Did Jesus rejects O T God’s ways?

Greatest I am

Greatest I am

Valued Senior Member
Did Jesus rejects O T God’s ways?


For if that first covenant had been faultless, then should no place have been sought for the second.
--Heb 8;7

Many believe that Jesus cancelled this following.

My covenant I will not break, nor alter the word that has gone out of my lips.
—Psalm 89:34

This means that God’s covenant is no longer ever lasting, if indeed it ever was, as he is shown as breaking it rather often in the O T as he goes about negating our free will by killing many of us and ignoring the dominion he gave us.

We see Jesus rejecting O T God’s rather draconian and genocidal tendencies against sinners. The new attitude Jesus preached is to now love all sinners and of course, he would not kill or send to hell those he says he loves. This is not at all like the O T God does.

Is this God, now under the name of Jesus evolving?
Changing his ways after realizing that OT God was going against scripture?
Is Jesus trying to teach O T God that---

Romans 12:21 Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good.

Did Jesus recognize that murdering and genocide as a way of teaching lessons was not working and perhaps should never have been done?

"I, even I am the LORD and beside me there is no Saviour." Is.43:11

Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.---John 14;6

Jesus seems to now be completely rejecting the old O T God and placing himself above what was the Trinity and usurping their power to judge. Rather more like a Gnostic Christian Jesus than the traditional Christian.

Many literalists and fundamentals seem to cherish the O T genocidal God and they do not reject him the way Jesus seems to.

If you are a literalist or fundamental, should you too reject the O T God and embrace the softer gentler and kinder Jesus?

If so, then you would also need to reject the notions of an end time where Jesus is to return to hurt non believers as well. This way, the hell that Jesus was to do away with can also be discarded as non existent and give success to his sacrifice.

The old tribal ways are thus rejected and we all inherit the kingdom of God as a loving God would want instead of some of us being sent to eternal torture or death.

After all, doing so would give meaning to this----

Hosea 1:10
Ye are the sons of the living God.
Ps 82:6 I said, "You are gods, And all of you are sons of the Most High.

Because we can all believe that a loving God would never condemn his son when, as we know, God can cure any defects and an omnipotent God with infinite persuasion powers would not have anyone whom he cannot convert.

Thoughts?

Regards
DL
 
defects…

OK, let's see God cure an amputee.

Funny how that doesn't happen, but just some really nebulous things, like one's hearing improving after asking God for help in that area.
 
Dywyddyr said:
Uh, omnipotent,infinite persuasion, cannot convert?
Help me out here...
Click to expand...

Definition of OMNIPOTENT
1often capitalized : almighty 1
2: having virtually unlimited authority or influence <an omnipotent ruler>

Unlimited influence I call infinte persuasion power.
Unless of course you want to limit God’s power.

Regards
DL
 
SciWriter said:
defects…

OK, let's see God cure an amputee.

Funny how that doesn't happen, but just some really nebulous things, like one's hearing improving after asking God for help in that area.
Click to expand...

Let's see God at all, let alone do something.

Regards
DL
 
Greatest I am said:
Definition of OMNIPOTENT
1often capitalized : almighty 1
2: having virtually unlimited authority or influence <an omnipotent ruler>

Unlimited influence I call infinte persuasion power.
Unless of course you want to limit God’s power.
Click to expand...
That's what I was querying: apparently god's power is limited if there's someone he can't convert.
 
It seems to me that posters to some threads should describe pertinent background so that readers can determine their possible bias. My background:
I was given a lot of religious training, mostly Quaker with some Catholicism.

I took comparative religion courses in 11th grade & in college.

I started becoming an atheist in about 6th grade because some Old Testament stories seemed wrong: God's treatment of Job, especially the killing of his family; Requesting that Abraham to sacrifice his son & Abraham being willing to do so.

When I was about 15-16, I had become an atheist.​
The New Testament contains descriptions of what Jesus said & thought. Unfortunately, it is difficult to sort out what he actually said/thought from words/thoughts attributed to him by the authors of the various books of the New Testament.

For example: The notion of his being a sacrificial lamb seems to be a Paul-derived concept.

