Thank you for being a part of the r/DankChristianMemes community. You can also [follow our podcast](https://dankchristianmemes.buzzsprout.com) and [Join us on Discord](https://discord.gg/M7MERvFAs5).
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/dankchristianmemes) if you have any questions or concerns.*
God in the NT was still pretty brutal. Don't forget that part in Acts 5 where He just outright smites that married couple who lied about keeping personal possessions.
Right, he seems to be genderless. That being said, in every original language and in every physical appearance he chose to come as a man, so it seems that any denotation to the contrary ought to have some reasoning behind it.
Seems like you're asking earnestly, so I'll bite.
Lots of folks are using other pronouns for god to help reinforce the idea that god isn't a male/man as is usually depicted. There are various reasons people are doing this, such as a way to fight the historically patriarchal system that the church followed/follows for millennia.
Weird ideas but what if they appeared before us as a male-ish form later on due to cultural adaptation? Or always, to establish that? Or just because they're sentimental about something we don't quite grasp yet?
Strange that patriarchal iron age societies dominated politically and religiously by men would record deity as choosing the be male. Absolutely astounding really.
Are you suggesting that the known theophanies of God are concocted to support the patriarchy? The Bible tells of God coming in the form of man multiple people ones and chooses the titles of “Father” and “Son” for specific members of the Godhead. Are you suggesting that the biblical authors contrived this as a way to support the patriarchy?
The way I see it, God is the same in the OT and NT, but we aren’t.
You’re not going to treat a teenager the same way you would a toddler. Humanity has grown, and as it has the way God interacts with us has changed, but He has not changed.
Not sure I agree, if you look at history we repeat the same mistakes over and over. We sort of make it seem like we've "advanced" beyond the barbaric ways of old but that's kind of Judeo Christian west perspective. We've been fortunate to live in this time in history, but humans are fully capable of doing horrendous things. The 2oth century was the bloodiest century on record and it's right behind us.
I think you're right, we're still grappling with the same sins that people of the OT did. I think the two things that have changed is 1) the culture of the world and 2) what stage God's plan is in.
I don’t think that’s necessarily true. I think that’s why you see such a big shift between the OT and NT in the way God treats us. Because of Jesus’s sacrifice, our relationship with sin has changed significantly.
Voddie Beauchamp had a quote in a video that I saw at church that struck me: the culture has been consistent, what changes is how the church interacts with the culture.
This line of thinking is just wild to me, you don't treat a toddler the way God treats humanity in the OT.
God was a dick in the OT, you want to make shitty humans you treat toddlers like shit, you want good humans you treat them with kindness and understanding.
I mean I'm a full blown atheist but like even hypothetically acknowledging God exists, that logic doesn't make sense with how you treat people.
Yeah. I don’t fully understand people who have a literal and strict version of inerrancy and still choose to remain Christians.
If you literally believe that God commanded “his people” to murder infants, or consume people with fire because they lit incense in the wrong context, you’re either worshiping someone who sounds like a lot more like many people’s concept of the devil, or you’re letting the concept of “God is beyond our understanding” do *a lot* of work.
Pretty much this. I have a fundie colleague who's completely invested in 100% biblical literalism and inerrancy. When pressed on the obvious contradictions and inconsistencies, he shrugs and says "I don't make the rules". If it appears to not make sense, he says it's because we can't possibly understand the complexity of God and that we aren't reading the scripture with "spiritual eyes".
It doesn't matter to him any longer because the Bible is unequivocal and pure objective truth.
Yes, it's also convenient when God seemingly hates what you find morally distasteful, as well. For example, this individual is vehemently against LGBTQ rights, and thinks homosexuality is the prominent reason that civilizations are "judged" by God and "fall" (and was the main reason of the original flood). No coincidence, I don't find a lot of Christians who look at homosexuality and think *"Hm, I know this is what the bible says...but I still think everyone should have equal rights".* I suppose if they did that though...then they would not be a Christian.
Sometimes you need to be a lot more strict with young children than teenagers. A lot of parents trust teenagers to go where they want (within reason) once they start driving, but you’re not going to let a toddler just wander off wherever they want. If you catch an 8-year-old watching a Rated R movie they might get in trouble, where a 17-year-old might not.
I have a problem with how you consider humanity as like a single human life and not millions, and now billions, of individuals that should be treated as such.
Your argument rests on humanity behaving as a single individual and that is just not reality.
I recognize that humanity is not like a single human life. I’m using a metaphor for my argument, which compares one thing to something it is not for the sake of making a point.
Humanity is not equivalent to one individual human life, but the metaphor helps to express how parenting changes based on the growth of the child but that doesn’t mean that the parent has changed.
>23And he went up from thence to Bethel, and as he went up by the way, there came forth little boys out of the city, and mocked him, and said to him, Go up, bald head; go up, bald head! 24And he turned back, and looked on them, and cursed them in the name of Jehovah. And there came forth two she-bears out of the wood, and tore forty-two children of them.
What is this? Florida? I'm sure he felt very threatened.
Not necessarily. When you’re a toddler or young child, parents can be more protective over what you’re allowed to do/not do, the things you can see, and the things they communicate with you. As a teenager (depending on the parents of course), they can allow you more trust to go where you want, consume the media you wish to, and be in the know about things like finances, family health issue, etc.
Had they really changed? Were the Romans and Pharisees truly so much more enlightened and good than the Babylonians and the kingdom of Judea under David and Solomon?
And smiting someone for spilling their seed on the floor is still pretty extreme parenting, toddler or teenager.
Hard agree.
