Purist:

That's very funny coming from you. Just about anyone can accuse anyone of the bold part.

You desperately tried to fit in your own God as a moral authority, while stifling other Gods out on the very same basis that your own God disqualifies, and you have the gumption to claim that people are deliberately trying to misunderstand you. Your friend, Ihedinobi, is also a very dishonest debater: playing dumb when called out and outrightly attempting to deny things that are so obvious (just see his last response to Kay17: who does not know what Sabbath means? or that adultery was a crime punishable by stoning?). Honestly, you two are the first set of "Christians" I would see that would deny the DRASTIC change in nature of Yahweh between the OT and the NT. I know the feeling: defend your god at all cost, even if it means lying through your teeth. Been there, done that.

Meanwhile, I feel you should also realize that your god fails to meet your own criteria #5 as seen in Rom 9:10-16 (his own admission in verse 13 especially).

I really shouldn't be replying to this but I feel I've been accused of dishonesty so I'll attempt to clear my name. I still hold the stance that God never changes and is forever the same. What you saw of Jesus Christ is exactly who God would be if He was a man.
Now to Romans 9, Is God partial?
Good question: we are currently debating on something of that nature in more detail on this thread
https://www.nairaland.com/996184/grace-destiny-vs-freewill-brethren (things get really interesting from around the second page)

That aside, I still want let you know that impartiality does not mean that a judge cannot have "favorites" but it is how he treats his "favorites" in judgement that determines if he is impartial or not.(remember the argument is on judgment of moral issues and not who God is blessing more than the other)

For instance a judge loves his wife and kids more than everyone else, he is not a partial judge for doing so. He is only a partial judge if when his children come before him in court, he acquits them while punishing those who are not his children.

God punishes sin and if you read the bible you'll see that on many occasions, He punished his favorites the israelites (Jacob) whenever they sinned just like he also punished the heathen nations. When it comes to judgment, God has no favorites.

"I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy": This brings us back to #6 God's unwavering nature (not to be confused with His permissiveness). The fact that God is going to have mercy here indicates that the offender has already failed and is worthy of condemnation. God is not saying that the offender has not offended but that He (God) is choosing to forgive.


Now to the Ihedinobi/Kay 17 part, I'll accept that Ihedinobi may have employed some questionable tactics in answering (tactics which I must point out that Kay 17 is also very guilty of employing when it suits him) Anyway, the questions are easily answered if Kay 17 will honestly read the bible:

Kay 17:

The uncommanded commander concept is obsolete. Lawgivers provide such rules for a society which they are part of. It is also taken that even absolute monarchs must respect certain rules of a universal community and moderation.

This doesn't have any bearing on God's relationship with humans by nature of His position as God. God created human beings from dust (He even created the dust He used to make man in the first place). I think that gives him every right as "uncommanded commander and absolute monarch". Unless you want to tell me exactly why a creator doesn't have absolute rights over something he created from nothing.

God is not a tribal chief

Kay 17: Jesus used a scenario of a farmer rescuing his sheep from a ditch. In order words, work is inevitable. And Sabbath: a day of no work is impracticable. Even miracles should be done on Sabbath.

Little misconception. Jesus "flouting" the sabbath is not on the basis of "impracticability" but on the basis of what the sabbath is meant for i.e. the sabbath to give man a day of rest and not to imprison man to "no work" also on the basis of the law of the sabbath being subject to Him since He is God.

And He said to them, “The Sabbath was made for man, and not man for the Sabbath. Therefore the Son of Man is also Lord of the Sabbath.” Mark 2:27-28

Besides, the sabbath law is not a moral law as such but a ceremonial/circumstantial law
(I've gone into this indepth sometime ago on this site, I won't go into it at this time. If you get it, you get it)

Kay 17: By Mosiac laws, a prostitut.e MUST be stoned, but Jesus disobeyed and disregarded it.

Again you have to understand the basis upon which Jesus "disobeyed" it. He said:“He who is without sin among you, let him throw a stone at her first.” (John 8:7)
Jesus didn't disregard that law: Of course she should have been stoned but then the stoner must be perfectly sinless himself and only God fits that description. If Jesus had picked a stone and stoned the woman to death, He would have been justified but He forgave.

The problem with the Jews of that time was that they were focusing on the letter and not the Spirit. It is the same thing a lot of people do today with the bible; they stress the letters and phrases so much that they miss the entire message of grace and salvation.

It is like instead of watching a movie and enjoying it, you pause at every frame looking to spot the shadow of the cameraman or reflections of members of the crew. You miss the entire point of the movie and all you have left are a bunch of "movie mistake scenes" that you can show off to your friends to make you seem smart. Poor you.

Mr_Anony:
I still hold the stance that God never changes and is forever the same.

But he changed his ethics from genocidal barbarian in OT to all-loving sugar daddy in NT, abi?

He also changed the requirements for salvation between people living pre-christ and people living post-christ, no?

Did Job have to believe in Jesus to be saved?

Did Elijah have to be beleive in Jesus to be taken up to la la land?

Little misconception. Jesus "flouting" the sabbath is not on the basis of "impracticability" but on the basis of what the sabbath is meant for i.e. the sabbath to give man a day of rest and not to imprison man to "no work" also on the basis of the law of the sabbath being subject to Him since He is God.

Jesus is God? ? ? ? ? ? ?

Are you mentally stable?

The words of Jesus:

John 8:40: “, you are determined to kill me, a man who has told you the truth that I heard from God.”

John 17:3: "Now this is eternal life: that they may know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you have sent."

