Who is the God of the Old Testament? Final thoughts.

[Eccl12and13]

So do we really have a contradiction in the Holy scriptures? Of course not. The God that Jesus and John is talking about is God the Father, the one that Jesus said no man has ever seen. The invisible God, he called him in Col 12:15.


There is so much more to Jesus Christ being called the Word of God than meets the eye. As you can see, he truly is the literal Word of God.


The only person man has ever dealt with has been Jesus. The Word. The spokesman for the invisible God. And we will not have any dealings with God the Father until, "And I John, saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down from God out of heaven, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband." Rev 21:2

Peace unto you.

 

[Splayd]

Hey Eccl12and13,

Did you know you could have had all of those posts in the same thread? That's the way we'd normally do something like this. Perhaps you could ask a mod to put them together in one place.

At any rate, you are right to acknowledge that Jesus is God. The scriptures indeed tell us as much... BUT they also tell us that God is one:

Deu 6:4 "Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God, the LORD is one.
Exo 8:10 And he said, "Tomorrow." Moses said, "Be it as you say, so that you may know that there is no one like the LORD our God.
Jos 22:22 "The Mighty One, God, the LORD!
The Psalms and Prophets are full of references to the Holy One.

This leaves you with a contradiction again, because clearly there can't be 2 Gods if God is one. Your position may try to reconcile this, by perhaps suggesting that Jesus was the only God mankind was aware of until He tells us about the Father, but again it's inconsistent with scripture.

Ananias recognised a distinction between the God of the OT and Jesus:
Act 22:14 And he said, 'The God of our fathers (ed: Father) appointed you to know his will, to see the Righteous One (Ed: Son) and to hear a voice from his mouth;
Peter recognises the distinction too:
Act 3:13 The God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, the God of our fathers (Ed: Father), glorified his servant Jesus (Ed: Son), whom you delivered over and denied in the presence of Pilate, when he had decided to release him.

There are countless more verses on this topic. It's apparent then that Jesus IS God, that the Father IS God and yet there is only one God. Human logic might determine then that the Father IS the Son but we also recognise there is some distinction between Father and Son, so that isn't quite right either.

The truth was in scripture from the very beginning:

Gen 1:26 Then God said, "Let us make man in our image, after our likeness.
Gen 11:7 Come, let us go down and there confuse their language,

The most common name for God in the OT is "Elohim" which is a very interesting word. It's form is plural BUT it's construction is uniformly singular. Deuteronomy 6:4 uses that term when it says that God is one. A literal translation might read a little like: "Hear this Israel: Yahweh - our God(s) is/are united as one (God) - Yahweh." It's complicated, but ultimately we recognise one God who is revealed in 3 persons. This is consistent with scripture:
1Jo 5:7 For there are three that testify:
Mat 28:19 Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,

There's simply nothing else that works the same way, so our analogies are limited and flawed, but that's the mystery of God. How can we come close to truly understanding Him. The full truth is perhaps beyond our understanding. At least for now:
1Co 13:12 For now we see in a mirror dimly, but then face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I have been fully known.

Peace

 

[Eccl12and13]

Hello Splayd:

Thanks for reading the post.


I don't have time to explain the whole thing (Trust me, have I got a lesson for you), but here are a few things for you to think about.


1. I notice you did not address any of the scriptures I referred to, so I take it you don't have an answer or a way to explain them so you supplied me with some of your own, but the ones you gave only supports my lesson;

Deu 6:4 "Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God, the LORD is one.
Exo 8:10 And he said, "Tomorrow." Moses said, "Be it as you say, so that you may know that there is no one like the LORD our God.
Jos 22:22 "The Mighty One, God, the LORD!
The Psalms and Prophets are full of references to the Holy One.


All of those scriptures are correct. Did you read the entire lesson? As I presented in the lesson. Man has only dealt with ONE (1) God, the God Jesus.


And as far as the Psalms, do a scripture search in the book of Psalms and look up the phrase, "....The Lord said to my Lord, sit down at my right side....." (Sorry but the chapt eludes me.) This is king David speaking, make that KING DAVID!!! Now I ask you who or what man was lord over KING DAVID?




