[Athos]

Your question read, "Jesus commands us to." As Christians, we are not "commanded" to do those things

You know EXACTLY what is meant. Your lame nit-picking is just another escape for you.

The OT law reflects the extraordinary holiness of God.

Killing entire groups of people is hardly "extraordinary holiness". Nobody but you would make such a strange claim. You are light years away from the true Bible message.

We are no longer living in OT Israel, and the legal requirements of the law of Moses do not apply to those of us who have accepted and follow Jesus.

Before you wander too far away with your deflection, let me repeat the question being discussed. Are the OT God and Jesus one and the same? If so, how do you explain the contradiction of God killing his enemy while Jesus loves his enemy?

Now you say the teachings of Jesus are "diametrically" opposed to those of the OT

I NEVER said the teachings of Jesus are "diametrically opposed" to those of the OT. What I DID ask was for you to explain how God and Jesus could be so diametrically opposed when considering the seven instances of God's wholesale killing of people.

I'll ask you the same thing I asked WG. "I really don't know what you are after.

It couldn't be simpler "what I'm after". Once more, are God and Jesus the same?

[jlisenbe]

You know EXACTLY what is meant.

I know exactly what you asked which was exactly what I answered. I can't help it if you don't bother to keep up. Don't you libs ever take ANY responsibility?

Before you wander too far away with your deflection, let me repeat the question being discussed. Are the OT God and Jesus one and the same? If so, how do you explain the contradiction of God killing his enemy while Jesus loves his enemy?

Have you ever read Luke 3:16&17? It reads, "But one who is more powerful than I will come, the straps of whose sandals I am not worthy to untie. He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and fire. 17 His winnowing fork is in his hand to clear his threshing floor and to gather the wheat into his barn, but he will burn up the chaff with unquenchable fire.” So rather clearly both God's activity in the OT and Jesus' activity in the future involve severe judgment. Both Lk. 3:9 and the Matthew 25 passage teach the same lesson, as well as a host of other passages. There is no contradiction.

Once more, are God and Jesus the same?

Jesus is the second member of the Godhead. He said that if we have seen Him, then we have seen the Father, meaning that He and the Father are identical in purpose, will, and method. You seem to be making the utterly preposterous suggestion that the God of the OT is separate from Jesus, thus establishing TWO completely different gods. It's a silly suggestion with no support in the Bible.

You are missing a rather important point. Jesus told us to love our enemies, and He does likewise. He did so by giving up His life on the cross, thus taking our punishment. But a person must accept that. If a person continues to live in rebellion, the cross does not help him. John 3:16 is very clear on that. So is John 8:24. Therefore I said to you that you will die in your sins; for unless you believe that I am He, you will die in your sins.

There is a difference between the two of us. You are an angry man because you cannot get the Bible to agree with what you have decided to believe. I simply accept the Bible as God's word. It determines my beliefs.

[Wondergirl]

You seem to be making the utterly preposterous suggestion that the God of the OT is separate from Jesus, thus establishing TWO completely different gods. It's a silly suggestion with no support in the Bible.

Perhaps the OT writers did a bit of tweaking. E.g., the serpent reminded them of their hatred for other nations and encouraged them to fashion a god who would punish those enemies in especially cruel ways. The OT certainly doesn't teach us about love.

[jlisenbe]

Perhaps the OT writers did a bit of tweaking. E.g., the serpent reminded them of their hatred for other nations and encouraged them to fashion a god who would punish those enemies in especially cruel ways.

You are suggesting that the OT is utterly unreliable, but you have no real evidence of that other than it does not agree with your preconceived ideas.

The OT certainly doesn't teach us about love.

Perhaps yours doesn't, but mine certainly does.

Once you accept that God is both loving and just, it all begins to come together very well.

[Wondergirl]

Once you accept that God is both loving and just, it all begins to come together very well.

"Loving and just" is killing pregnant women and defenseless babies and children?

[jlisenbe]

Justice can certainly include that. But since you decline to oppose the killing of unborn babies, I have no idea of why you would bring that up. In your view, doesn't that make you as unjust and unloving as you are alleging God is?

Really, you can't have your cake and eat it too. If babies are worth defending, they why don't you?

[Wondergirl]

Justice can certainly include that. But since you decline to oppose the killing of unborn babies, I have no idea of why you would bring that up. In your view, doesn't that make you as unjust and unloving as you are alleging God is?