It seemed to me that Jesus was trying to reform the Jewish religion, not create a new religion. For several generations (my guess at how long), the Temple priests had become more like modern politicians. taking advantage of their position to feather their own nests instead of doing what they were supposed to be doing.

I do not think he was rejecting what he thought was god's ways. I thought he was objecting to the actions of the Temple priests & various people who were considered pious & faithful.
 
Dinosaur said:
It seemed to me that Jesus was trying to reform the Jewish religion, not create a new religion. For several generations (my guess at how long), the Temple priests had become more like modern politicians. taking advantage of their position to feather their own nests instead of doing what they were supposed to be doing.

I do not think he was rejecting what he thought was god's ways. I thought he was objecting to the actions of the Temple priests & various people who were considered pious & faithful.
Click to expand...

That was exactly what Christianity was about. The reformation of Judaism. However, after some events concerning the two sects during the time of Nero, they found themselves on separate ways.
 
Dinosaur said:
It seems to me that posters to some threads should describe pertinent background so that readers can determine their possible bias. My background:
I was given a lot of religious training, mostly Quaker with some Catholicism.

I took comparative religion courses in 11th grade & in college.

I started becoming an atheist in about 6th grade because some Old Testament stories seemed wrong: God's treatment of Job, especially the killing of his family; Requesting that Abraham to sacrifice his son & Abraham being willing to do so.

When I was about 15-16, I had become an atheist.​
The New Testament contains descriptions of what Jesus said & thought. Unfortunately, it is difficult to sort out what he actually said/thought from words/thoughts attributed to him by the authors of the various books of the New Testament.

For example: The notion of his being a sacrificial lamb seems to be a Paul-derived concept.

It seemed to me that Jesus was trying to reform the Jewish religion, not create a new religion. For several generations (my guess at how long), the Temple priests had become more like modern politicians. taking advantage of their position to feather their own nests instead of doing what they were supposed to be doing.

I do not think he was rejecting what he thought was god's ways. I thought he was objecting to the actions of the Temple priests & various people who were considered pious & faithful.
Click to expand...

When one wants to change the rules, it is because one rejects the old.
How many changes can a religion adopt before it is called a new religion?

Other that that fact, we agree.

Regards
DL
 
The Old Testament is based on laws for righteousness, because humans were not yet evolved enough to think on there own, in a way that is edifying for the individual as well as the group. It was the childhood of man and they needed to be treated like children with god the father often getting pissed when his children would screw up and not learn. The humans still has one leg in the pre-human past.

The assumption of the New Testament is humans have now grown up and God will now treat them with the respect of young adults and give them the freedom to think for themselves. An analogy for the change might be like the difference between high school and grad school, with grad school professors treating you like a contemporary.

Most people did not want as much freedom as was implied, and went back to the childhood of humanity and variations of OT law. These people are called the children of the bond woman. The children of the promise, within the philosophy of the NT, are the free moral agents, who are off on their own (inner voice), making adult decisions and learning from their mistakes.
 
Greatest I am said:
Exactly. Thus God cannot be omnipotent.
The same likely applies to his other man made attributes.

Regards
DL
Click to expand...

who said that god is trying to convert anyone? convert them to what?

law is law. it's not like gravity is trying to convert someone into believing it's a bad idea to jump off the top of a multi-story building. :rolleyes:

god is creating, not converting, and what is created is created and lives according to law. laws that we as humans didn't have a damn thing to do with putting into place.

the wages of sin is still death. are you so consumed with your agenda that you haven't noticed? i really don't see how you could look at the world today and suggest that god has become any less brutal.

as a matter of fact, the crucifixion of christ would have meant nothing if the law had been any different. think about it. and the crucifixion itself was OT brutal.

the definition of sin is transgression of law, the consequence of which is suffering and death. jesus isn't changing the law. jesus is changing US to be a fulfillment of it as he was. no more transgression, no more suffering, and an everlasting life.

it seems like you have some kind of problem with that. may i ask why you might?
 
wellwisher said:
The Old Testament is based on laws for righteousness, because humans were not yet evolved enough to think on there own, in a way that is edifying for the individual as well as the group. It was the childhood of man and they needed to be treated like children with god the father often getting pissed when his children would screw up and not learn. The humans still has one leg in the pre-human past.