Mark 13:32:"No one knows about that day or hour, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father."

John 5:19: "Jesus gave them this answer: "I tell you the truth, the Son can do nothing by himself; he can do only what he sees his Father doing, because whatever the Father does the Son also does”

John 14:28: "You heard me say,'I am going away and I am coming back to you.' If you loved me, you would be glad that I am going to the Father, for the Father is greater than I."

John 20:17: "Jesus said, "Do not hold on to me, for I have not yet ascended to the Father. Go instead to my brothers and tell them,'I am ascending to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God.”

Mark 10:18: “Do not call me good, only God is good.”

Guys from the foregoing there can be NO DOUBT, that Jesus NEVER, NOT EVEN FOR ONE SECOND, regarded himself as God.

The words of the Apostles:

1Timothy 2:5: "For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus.

1 Peter 1:3: “Praise be to the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ.”

Acts 2:22 - “Men of Israel, listen to this: Jesus of Nazareth was a man accredited by God to you by miracles, wonders and signs, which God did among you through him, as you yourselves know.”

Acts 2:36: “God has made this Jesus, whom you crucified, both Lord and Christ.”

Let’s face it: the Trinity was created by the Roman Catholic Church and not Jesus Christ, and now people are ready to die to affirm the truth of it, disregarding Jesus’ own words.

So beware: calling him God – or “part of God” – is definitely blasphemy.

Deep Sight:

But he changed his ethics from genocidal barbarian in OT to all-loving sugar daddy in NT, abi?

He also changed the requirements for salvation between people living pre-christ and people living post-christ, no?

Did Job have to believe in Jesus to be saved?

Did Elijah have to be beleive in Jesus to be taken up to la la land?



Jesus is God? ? ? ? ? ? ?

Are you mentally stable?

The words of Jesus:

John 8:40: “, you are determined to kill me, a man who has told you the truth that I heard from God.”

John 17:3: "Now this is eternal life: that they may know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you have sent."

Mark 13:32:"No one knows about that day or hour, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father."

John 5:19: "Jesus gave them this answer: "I tell you the truth, the Son can do nothing by himself; he can do only what he sees his Father doing, because whatever the Father does the Son also does”

John 14:28: "You heard me say,'I am going away and I am coming back to you.' If you loved me, you would be glad that I am going to the Father, for the Father is greater than I."

John 20:17: "Jesus said, "Do not hold on to me, for I have not yet ascended to the Father. Go instead to my brothers and tell them,'I am ascending to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God.”

Mark 10:18: “Do not call me good, only God is good.”

Guys from the foregoing there can be NO DOUBT, that Jesus NEVER, NOT EVEN FOR ONE SECOND, regarded himself as God.

The words of the Apostles:

1Timothy 2:5: "For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus.

1 Peter 1:3: “Praise be to the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ.”

Acts 2:22 - “Men of Israel, listen to this: Jesus of Nazareth was a man accredited by God to you by miracles, wonders and signs, which God did among you through him, as you yourselves know.”

Acts 2:36: “God has made this Jesus, whom you crucified, both Lord and Christ.”

Let’s face it: the Trinity was created by the Roman Catholic Church and not Jesus Christ, and now people are ready to die to affirm the truth of it, disregarding Jesus’ own words.

So beware: calling him God – or “part of God” – is definitely blasphemy.

It is not blasphemy. When Jesus was a man, He had to submit Himself to God the Father. It was an act of humility and not an act of denial. The following verse gives us some explanation.

In your relationships with one another, have the same mindset as Christ Jesus: Who, being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be used to his own advantage;rather, he made himself nothing by taking the very nature of a servant,being made in human likeness. Philipians 2:5-8

Again, we know that God does not share His glory with man or angels yet numerous times Jesus is worshiped, even while He was on earth. Also in His prayer before the crucifixion, notice what He says:

And now, Father, glorify Me along with Yourself and restore Me to such majesty and honor in Your presence as I had with You before the world existed. John 17:5

About the "requirements for salvation" you are harping on about, as far as this topic is concerned; that is besides the point. The main issue is whether moral rights and wrongs have changed and not the method employed in rectifying them.


Just when I was about to retire, I am drawn right back into it. Oh helpless me!

@mr anony

Good that thread is moving forward.

The moral changes as expressed in the NT are systematic, drastic and reformative. There is more emphasis on Love and Community than in the OT. There wasn't a separation btw Gentiles and Jews, or clean and unclean. And Jesus being the only and final way to Heaven. These were not in the OT.

Given that the human nature is "sinful", most of the Mosiac laws would be redundant. Moses had set clear rules and punishment also precedents to back up.

A man caught picking sticks on a Sabbath was stoned. Therefore Jesus' rationale is radically different from the obligation given to the Jews by God to mechanically follow his Commands.

As to the totalitarian aspect of God, the existence of sentient beings eliminate the dictatorship of God.

Mr_Anony:
Now to the Ihedinobi/Kay 17 part, I'll accept that Ihedinobi may have employed some questionable tactics in answering

My brother, if you hadn't commented again here, I probably would not be commenting again. It was because things had degenerated to this point that I quit answering. However, I believe your reference was to my question as to what Kay 17 defined as the Sabbath and his description of an instance of Jesus's breaking it. I understand how it would come across as evasion and a descent into the realms of absurdity considering that it is commonly accepted that the Sabbath was a day of no work. But I think that I had good reason.