Really, you can't have your cake and eat it too. If babies are worth defending, they why don't you?

Wow! Your reading comprehension is still many notches below normal! I have said more than once that abortion is something that must be decided between the mother and her doctor. It isn't my choice; it's hers -- I hope after examining all the positives and negatives, then making an informed decision. The same with euthanasia -- it's not my call unless I'm the one who wants it.

[jlisenbe]

This is what I said. "But since you decline to oppose the killing of unborn babies..." It perfectly describes your view. You will not so much as lift a finger to defend the killing of, as you put it, "defenseless babies". Own it. My RC was exactly correct.

[Athos]

Jesus is the second member of the Godhead. He said that if we have seen Him, then we have seen the Father, meaning that He and the Father are identical in purpose, will, and method.

Fine. Now please explain how the second member of the Godhead has the same "purpose, will and method" as the first member. Just where in the Gospels does Jesus methodically perform all those killings that God is so famous for? To refresh your memory, the enemies of Israel, the homosexuals, the disobedient children, the witches, the ENTIRE human race except for Noah?

You seem to be making the utterly preposterous suggestion that the God of the OT is separate from Jesus, thus establishing TWO completely different gods. It's a silly suggestion with no support in the Bible.

I'm giving you the great gift of encouraging you to understand your Bible. When you finally realize that you cannot reconcile the OT God with Jesus - which is written right in front of you in the Bible - that will be a giant step for you to go deeper into the Bible.

You are missing a rather.... etc., etc.

This paragraph has nothing to do with the topic being discussed. But I include its beginning to show you how you always wind up by threatening those you disagree with. That is a powerful indication of the weakness - and the sadness - of your position.

There is a difference between the two of us. You are an angry man because you cannot get the Bible to agree with what you have decided to believe.

I note here that striking out at me for being an angry man is another indication of your own sadness/unhappiness by projecting it onto others. You have done the same elsewhere on this website to still others. I understand where it's coming from and I forgive you for it.

I simply accept the Bible as God's word. It determines my beliefs.

That's a good thing but God gave you a brain to discern deeper truths contained in the Bible.

[jlisenbe]

Now please explain how the second member of the Godhead has the same "purpose, will and method"

Already done. "If you've seen me, you've seen the Father." But if you need another, John 6:38. "For I have come down from heaven not to do my will but to do the will of him who sent me."

I'm giving you the great gift of encouraging you to understand your Bible. When you finally realize that you cannot reconcile the OT God with Jesus - which is written right in front of you in the Bible - that will be a giant step for you to go deeper into the Bible.

How wonderful. I've already made that reconciliation. You just don't like it.

As to the rest of your post, it always come back to the same thing. I quote scripture after scripture after scripture. You reply by saying I must agree with you. Well, given the choice between you and Jesus, I'm going with Jesus. If some day you are raised from the dead, then maybe that can change.

I am threatening no one. Here is your warning from the Jesus you claim to understand so well. "John 8:24. Therefore I said to you that you will die in your sins; for unless you believe that I am He, you will die in your sins." It is another of His "I am" statements that relate back to the burning bush in Exodus.

[Wondergirl]

This is what I said. "But since you decline to oppose the killing of unborn babies..." It perfectly describes your view. You will not so much as lift a finger to defend the killing of, as you put it, "defenseless babies". Own it. My RC was exactly correct.

Thus, you are saying EVERY human (white?) baby born -- no matter if it's missing a brain or all four limbs or has multiple disabilities, or if its healthy mother will die during the birth -- should live, no matter what. (How many healthy kittens have you drowned?)

[jlisenbe]

human (white?) baby born

What a sickening statement.

In my view, you lack the courage to go against your liberal orthodoxy to do what is right, and you can't handle it when your permissive position on abortion is made clear, so you resort to lying implications about me. The bottom line is this. What you accuse God of, you are thoroughly guilty of yourself. You can't be troubled to prevent the death of defenseless human beings. That's you. You can hide behind empty words with others, but not here. I will call you out every time.

[Wondergirl]

What a sickening statement.

In my view, you lack the courage to go against your liberal orthodoxy to do what is right, and you can't handle it when your permissive position on abortion is made clear, so you resort to lying implications about me. The bottom line is this. What you accuse God of, you are thoroughly guilty of yourself. You can't be troubled to prevent the death of defenseless human beings. That's you.

Ah, so you refuse to discuss and thus prove your point, so stumble along, damning me in EVERY response you make to me. I understand your fear. I've encountered it before. I'll pray that God will open your heart and your eyes.