2. Your position may try to reconcile this, by perhaps suggesting that Jesus was the only God mankind was aware of until He tells us about the Father, but again it's inconsistent with scripture.


I have to correct you on one thing; this is not my postion, everything I presented was from the word of God. And as such, all that I presented goes exactly with the scriptures. I ask you, did you find anything taken out of context with the scriptures given?



3. You give this quote, "It's apparent then that Jesus IS God, that the Father IS God and yet there is only one God. Human logic might determine then that the Father IS the Son but we also recognise there is some distinction between Father and Son, so that isn't quite right either.


Please read again what you said. First you say"..... Jesus is God,.......and the Father is God.........and yet there is only one God.. The you say "........There is some distintion between Father and Son."

I must ask you...Do you know what mans doctrine of the trinity states? I think you need to brush up on what it is you confess. And by the way why did it take "The Church" (Do you know who that is?) over 300 years to come up with the doctrine in the first place?




4. Well this at least is correct:

The truth was in scripture from the very beginning:

Gen 1:26 Then God said, "Let us make man in our image, after our likeness.



You are so very right. This is the truth from the beginning, LET US!!!



Oh and one more thing, God is not that unique at all....we are like him and he is very much like us., here is what you said concerning that;



"The most common name for God in the OT is "Elohim" which is a very interesting word. It's form is plural BUT it's construction is uniformly singular."



Have you every heard of the term family? It's sort of like Elohim wouldn't you say. Many member's, all separate and distinct, but still one BODY, uniformly singular.


I guess there is something else that works out the same way.


I tell you, someone finds one scripture in the Bible and just ignores the countless others that says, no SHOUTS!!! that God is a family, hence the term Godhead!!



Oh yes....I have a lesson for you. I only hope you read it.



Once again...I really don't expect everyone to get this, to be honest.....few will. That is for God to decide. I am here to post and hope that just one that He chooses reads it.

 

[Splayd]

1. I notice you did not address any of the scriptures I referred to, so I take it you don't have an answer or a way to explain them so you supplied me with some of your own, but the ones you gave only supports my lesson;

What was there to address? I didn't have a problem with any of the scriptures you provided. I only had a problem with the way you pulled them together. I provided additional verses because I thought they filled in the gaps in your teaching.

All of those scriptures are correct. Did you read the entire lesson? As I presented in the lesson. Man has only dealt with ONE (1) God, the God Jesus.


And as far as the Psalms, do a scripture search in the book of Psalms and look up the phrase, "....The Lord said to my Lord, sit down at my right side....." (Sorry but the chapt eludes me.) This is king David speaking, make that KING DAVID!!! Now I ask you who or what man was lord over KING DAVID?

I actually don't have any major problems with this part of your "teaching". I believe it's speculative though and goes beyond scripture, but I don't have a problem with the concept that man had already dealt with Jesus. Some NT passages basically say as much. Many others before have speculated that the Angel Of The Lord in the OT may actually be a reference to Jesus. Others that It was Jesus that walked with Enoch etc... BUT I still recognise that most of that is just speculation. I'd certainly not take it to the bank.

My problem is with the extent that you take this "revelation". Your contention that there are in fact 2 Gods imparticular, is contrary to scripture.

I have to correct you on one thing; this is not my postion, everything I presented was from the word of God. And as such, all that I presented goes exactly with the scriptures. I ask you, did you find anything taken out of context with the scriptures given?

Gee I get sick of hearing that. There's someone else here who tries the same line with me and it just won't fly with me. The scriptures are indeed from God. The manner in which they were pulled together and the position they were being used to promote... were your understanding and application. Obviously I felt some of it was out of context. that's why I told you it was contrary to scripture and demonstrated how. That whole "one God" thing I went through was lost on you? How do you reconcile the verses I provided from Acts that acknowledge the God of Abraham etc... (ie: the "OT God") and "His Servant, Jesus"?

Please read again what you said. First you say"..... Jesus is God,.......and the Father is God.........and yet there is only one God.. The you say "........There is some distintion between Father and Son."