If you followed my argument with thehomer you would perhaps have noticed our disagreement over whose responsibility it was to show that God had or had not sent warnings to the peoples He destroyed. I said that since he'd brought up the issue of warnings it was his responsibility to show that God hadn't since my position had not touched that issue at all. He finally got as far as claiming that I'd been the one that raised the issue of warnings probably because I expressed wonder at what he would do if I showed that God indeed had sent warnings as a response to his demand that I show proof that God did. This is only one instance of the result of not obtaining a clear statement of my opponent's arguments at the onset.

Considering that I was going to base my counter-arguments on the moral meaning of the Sabbath, I thought it would be safest to ask him for his definition and his description of Jesus's flouting it. You see, I fully believe that Jesus never broke the Mosaic law because His humanity put Him under it. Therefore if He is accused of having done so, I feel compelled to show that an act or non-act that He committed that seemed to go against the law actually did not.

For this reason, I wanted to have him declare that this and that is what he believes that the Sabbath is and he believes this because such and such authority says so. Then I can proceed to counter with the definition I'm basing my position on and go on to show why it is more reasonable to work with that definition than to work with his. If I succeed, then based on that I can show that Jesus did not indeed violate the Sabbath at any time and from there prove that there was no change in His behavior with regard to the Sabbath.

I'm really sorry that I gave an impression of dishonesty. It was a risk on my part but I indeed was not being dishonest.

Ihedinobi:

My brother, if you hadn't commented again here, I probably would not be commenting again. It was because things had degenerated to this point that I quit answering. However, I believe your reference was to my question as to what Kay 17 defined as the Sabbath and his description of an instance of Jesus's breaking it. I understand how it would come across as evasion and a descent into the realms of absurdity considering that it is commonly accepted that the Sabbath was a day of no work. But I think that I had good reason.

If you followed my argument with thehomer you would perhaps have noticed our disagreement over whose responsibility it was to show that God had or had not sent warnings to the peoples He destroyed. I said that since he'd brought up the issue of warnings it was his responsibility to show that God hadn't since my position had not touched that issue at all. He finally got as far as claiming that I'd been the one that raised the issue of warnings probably because I expressed wonder at what he would do if I showed that God indeed had sent warnings as a response to his demand that I show proof that God did. This is only one instance of the result of not obtaining a clear statement of my opponent's arguments at the onset.

Considering that I was going to base my counter-arguments on the moral meaning of the Sabbath, I thought it would be safest to ask him for his definition and his description of Jesus's flouting it. You see, I fully believe that Jesus never broke the Mosaic law because His humanity put Him under it. Therefore if He is accused of having done so, I feel compelled to show that an act or non-act that He committed that seemed to go against the law actually did not.

For this reason, I wanted to have him declare that this and that is what he believes that the Sabbath is and he believes this because such and such authority says so. Then I can proceed to counter with the definition I'm basing my position on and go on to show why it is more reasonable to work with that definition than to work with his. If I succeed, then based on that I can show that Jesus did not indeed violate the Sabbath at any time and from there prove that there was no change in His behavior with regard to the Sabbath.

I'm really sorry that I gave an impression of dishonesty. It was a risk on my part but I indeed was not being dishonest.

Bruv, you don't need to apologize. You were misunderstood, that's all. Not too long ago on this thread, Kay 17 was asking me the meaning of romantic love. He was also "misunderstood".

What can I say, misunderstandings happen all the time. lol

You have my respects intact.

I hate to derail this thread (currently my favourite on Nairaland), but I have to weigh in on this issue.

Deep Sight:
But he changed his ethics from genocidal barbarian in OT to all-loving sugar daddy in NT, abi?

There is no change in ethics. As Mr Anony has stated before, the Jews of that time had lost the spirit of the law and were focussed on the letter. This is pretty obvious in John 8: 39 - 41 (incidentally, I looked this up because you quoted it as part of your quote above) where Jesus says to the Jews:

“If you were Abraham’s children,” said Jesus, “then you would do what Abraham did. 40 As it is, you are looking for a way to kill me, a man who has told you the truth that I heard from God. Abraham did not do such things. 41 You are doing the works of your own father.”

It is clearly implied from this (and indeed, if you read all of chapter 8 it is even clearer) that Jesus condemns the Jews because they have strayed from the path of Abraham. If they had stayed firmly on that path, there would have been no need for the intervention of Christ.

Christ's first coming was to lead God's people back to the path of salvation. In so doing, He struck down the old laws which had become tarnished and corrupted and threw light on the right path to God.

Deep Sight:
He also changed the requirements for salvation between people living pre-christ and people living post-christ, no?

Did Job have to believe in Jesus to be saved?

Did Elijah have to be beleive in Jesus to be taken up to la la land?

Again, no change in requirements. God's Word is eternal. Christ is simply the Word made flesh. Job and Elijah did not need to know Jesus the Son of man. But they certainly had to know and obey God's Word to be saved.

[quote author=Deep Sight]
Jesus is God? ? ? ? ? ? ?

Jesus IS God!

[quote author=Deep Sight]
John 8:40: “, you are determined to kill me, a man who has told you the truth that I heard from God.”

This is taken out of context. Christ was speaking to a sceptical audience. And one which was willing to kill Him for the things He was teaching. Thus in that verse, as is more fully quoted above, Jesus is trying to reason with them from their own perspective so that they can understand how they have strayed from the path of Abraham and are no longer the children of Abraham.

Furthermore, in that very chapter (John 8:58) He proclaims:

Very truly I tell you,” Jesus answered, “before Abraham was born, I am!

And immediately He said this they picked up stones to kill Him and He had to flee!