The assumption of the New Testament is humans have now grown up and God will now treat them with the respect of young adults and give them the freedom to think for themselves. An analogy for the change might be like the difference between high school and grad school, with grad school professors treating you like a contemporary.

Most people did not want as much freedom as was implied, and went back to the childhood of humanity and variations of OT law. These people are called the children of the bond woman. The children of the promise, within the philosophy of the NT, are the free moral agents, who are off on their own (inner voice), making adult decisions and learning from their mistakes.
Click to expand...

Yes. Christians chose the Gnostic ways without calling them that. They could not do so after killing them and burning their scriptures.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aGx4IlppSgU

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J9qAqwIW704&feature=related

This last was too deep for theists and Hollywood played to the dumb.

Regards
DL
 
Lori_7 said:
who said that god is trying to convert anyone? convert them to what?

law is law. it's not like gravity is trying to convert someone into believing it's a bad idea to jump off the top of a multi-story building. :rolleyes:

god is creating, not converting, and what is created is created and lives according to law. laws that we as humans didn't have a damn thing to do with putting into place.

the wages of sin is still death. are you so consumed with your agenda that you haven't noticed? i really don't see how you could look at the world today and suggest that god has become any less brutal.

as a matter of fact, the crucifixion of christ would have meant nothing if the law had been any different. think about it. and the crucifixion itself was OT brutal.

the definition of sin is transgression of law, the consequence of which is suffering and death. jesus isn't changing the law. jesus is changing US to be a fulfillment of it as he was. no more transgression, no more suffering, and an everlasting life.

it seems like you have some kind of problem with that. may i ask why you might?
Click to expand...

Let me know if you ever start to think adult.

Regards
DL
 
The problem with law, which Jesus figured out and which Paul writes about, is connected to the way law data is stored in the brain, and impact this has on human behavior.

Law is like a tw-sided coin,with each law containing two data sets at the same time. We have the good side of law and its postive emotional valance. We also have the bad side of the law and the emotional valance of fear. To know the law, you need to know both, so you can know how to choose the good and avoid the bad. These two bulk data storage locations within the brain (sum of all our laws) are projected in the symbols of heaven and hell. Heaven is the sum of all the good sides of laws. While hell is the sum of all the bad sides of laws.

These two data locations, created by law, is not natural but is man-made and causes an internal polarization. Even if one is trying to consciously do good (side of law), the two sided data from the law, will still bad side of the law among the hell data base. The self righteous often project this shadow onto others as they try to do good. Historically it can result in doing evil in the name of outward good.

It is not so much the persons fault but is the result of consciously maintaining the polarization until like two opposite charges need to lower potential with an burst of high emotional energy.

In modern times, the cruelty of western religion is lower than in the past since many of the strictest laws have been diluted. This lowered the polarization potential within the brain, so depolarization outbursts are easier to control and tend to be mostly at the verbal level.

Some of the Muslims extremists, who polarize too much via a strict code tend to over-polarize with stronger output effects as the induced potential is released in bursts. It is created anew via willpower and law.
 
when someone chooses a religion, they are doing that because the values appeal to them. the problem with this religion is that it slyly combines the old testament in sentiment with the new testament jesus. it's like having your cake and eating it too.

when people represent a religion, it's not other's responsibility to accept it based on how you present it. it's the responsibility of the ones who represent it to improve their religion so it's as legitimate as they claim it is.

if christians aren't going to denounce anything of the old testament god or his ways or any of it's values or teachings which is in direct contradiction to what jesus seemed to represent, then they are not trustworthy or honest at all.

you will notice that they always defend anything and everything in the religion or skirt the issue while accusing others of misrepresenting them. talk about not taking any reponsibility at all.

also, if god is all loving and everyone is it's creation, then why doesn't he just love everyone? when i was sitting in church all those years with my family listening to a preacher's sermon, they would often use old testament scriptures for their topic but what i noticed is they would skirt the ones that were very obviously immoral or obviously not of love while defending this god as perfect and infallible. this is really no different than someone who excuses any wrongdoing they do or believes themselves to be perfect.