[jlisenbe]

Ah, so you refuse to discuss and thus prove your point, so stumble along, damning me in EVERY response you make to me. I understand your fear

We have already discussed the rest of your "points" beginning in post 59. I'm sure you would have these children killed AFTER they are born as well as before because you view killing as the solution. I view it as the problem. You appeal to the one in a thousand hypotheticals in an effort to hide your pro-death views. Like I said, your empty words have already been demonstrated.

And I'm sure I am over-reacting. I don't really consider you to be pro-death, but it certainly does appear that you are afraid to stand up and take a stand, so you are reduced to appeals about babies with no brains, no arms or legs, or other rare circumstances. You do realize that babies are actually born with those conditions? Should we kill them after they are born?

[Athos]

Already done. "If you've seen me, you've seen the Father." But if you need another, John 6:38. "For I have come down from heaven not to do my will but to do the will of him who sent me."

You completely evaded my comment which was as follows: Are the OT God and Jesus one and the same? If so, how do you explain the contradiction of God killing his enemy while Jesus loves his enemy?

Rather than answer my question, you did the usual thing - provided a Bible verse that had absolutely nothing to do with the question.

As to the rest of your post, ..... I quote scripture after scripture after scripture.

THAT IS THE PROBLEM! You quote scripture after scripture after scripture and NEVER respond to my comment about God killing and Jesus loving.

You reply by saying I must agree with you.

I NEVER said that. Do you even know WHY you keep repeating falsehoods? There's a good exercise for you.

Well, given the choice between you and Jesus, I'm going with Jesus.

By all means, go with Jesus. I wish nothing else for you. Just make sure it's the right Jesus and not the one you believe employs the same killing methods as your God.

If some day you are raised from the dead, then maybe that can change.

Another threat - a ghoulish one, this time.

I am threatening no one.

As you immediately threaten me both above and below. Think before you type.

Here is your warning from the Jesus you claim to understand so well. "John 8:24. Therefore I said to you that you will die in your sins; for unless you believe that I am He, you will die in your sins." It is another of His "I am" statements that relate back to the burning bush in Exodus.

You are strong on threats but weak on rational explanations. Go in peace.

[jlisenbe]

The short version is this. Your questions have been answered. You cannot separate Jesus from the God of the OT. Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. It's that simple. I have shown you clearly that Jesus obeyed the will of the Father and that there are not TWO wills from TWO Gods. I have shown you clearly that Jesus is the Judge of the earth and His judgment, by His own words, will be a terrible sight, so your constant pleading of a Jesus of love is half, but not all, of the story.

I have not threatened you. I have shown you the warnings of Jesus to you and to all of us. You choose to ignore them. That is your prerogative.

I am interested in what you think about a verse I have posted twice and you have ignored twice. The Amplified version reads, "That is why I told you that you will die [unforgiven and condemned] in your sins; for if you do not believe that I am the One [I claim to be], you will die in your sins.” It simply does away with your contention that Jesus had a message of love ONLY. It is a false argument. Mt. 25 demonstrates the fallacy of your position as well. It is nonsense.

What do you think of that text? And should you choose to ignore it a third time and not answer, which is certainly what I expect, then your "go in peace" is fine.

[Athos]

The short version is this. Your questions have been answered.

You have never explained the contradiction between a killing God and a loving Jesus. Clearly you see the contradiction.

You cannot separate Jesus from the God of the OT.

Of course, I can. And I do.

I have shown you clearly that Jesus obeyed the will of the Father and that there are not TWO wills from TWO Gods.

What you have shown is that you claimed Jesus uses the same killing methods of the OT God. Please cite where I claimed there are TWO wills from TWO Gods.

I have shown you clearly that Jesus is the Judge of the earth and His judgment, by His own words, will be a terrible sight, so your constant pleading of a Jesus of love is half, but not all, of the story.

How does an omnificent, omnibenevolent, omnipotent, omniscient God visit terrible sights on his own creation? Or do you not believe God is those things attributed to the Godhead.

I have not threatened you.

You use Bible verses to threaten.

I am interested in what you think about a verse I have posted twice and you have ignored twice.

Answer my question about the contradiction between a killing God and a loving God. How do you explain that? Not another Bible verse please. Then I will answer your question.