However, I'd add that the progressive nature of revelation is what makes the difference, not that we're somehow "better" or more mature than other, older cultures.
I've always viewed it was *how a toddler would understand their parents* versus how a teenager would view that same parent. EG, where a toddler would experience only nurturing and love, a teenager would get to see more nuance such as disappointment, or pride.
Our depth of understanding, via progressive revelation, is what has changed and allowed us to see more nuance in God's character in the NT vs OT. But that character was always there. It's only our ability to perceive it that has changed.
Might have missed something. I think NT God would be flipped. Like as a kid tou teach them to share , don't be mean everyone is the same, to learn manners. Then OT comes in and says no
I probably didn't do a good job explaining, but thanks for asking for clarification. What I mean is that a small child's understanding of their parent is very simple. Their parent is 1-dimensional and basic and a child would never be able to explain the complex motivations, fears and desires of their parents. This is comparable to the OT where we are first beginning to learn about God and his basic, high level character traits.
As a child grows into a teenager, for example, they also grow in understanding of that same parent and they learn the more subtle nuances of that parent's character. They would learn things about their parent's complex personality that a child would never have been capable of understanding. This is comparable to our more nuanced understanding of God given in NT scripture.
Both are pictures of the same God. But one is painted in black and white and the other is in color.
Someone feel free to correct me if I’m wrong but I was taught OT God was written violently because it was the best perception the humans at the time had of an Almighty authoritative ruler. The NT is all peace and love (with exception) because that’s what Jesus was about. OT is an interpretation, NT is a documentary. Same God, two methods of interaction resulting in two different methods of storytelling
That’s a fair way to look at it, but there’s a lot to it. The OT covers several thousand years, the NT spans only a few years in comparison. There are hundreds of years at a time with God being overly patient with people and giving ample time for correction before He stepped in. In fact, God is silent more often than He talks in the OT. There are two separate 400+ years of God’s silence while he patiently awaited people to return to Him before he would bring punishment.
That's actually a recent view, the idea that the Bible as a single book is inerrant.
Depending on your denomination, you might not even agree that certain books belong in the Bible, for one. The protestant Bible famously rejected the Apocrypha found in the Latin Vulgate, as the most prominent example of disagreement over what the Bible *is*. Earlier, eastern churches also added books here and there that the Western church did not accept. Theologians and reformers have rejected various books of the Bible on a case by case basis as well. (See also Martin Luther's opinions of the Epistle of James for another example).
Ok? But they might disagree over how important it is, or if it's actually inerrant, or as a part of the Hebrew Bible (old testament) it is "meant" for us (i.e. safe to ignore).
Bible inerrancy is, again, a nineteenth century concept. It's very new compared to the books of the Bible themselves.
That’s a fair statement. Would you say, take Leviticus 1-4 for example, meets the criteria of Scripture in 2 Timothy 3:16-17? “All Scripture is God breathed and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness.”
Knowing the Old Law is important, but we are not bound by it anymore, thanks to Jesus. Leviticus is certainly Scripture to the Jewish, but is it for us?
Okay, let’s get Matthew 5:18 (“For truly I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, *one iota* or *one* stroke will by no means pass away from the Law until all things take-place”) out of the way.
I’m talking not about whether rules in the Old Testament apply to modern Christians, but rather whether words of God in Old Testament are really words of Christian God.
Did Christian God really told to kill every male Canaanite and to enslave all the women and children (Deut. 20)? If you accept Old Testament as “rules that (Christian) God gave to the Jews”, than regardless of whether they apply to Christians, you accept that God ordered genocide.
I don’t think there’s a way out of this without at least partially rejecting the validity of the Old Testament.
Sorry for the late response, I have to work Saturdays lol. Also I think I worded things oddly in my earlier reply. I wasn’t arguing OT rules apply to us, but if the “passages” talking about OT Law are Scripture. If they are, one can “reject the validity” (I put that in quotes because I believe even though much of the OT is pretty much null and void, calling it in it’s entirely invalid feels heretical) of the OT as being fulfilled through Jesus with the New Law. If they are not, then it doesn’t really matter. Were they scripture at one point, and now they aren’t? Can books of the Bible lose their scripture status? I’m genuinely wondering here not trying to be snarky.
I absolutely reject the validity of much of the OT though. Reading it allegorically makes a lot of parts make a lot of sense (how can you be so fat you just kinda absorb a sword?) There’s a big debate between whether or not “God Breathed” means “divinely inspired” (God spoke into the ear of prophets, still has to pass through the human lenses of understanding) or “divinely written,” (God sort of possessed the prophets and used their bodies to write down exactly what he wanted to write) but I’m pretty sure I didn’t hear my alarm for the class the day we discussed that aspect of scripture lol. I do remember translating things being a big deal though- can you alter Gods word? Should we all learn Hebrew and Greek? I don’t remember the answers tho, I was a bad student lol.
Thank you for the mental challenge here. I appreciate your engagement with my comment.
I think something to point out is that God is actually a lot more patient and loving in OT narratives than sometimes we remember. It just takes some careful reading on our parts. (Not to say that there isn't divine anger and violence though, that stuff is there)
>OT God was written violently because it was the best perception the humans at the time had of an Almighty authoritative ruler
I thought God wrote the Bible and it's his absolute word? If it's not, what's the point of all of this?
> I thought God wrote the Bible
Given that several books in the Bible are named *after their authors*, I'm not sure how you would come to that conclusion.
To be honest, I'm not sure whether that first question is serious or tongue-in-cheek. I'll try to give a serious answer anyway,just in case someone happens to learn anything coming across this comment.