Deep Sight:
John 17:3: "Now this is eternal life: that they may know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you have sent."

Again, taken out of context. The full text:

“Father, the hour has come. Glorify your Son, that your Son may glorify you. 2 For you granted him authority over all people that he might give eternal life to all those you have given him. 3 Now this is eternal life: that they know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you have sent. 4 I have brought you glory on earth by finishing the work you gave me to do. 5 And now, Father, glorify me in your presence with the glory I had with you before the world began.

Deep Sight:
Mark 13:32:"No one knows about that day or hour, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father."

Of all your quotes from the bible, this is the trickiest to deal with because it leads to your argument, which I have read elsewhere, that Christ, being God, cannot have had a different will or knowledge from the Father as this would contradict His status as God, as you say.
Nonetheless, my answer is this: Christ, in the flesh, cannot have been omniscient as God the Father as this would mean He was not a man and would essentially be cheating in the sacrifice He came to make. I contend that Christ did not know everything while He was man but this does not negate His status as God. But I am no theologian. There might be others with a fuller grasp of the scripture and thus a better answer.

Deep Sight:
John 5:19: "Jesus gave them this answer: "I tell you the truth, the Son can do nothing by himself; he can do only what he sees his Father doing, because whatever the Father does the Son also does”

Again, this is incomplete. Taken fully, you will see that Jesus is showing how He Himself mirrors God the Father perfectly.

19 Jesus gave them this answer: “Very truly I tell you, the Son can do nothing by himself; he can do only what he sees his Father doing, because whatever the Father does the Son also does. 20 For the Father loves the Son and shows him all he does. Yes, and he will show him even greater works than these, so that you will be amazed. 21 For just as the Father raises the dead and gives them life, even so the Son gives life to whom he is pleased to give it . 22 Moreover, the Father judges no one, but has entrusted all judgment to the Son, 23 that all may honor the Son just as they honor the Father. Whoever does not honor the Son does not honor the Father, who sent him.

24 “Very truly I tell you, whoever hears my word and believes him who sent me has eternal life and will not be judged but has crossed over from death to life. 25 Very truly I tell you, a time is coming and has now come when the dead will hear the voice of the Son of God and those who hear will live. 26 For as the Father has life in himself, so he has granted the Son also to have life in himself. 27 And he has given him authority to judge because he is the Son of Man.

At this point, I need to bow out. I started typing this response by 10:00 am! but between work, and a dozen other distractions, it's taken this long. I won't be able to respond to the other quotes from the bible that you gave, not because I concede to the enormity of the task, but because I simply lack the time right now. Perhaps later.

Oops! Looks like I didn't set my quote tags quite right. Do you guys get it? Do I need to repost to avoid any confusion?

I hate to derail this thread (currently my favourite on Nairaland), but I have to weigh in on this issue.

Deep Sight:
But he changed his ethics from genocidal barbarian in OT to all-loving sugar daddy in NT, abi?

There is no change in ethics. As Mr Anony has stated before, the Jews of that time had lost the spirit of the law and were focussed on the letter. This is pretty obvious in John 8: 39 - 41 (incidentally, I looked this up because you quoted it as part of your quote above) where Jesus says to the Jews:

“If you were Abraham’s children,” said Jesus, “then you would do what Abraham did. 40 As it is, you are looking for a way to kill me, a man who has told you the truth that I heard from God. Abraham did not do such things. 41 You are doing the works of your own father.”

It is clearly implied from this (and indeed, if you read all of chapter 8 it is even clearer) that Jesus condemns the Jews because they have strayed from the path of Abraham. If they had stayed firmly on that path, there would have been no need for the intervention of Christ.

Christ's first coming was to lead God's people back to the path of salvation. In so doing, He struck down the old laws which had become tarnished and corrupted and threw light on the right path to God.

Deep Sight:
He also changed the requirements for salvation between people living pre-christ and people living post-christ, no?

Did Job have to believe in Jesus to be saved?

Did Elijah have to be beleive in Jesus to be taken up to la la land?

Again, no change in requirements. God's Word is eternal. Christ is simply the Word made flesh. Job and Elijah did not need to know Jesus the Son of man. But they certainly had to know and obey God's Word to be saved.

Deep Sight:
Jesus is God? ? ? ? ? ? ?

Jesus IS God!

Deep Sight:
John 8:40: “, you are determined to kill me, a man who has told you the truth that I heard from God.”

This is taken out of context. Christ was speaking to a sceptical audience. And one which was willing to kill Him for the things He was teaching. Thus in that verse, as is more fully quoted above, Jesus is trying to reason with them from their own perspective so that they can understand how they have strayed from the path of Abraham and are no longer the children of Abraham.

Furthermore, in that very chapter (John 8:58) He proclaims:

Very truly I tell you,” Jesus answered, “before Abraham was born, I am!

And immediately He said this they picked up stones to kill Him and He had to flee!

Deep Sight:
John 17:3: "Now this is eternal life: that they may know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you have sent."

Again, taken out of context. The full text:

“Father, the hour has come. Glorify your Son, that your Son may glorify you. 2 For you granted him authority over all people that he might give eternal life to all those you have given him. 3 Now this is eternal life: that they know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you have sent. 4 I have brought you glory on earth by finishing the work you gave me to do. 5 And now, Father, glorify me in your presence with the glory I had with you before the world began.

Deep Sight:
Mark 13:32:"No one knows about that day or hour, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father."

