Zone1 God is a "Christian Nationalist?

[ding]

This is very plausible explanation. Scriptures, whether they taken from Tanakh, the New Testament, or the Koran, when describing 'god' and in order to try to understand god, they anthropomorphize god, or the assigning of human traits to something unknowable. Over time, this creates a belief system that god is actually these characteristics.

For early Israelites and Jews, they attributed, wrongly IMO, attributes and actions incorrectly to God.
Jesus comes and says I will show you god and how the laws should align by being god in flesh. The Jews rejected him. So in two very distinct instances, their view of the OT god, and then the man god Jesus, the Jews potentially mis-identified 'god' both times.

This is why I am not a fan of the modern "Bible' and the attempts of modern day Christians who try and harmonize the OT and the NT. In doing so, this creates hermeneutic hoops that modern Christians try to jump through in their defense that the bible is infallible and all the other attributes applied to the bible, when in fact, the bible never says this of itself. IMO, if you are a Bible believing Christian, your belief system should be entirely based the first four Gospels. Christians can toss out the OT for doctrine and theology.

A very thoughtful post.

 

[ding]

No, we cannot toss out the Old Testament. Reading the Bible, particularly the translation of the Old Testament from Hebrew into English, from one's own point of view and experiences has one blundering through it, missing most of what is going on. Try reading from God's point of view, from love and goodness, working with a people just getting to learn about love and goodness, starting to know God.

Tossing out the Old Testament would be like removing the bottom half of a staircase in your home. It is crucial for us to know and to remember where we have been, and how we have gotten to where we are.

I do think they work together but the perceived differences have been a source of confusion starting from early on, specifically the gnostic christians.

 

[LibertyKid]

No, we cannot toss out the Old Testament.

I said we can toss out the OT for doctrine and theology. There is some value in the OT, from the historical narrative and the OT prophecies that point to the Messiah. If you're going to quote someone, you should quote the entire context.

Tossing out the Old Testament would be like removing the bottom half of a staircase in your home. It is crucial for us to know and to remember where we have been, and how we have gotten to where we are.

And I would argue, that the OT is like adding additional staircases that can lead to nowhere or creates theological and hermeneutical conundrums.

For example: You can step into many churches today who will teach that one needs to give 10% of their earnings to the church. Where do they go for this teaching? the OT, and I believe specifically Malachai. Whereas, Paul, in the NT, teach to give out from the heart and voluntarily.

Another example that is rooted in the idea that "The Bible" is infallible" and there must be true in all things is the Flood. For 2000 years now Christians, who must believe the Bible to be the word of God, must somehow harmonize the flood in their belief system, and not only the flood, but all the other events, like Exodus, which has very little archeological evidence of the event.

To try and keep this short, I would argue the follow; The crux of Christianity is not weather the Bible is true, or if the flood was literal, figurative, isolated, or if the Jews really did flee Egypt. The crux of Christianity is weather or not Jesus is who he says he is. Jesus never said that to be his disciple, that Christians will need to read a collection of letters that will be put into a single book. Jesus never said how Christians should be the OT stories. The only belief needed was in that of Christ himself. If the first century Christians didn't need a "bible", why do you?

 

[Meriweather]

For example: You can step into many churches today who will teach that one needs to give 10% of their earnings to the church. Where do they go for this teaching? the OT, and I believe specifically Malachai. Whereas, Paul, in the NT, teach to give out from the heart and voluntarily.

The Old Testament begins the account of God in our midst. Let's put Malachai into context with the entire story. Cain and Abel both offered sacrifices to God. Abel's was accepted, Cain's was not. What was the difference? The Bible notes that Abel offered the firstling of his flock. In other words he did not wait to see if there was going to be enough for him before he offered anything to God. It appears that Cain waited and gave from his surplus. Both gave. It could be that Cain even gave more after he was satisfied he could afford to give me.

How many of us today follow Abel's example and give to God our first fruits. How many of us offer God what is left over, what is from our own surplus. Which is a true gift from the heart?

If the first century Christians didn't need a "bible", why do you?

First century people listened as written material was expensive and therefore rare. Who has the better understanding: Modern people who have reading material readily available? Or those who listened.

 

[LibertyKid]

The Old Testament begins the account of God in our midst. Let's put Malachai into context with the entire story. Cain and Abel both offered sacrifices to God. Abel's was accepted, Cain's was not. What was the difference? The Bible notes that Abel offered the firstling of his flock. In other words he did not wait to see if there was going to be enough for him before he offered anything to God. It appears that Cain waited and gave from his surplus. Both gave. It could be that Cain even gave more after he was satisfied he could afford to give me.

How many of us today follow Abel's example and give to God our first fruits. How many of us offer God what is left over, what is from our own surplus. Which is a true gift from the heart?

A response straight from the pulpit. You have proved my point.

First century people listened as written material was expensive and therefore rare.

But also, many were illiterate and couldn't read and faith was from 'hearing' the gospel.

Who has the better understanding: Modern people who have reading material readily available? Or those who listened.

I believe the burden of proof is on you. For centuries, we have seen nothing but division that is squarely rooted in how "The Bible" is interpreted. From the RCC's sole canonization and monopoly of the Bible. and then from within their own internal struggles as to what should have been included. Martin Luther argued as to what should have been canonized and his break from the RCC is squarely rooted in interpretational differences. Then you have reformed theology and Arminianism at odds with each due to how the Bible is interpreted. And while we are at it, Calvin himself being okay with the execution of a fellow believer over theological semantics. Doesn't sound very Jesus to me.