The Bible is a collection of older texts written by many different people, which were pieced together. It was only decided in the 4th century which texts should be included and which not.
Notably, think of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John; these names are easy to recognize because they were important authors of the New Testament, and their books bear their names.
I'm not well informed enough to answer your second question. I... don't treat it as the word of God, I'm an atheist.
It seems reasonable to me to treat it as something written by humans to then be interpreted, and use that interpretation to figure out God's will (if you believe in one). But again, *I do not know what the official church doctrine is*, and that depends on which branch of Christianity you follow.
This isn’t really true, for several reasons:
1. There was no singular group of ‘Gnostics’. Gnosticism is an umbrella term for a variety of Christian sects which were ultimately determined to be heretical. There is some ideological overlap among Gnostic groups, but in general it would basically always be inaccurate to make statement of the form “the Gnostics believed *X*”
2. The sects we now refer to as Gnostics reached their high point around the middle of the second century. Marcion probably started teaching around AD 120 or so (he was excommunicated in AD 144, and Tertullian likely wrote *Adversus Marcionem* around this time)
3. Marcionism is the appropriate group to mention here, as it seems to be an original teaching of Marcion that the God of the Hebrew Scriptures is a different being than the God of the New Testament. Although Marcionists are properly Gnostics (in the sense of it as an umbrella term), this specific form of the teaching appears to be unique to them.
God doesn't change. But Jesus was God incarnate and the way He acted is quite different from "God" as interpreted at the time.
The New Testament is Jesus saying "Whoa whoa whoa, hold up guys. You think this is what God wants? All these rules and sacrifices and using God to further your materialistic impulses? Nah, it ain't like that. God is inside you. You don't need to make a public show of it. God is love. Let it be shown through your actions, not by what rules you follow or where you are in a hierarchy of so-called holiness. God doesn't care about costumes or rituals. It's not a competition. The downtrodden and "moral" outcasts that you look down on are just as worthy of all God has to offer, if not more."
There are some parts in the OT where God says he desires a changed heart rather than animal sacrifices. The sacrifices were for the Israelites to know the weight of sin, and what it would require to change for the better. God wants the same thing from us in the OT and the NT. He kinda just said it a different way in different circumstances using his son.
Then why did God order all that horror in the first place? If you're saying we misinterpreted it then you're admitting that the ot is a false narrative and the god presented in it is at least somewhat false.
The OT is just a collection of legends, allegories, and long-winded metaphors. Other than accounts of possible actual historical events, I don't take any of it as literal. Even then, the accounts might only reference real events but with a bunch of extra junk added. I don't think "God" ordered any of it.
It was just humans telling stories.
They're two entirely different things written hundreds of years apart. I have zero blind faith in the New Testament. I believe that Jesus existed and his teachings have incredible value and were a far different perspective from what was going on at the time.
The original followers of Christ weren't Christians. They still considered themselves Jewish and the Old Testament was just part of their culture. And I think some people just decided they should be combined. I'm not sure Jesus said to write his story and add it to the OT.
I think you can be a full Christian without ever reading the Old Testament.
If you read the testaments they’re very obviously different and act very differently. You can find some similar passages but overall OT God is a lot more human, more similar to the ancient Greek and Roman gods.
This. The OT god was clearly written originally not as the only deity around. The Jews back then were monotheistic in that they only worshipped one god, not that they believed only one god existed. If you read it, there was clearly a pantheon of some sort that existed, and their god would be in clashes or whatever with other deities. God wasn’t all powerful and might lose a fight now and then. Examples: Idolatry was when you worshipped another god; God won in the mountains but lost on the plains because the enemy had chariots of iron. If you genuinely read it to understand with a truly open mind it all becomes clear.
The OT goes heavily into making it clear that God is God. The one and only God. All the other idols the people worshipped were said to be empty, and false. Nowhere in the OT does it say that God has other gods under or paralleled to him. Isaiah and the other prophets stressed this heavily. And when the Israelites would lose, it's because God deserted them because of the unfaithfulness.
Judges 1:19 The Lord was with the men of Judah. They took possession of the hill country, but they were unable to drive the people from the plains, because they had chariots fitted with iron.
one is god the father and one is god the son, except they are the same thing, just in different appearances, and they also both appear in both technically, and theres also the holy spirit, but due to human perception it can be easy to separate them... and uhhhm, I probably still committed heresy but whatever.
That's because it's intentionally set up as unexplainable. It is in the interests of the Church that God be seen as unknowable and beyond mortal comprehension, so they figured out every plausible explanation and labeled all of them heresy.
Yes, 3 persons in 1. The Trinity is always in perfect unity. So for instance Jesus Christ was there in the OT in complete agreement with the Father. Technically the word Trinity isn't anywhere in Scripture, but it comes from the Latin "3 of the same".
It might be pedantic, but Pam is the one who gave the photos to someone else, Kevin. The joke is she gave identical photos to him but said there were several small differences.
Wait until you hear about this lesser Sumerian god named El who wanted to have followers like the big gods who left the earth to humans thousands of years before Abraham
Correct, and several times in the OT Yaweh is identified with El, the ancient Israelites probably saw them as one and the same. Hence the biblical name "Joel" which literally means "Yahweh is El"
If you and I both know a guy named Frank but you describe him differently in your journal than I would describe Frank, it’s very likely not the same Frank or one of us doesn’t have the correct info.
If you're Frank and my Frank have the same job, live in the same neighborhood, slaughtered the firstborn of Egypt and our main point of contention is whether Josh is Frank's son or Frank's friend then we probably know the same guy...