Of all your quotes from the bible, this is the trickiest to deal with because it leads to your argument, which I have read elsewhere, that Christ, being God, cannot have had a different will or knowledge from the Father as this would contradict His status as God, as you say.
Nonetheless, my answer is this: Christ, in the flesh, cannot have been omniscient as God the Father as this would mean He was not a man and would essentially be cheating in the sacrifice He came to make. I contend that Christ did not know everything while He was man but this does not negate His status as God. But I am no theologian. There might be others with a fuller grasp of the scripture and thus a better answer.

Deep Sight:
John 5:19: "Jesus gave them this answer: "I tell you the truth, the Son can do nothing by himself; he can do only what he sees his Father doing, because whatever the Father does the Son also does”

Again, this is incomplete. Taken fully, you will see that Jesus is showing how He Himself mirrors God the Father perfectly.

19 Jesus gave them this answer: “Very truly I tell you, the Son can do nothing by himself; he can do only what he sees his Father doing, because whatever the Father does the Son also does. 20 For the Father loves the Son and shows him all he does. Yes, and he will show him even greater works than these, so that you will be amazed. 21 For just as the Father raises the dead and gives them life, even so the Son gives life to whom he is pleased to give it . 22 Moreover, the Father judges no one, but has entrusted all judgment to the Son, 23 that all may honor the Son just as they honor the Father. Whoever does not honor the Son does not honor the Father, who sent him.

24 “Very truly I tell you, whoever hears my word and believes him who sent me has eternal life and will not be judged but has crossed over from death to life. 25 Very truly I tell you, a time is coming and has now come when the dead will hear the voice of the Son of God and those who hear will live. 26 For as the Father has life in himself, so he has granted the Son also to have life in himself. 27 And he has given him authority to judge because he is the Son of Man.

At this point, I need to bow out. I started typing this response by 10:00 am! but between work, and a dozen other distractions, it's taken this long. I won't be able to respond to the other quotes from the bible that you gave, not because I concede to the enormity of the task, but because I simply lack the time right now. Perhaps later.

Kay 17: @mr anony

Good that thread is moving forward.

The moral changes as expressed in the NT are systematic, drastic and reformative. There is more emphasis on Love and Community than in the OT. There wasn't a separation btw Gentiles and Jews, or clean and unclean. And Jesus being the only and final way to Heaven. These were not in the OT.

There were huge changes yes. but not moral changes. The era of law gave way to the era of grace. Good and evil remained constant.

Given that the human nature is "sinful", most of the Mosiac laws would be redundant. Moses had set clear rules and punishment also precedents to back up.

A man caught picking sticks on a Sabbath was stoned. Therefore Jesus' rationale is radically different from the obligation given to the Jews by God to mechanically follow his Commands.

If you read that passage in scripture, you'll find that God directly gave the verdict that the man be stoned to death as the people didn't know what to do with him (I hope I remember it correctly) Anyway, God being all good as well as creator, has the right to punish (he that hath no sin cast the first stone).
Now Jesus is Lord over the Sabbath but then again, I want you to notice something. The misconception I think you have is that Jesus "disregarded" Mosaic law because it was "cumbersome" but that is not the whole story. Jesus is Lord and has authority over Mosaic law, besides He even gave us even more "cumbersome" standards to meet such as "lust=adultery", "hatred=murder".
The difference between the OT and NT is simply God's grace.

As to the totalitarian aspect of God, the existence of sentient beings eliminate the dictatorship of God.

Who made "these sentient" beings? That's the question and not whether they are sentient or not.

A cow values it's life about as much as a human values his, yet most people have no moral problems killing it.

Because you have the gift of language that enables you describe your feelings better doesn't exempt you from punishment for sin against a much more superior creator. It even makes you more inexcusable because you can sin with the knowledge that you are actually sinning.

caezar:
Of all your quotes from the bible, this is the trickiest to deal with because it leads to your argument, which I have read elsewhere, that Christ, being God, cannot have had a different will or knowledge from the Father as this would contradict His status as God, as you say.
Nonetheless, my answer is this: Christ, in the flesh, cannot have been omniscient as God the Father as this would mean He was not a man and would essentially be cheating in the sacrifice He came to make. I contend that Christ did not know everything while He was man but this does not negate His status as God. But I am no theologian. There might be others with a fuller grasp of the scripture and thus a better answer.

Golden! The sacrifice of Christ was no small feat!

I am really struggling to understand all these people claiming here that Yahweh didn't change, but that it was the Jews that didn't understand, and blah blah.

When someone commands certain things years before, and then years later, he changes his stance and says, "No, it's no longer like that, it should be this way now." What do we call that? Are you people arguing for the sake of it? Or are you just being plain dishonest?

Mr_Anony:
Golden! The sacrifice of Christ was no small feat!

lol. . . there's no big deal about Christ's "sacrifice". If I know I'd resurrect after 3 days, to be seated on some divine throne thereafter, I'd easily "sacrifice" myself also.

@ Mr_Anony,

Mr_Anony:

I really shouldn't be replying to this but I feel I've been accused of dishonesty so I'll attempt to clear my name. I still hold the stance that God never changes and is forever the same. What you saw of Jesus Christ is exactly who God would be if He was a man.
Now to Romans 9, Is God partial?
Good question: we are currently debating on something of that nature in more detail on this thread
https://www.nairaland.com/996184/grace-destiny-vs-freewill-brethren (things get really interesting from around the second page)

That aside, I still want let you know that impartiality does not mean that a judge cannot have "favorites" but it is how he treats his "favorites" in judgement that determines if he is impartial or not.(remember the argument is on judgment of moral issues and not who God is blessing more than the other)

For instance a judge loves his wife and kids more than everyone else, he is not a partial judge for doing so. He is only a partial judge if when his children come before him in court, he acquits them while punishing those who are not his children.