You asked me a question once before and, if I answered, you would answer the question I posed to you. In the event, I went first although I wasn't required to but I decided to trust you. You never gave an answer after I gave mine. You said my answer was NOT an answer, so you refused to honor your part of the bargain. You proved yourself then to be untrustworthy. Let's see what you do this time.

[jlisenbe]

You use Bible verses to threaten.

To warn. But you do not accept the warning since you do not accept the Bible. Or at least that is how it appears to me. If that is a misconception, then please correct it.

What you have shown is that you claimed Jesus uses the same killing methods of the OT God. Please cite where I claimed there are TWO wills from TWO Gods.

You just did. I said, "You cannot separate Jesus from the God of the OT." You replied, "Of course, I can. And I do." Thus you attempt to establish two separate Gods with two separate wills. I have not said Jesus will kill. I have said, and in fact Jesus has said, that He will visit terrible judgment in the future which will be worse even than killing. So in that regard He is a God of both love and judgment, just as God is in the OT. In fact, the love of God must be seen in light of the judgment of God.

Answer my question about the contradiction between a killing God and a loving God. How do you explain that? Not another Bible verse please. Then I will answer your question.

Already answered in the paragraph above, in post 96, and in posts before then. It's revealing that you have such an aversion to Bible passages, and indeed to even the words of Jesus Himself. It's always a little amusing to meet someone who wants to argue about the Bible, and yet does not want to accept the words of the Bible. It's like trying to discuss the Constitution without making any reference to the text of the Constitution.

It's a shame that you don't like to answer questions. Perhaps you could give us your explanation of your alleged contradiction, and perhaps even using Bible quotes as your support.

You asked me a question once before and, if I answered, you would answer the question I posed to you. In the event, I went first although I wasn't required to but I decided to trust you. You never gave an answer after I gave mine. You said my answer was NOT an answer, so you refused to honor your part of the bargain. You proved yourself then to be untrustworthy. Let's see what you do this time.

Just as I predicted. You are averse to answering, so you cook up a silly fake story to use as an excuse. It's the same as when I asked you to explain that if aionios means something less than an eternal hell in Mt. 25, then does that mean that heaven is also less then eternal since aionios is used of both hell and heaven? Never got an answer on that one.

[Athos]

FROM ATHOS - You asked me a question once before and, if I answered, you would answer the question I posed to you. In the event, I went first although I wasn't required to but I decided to trust you. You never gave an answer after I gave mine. You said my answer was NOT an answer, so you refused to honor your part of the bargain. You proved yourself then to be untrustworthy. Let's see what you do this time.



FROM JL - Just as I predicted. You are averse to answering, so you cook up a silly fake story to use as an excuse. It's the same as when I asked you to explain that if aionios means something less than an eternal hell in Mt. 25, then does that mean that heaven is also less then eternal since aionios is used of both hell and heaven? Never got an answer on that one.

I KNOW I answered and NOT with a silly fake story. YOU KNOW I answered and not with a silly fake story. This is what makes discussion with you so difficult. You don't respect the truth.

I gave you an extensive answer (more than one post) re "aionios" which referenced the Greek of the third century and how Jerome translated that Greek into the Latin Vulgate. You have elected to not believe my answer which is fine. But please don't say I gave NO ANSWER. Others here may remember that discussion. If not, there are always the archives.

The other question was when you refused to honor your part and where I called you untrustworthy. We can all see your replies haven't changed.

FROM ATHOS - You use Bible verses to threaten.

FROM JL - To warn. But you do not accept the warning since you do not accept the Bible. Or at least that is how it appears to me. If that is a misconception, then please correct it

I'll be glad to correct your misconception. I've frequently declared to you I accept the Bible. It's the "Good Book". The difference between you and me is that I don't use it as a weapon to warn and/or threaten those who believe other than you do.

FROM ATHOS - What you have shown is that you claimed Jesus uses the same killing methods of the OT God. Please cite where I claimed there are TWO wills from TWO Gods.


FROM JL - You just did. I said, "You cannot separate Jesus from the God of the OT." You replied, "Of course, I can. And I do." Thus you attempt to establish two separate Gods with two separate wills.

As others have said, your reading comprehension is lacking. Your "THUS", and following, does not remotely "establish two separate Gods with two separate wills".

The OT God who kills at random and wipes out the entire human race is a creation myth. Every primitive group, such as a wandering nomadic tribe in the ancient Middle East, has these stories. They are established over time to cohere the people until they are told around the campfires at night by the elders.