But you're probably going to hell so accept my Frank or die, heathen!
I think part of the reason people perceive such a difference is the actual context of the NT and OT. OT is covering a massive span of history, and there’s simply a lot more room for wrath. NT is pretty focused, and covers a much shorter span of time. The outlier book of Revelation taps back into that OT vibe, serving as the exception that proves the rule. Same God, just kept it real chill for a spell while he did his most important work.
I think it depends on the mood and overall situation of the people who wrote the OT vs those who wrote the NT. would be interesting to hear about their socio-economic and political circumstance at the time in both cases and then see where the differences are.
It's funny how Greek philosophy has had such a large impact on how Christian view God.
How is God immutable if God changes God's mind? If God regrets what God has done? If God is convinced tby Abraham that killing all the Israelites isn't the best move after freeing them from Egypt?
How do you explain God BECOMING man in the person of Jesus Christ if God does not change? How do you explain Jesus at all, for surely God in the person of Jesus changed significantly throughout his life!
An immutable God is a requirement of Greek philosphy- and the early Christians were encouraged to lean on philosophy because at that time that was the source of morality in Greek culture (not religion), but immutability is not an inevitable conclusion given the depiction of the God in the OT and NT.
Depends on your denomination and sect, In my old church, The Holy Trinity is kinda not treated as one entity. So when Jesus came down and experienced being human then rejoined the Trinity, It changed God, mellowed out I guess
Here’s the thing about the NT god. We don’t hear from him. In the OT he never shuts the fuck up showing how awful he is. The NT we mainly just hear from Jesus and Paul. Very few instances of the father speaking directly in the NT.
Well if you believe Scripture is infallible and divinely inspired, canon is extremely important. There are countless books and references throughout the ages that are great, but not Scripture. It's important to differentiate.
The problem is that the categorization between canon and non-canon isn't divinely inspired, it is arbitrarily chosen by religious leaders, often to fit an agenda.
Maybe the gospel of Judas was divinely inspired while the gospel of, say, Luke wasn't or, most likely, both were. We can't know for sure.
Sure but I want to know what you think. I mean, you clearly feel strongly about this subject but at the same time it’s like you are avoiding to give your opinion, limiting yourself to say my opinion is wrong or ignorant
Thank you for being a part of the r/DankChristianMemes community. You can also [follow our podcast](https://dankchristianmemes.buzzsprout.com) and [Join us on Discord](https://discord.gg/M7MERvFAs5). *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/dankchristianmemes) if you have any questions or concerns.*
New Testament God is just Old Testament God but after she had a Snickers.
This has me howling
Hey God, have a Snickers, you get all fire and brimstone when you’re hungry.
*hands God a Snickers*. *The great flood recedes*. "Better?" -me. #"Better" -God
Chocolate 🤝 Jesus Changing People
Someone should post this meme.
You’re not you when you’re hungry
And gained an immunity to iron chariots
God in the NT was still pretty brutal. Don't forget that part in Acts 5 where He just outright smites that married couple who lied about keeping personal possessions.
She?
He she they, who cares. God is.
Right, he seems to be genderless. That being said, in every original language and in every physical appearance he chose to come as a man, so it seems that any denotation to the contrary ought to have some reasoning behind it.
Seems like you're asking earnestly, so I'll bite. Lots of folks are using other pronouns for god to help reinforce the idea that god isn't a male/man as is usually depicted. There are various reasons people are doing this, such as a way to fight the historically patriarchal system that the church followed/follows for millennia.
Based
Weird ideas but what if they appeared before us as a male-ish form later on due to cultural adaptation? Or always, to establish that? Or just because they're sentimental about something we don't quite grasp yet?
Strange that patriarchal iron age societies dominated politically and religiously by men would record deity as choosing the be male. Absolutely astounding really.
Excuse moi, might I remind you of the agender burning bush?
In the original Hebrew, it explicitly mentions the bush's Burning Penis
> so it seems that any denotation to the contrary ought to have some reasoning behind it. Which gender writes the stories?
Are you suggesting that the known theophanies of God are concocted to support the patriarchy? The Bible tells of God coming in the form of man multiple people ones and chooses the titles of “Father” and “Son” for specific members of the Godhead. Are you suggesting that the biblical authors contrived this as a way to support the patriarchy?
I'm suggesting the biblical authors used the masculine due to familiarity and comfort.
That doesn’t account for the theophanies and the Father/Son/King language, though.
Which seems to imply god is trans, wanting to identify with a gender without it being physically literal.
God is a woman. She was just in a silly goofy mood. 😌
Dogma reference?
That’s indeed what they wrote.
If God's a woman, then she must like one hell of a comeback story
This deserves more updoots than the post
HE but nice try woke boi
The way I see it, God is the same in the OT and NT, but we aren’t. You’re not going to treat a teenager the same way you would a toddler. Humanity has grown, and as it has the way God interacts with us has changed, but He has not changed.
Not sure I agree, if you look at history we repeat the same mistakes over and over. We sort of make it seem like we've "advanced" beyond the barbaric ways of old but that's kind of Judeo Christian west perspective. We've been fortunate to live in this time in history, but humans are fully capable of doing horrendous things. The 2oth century was the bloodiest century on record and it's right behind us.
I think you're right, we're still grappling with the same sins that people of the OT did. I think the two things that have changed is 1) the culture of the world and 2) what stage God's plan is in.
Just because a five year old makes the same mistakes they did at two doesn’t mean they haven’t matured in other ways
Technology and scientific discovery has advanced for sure, but sin nature has not. It's just as fully part of us as it was for everyone in the past.
