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

No I didn't. I said you can't speak for God.(This will go a lot smoother if you pay attention to what I actually say.) No I'm not. I have never said "all" of the Jews.The mainstream Jewish view has been voiced by others on this thread, and they are not the ones who are disagreeing with me. I have not said anything about Christian Jews. They are irrelevant to this discussion. No I have not. I have not taken any position.I am not the one who claims there is a simple yes-or-no answer. You said "many", I said "some" and now you say "few"?The issue is that you made a blanket accusation against a group of Jews. Stop playing semantics to avoid the issue. It isn't my responsibility to ask you for explanations. Explain yourself. And once again, you only cite the New Testament. For people who don't believe the New Testament, you might as well be citing Peter Rabbit.If the Old Testament agrees with your position, why can't you support your position from the Old Testament? Maybe you're not a good enough psychiatrist to reach that conclusion. If you were paying attention, we were talking about you showing love, not me. Hmmm.... I have been trying valiantly (and humbly ) to get you and jaywill somewhere near the vicinity of the topic. We have an intelligent and efficient admin staff here (and I mean right-on-this-here-thread "here") who will be glad to shepherd me. No need for you to try.If you have anything other than more ad hominems to add, I'll be here. ABE: Apologies to AdminPD. I posted before I saw your message.Your wish is my command.Edited by Ringo, : No reason given.

---

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

did i say this? no, i did not, you are putting words in my mouth and making things up - my point was that imposing your views on a text you barely know the context of so you look right is just purely wrong, i said might be FFS i wasn't saying it has to be or do you bother to READ because you jump to conclusions and make me mouth what i did not say - that is false witness by far

yes it can go both ways then, you assume your right, due to what the NT says, i don't read the text inlight of the nt, i read the OT for what it says like a person trying to understand the author and prophet shouldzech was speaking of god and the near future and what he would have to do not two thousand years in the future - only people inposing thier views think its about the unknown futurewhen they talk about piercing they are talking about abandoning god out of foolishness, they wail and mourn like they lost children because god punished them for foolishness as is his right - god punished them via the other nations then destroyed the armies to show power, and the jews knew they where wrong to ignore god" .. and his mother and his father will pierce him through when he prophesies". - isn't that in light of people showing they are able to speak prophicy? well it looks like people didn't want to hear prophicy so they killed them, as zech said they would we can never know this, but inlight of the fact that it was to his own people i would say they would try to kill zech and other people like him who spoke for god when israel didn't want to hear it

Rev.What's the use in trying to save face? You did say it might be a real shepherd and not a spiritual one. Don't accuse me of putting words in your mouth just because I take your possible interpretation to its logical conclusion.

Rev, That could be because you have something basic against the New Testament. You read Exodus in light of Genesis probably. You read Deutoronomy in light of Leviticus probably.The books of the Bible are built upon one another. And they are linked together something like cars of a long train. So when you tell me that you don't read the Old Testmanet in light of the New Testament, I have no envy of you in that regard.I know that I would not understand much of the more significant things in the Old Testament at all if I did not read them in light of the New Testament. I don't plan to stop studying the Old Testament in that way. And I don't plain in regard such a method of understanding to be wrong on general grounds.If you want to say it should be done with some limits to it, I might go along with that. But the truth of God is progressively revealed in the 66 books of the Bible. And within limits I have to study the Old Testament in light of the New.My example and guiding Leader in this regard is Jesus of Nazareth. After His resurrection it is written:"Was it not necessary for the Christ to suffer these things and enter into His glory? And beginning from Moses and from all the prophets, He explained to them clearly in all the Scriptures the things concerning Himself .... And they said to one another, Was not our heart burning within us while He was speaking to us on the road, while He was opening to us the Scripture?" (See Luke 24:26,27,32)Now this does not mean that all such reasonings are equally valid. And I am ready to examine on a case by case basis to see if such a methodology is more or less appropriate. It is difficult to say what constitutes near future or far future for a God who transcends time. Perhaps. However it is for a specific lost son and a specific firstborn that the wailing seems to be. It says "they will wail over Him". That is a specific "Him". It did not say they will wail over "them". This portion of the passage means to me that God will clear the false prophets out of the land. And the people will have no tolerance for false prophets. Even the dad and mom of the false prophet will not allow thier child to deceive Israel. Yes I see that in there too.I think the clearing away of the false prophets is for the real and true Prophet to come Who is also the Shepherd in 13:7. In humility He says that He is no prophet. This is like the prophet Amos saying that he was no prophet but a gardener of sycomore trees.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