God punishes sin and if you read the bible you'll see that on many occasions, He punished his favorites the israelites (Jacob) whenever they sinned just like he also punished the heathen nations. When it comes to judgment, God has no favorites.

"I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy": This brings us back to #6 God's unwavering nature (not to be confused with His permissiveness). The fact that God is going to have mercy here indicates that the offender has already failed and is worthy of condemnation. God is not saying that the offender has not offended but that He (God) is choosing to forgive.

Maybe if you could tell me Esau's crime that he deserved to be hated, I may have a change of perspective. This is not just about favourites (although I still wonder why an Almighty would have "favourites" among things he created "equally". Sounds very human if you ask me. Oh, I forgot, we were made in his image; or is it the other way round? Never mind. ). It's about the way he treats them, even in judgment. From OT accounts, Yahweh always treated the adversaries of Israel with disdain, in which vulnerable children and women were often the victims. Sometimes, they (Israeli) deliberately set out to make enemies for themselves with Yahweh's full backing.

I also disagree with your interpretation of Yahweh's "I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy". The succeeding verses suggest that this is barely a matter of forgiveness that you mentioned, but instead, one of absolute arbitrariness by virtue of being the Almighty.

Rom 9 vs 16-18:

16 It does not, therefore, depend on human desire or effort, but on God’s mercy.
17 For Scripture says to Pharaoh: “I raised you up for this very purpose, that I might display my power in you and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth.”
18 Therefore God has mercy on whom he wants to have mercy, and he hardens whom he wants to harden.

I also see this to mean that even when you have done absolutely nothing wrong, he can still choose to hate and punish you. After all, who are you, a human being, to talk back to God? “Shall what is formed say to the one who formed it, ‘Why did you make me like this?’” (vs 20). See the example of the Pharaoh here especially, whose sole existence was simply to boost Yahweh's over-sized ego.

In other words, it doesn't matter what you do or don't do right. God decides ultimately (and arbitrarily of course) the fate of any and every man. In essence, the fate of both the believer and the unbeliever remains totally uncertain until God makes up his mind.

Mr_Anony:
The problem with the Jews of that time was that they were focusing on the letter and not the Spirit. It is the same thing a lot of people do today with the bible; they stress the letters and phrases so much that they miss the entire message of grace and salvation.

This is one part I still fail to get. If the Jews had been commanded not to practise mixed-cropping, not to wear clothes made of certain fabric, to stone witches, wizards and adulterers, forbidden disabled people to go near the altar, to kill homosexuals, etc, are you saying that it was the interpretation of the Jews that was faulty? Are you saying that God never intended these laws to be taken literally? I know you're trying to make a case for God's supposed unchanging nature, but come on now!

Mr_Anony:
It is like instead of watching a movie and enjoying it, you pause at every frame looking to spot the shadow of the cameraman or reflections of members of the crew. You miss the entire point of the movie and all you have left are a bunch of "movie mistake scenes" that you can show off to your friends to make you seem smart. Poor you.

Well, if the impression had been given that every single aspect of the movie production had been perfect, totally without errors, goofs, mistakes and whatnot, I believe it will only stir your curiousity and error-detection radar, wouldn't it? Na so, bruv.

Mr_Anony: It is like instead of watching a movie and enjoying it, you pause at every frame looking to spot the shadow of the cameraman or reflections of members of the crew. You miss the entire point of the movie and all you have left are a bunch of "movie mistake scenes" that you can show off to your friends to make you seem smart. Poor you.

Purist:
Well, if the impression had been given that every single aspect of the movie production had been perfect, totally without errors, goofs, mistakes and whatnot, I believe it will only stir your curiousity and error-detection radar, wouldn't it? Na so, bruv.

@ Purist, nice reply. thumbs up +100

but wait for it, another christian apologist will come to show you why you cant fault the movie production crew. it is the executive producer who is perfect, not the production crew, hence the allegedly perfect movie may not be perfect.

besides i dont know how the seriousness of believing in god is comparable to the frivolousness of watching a movie

Purist: I am really struggling to understand all these people claiming here that Yahweh didn't change, but that it was the Jews that didn't understand, and blah blah.

When someone commands certain things years before, and then years later, he changes his stance and says, "No, it's no longer like that, it should be this way now." What do we call that? Are you people arguing for the sake of it? Or are you just being plain dishonest?

actually, they are not being deliberatley dishonest, they are soldiers of Christ who would rather see all men as liars than see the errors and irreconcilable contradictions in their bible. They would do anything to justify their faith. they are faithfully following this scripture

Roman 3:4 God forbid: yea, let God be true, but every man a liar; as it is written, That thou mightest be justified in thy sayings, and mightest overcome when thou art judged.

and this
Roman3:7For if the truth of God hath more abounded through my lie unto his glory; why yet am I also judged as a sinner?

have you seen muslims too when they argue, their own is worst. they defend their religion like jihadists, similar to these soldiers of christ.

Purist:

lol. . . there's no big deal about Christ's "sacrifice". If I know I'd resurrect after 3 days, to be seated on some divine throne thereafter, I'd easily "sacrifice" myself also.