when i was homeless, no one asked me what religion i was or helped me with the motive to try and convert me. they saw another person who was in need and they helped me. if there are people out there that exist who truly are the representative and embodiment of the love, honesty and values that jesus taught, then why would you need to convert them? what's even worse is when i once did try to go to a church to get help, they actually seemed to want me to be further hurt by saying things like, 'i am amazed at how someone who has gone through what you have could have survived so well and still have dreams of doing better (at the time i was much more innocent)' but it was said in a way that was disturbingly like they were jealous and wished to bring me down further. i think this is because at the time i had more light as well as resolve to survive in me at the time than them even with their pious religion though they recognized i wasn't one of them. it like i was a representative of what they were really not but pretended to be. in their belief, it must be only christians who can be moral, have compassion, love, or any real good qualities or attributes. it's an ego and power issue. there was no real compassion, you are an object to them.

what you do is what you are, not what you say you are.
 
Last edited:
These two data locations, created by law, is not natural but is man-made and causes an internal polarization. Even if one is trying to consciously do good (side of law), the two sided data from the law, will still bad side of the law among the hell data base. The self righteous often project this shadow onto others as they try to do good. Historically it can result in doing evil in the name of outward good.

It is not so much the persons fault but is the result of consciously maintaining the polarization until like two opposite charges need to lower potential with an burst of high emotional energy.
Click to expand...

of course it's their fault. if they are constantly trying to maintain the polarization, then it is their choice to do that.

it's that their main motive is to spread their religion with the 'good' that they do. most religionists don't do good for it's own sake, it's about getting rid of other religions or views by assimilating as many to their own. it's actually more of an aggression. it's what the majority of what christians are that is the problem, rather than the few that are not like that. but this is not surprising considering their religious doctrines.
 
birch said:
when someone chooses a religion, they are doing that because the values appeal to them. the problem with this religion is that it slyly combines the old testament in sentiment with the new testament jesus. it's like having your cake and eating it too.

when people represent a religion, it's not other's responsibility to accept it based on how you present it. it's the responsibility of the ones who represent it to improve their religion so it's as legitimate as they claim it is.

if christians aren't going to denounce anything of the old testament god or his ways or any of it's values or teachings which is in direct contradiction to what jesus seemed to represent, then they are not trustworthy or honest at all.

you will notice that they always defend anything and everything in the religion or skirt the issue while accusing others of misrepresenting them. talk about not taking any reponsibility at all.

also, if god is all loving and everyone is it's creation, then why doesn't he just love everyone? when i was sitting in church all those years with my family listening to a preacher's sermon, they would often use old testament scriptures for their topic but what i noticed is they would skirt the ones that were very obviously immoral or obviously not of love while defending this god as perfect and infallible. this is really no different than someone who excuses any wrongdoing they do or believes themselves to be perfect.

when i was homeless, no one asked me what religion i was or helped me with the motive to try and convert me. they saw another person who was in need and they helped me. if there are people out there that exist who truly are the representative and embodiment of the love, honesty and values that jesus taught, then why would you need to convert them? what's even worse is when i once did try to go to a church to get help, they actually seemed to want me to be further hurt by saying things like, 'i am amazed at how someone who has gone through what you have could have survived so well and still have dreams of doing better (at the time i was much more innocent)' but it was said in a way that was disturbingly like they were jealous and wished to bring me down further. i think this is because at the time i had more light as well as resolve to survive in me at the time than them even with their pious religion though they recognized i wasn't one of them. it like i was a representative of what they were really not but pretended to be. in their belief, it must be only christians who can be moral, have compassion, love, or any real good qualities or attributes. it's an ego and power issue. there was no real compassion, you are an object to them.

what you do is what you are, not what you say you are.
Click to expand...

Thanks for this.

You are right. being good is not their point. Being good is only good if you believe in their God.

Other God's are not as good as theirs is and no matter how good you are, without the right label, you are shit on a stick.

Christian love.

Regards
DL
 
He didn't reject it. He replaced it with a higher law, which the Children of Israel were now ready for. He even said that not one jot or tittle will pass away. The old law was still there in full force, but more was stacked on top of it. The OT law was very action-oriented. That is, we had to DO certain things. The NT law, instead, required us to think or feel certain things, or to BECOME a certain thing.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top