Then again, if you think you're up to setting me straight on how the God of the O.T. "doesn't comport with" the God of the N.T., then by all means--and you will need ALL the means at your disposal--
please proceed!!! 
I think I used the word
express rather than
comport. Comport smacks to much of Amy Vanderbilt's Book of Etiquette. But that's just in passing.
I'd think I might well have a reasonable chance of altering your perception - who knows if that would make you straight or bent - but my interest in doing so is on the distant leg of an asymptotic curve approaching zero.
You seem to have lost track of of the sequence of events here. I'll save you the trouble of backtracking. Here's a summary.
Post #7 I noted that "This [perceived] conflict between the Old and New Testament expressions of God is one of the factors that increased my doubts as to the authenticity of Scripture as the Word of God."
Post #117 In response thomas t asserts "Actually, the Jesus of the Old Covenant and the Jesus of the New are one and the same."
Post #123 I replied "Nevertheless, as I stated, it is my perception that the
expression of God, that is his behaviour and tenor of his guidance, differs markedly between OT and NT. < snip> it would require more than a simple assertion to cause me to change my mind."
I also noted "I am, of course, open to a (much) more detailed argument on the point. This thread would be inappropriate for that. If you, or anyone, wishes to take up the task I suggest a new thread and pm to notify me that it has been made."
Post#125 You then asked "Which books of the New Testament do you accept as 'representing' to us the person of Jesus?"
Post#126 I responded by implicitly objecting to what I still suspect was a rhetorical trick of substituting "us" for "you", where "you" would reference myself. I also answered your question in, for the context, reasonable detail. Recall that my introduction of my perception of a NT/OT dichotomy was to provide context in my reply to the (clarified) OP. I had no interest in justifying that position or promoting that position. I provided you with a reply out of courtesy.
Post#127 Despite this, in this post you accused me of playing games and demanded I provide a detailed accounting of the NT Books that fed into my perception. You also seemed to think I had challenged forum members in post#123 (see above, last three sentences.) That was not a challenge; that was a expression of readiness to be open minded to arguments that might dissuade me from my current view.
Post #139 I chided you for the tone of your previous post. I accepted that my post #123 had included an implicit challenge, (though none was intended).
Now we leapfrog a few posts that add nothing of substance and come to the quoted post that opens this thread. It looks suspiciously like a rhetorical trick, a switching of the goalposts. You issue a challenge you know I have no interest in accepting,have never had any interest in, but imply that my "refusal" to rise to the challenge is because I lack both the skill and the courage to make the attempt. Well really? I would have expected better from you.
Now we have interrupted this thread with enough off-topic frivolity. I shall not be responding further.
.