Oya now come make I put you for kiri kiri. No fear, after 3 days I go release you!

caezar:

Oya now come make I put you for kiri kiri. No fear, after 3 days I go release you!

yes, me too i agree o, and after that you transfer just 2 billion souls 2 billion pounds to my account sharp sharp.

do we have a deal?

cyrexx:

yes, me too i agree o, and after that you transfer just 2 billion souls 2 billion pounds to my account sharp sharp.

do we have a deal?

You clearly misunderstand Christ's sacrifice. Christ was not some lowly mortal man who was given the promise of the right hand of God (your 2 billion pounds) if He were to give up His life. He was not bribed into it. He came from God and He returned whence He came.

Your best comparison, with regards to a reward for 3 days in Kiri Kiri would be something like me saying I'd free 100 innocent guilty men from Kiri Kiri. For the reward of Christ's sacrifice is ours to devour.

cyrexx:

actually, they are not being deliberatley dishonest, they are soldiers of Christ who would rather see all men as liars than see the errors and irreconcilable contradictions in their bible. They would do anything to justify their faith. they are faithfully following this scripture

Roman 3:4 God forbid: yea, let God be true, but every man a liar; as it is written, That thou mightest be justified in thy sayings, and mightest overcome when thou art judged.

and this
Roman3:7For if the truth of God hath more abounded through my lie unto his glory; why yet am I also judged as a sinner?

have you seen muslims too when they argue, their own is worst. they defend their religion like jihadists, similar to these soldiers of christ.

You're so right. It is unimaginable for the religious mind to accept that their God is not the embodiment of "perfection" that they have always been made to believe he is. Cognitive dissonance often follows upon this realization, but the religious mind, rather than discard the entire notion altogether, often finds a way around the discrepancy, even in the face of illogicalities. After all, God cannot possibly be wrong; it's just we mere mortals that do not understand the things of the spirit.

The muslims? We better not go there.

caezar:

Oya now come make I put you for kiri kiri. No fear, after 3 days I go release you!

Do I get to rule the entire universe afterwards?

Purist:

Do I get to rule the entire universe afterwards?

Read my post above. The reward of Christ's sacrifice is ours to devour.

caezar:

Read my post above. The reward of Christ's sacrifice is ours to devour.

So in essence, after being incarcerated for 3 days and subsequently freeing 100 guilty prisoners from Kiri-kiri, I get to return to being the World President that I used to be. Tell me again how that seems to be such a grand heroic act worthy of accolades.

By the way, vicarious redemption makes very little sense (if at all).

Purist:

So in essence, after being incarcerated for 3 days and subsequently freeing 100 guilty prisoners from Kiri-kiri, I get to return to being the World President ordinary man that I used to be. Tell me again how that seems to be such a grand heroic act worthy of accolades.

By the way, vicarious redemption makes very little sense (if at all).

My point exactly.

^^ lol, are you trolling or what?

Here we go again

Purist:
By the way, vicarious redemption makes very little sense (if at all).

again, wait for it, they will defend this one by saying that god use foolish things to confuse the wise people.

cyrexx:
again, wait for it, they will defend this one by saying that god use foolish things to confuse the wise people.

These ad hominem attacks will get you no where. I sincerely doubt that any sensible person going through these recent exchanges will fail to get the meat of it. Nonetheless, I noticed two guests watching so...

I started off by challenging Purist simply:
He said that Christ's sacrifice was trivial. I challenged him to make an equally 'trivial' sacrifice. He expectedly asked for, as did you, a reward for his sacrifice. I pointed out that Christ's sacrifice was without reward for Himself but for us. He then came full circle to acknowledge that, being a mere mortal man, he is unable to see the sense in such a sacrifice (and it follows therefore, that he is unable to make such a 'senseless' sacrifice).

Purist:
So in essence, after being incarcerated for 3 days and subsequently freeing 100 guilty prisoners from Kiri-kiri, I get to return to being the World President that I used to be. Tell me again how that seems to be such a grand heroic act worthy of accolades.

By the way, vicarious redemption makes very little sense (if at all).

I therefore concluded that my job is done; my point made.

Why not sit a while and actually reflect on some of the things you say before you spew them forth?

Purist: @ Mr_Anony,
Maybe if you could tell me Esau's crime that he deserved to be hated, I may have a change of perspective. This is not just about favourites (although I still wonder why an Almighty would have "favourites" among things he created "equally". Sounds very human if you ask me. Oh, I forgot, we were made in his image; or is it the other way round? Never mind. ). It's about the way he treats them, even in judgment. From OT accounts, Yahweh always treated the adversaries of Israel with disdain, in which vulnerable children and women were often the victims. Sometimes, they (Israeli) deliberately set out to make enemies for themselves with Yahweh's full backing.

We may never know exactly why God hated Esau before he was born but one thing I'd like us to know is that God is omniscient and can see the end from the beginning. besides, God still blessed Esau his enemy with a "multitude of material blessings", He just didn't have the same close relationship with him as He (God) had with Jacob.

As for the Israelites, the land Israel was occupying was the land God promised He would give them after they had wiped out all the Canaanites by the time the cup of their sins would be full (Genesis 15:16). When Israel sinned, God would send the Assyrians to destroy them. Israel had a relationship with God but God was never partial towards them in judgment. lets be careful not to drift away from the question of God as a moral Judge to God as a provider.

I also disagree with your interpretation of Yahweh's "I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy". The succeeding verses suggest that this is barely a matter of forgiveness that you mentioned, but instead, one of absolute arbitrariness by virtue of being the Almighty.

Rom 9 vs 16-18:

16 It does not, therefore, depend on human desire or effort, but on God’s mercy.
17 For Scripture says to Pharaoh: “I raised you up for this very purpose, that I might display my power in you and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth.”
18 Therefore God has mercy on whom he wants to have mercy, and he hardens whom he wants to harden.