Ringo, We're on the topic.I think you are trying valiantly to hold a discussion on a book of faith without allowing faith to enter into the discussion.I think people with convictions make you feel uncomfortable. Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

Purpledawn, The problem here is that some people think that if Christ is God then He cannot be a man and visa versa. The New Testament is about God and man united in a wonderful organic union.Now Peter was a disciple. And Peter refered to "our God and Savior, Jesus Christ" (2 Peter 1:1)John was also a disciple. And he opens his gospel saying that the Word was with God and was God. Then the Word (which was with God and was God) became flesh (John 1:1,14).Saul of Tarsus was a young rabbi but became a disciple. And he refered to Christ's redemption in this way:" ... shepherd the church of God which He obtained with His own blood" (Acts 20:28).God obtaining the church of God with His own blood certainly establishes that this disciple regarded Jesus as God manifest in the flesh.So we believe that in Jesus Christ God and man are united in one Person. Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

quote:

---

The New Testament is about God and man united in a wonderful organic union.

---

I feel that is a later interpretation.As I said in Message 253: 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.

quote:

---

Now Peter was a disciple. And Peter refered to "our God and Savior, Jesus Christ" (2 Peter 1:1)

---

Yes Peter was a disciple, but 2 Peter is considered to be written 100-160 CE. According to the Catholics, St. Peter died about 67 CE. So whoever the author of 2 Peter was, at that late date, he wasn't one of the original Twelve.All that aside, if you read further in 2 Peter I don't feel the opening statement was intended to blend God and Jesus together as one. So if you believe that Jesus is a God, then he is a different God than the one in the OT.

quote:

---

John was also a disciple. And he opens his gospel saying that the Word was with God and was God. Then the Word (which was with God and was God) became flesh (John 1:1,14).

---

The book of John is also a later writing (90-120 CE) and not consider to be written by the actual disciple, John.

quote:

---

Saul of Tarsus was a young rabbi but became a disciple. And he refered to Christ's redemption in this way:

​

" ... shepherd the church of God which He obtained with His own blood" (Acts 20:28).

​

God obtaining the church of God with His own blood certainly establishes that this disciple regarded Jesus as God manifest in the flesh.

---

I think the "He" is referring back to Jesus, who Paul had been talking about. IOW, "shepherd the church of God which Jesus obtained with his own blood". I don't see it blending God and Jesus. You'll have to be more specific as to why you think the "He" refers back to God.

---

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

Pdawn, The coming together of God and man is theologically defended in formal dogmatic terms latter in Christian church history. The Christological doctrines were reactions to attacks against beliefs held about Jesus from the beginning of the New Testament age.I think that it is these more formal theological defenses which you are taking to be "latter" interpretations.The revelation of God manifest as a man is embodied in the Old Testament occasionally, clearly taught by Jesus in His ministry, and clearly taught in the epistles. All three of these were well before the so-called "latter" times in which you assume a belief in incarnation was arrived at.In the epistles the experience of God through and by means of Jesus is taken for granted as if the readers are presently enjoying and understanding such an experience.People who tend to remain in the realm of objective doctrine fail to realize this. And they often assume the more formal theological pronouncements of latter councils were the add on concepts which came much latter.But how can anyone read Romans 8:9-11 and realize that the Spirit of God, the Spirit of Christ, Christ, the Spirit of Him Who raised Jesus from the dead, His Spirit, are all spoken of in an interchangeable way? Experiencially there was no difference between God, Christ, and the Holy Spirit. And it remains so up to this present day.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