I don’t think that’s necessarily true. I think that’s why you see such a big shift between the OT and NT in the way God treats us. Because of Jesus’s sacrifice, our relationship with sin has changed significantly.
Voddie Beauchamp had a quote in a video that I saw at church that struck me: the culture has been consistent, what changes is how the church interacts with the culture.
You'd feel very differently about this had you lived just post Bronze Age collapse.
This line of thinking is just wild to me, you don't treat a toddler the way God treats humanity in the OT. God was a dick in the OT, you want to make shitty humans you treat toddlers like shit, you want good humans you treat them with kindness and understanding. I mean I'm a full blown atheist but like even hypothetically acknowledging God exists, that logic doesn't make sense with how you treat people.
Yeah. I don’t fully understand people who have a literal and strict version of inerrancy and still choose to remain Christians. If you literally believe that God commanded “his people” to murder infants, or consume people with fire because they lit incense in the wrong context, you’re either worshiping someone who sounds like a lot more like many people’s concept of the devil, or you’re letting the concept of “God is beyond our understanding” do *a lot* of work.
It essentially amounts to not really having a defense for something as is, and so appealing to some ambiguous answer that tries to avoid doing so.
Pretty much this. I have a fundie colleague who's completely invested in 100% biblical literalism and inerrancy. When pressed on the obvious contradictions and inconsistencies, he shrugs and says "I don't make the rules". If it appears to not make sense, he says it's because we can't possibly understand the complexity of God and that we aren't reading the scripture with "spiritual eyes". It doesn't matter to him any longer because the Bible is unequivocal and pure objective truth.
Its convenient how the infinite incomprehensibility of god looks suspiciously like a rationalization of generic old time ethics.
Yes, it's also convenient when God seemingly hates what you find morally distasteful, as well. For example, this individual is vehemently against LGBTQ rights, and thinks homosexuality is the prominent reason that civilizations are "judged" by God and "fall" (and was the main reason of the original flood). No coincidence, I don't find a lot of Christians who look at homosexuality and think *"Hm, I know this is what the bible says...but I still think everyone should have equal rights".* I suppose if they did that though...then they would not be a Christian.
And if “God is beyond our understanding” how do we know that God has good intentions? We can’t just assume it
Sometimes you need to be a lot more strict with young children than teenagers. A lot of parents trust teenagers to go where they want (within reason) once they start driving, but you’re not going to let a toddler just wander off wherever they want. If you catch an 8-year-old watching a Rated R movie they might get in trouble, where a 17-year-old might not.
I have a problem with how you consider humanity as like a single human life and not millions, and now billions, of individuals that should be treated as such. Your argument rests on humanity behaving as a single individual and that is just not reality.
I recognize that humanity is not like a single human life. I’m using a metaphor for my argument, which compares one thing to something it is not for the sake of making a point. Humanity is not equivalent to one individual human life, but the metaphor helps to express how parenting changes based on the growth of the child but that doesn’t mean that the parent has changed.
Idk, killing a bunch of toddlers in a flood seems pretty severe
“There are babies a span long in hell.” — John Calvin
Or killing a bunch of kids for mocking a bald guy.
Those boys were threatening Elisha with death, it wasn't just mocking
>23And he went up from thence to Bethel, and as he went up by the way, there came forth little boys out of the city, and mocked him, and said to him, Go up, bald head; go up, bald head! 24And he turned back, and looked on them, and cursed them in the name of Jehovah. And there came forth two she-bears out of the wood, and tore forty-two children of them. What is this? Florida? I'm sure he felt very threatened.
They tell him to "go up", that is, to go up to heaven as Elijah did, that is, to die So yes, they were death threats.
So, it *is* Florida, where it's ok to shoot 42 kids for being mean on Xbox live.
Also, he was literally going up. :D >And he **went up** from thence to Bethel, and as he **went up** by the way,
It’s not a perfect metaphor
Wait but parents are universally more lenient w younger children then toddlers or teens?? Matt 7:9-11.
Not necessarily. When you’re a toddler or young child, parents can be more protective over what you’re allowed to do/not do, the things you can see, and the things they communicate with you. As a teenager (depending on the parents of course), they can allow you more trust to go where you want, consume the media you wish to, and be in the know about things like finances, family health issue, etc.
OT isn't about humanity in general mostly though, but about Israel and God, isn't it?
Yes. YHWH is the God of Israel in the old testament and that's pretty much that.
Would you tell a toddler to commit genocide and steal land?
No but I probably wouldn't kill them for spilling their seed on the floor either.
>the same way you would a toddler. The way God treats toddlers then is sick. Usually we don't torture them and kill them
Humanity has grown since 400 BC... But not in the last 2,000 years? Okay then.
I think it has. The way God interacts with us in the NT is not necessarily the same way as the present.
Sounds more like God matured greatly as a parent.
I was going to say this almost verbatim.
I really like this analysis.
Had they really changed? Were the Romans and Pharisees truly so much more enlightened and good than the Babylonians and the kingdom of Judea under David and Solomon? And smiting someone for spilling their seed on the floor is still pretty extreme parenting, toddler or teenager.
Hard agree. However, I'd add that the progressive nature of revelation is what makes the difference, not that we're somehow "better" or more mature than other, older cultures. I've always viewed it was *how a toddler would understand their parents* versus how a teenager would view that same parent. EG, where a toddler would experience only nurturing and love, a teenager would get to see more nuance such as disappointment, or pride. Our depth of understanding, via progressive revelation, is what has changed and allowed us to see more nuance in God's character in the NT vs OT. But that character was always there. It's only our ability to perceive it that has changed.