I also see this to mean that even when you have done absolutely nothing wrong, he can still choose to hate and punish you. After all, who are you, a human being, to talk back to God? “Shall what is formed say to the one who formed it, ‘Why did you make me like this?’” (vs 20). See the example of the Pharaoh here especially, whose sole existence was simply to boost Yahweh's over-sized ego.

God is omnipotent creator and we can't question His purposes simply because to do that, we have to have just as much knowledge and power as He has i.e. to judge God, we must be equal to or greater than God. A chicken cannot judge your morality over why you chose to kill one chicken for dinner and leave the other. It is only a fellow man or a greater being that qualifies to judge your choice of dinner

In other words, it doesn't matter what you do or don't do right. God decides ultimately (and arbitrarily of course) the fate of any and every man. In essence, the fate of both the believer and the unbeliever remains totally uncertain until God makes up his mind.

This is all just you creating your own meaning for scripture. The bible says that no evildoer will inherit the kingdom of God. The context in which Paul was speaking is that you cannot be good on your own, you need the grace and mercy of God but I can see how you could easily misread it.

This is one part I still fail to get. If the Jews had been commanded not to practise mixed-cropping, not to wear clothes made of certain fabric, to stone witches, wizards and adulterers, forbidden disabled people to go near the altar, to kill homosexuals, etc, are you saying that it was the interpretation of the Jews that was faulty? Are you saying that God never intended these laws to be taken literally? I know you're trying to make a case for God's supposed unchanging nature, but come on now!

The laws were literal laws. But then again, this does not show God's nature to have changed any more than if your father used to flog you to make you go to bed early until it became your habit when you grew older and he stopped talking about it. It doesn't mean that your dad now thinks that late nights are good for you it's just that he feels you are now mature enough to know what you are doing. (see Galatians 4:1-7)

Well, if the impression had been given that every single aspect of the movie production had been perfect, totally without errors, goofs, mistakes and whatnot, I believe it will only stir your curiousity and error-detection radar, wouldn't it? Na so, bruv.

I have never claimed that the bible is word-for-word perfect, what I claim is that the message of bible is the true and perfect word of God.
When someone leaves the Spirit of the Word and focuses on the letter, the person is bound to run into error.
It is the Spirit that matters. I am very sure that even if all the bibles in the world were destroyed today, People will still get born again and be led by the Spirit. So perfectly will they live that it would be as if they were indeed reading from the bible. The first Christians had no bible and yet the Church grew and the hand of God was upon them.

Before you read between the lines, ensure that you have already read what is written on the lines themselves.

@ ceasar

Ad hominien is when you insult the person making an argument instead of directly addressing his argument. I dont think i or purist have done that. We only expose the flaws of your logic. We launched no personal insult at you.

Mr_Anony:
There were huge changes yes. but not moral changes. The era of law gave way to the era of grace. Good and evil remained constant.

No. The laws reflected sins, like homosexuality, tattoos, eating of unclean animals, socialization with
Outsiders etc

If you read that passage in scripture, you'll find that God directly gave the verdict that the man be stoned to death as the people didn't know what to do with him (I hope I remember it correctly) Anyway, God being all good as well as creator, has the right to punish (he that hath no sin cast the first stone).
Now Jesus is Lord over the Sabbath but then again, I want you to notice something. The misconception I think you have is that Jesus "disregarded" Mosaic law because it was "cumbersome" but that is not the whole story. Jesus is Lord and has authority over Mosaic law, besides He even gave us even more "cumbersome" standards to meet such as "lust=adultery", "hatred=murder".
The difference between the OT and NT is simply God's grace.

You were touching on rights. Pls who defined and gave him such rights??

Who made "these sentient" beings? That's the question and not whether they are sentient or not.

A cow values it's life about as much as a human values his, yet most people have no moral problems killing it.

Because you have the gift of language that enables you describe your feelings better doesn't exempt you from punishment for sin against a much more superior creator. It even makes you more inexcusable because you can sin with the knowledge that you are actually sinning.

Sin being disobedient to God. If God instructs me to kill my father and I don't, I have sinned. Some noble deeds are Sins.

Sentient beings are conscious, thoughtful and non mechanical beings, they shouldn't be treated as property.

caezar:
I started off by challenging Purist simply:
He said that Christ's sacrifice was trivial. I challenged him to make an equally 'trivial' sacrifice. He expectedly asked for, as did you, a reward for his sacrifice. I pointed out that Christ's sacrifice was without reward for Himself but for us. He then came full circle to acknowledge that, being a mere mortal man, he is unable to see the sense in such a sacrifice (and it follows therefore, that he is unable to make such a 'senseless' sacrifice).

You just successfully attacked a straw man. Clap for yourself.

Now to the main point: Contrary to what you just submitted, I did not ask for a reward for the sacrifice. I simply asked to be reinstated to my previous super-glorious position once I've carried out the assignment. Do you get it now?

The point is this: I do not consider the sacrifice on the cross a big deal because the person purportedly carrying out the sacrifice still got to "wake up" after 3 days; he got a second chance at life. Not only that, he also got all his previously stripped powers and glory and honour given back to him (and I dare say in multiple folds). The whole pain, humiliation, suffering and death he endured were transient and absolutely nothing compared to what was to come. Given those exact conditions, I'm willing to bet that we would find roughly 7 billion people here on earth willing to "sacrifice" themselves in like manner.