Centuries pass, and the priests and leaders write the stories down where they become the creation myths and sacred scripture of the tribe. They are powerful stories that keep the people focused as a unity. Nobody really believes anymore that a God literally drowned the entire human race except for Noah. Well, some do, but they are usually children - and adults on the far margins of the religion.

FROM JL - I have not said Jesus will kill.

That's certainly a relief. But not true. You did equate Jesus with the OT God. If A = B, and B = C, then A = C. Simple logic.

FROM JL - I have said, and in fact Jesus has said, that He will visit terrible judgment in the future which will be worse even than killing. So in that regard He is a God of both love and judgment, just as God is in the OT. In fact, the love of God must be seen in light of the judgment of God.

Whew! Jesus is WORSE than killing! Wow! This may be the most amazing paragraph you've ever written here. Talk about straining out a gnat and swallowing a camel! You literalists always find yourselves tied up in a knot of absurdity.

The God of Love must be seen in the light of his wiping out the entire human race. Forgive my paraphrase, but that is what you are saying. Absurdity.

It's revealing that you have such an aversion to Bible passages, and indeed to even the words of Jesus Himself. It's always a little amusing to meet someone who wants to argue about the Bible, and yet does not want to accept the words of the Bible. It's like trying to discuss the Constitution without making any reference to the text of the Constitution.

I'm glad you're amused. To repeat, I accept the Bible - it's a Good Book. How many times do I have to tell you this? My argument is never with the Bible, it's always been with you and your erroneous interpretation of it. Your memory is now failing you if you can't remember that, and your reading comprehension shows up again with your Constitution reference. Please, let's not go there - I can already see that you're an originalist.

Forgive me if any of this is offensive, I try my darndest to tone down the sarcasm within me which is yearning to breathe free.

Perhaps you could give us your explanation of your alleged contradiction, and perhaps even using Bible quotes as your support.

Been there. Done that. If you don't know by now, nothing can help you.

My dear JL, "There are more things in heaven and earth than are dreamt of in your need for Bible quotes."

[jlisenbe]

I KNOW I answered and NOT with a silly fake story. YOU KNOW I answered and not with a silly fake story. This is what makes discussion with you so difficult. You don't respect the truth.

I gave you an extensive answer (more than one post) re "aionios" which referenced the Greek of the third century and how Jerome translated that Greek into the Latin Vulgate. You have elected to not believe my answer which is fine. But please don't say I gave NO ANSWER. Others here may remember that discussion. If not, there are always the archives.

The other question was when you refused to honor your part and where I called you untrustworthy. We can all see your replies haven't changed.

You still have not answered. I asked why, if aionios in reference to hell means temporary, then why doesn't it mean temporary for heaven. And in reference to your views on aionios, I will say again, as I have before, that virtually no one, outside of Robert Young, agrees with your view. EVERY other major translation renders it as "eternal".

I hope you realize your shouting (bold text) demonstrates nothing.

As others have said, your reading comprehension is lacking. Your "THUS", and following, does not remotely "establish two separate Gods with two separate wills".

The OT God who kills at random and wipes out the entire human race is a creation myth. Every primitive group, such as a wandering nomadic tribe in the ancient Middle East, has these stories. They are established over time to cohere the people until they are told around the campfires at night by the elders.

Centuries pass, and the priests and leaders write the stories down where they become the creation myths and sacred scripture of the tribe. They are powerful stories that keep the people focused as a unity. Nobody really believes anymore that a God literally drowned the entire human race except for Noah. Well, some do, but they are usually children - and adults on the far margins of the religion.

Like I said, you don't accept the Bible. Your rationale for your unbelief is just that...unbelief.

Whew! Jesus is WORSE than killing! Wow!

Don't be intentionally stupid. That's not what I said. Go back and look again.

Perhaps you could give us your explanation of your alleged contradiction, and perhaps even using Bible quotes as your support.


Been there. Done that. If you don't know by now, nothing can help you.

Well, you have now in your reply above, which basically tries to solve the problem by simply doing away with most of the OT. And that still doesn't explain how Jesus can plan on bringing such terrible judgment on the earth and still be ONLY a God of love.

You know, even with all your bold text and temper, you are completely unpersuasive. Now you are free to believe as you will, and I will never contest that, but you are not free to compel anyone to accept your views simply because they are your views.

I'd still love to know what you think Jesus meant when He said, "Unless you believe that I am He, you will die in your sins."