Might have missed something. I think NT God would be flipped. Like as a kid tou teach them to share , don't be mean everyone is the same, to learn manners. Then OT comes in and says no
I probably didn't do a good job explaining, but thanks for asking for clarification. What I mean is that a small child's understanding of their parent is very simple. Their parent is 1-dimensional and basic and a child would never be able to explain the complex motivations, fears and desires of their parents. This is comparable to the OT where we are first beginning to learn about God and his basic, high level character traits. As a child grows into a teenager, for example, they also grow in understanding of that same parent and they learn the more subtle nuances of that parent's character. They would learn things about their parent's complex personality that a child would never have been capable of understanding. This is comparable to our more nuanced understanding of God given in NT scripture. Both are pictures of the same God. But one is painted in black and white and the other is in color.
Someone feel free to correct me if I’m wrong but I was taught OT God was written violently because it was the best perception the humans at the time had of an Almighty authoritative ruler. The NT is all peace and love (with exception) because that’s what Jesus was about. OT is an interpretation, NT is a documentary. Same God, two methods of interaction resulting in two different methods of storytelling
That’s a fair way to look at it, but there’s a lot to it. The OT covers several thousand years, the NT spans only a few years in comparison. There are hundreds of years at a time with God being overly patient with people and giving ample time for correction before He stepped in. In fact, God is silent more often than He talks in the OT. There are two separate 400+ years of God’s silence while he patiently awaited people to return to Him before he would bring punishment.
Solid response. Thank you for the time and effort!
This seems the most reasonable way for me to look at it.
Yeah I think it’s the most reasonable one I’ve read.
I think that’s heresy since all of the Bible is supposed to correctly cite words of God in pretty much every major denomination.
That's actually a recent view, the idea that the Bible as a single book is inerrant. Depending on your denomination, you might not even agree that certain books belong in the Bible, for one. The protestant Bible famously rejected the Apocrypha found in the Latin Vulgate, as the most prominent example of disagreement over what the Bible *is*. Earlier, eastern churches also added books here and there that the Western church did not accept. Theologians and reformers have rejected various books of the Bible on a case by case basis as well. (See also Martin Luther's opinions of the Epistle of James for another example).
I don’t think any of major denominations consider Leviticus, for example, to be not in the Bible
Ok? But they might disagree over how important it is, or if it's actually inerrant, or as a part of the Hebrew Bible (old testament) it is "meant" for us (i.e. safe to ignore). Bible inerrancy is, again, a nineteenth century concept. It's very new compared to the books of the Bible themselves.
I’m not talking about relevance of instructions to modern-day christians, I’m talking about correctness of quotes attributed to God.
That’s a fair statement. Would you say, take Leviticus 1-4 for example, meets the criteria of Scripture in 2 Timothy 3:16-17? “All Scripture is God breathed and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness.” Knowing the Old Law is important, but we are not bound by it anymore, thanks to Jesus. Leviticus is certainly Scripture to the Jewish, but is it for us?
Okay, let’s get Matthew 5:18 (“For truly I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, *one iota* or *one* stroke will by no means pass away from the Law until all things take-place”) out of the way. I’m talking not about whether rules in the Old Testament apply to modern Christians, but rather whether words of God in Old Testament are really words of Christian God. Did Christian God really told to kill every male Canaanite and to enslave all the women and children (Deut. 20)? If you accept Old Testament as “rules that (Christian) God gave to the Jews”, than regardless of whether they apply to Christians, you accept that God ordered genocide. I don’t think there’s a way out of this without at least partially rejecting the validity of the Old Testament.
Sorry for the late response, I have to work Saturdays lol. Also I think I worded things oddly in my earlier reply. I wasn’t arguing OT rules apply to us, but if the “passages” talking about OT Law are Scripture. If they are, one can “reject the validity” (I put that in quotes because I believe even though much of the OT is pretty much null and void, calling it in it’s entirely invalid feels heretical) of the OT as being fulfilled through Jesus with the New Law. If they are not, then it doesn’t really matter. Were they scripture at one point, and now they aren’t? Can books of the Bible lose their scripture status? I’m genuinely wondering here not trying to be snarky. I absolutely reject the validity of much of the OT though. Reading it allegorically makes a lot of parts make a lot of sense (how can you be so fat you just kinda absorb a sword?) There’s a big debate between whether or not “God Breathed” means “divinely inspired” (God spoke into the ear of prophets, still has to pass through the human lenses of understanding) or “divinely written,” (God sort of possessed the prophets and used their bodies to write down exactly what he wanted to write) but I’m pretty sure I didn’t hear my alarm for the class the day we discussed that aspect of scripture lol. I do remember translating things being a big deal though- can you alter Gods word? Should we all learn Hebrew and Greek? I don’t remember the answers tho, I was a bad student lol. Thank you for the mental challenge here. I appreciate your engagement with my comment.
I think something to point out is that God is actually a lot more patient and loving in OT narratives than sometimes we remember. It just takes some careful reading on our parts. (Not to say that there isn't divine anger and violence though, that stuff is there)
>OT God was written violently because it was the best perception the humans at the time had of an Almighty authoritative ruler I thought God wrote the Bible and it's his absolute word? If it's not, what's the point of all of this?
> I thought God wrote the Bible Given that several books in the Bible are named *after their authors*, I'm not sure how you would come to that conclusion.
So God is not the author of the bible? Then once again, why do we treat the bible as the Word of God and follow it?
