure of speech for God giving them victory over the wicked.

quote:

---

Isa. 9:6 There is no reason for me to believe that Isaiah had Jesus of Nazareth in mind.

---

As I said before, it would take too long to explain this to you, your knowledge at this point is far too limited and your mind too closed for you to accept a scriptural explanation since you reject the interpretation the NT writers give to this verse.On the other points, see my other post, and to clean this thread up, please combine your responses in one post.

Thanks, it is a pretty simple point isn't it.

Genesis 2:4 "This is a history of the heavens and the earth in the time of their being created, in the day that Jehovah God made earth and heaven."

By 'learned their lesson' I meant realising that
making martyrs is not a great idea.As for the last comment, I think it side-steps the point ...
both Jesus and Hillel were basically saying the book is not
the important part.

Peter:Agreed.Peace.

Hi,I'd like to say something about: Can you tell me how you come to the assumption that 'very good' is the same as perfect? Very good is not the same as perfect, it is less than perfect, that is why it is only very good. You are adding to the text here, God never ever claims that He made a perfect creation. Seen any unicorns?However there are references to the nephilim after the flood:Numbers 13:33 ' We saw the Nephilim there (the descendants of Anak come from the Nephilim). We seemed like grasshoppers in our own eyes, and we looked the same to them .It seems to me that God has always been pretty hopeless, is there anything that He can do?Brian.

Brian asks: "Can you tell me how you come to the assumption that 'very good' is the same as perfect? Very good is not the same as perfect, it is less than perfect, that is why it is only very good. You are adding to the text here, God never ever claims that He made a perfect creation."Different scholars interpret the "it was good" passage different ways. Ibn Ezra fairly consistently interprets it from Hebrew "God understood that it was good." RAMBAM (Moses Maimonides) consistently interprets it "God confirmed them in their existence in God's will" at the end of each "day." (It's interesting that RAMBAM and Ibn Ezra disagree on the measure of days with Ibn Ezra saying the day begins at dawn and RAMBAM saying it begins at evening, but that's another topic.)

The purpose of the flood was to eliminate evil men; because, as Jehovah says, In other words, he is repentant. And when his plan doesn't work, He says, So, you see, Jehovah learns a lesson: You can't eliminate evil by killing 'evil' men.

quote:

---

doctrbill - "Why does he change his mind?"

---

First you say he doesn't change his mind. Then you say people make him change his mind. You contradict yourself from one sentence to the next. So he kills people. But why do you say, ‘God’? The text says ‘Jehovah’. If they are not a threat, then why does he kill them? So do I, but it's not Jehovah who threatens me; it's his little band of dark angels.

quote:

---

doctorbill - Why does he teach warfare?

---

Is there anything about Jehovah which you DO take literally? Yes, I see you are having difficulty with it. And you are a citadel of intellect, who limits himself to a single translation!

I believe Rei meant to say, "There's a telling silence on the subject in Genesis chapter one."

Hi,Thanks for your reply, it is interesting.I still do not see where the word 'perfect' comes in, wmscott has added this to the translation that he is apparently quoting from, I have bever read in any bIble that I have used any claim that God said all his creation was perfect.If Adam and Eve were perfect then they couldnt sin, even the free will (yawn) excuse doesn't make sense here. For Adam and Eve to be able to choose to commit a sin there needs to be the existence of sin in the first place. So God must have created sin, and therefore He created imperfection.It is amazig that anyone over the age of 5 takes the Bible literally, some people are so afraid of reality.Brian.