Is God of the NT different than God of the OT?

A better translation of 'a new convenent' would be a 'renewed covenent'.. a reminder to the people that they DO have a convenent with God... and that the people have to follow the convenent.That does not mean Jesus. That does not mean Christianity.

That again shows that the God of the Old testament is different than the one of the New. The old testament, "angels" did not have free will.Tell me Jay, do you know what the hebrew for 'angel' means?

The Jews disagree with you. I am not excluding them from this discussion even if you are. Well, you've already said your "Yes", so why do you keep posting?
Obviously, the answer is not as simple as you pretend. That's a silly question. We are comparing the Old and New Testaments to decide what the similarities and differences are. Obviously, we don't expect a perfect one-to-one correspondence. Your comfort level is not the issue here. You're not preaching to the choir. You're trying to explain something to people who don't agree with you. You can't expect them to abandon their beliefs and accept yours just on your say so. Venture outside your tiny little box and at least see if there are any outside sources that agree with you. That is false. Your interpretation of the Bible is flat-out wrong. Don't play semantics. Do you think "Many black people aren't lazy" is any more acceptable? You only claim to speak for God. It's pretty clear that your claim is false. It's a common-sense requirement.You're saying that the New Testament is right because the New Testament says the New Testament is right. By using such poor logic and by refusing to provide any outside confirmation of your outlandish claims, you weaken your own case. More semantics. Do you or do you not think that calling a group of people "murderous and greedy" is an expression of love? Wrong. You are presupposing the conclusion that the God of the Old Testament is the God of the New Testament. That is the question, not the answer."Is God #1 the same god as God #2?"Not "Does God equal God?" Once again you are putting words in God's mouth. According to the other point of view, the "new covenant" was still for the Jews - as jaywill's own verses plainly show.You still have done nothing to address the topic.

---

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

Ramoss, Could you quote me exactly where I wrote that the God of the Old testement is Jesus?I don't recall ever writing that? I agree. It was written "God is not a man that He should lie." Before the incarnation God was not a man. So "is" would be quite approriate at that time.In the new testament God and man are united together. Since the resurrection of Jesus God is and for eternity is also a man.And since God in His perculiar way transcends time, even in the Old Testmant He appeared as a man to have lunch with Abraham in Genesis 18.Please don't forget the quotation of me writing that the god of the Old Testament is Jesus. Let's not let that one just slip quietly away.Where's the quote?Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

Ramoss,To the problem at hand. I have no objection to someone saying that the new covenant is not Christianity. I have more problem with saying that the new covenant is not Jesus. I would say it is exactly Jesus.I will look into the matter of the best translation of "new Covenant" latter.However if this refers to only a renewed covenant then why does God say "Not like the covenant which I made with their fathers ...?" If it is only a renewal then it WOULD be "like" the covenant He made with their fathers.Could you explain this wording? That is a "renewed" covenant which is "NOT like the covenant" of which it is to be a renewal.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

you think its physical because of the bad psalm translation, not because this is talking about a real wound, one line saying piercing doesn't mean its a real wound you are imposing your belief that shepard = jesus because they call him that in the NT, thats the problem i have with this, it might be a real shepard and not a spiritual onei said its absurd that you could infer pierced subject = jesus from one line that doesn't relate that double meaning you get from the single line, that defies logic and scripture, i mean why doesn't genesis have more than one meaning or the exodus or matthew or mark? why do you need parts to have double meanings? umm, go READ the prophicies the jews define as about the messiah, its not jesus, he can't be god or the son of god he has to be a man! do you comprehend that? anything else is blasphemy, there is only one god not three in one, not father and son just god as the father of mankind

What "bad psalm translation" are you refering to? I have mentioned no psalm yet. I notice that "bad translation" and "better translation" are being used more frequently now by you and others on rather clear verses.Verse 10 includes these words - " ... and they will look upon Me; whom they have pierced; and they will wail over Him with the wailing as for an only son and cry bitterly over Him with bitter crying as for a firstborn son"Now you are saying that this piercing should be understood as just moral disobedience. In other words the discord of the Jews with God has pierced Him, not actually but figuratively.The problem I have with this is that such piercing should not cause God to die. And the bitter crying and wailing over the pierced one strongly implies crying over one who has died - "wailing as for an only son and cry bitterly over Him with bitter crying as for a firstborn son"Physical infliction of a mortal wound is what I see there. Of course moral and spiritual discord with God is the source of the piercing.Piercing is again mentioned in the next chapter in verse 3 - " .. and his mother and his father will pierce him through when he prophesies".This is certainly a physical piercing. And I think the piercing of the Speaker Jehovah God in Zechariah 12:10 is also physical. The recipients of the prophetic writing may have wondered what the prophet could have meant, for how could they pierce God physically? Nevertheless the prophets uttered many mysterious things.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

So you think that God is talking about real sheep when He says - "Strike the Shepherd that the sheep may be scattered; And I will turn My hand upon the little ones" (Zech. 13:7b)? So you think that God is going to find some flock of sheep and get involved with scattering them over the hills? I think this is a silly interpretation. I don't think God is talking about a flock of real sheep but rather people dear to Him - "We are His people and the sheep of His pasture" (Psalm 100:3)The possibility you raise that Zechariah 13:7 might be refering to a actual flock of little sheep didn't give me much confidence that the rest of your post was worth considering. I'll go back and look at the rest latter.As for Jesus being a Shepherd? Obviously, if any man was ever a shepherd of other men it was Jesus. He thoroughly earned and deserves to be regarded as "the good Shepherd" who even laid down His life for the sheep. Calling Jesus of Nazareth "the Shepherd" or at least "a shepherd" is not arbitrary. Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

quote:

---

The god of the Old testament is not Jesus. The God of the new testament is Jesus. Therefore, the two are not the same.