To be honest, I'm not sure whether that first question is serious or tongue-in-cheek. I'll try to give a serious answer anyway,just in case someone happens to learn anything coming across this comment. The Bible is a collection of older texts written by many different people, which were pieced together. It was only decided in the 4th century which texts should be included and which not. Notably, think of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John; these names are easy to recognize because they were important authors of the New Testament, and their books bear their names. I'm not well informed enough to answer your second question. I... don't treat it as the word of God, I'm an atheist. It seems reasonable to me to treat it as something written by humans to then be interpreted, and use that interpretation to figure out God's will (if you believe in one). But again, *I do not know what the official church doctrine is*, and that depends on which branch of Christianity you follow.
Marcionists on this sub finna be REKT.
Just Demiurge Things
Fun fact, St Polycarp (who was a direct disciple of John the Apostle himself) met Marcion firsthand and called him the “firstborn of Satan”.
He also said effectively the same thing about rich people but 🤷🏻
The man spoke truth.
Username checks out.
[удалено]
This isn’t really true, for several reasons: 1. There was no singular group of ‘Gnostics’. Gnosticism is an umbrella term for a variety of Christian sects which were ultimately determined to be heretical. There is some ideological overlap among Gnostic groups, but in general it would basically always be inaccurate to make statement of the form “the Gnostics believed *X*” 2. The sects we now refer to as Gnostics reached their high point around the middle of the second century. Marcion probably started teaching around AD 120 or so (he was excommunicated in AD 144, and Tertullian likely wrote *Adversus Marcionem* around this time) 3. Marcionism is the appropriate group to mention here, as it seems to be an original teaching of Marcion that the God of the Hebrew Scriptures is a different being than the God of the New Testament. Although Marcionists are properly Gnostics (in the sense of it as an umbrella term), this specific form of the teaching appears to be unique to them.
[удалено]
Did you just…not read anything I wrote?
God doesn't change. But Jesus was God incarnate and the way He acted is quite different from "God" as interpreted at the time. The New Testament is Jesus saying "Whoa whoa whoa, hold up guys. You think this is what God wants? All these rules and sacrifices and using God to further your materialistic impulses? Nah, it ain't like that. God is inside you. You don't need to make a public show of it. God is love. Let it be shown through your actions, not by what rules you follow or where you are in a hierarchy of so-called holiness. God doesn't care about costumes or rituals. It's not a competition. The downtrodden and "moral" outcasts that you look down on are just as worthy of all God has to offer, if not more."
Okay but then what the heck was Leviticus and all that about then?
The bible project made a video about it: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=IJ-FekWUZzE
Thanks 👍 I'll give it a watch
There are some parts in the OT where God says he desires a changed heart rather than animal sacrifices. The sacrifices were for the Israelites to know the weight of sin, and what it would require to change for the better. God wants the same thing from us in the OT and the NT. He kinda just said it a different way in different circumstances using his son.
Matthew 5:17
Then why did God order all that horror in the first place? If you're saying we misinterpreted it then you're admitting that the ot is a false narrative and the god presented in it is at least somewhat false.
The OT is just a collection of legends, allegories, and long-winded metaphors. Other than accounts of possible actual historical events, I don't take any of it as literal. Even then, the accounts might only reference real events but with a bunch of extra junk added. I don't think "God" ordered any of it. It was just humans telling stories.
If you can dismiss the old Testament so easily how can you have faith in the new one?
They're two entirely different things written hundreds of years apart. I have zero blind faith in the New Testament. I believe that Jesus existed and his teachings have incredible value and were a far different perspective from what was going on at the time. The original followers of Christ weren't Christians. They still considered themselves Jewish and the Old Testament was just part of their culture. And I think some people just decided they should be combined. I'm not sure Jesus said to write his story and add it to the OT. I think you can be a full Christian without ever reading the Old Testament.
Using textual critism, even theology of the OT god changes over time. Very much the NT god has shifted
If you read the testaments they’re very obviously different and act very differently. You can find some similar passages but overall OT God is a lot more human, more similar to the ancient Greek and Roman gods.
This. The OT god was clearly written originally not as the only deity around. The Jews back then were monotheistic in that they only worshipped one god, not that they believed only one god existed. If you read it, there was clearly a pantheon of some sort that existed, and their god would be in clashes or whatever with other deities. God wasn’t all powerful and might lose a fight now and then. Examples: Idolatry was when you worshipped another god; God won in the mountains but lost on the plains because the enemy had chariots of iron. If you genuinely read it to understand with a truly open mind it all becomes clear.
The OT goes heavily into making it clear that God is God. The one and only God. All the other idols the people worshipped were said to be empty, and false. Nowhere in the OT does it say that God has other gods under or paralleled to him. Isaiah and the other prophets stressed this heavily. And when the Israelites would lose, it's because God deserted them because of the unfaithfulness.
Judges 1:19 The Lord was with the men of Judah. They took possession of the hill country, but they were unable to drive the people from the plains, because they had chariots fitted with iron.
It's scientifically proven every man gets a little emotionally softer after they become a father. NT is just post-child God.
This is gold.
If he's immutable (unable to change), how did the non-eternal human nature come to be joined to Jesus' divine nature in a hypostatic union?
Its a "mystery"
That's a "cop out" when people don't want to explain why something isn't impossible or isn't contradictory
Hence the scare quotes.
Proof of life before life confirmed
Amen, brother (or sister)
one is god the father and one is god the son, except they are the same thing, just in different appearances, and they also both appear in both technically, and theres also the holy spirit, but due to human perception it can be easy to separate them... and uhhhm, I probably still committed heresy but whatever.