Then you have all the protestant religions. Why? Interpretational division and narcissistic trait of having to be right.

The bible itself has created more division and misunderstanding in all Christianity. And that is because of poor hermeneutics and the inability to understand that the letters contained in the Bible were not written to us. They lack the ability to understand how to read those letters in the NT as if they were hearing them for the first time as a first century Jew. Instead, many read those letters as if they just fell out of the sky written directly to us.

All for a book that Jesus never said we needed, nor does the book itself say we needed.

 

[Meriweather]

A response straight from the pulpit. You have proved my point.

Grin. I doubt it. You were arguing that the pulpit was asking for ten percent. The Catholic Church doesn't mention ten percent. It does recommend giving from the heart. Giving is not just 'treasure/money'. Giving is also about giving time and talent. The story of Cain and Abel makes a great point. Do we trust God with our first fruits, or are we more of the mind of 'me first' then God. Where does our time go first? Where does our talent go first? It's worth thinking about.

 

[Meriweather]

I believe the burden of proof is on you.

I don't play that game. Proof requires physical evidence which isn't available in the spiritual realm.

Further, in any faith or denomination, I do not go looking for who did what wrong. That is not what any faith is about. I recommend looking for the people who benefited by learning and living their faith. Think about it. Do you ever hear people arguing that schools are to tossed aside because we can find failures in every school--failures in students; failures in teachers; failures in administrators. No. We look for what is succeeding and at those who are succeeding and begin to emulate them.

Whining and pointing fingers at failures is like refusing to ever eat another apple because there was a worm in one.

 

[LibertyKid]

I don't play that game. Proof requires physical evidence which isn't available in the spiritual realm.

Further, in any faith or denomination, I do not go looking for who did what wrong. That is not what any faith is about. I recommend looking for the people who benefited by learning and living their faith. Think about it. Do you ever hear people arguing that schools are to tossed aside because we can find failures in every school--failures in students; failures in teachers; failures in administrators. No. We look for what is succeeding and at those who are succeeding and begin to emulate them.

Whining and pointing fingers at failures is like refusing to ever eat another apple because there was a worm in one.

You have clearly missed the point.

 

[Meriweather]

You have clearly missed the point.

Of course I didn't miss it. I disagreed with it.

 

[LibertyKid]

Of course I didn't miss it. I disagreed with it.

Very poorly.

 

[Meriweather]

Very poorly.

Grin. It appears it couldn't be refuted. Notice when one is at a loss to defend/discuss their own position transition, in its stead the poster is discussed. But never mind...

 

[LibertyKid]

Grin. It appears it couldn't be refuted. Notice when one is at a loss to defend/discuss their own position transition, in its stead the poster is discussed. But never mind...

Okay, let's play.

Premise: Christians do not need to include the OT as part of doctrine or theology as old Covenant was broken at the crucifixion. This was recognized by Paul who became the missionary to the Gentiles.

 

[Meriweather]

Premise: Christians do not need to include the OT as part of doctrine or theology as old Covenant was broken at the crucifixion. This was recognized by Paul who became the missionary to the Gentiles.

A study of Paul's letters shows that he consistently uses the Old Testament to support the teachings and the identity of Jesus. Jesus' teachings are based in the Old Testament and God in the midst of His people. By dismissing the Old Testament, we dismiss the foundation of rock on which Christianity is built.

 

[LibertyKid]

A study of Paul's letters shows that he consistently uses the Old Testament to support the teachings and the identity of Jesus. Jesus' teachings are based in the Old Testament and God in the midst of His people. By dismissing the Old Testament, we dismiss the foundation of rock on which Christianity is built.

What I would agree with is that the OT points to a Messiah and can be valuable for Jews to see the messianic types and shadows fulfilled in Jesus. Hypothetically, you're a first Century Gentile, why does the OT matter to you? Why would anything that Paul says about the OT mean anything to a Gentile? At the the time Oral tradition was the primary course of proclamation?

I also believe that there is a distinct difference in using the OT to reveal a messiah verses using the OT to support doctrine and or theology.

 

[Meriweather]

What I would agree with is that the OT points to a Messiah and can be valuable for Jews to see the messianic types and shadows fulfilled in Jesus. Hypothetically, you're a first Century Gentile, why does the OT matter to you? Why would anything that Paul says about the OT mean anything to a Gentile? At the the time Oral tradition was the primary course of proclamation?

I also believe that there is a distinct difference in using the OT to reveal a messiah verses using the OT to support doctrine and or theology.

It is God who matters to me...and any of His history and any of His work that is available, exhilarates me and provides an even better understanding of Jesus' life and the life of the Church.

 

[hobelim]

Only followers of Christ will enter God's Kingdom.

Every Jewish person who was persecuted, enslaved, exiled, or murdered, since 325 ce were following the commands of God and had Jesus in their hearts. They just didn't know it at the time

And have all received the reward of the righteous. Jesus taught obedience to the laws of God.

Christians worship the Antichrist, a triune, virgin diddling, god made man, a false, substitute, counterfeit Jesus who abolished Divine Law, said nutty things, claimed to be God, but never actually existed, with all the attending signs and miracles of the lie that scripture is to be taken literally, conjured from the depths of a Roman hell and unleashed on the world under the sign of the Mithran cross using the power of death consequent to defying the Law to conquer the nations. All who reject that crap whatever they believe or don't believe enter Gods kingdom.

Jesus taught obedience to the Law according to his new revelation about the figurative nature of the words and subjects of the divine commands and that it is God alone who you must worship

If I had not come and spoken with you, you would not be guilty of sin. Now you have no excuse.