Purpledawn, I'm not sure if you are taking the route that Peter's epistles should be considered or should not be considered. Or perhaps you want to consider them when they argue for your view and discount them when they do not.Anyway, since I come from the standpoint of Peter's epistles as worthy of consultation I will assume what is written there is helpful.Now, can you please tell me what Spirit Peter was refering to when he wrote of "the Spirit of Christ" who was in the prophets?" ... the prophets, who prophesied concerning the grace that was to come unto you, sought and searched diligently, searching into what manner of time the Spirit of Christ in them was making clear, testifying beforehand of the sufferings of Christ and the glories after these" (1 Peter 1:10b,11)This passage reveals some important points.1.) Though the prophets prophesied they did not always clearly understand the manner or time of things about which they spoke.So arguments about "He could not have meant this or that" are not always valid because the prophet himself spoke things beyond his own comprehension.2.) They're prophesy was by the "Spirit of Christ". Now we hear much about the Spirit of God in the Old Testament. If Peter identifies this as the Spirit of Christ then it is impossible to say that the Spirit of God is of a different Person than the Spirit of Christ.The Spirit of God = "The Spirit of Christ" makes Christ God. This invalidates any argument that Peter did not regard Christ as God.The only way out of this is to arrive at some sort of idea that there were two divine Spirits - one of God moving in the prophets and another of Christ moving in the prophets. So in the desire to argue against two Gods you arrive at two divine Spirits.But the New Testament only allows one eternal and divine Spirit. So Christ before His incarnation, in office and function, though He is not yet a man, is eternal God - "the Spirit of Christ in them was making clear".God moving in the prophets to speak and prophesy was the Spirit of Christ Who in time was to be a man, live, suffer, die, resurrect, and become a life giving Spirit to enter into His redeemed people.For this reason Paul says "the last Adam became a life giving Spirit" (1 Cor. 15:45). And also He calls the Spirit of God and the Spirit of Christ - "the Spirit of life" (Rom. 8:2). This is in keeping with Bible's central revelation that the New Testament God is the Old Testament God come to us in a form that He could not only die for our sins redemptively, but also enter into our human spirit to impart the life of God into us.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

pdawn, J.N. Darby also thought that it should be thought of as "the blood of His own" refering to Jesus. For J.N. Darby however, the Deity of Christ was a major foundation of the Christian faith.After some careful consideration I think that the referent of "He" should be God. Though I would not dare to argue with J.N. Darby on matters touching Greek translation. I do have my reasons.The immediate previous verse refers to God - verse 27. We have to go back to verse 24, four verses back to find the nearest specific mention of Christ.Here's what I notice:But I consider my life of no account as of precious to myself, in order that I may finish my course and the ministry which I have received from the Lord Jesus to solemnly testify of the gospel of the grace of God. (v.24)

​

And now, behold, I know that you all, among whom I have gone about preaching the kingdom, will see my face no more. (v.25)

​

Therefore I testify to you on this day that I am clean from the blood of all men, (v.26)

​

For I did not shrink from declaring to you all the counsel of God. (v.27)

​

Take heed to yoursleves and to all the flock, among whom the Holy Spirit has placed you as overseers to shepherd the church of God, which He obtained through His own blood" (v.28)It seems a stretch to me to think Paul is refering back to "the Lord Jesus" in verse 24 when "God" is only a few words away - "the church of God, which He obtained with His own blood"I think Paul's thought is that the precious church of God was so precious to Him that He obtained it in Christ with the shedding of God incarnate's blood. Indeed there is no other way that God could have blood or die unless He was incarnated as a man.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

quote:

---

I'm not sure if you are taking the route that Peter's epistles should be considered or should not be considered. Or perhaps you want to consider them when they argue for your view and discount them when they do not.

---

I do not consider the author of 2 Peter to be the disciple, which follows with what I said in Message 249: The focus of the NT was about Jesus, who was not considered to be God by his own disciples, IMO.Since you do: is why I referred to the section 1:16-17 in Message 263 which mentions Jesus receiving glory and honor from God the Father. I don't feel the text supports blending. Jesus is not considered the God of the OT.

---

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

quote:

---

I think Paul's thought is that the precious church of God was so precious to Him that He obtained it in Christ with the shedding of God incarnate's blood. Indeed there is no other way that God could have blood or die unless He was incarnated as a man.

---

I guess we're at a stalemate unless someone who knows Greek can clarify the text.

---

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

In that passage Peter is emphasizing the relationship between Father and Son. My previous explanation of "the Spirit of Christ" used by Peter proves that he considers Christ's Spirit as God's Spirit in the Old Testament.I don't think that Peter's utterance "our God and Savior, Jesus Christ" argues for him viewing Jesus Christ as another God, a second one besides the God of the Old Testament.But I admit that the epistles of Peter are more along the line of the Old Testament God sending His Son in the New Testament age. I couldn't possibly disagree with that - the divine Father and the divine Son relationship. That is more his emphasis. But if you want to exploit that emphasis into a theory that Jesus Christ to Peter is not the same God of the Old Testament, few but key passages convince me that that is not the case.The passage on "the Spirit of Christ" speaking and revealing in the Old Testament prophets is a case in point. So far I don't see your rebuttal of that point.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

As you know even qualified scholars will disagree. On some things you decide what you want to trust and you make a decision what you will believe, opened to change your mind if someone is able to present a better rational.I'm opened about it. But today this is how I feel Acts 20:28 should be understood.