---

I disagree. The God of the OT and the God in the NT are the same God.The focus of the NT was about Jesus, who was not considered to be God by his own disciples, IMO. I don't feel it was really about God.Now for those who consider Jesus to be God, then yes the NT God is different than the OT God, but looking at the text itself, I don't think the God mentioned in the NT is different than the OT.

---

"Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz

What is really absurd is that you think Zechariah 13:7 is speaking about a flock of little sheep. It is interesting that you cannot detect from the following sentences that human beings are being refered to as sheep.That is what defies logic, that you are so eager and desperate to make the passage not refer to Christ that you see God scattering a flock of sheep over the pastureland in fulfillment of prophecy. It is my reading of the prophecies which leads me to believe that as many Gentiles have come to realize, the nation of Israel will also come to realize, that Jesus was Who He taught He was - Son of God.It is the prophets themselves which lead me to believe that this is a historical inevitability - the Jewish national recognition, some day, of Jesus the Messiah.I don't believe that Jesus Christ as God - Man, as the Word become flesh, and as the Son of Man, Son of God, is a character human beings would concoct even if they had the ability to do so. I don't think it is within the power of man's imaginiation to invent someone like Jesus.In Jesus God and man are fully and completely in harmony. And He is called not only the only begotten Son. He is called after His resurrection the Firstborn Son. Firstborn implies others to follow. So the Firstborn Son Jesus Christ is the standard model of the harmony that God intends between Himself and human beings in eternity:"Because those whom He foreknew, He also predestinated to be conformed to the image of His Son that He might be the Firstborn among many brothers. And those whom He predestinated, these He also called; and those whom He called, these He also justified; and those whom He justified, these He also glorified" (Roman 8:29,30)This is why we exist. And this is why there is a universe. God's eternal purpose is to mass produce many sons of God conformed to the image of Christ the Firstborn Son of God.He is much more than just the Messiah of Israel. He is the Firstborn Son of God "leading many sons into glory" (Hebrews 2:10)God therefore desires the mingling of Divinity and humanity - the union of God and man.

It is your progative to have the illusion that the covenent is Jesus. However, that Covenent is not with Israel.. and that is what is being talked about.

Ok..if you don't consider Jesus to be God, then it could be the same.However, to a great number of Christians, Jesus is God. Having Jesus as god contradicts the Tanakah. Having Jesus as a teacher does not. I guess it all depends on how you interpet the New Testament.

quote:

---

Having Jesus as god contradicts the Tanakah.

---

I agree.Paul's authentic writings were the earliest and don't seem to put Jesus as God. Any actual mention of God in the earlier writings seems to stay in line with the God of Abraham or the OT. Even the teachings attributed to Jesus seem to be in line with the Jewish teachings of the time.

---

"Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz

Well. You are entitled to your opinion. You said we are not allowed to speak for others. We can only logically speak for ourselves. But here you are speaking for all the Jews. I happen to know a Jew who is a Christian and He would not agree with anything your are saying. You've already said your "No", so why do you keep posting? You continue responding so I keep answering. Thank you. Again, we agree. You are beginning to understand. Possibly. But it could be your interpretation that is wrong. I am not playing semantics. One refers to a "few" and the other refers to "many". But your willingness be loose with your words so that you may twist the meaning of things other people say a devious use of semantics. Here again, you are not fairly representing what I said to you. If I speak from myself, then you are correct. But you should have asked me to explain my usage 1 Cor. 14:31, which says we can all prophesy one by one. This is not my word. It is God's word. He said it and I believe it. OT or NT, it doesn't matter. All scripture is God breathed (2 Tim. 3:16). If God said it, I believe it. Firstly, you are not emotionally stable enough (i.e berating and belitling others) for this kind of conversation. Secondly, your sinical posts would make any conversation with you about love laughable. Thirdly, this would launch us way off topic, which has been your habit even up to this point. I believe it because that is what I have been shown and I have subsequently received it. Presupposing, as you have suggested, would mean that I either came to my conclusion before I read the Bible or categorically accepted this view regardless of what is written in the Bible. You do not have enough information to say this. So you are the one who is presumptuous because you are assuming things you don't know to be true. This other view is wrong. The verses jaywill gave prove it to be wrong.

itore and Ringo,Please stop the negative racial and ethnic comments. That is not the issue in this discussion.Is God of the NT different than God of the OT? You should be able to show support for your opinion from the Bible since this is a Bible Study.Please direct any comments concerning this Admin msg to the Moderation Thread.
Any response in this thread will receive a 24 hour timeout.Thank you