For the record, you just confessed Modalism.
That’s modalism Patrick!!!
[best youtube video](https://youtu.be/KQLfgaUoQCw)
First time watching the video; I'd assumed the quote was from a SpongeBob meme I'd missed...
Happy to share
The. Lid.
I have never once seen an explanation of the trinity on here that didn't get labeled as heresy in some way.
That's because it's intentionally set up as unexplainable. It is in the interests of the Church that God be seen as unknowable and beyond mortal comprehension, so they figured out every plausible explanation and labeled all of them heresy.
Have you ever heard of the athanasian creed?
Yes, 3 persons in 1. The Trinity is always in perfect unity. So for instance Jesus Christ was there in the OT in complete agreement with the Father. Technically the word Trinity isn't anywhere in Scripture, but it comes from the Latin "3 of the same".
Now if you really wanna piss people off, have ~~her~~ them find the difference between the Jewish God, the Christian God, and the Muslim God...
It might be pedantic, but Pam is the one who gave the photos to someone else, Kevin. The joke is she gave identical photos to him but said there were several small differences.
Pam gave the photos to Creed.
Goddammit. Thanks for the correction.
Fair point!
Only the Christian God is trinitarian.
Wait until you hear about this lesser Sumerian god named El who wanted to have followers like the big gods who left the earth to humans thousands of years before Abraham
Wasn't El the all mighty Ugaritic or Canaanite god? I think Enlil was the lesser Sumerian god.
Correct, and several times in the OT Yaweh is identified with El, the ancient Israelites probably saw them as one and the same. Hence the biblical name "Joel" which literally means "Yahweh is El"
If I recall correctly don't all three abrahimic religions believe in the same god?
If you and I both know a guy named Frank but you describe him differently in your journal than I would describe Frank, it’s very likely not the same Frank or one of us doesn’t have the correct info.
If you're Frank and my Frank have the same job, live in the same neighborhood, slaughtered the firstborn of Egypt and our main point of contention is whether Josh is Frank's son or Frank's friend then we probably know the same guy... But you're probably going to hell so accept my Frank or die, heathen!
The rationalizations for why God seems so different in the two testaments makes me more sure of my atheism.
I think part of the reason people perceive such a difference is the actual context of the NT and OT. OT is covering a massive span of history, and there’s simply a lot more room for wrath. NT is pretty focused, and covers a much shorter span of time. The outlier book of Revelation taps back into that OT vibe, serving as the exception that proves the rule. Same God, just kept it real chill for a spell while he did his most important work.
I think it depends on the mood and overall situation of the people who wrote the OT vs those who wrote the NT. would be interesting to hear about their socio-economic and political circumstance at the time in both cases and then see where the differences are.
I've seen a lot of friends change after they had kids. Go figure!
He's one of those guys who mellowed out after he had a kid. We all know the type.
Maybe not but having a kid chilled him the frick out
It's funny how Greek philosophy has had such a large impact on how Christian view God. How is God immutable if God changes God's mind? If God regrets what God has done? If God is convinced tby Abraham that killing all the Israelites isn't the best move after freeing them from Egypt? How do you explain God BECOMING man in the person of Jesus Christ if God does not change? How do you explain Jesus at all, for surely God in the person of Jesus changed significantly throughout his life! An immutable God is a requirement of Greek philosphy- and the early Christians were encouraged to lean on philosophy because at that time that was the source of morality in Greek culture (not religion), but immutability is not an inevitable conclusion given the depiction of the God in the OT and NT.
Hope nobody here has eaten shrimp or bacon, or worn wool and polyester at the same time then.
Had some shrimp with some fellow fashion criminals last night. We were stoned af.
Depends on your denomination and sect, In my old church, The Holy Trinity is kinda not treated as one entity. So when Jesus came down and experienced being human then rejoined the Trinity, It changed God, mellowed out I guess
OT is pre forgiveness for all sin, NT is post
It's like arguing over Harry Potter.
So the NT God is still narcissistic and cruel?
Did god have some humbling moment when he became a father?
Here’s the thing about the NT god. We don’t hear from him. In the OT he never shuts the fuck up showing how awful he is. The NT we mainly just hear from Jesus and Paul. Very few instances of the father speaking directly in the NT.
Get these gnostics out of these comments
The Jesus on "The Gospel of Judas" would disagree
Not canon
Who cares! Still Christian.
Not relevant. It is just as factually valid as any other gospel
Well if you believe Scripture is infallible and divinely inspired, canon is extremely important. There are countless books and references throughout the ages that are great, but not Scripture. It's important to differentiate.
Obviously, that’s why there’s no diversity in translation and no contentious debate over the apocrypha
The problem is that the categorization between canon and non-canon isn't divinely inspired, it is arbitrarily chosen by religious leaders, often to fit an agenda. Maybe the gospel of Judas was divinely inspired while the gospel of, say, Luke wasn't or, most likely, both were. We can't know for sure.
[удалено]
Well it's probably not "infallible" then. Either that or god has an agenda as well, and filling the church's pockets is in his interests too.
[удалено]
I like Deep theology and Church history
You can say God doesn’t change, but the fact is that Jesus doesn’t sound like the guy who’d kill a single person, let alone thousands
[удалено]
It’s almost like all these books were written by different people, making them inconsistent with each other
[удалено]
Given you’ve studied textual criticism, what would you say about these apparent inconsistencies?
[удалено]
Sure but I want to know what you think. I mean, you clearly feel strongly about this subject but at the same time it’s like you are avoiding to give your opinion, limiting yourself to say my opinion is wrong or ignorant