I must ask you...Do you know what mans doctrine of the trinity states? I think you need to brush up on what it is you confess. And by the way why did it take "The Church" (Do you know who that is?) over 300 years to come up with the doctrine in the first place?

You've come to the wrong forum for that. We don't have creeds. We don't consider "mans doctrine" to be akin to scripture, so while I respect the beliefs stated in the Nicene Creed and acknowledge them as being basically correct, they aren't something I confess as absolute truth. If you want to know what it is I confess... ask me. Don't tell me. Actually that goes for your reference to OSAS too. WE generally don't accept it either.

Oh and one more thing, God is not that unique at all....

Hmmm... Have you really read the book? "God is not that unique at all"???? I'll come back with some verses later.

Have you every heard of the term family? It's sort of like Elohim wouldn't you say. Many member's, all separate and distinct, but still one BODY, uniformly singular.

Yes it is sort of like that. There's lots of analogies that "sort of" work, but none of them really quite nail it. Like it or not - God really is unique. If He isn't... we're all wasting our time worshipping Him at all.

 

[Splayd]

Here's another verse that needs reconciling:

God is not a man, that he should lie; neither the son of man, that he should repent: hath he said, and shall he not do it? or hath he spoken, and shall he not make it good?

 

[Loveaboveall]

One must accept that there are some mysteries that we will not understand with our limited wisdom.

 

[crawfish]

The separation of God the Father and the OT god is a distinction the early Gnostics held. They felt that physical things were evil; thus, the creator of all physical things could not POSSIBLY be the God of Christ. Therefore, they split the two - the creator god was evil, adding the vileness of the physical world to the pureness of the spiritual world. The NT god was there to destroy all evil (the physical world), and save those who (through gnosis, or "knowledge") discovered the secrets of God's message.

Interestingly enough, the seeds of that movement is evident in 1 Corinthians, as some Christians in that city felt that since the body was evil and the spirit pure they could commit any sin with their body without affecting their salvation.

Some gnostics even believed there were more than two gods. Kind of off-subject, but interesting nonetheless (to me, at least).

I have a lot of trouble with your view. When speaking of the OT god, whether it's Jesus, Paul or other, there is no distinction made as to a change of gods. In fact, the very concept would seem to conflict with the core ideas being presented in the NT.

For reference, you should look up "logos", the term used in John 1 for "word". It should make the concept a bit clearer to you.

 

[JDIBe]

Yes, welcome to the concept of the Trinity.

A couple of other useful Scriptures might be...

Isa 44:6 Thus saith Jehovah, the King of Israel, and his Redeemer, Jehovah of hosts: I am the first, and I am the last; and besides me there is no God.
7 And who, as I, shall call, and shall declare it, and set it in order for me, since I established the ancient people? and the things that are coming, and that shall come to pass, let them declare.
8 Fear ye not, neither be afraid: have I not declared unto thee of old, and showed it? and ye are my witnesses. Is there a God besides me? yea, there is no Rock; I know not any.

Joh 10:30 I and the Father are one.

Joh 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
(not a God, was God.)

I don't know which "aspect" the Israelites dealt with. Perhaps it was Jesus. Perhaps it was God the Father. (The Bible says the Holy Spirit inspired the writers of the Scriptures.) Perhaps it was "a mixture" of all of them at the same time. The concept of the Trinity is the best explanation that we can come up with to explain the relationship.

St. Patrick (who supposedly drove the snakes out of Ireland) explained it this way. "Picture a 3-leaf clover. Each lobe exists, but together they make the leaf." This is why on St. Patrick's Day you see the symbol of the clover occasionally. I like this little explanation for when I see a small patch of clover, I like to think about God.
However, I do realize this is not quite right as well. Sometimes you just have to do the best you can and realize you will understand it perfectly some day.

Regardless of whether Jesus or the Father, or combination of both (or three...) gave the 10 commandments, they were still "nailed to the cross". The discussion is irrevelant to the matter. There is no "competition" or "disagreement" between the Godhead. "I and my Father are one...."

 

[damo73]

Eccl12and13 you wouldn't be a Mormon now would you?