How many christians here think Jesus was preaching Against God´s like Yahweh, Jehovah, etc???

yep

Actually I think God was demonstrating that if the Hebrews kept his laws and stop bowing before calves and idols, then they would have protection against those that did not keep his laws. The Hebrews failed for the last time with the Roman invasion. (They mustave been doing something right before then because Alexander went AROUND them). After Jesus it was time for ALL the peoples not just the jews to have gods protection and hope for the future.

I think you´ve got it, christian.

The Bible has been so messed up over the years with various translations and removal of books as TPTB thought fit, who can believe any of it as gospel truth. Never a more blood-thirsty tome.

i concur too and i need to go to bed.

not true at all. jesus loved yahweh

i know this is reDUNDIT but DOG= GODS backward.. literally in TIME.. and yahweh was EA and JEHOVEH was ENLIL.. old DOG KADS.. GODS.. ... an EASU means one who knows the OLD STORIES and is attempting to teach that these are OLD STORIES.. and wake up and stop smelling your old shit..



ah


ho
WIO

Can God be against himself?

Eusebius of Caesarea: Demonstratio Evangelica

[link to www.tertullian.org]


Note this last paragraph. I believe Eusebius makes a compelling and cogent argument.


From all this it is abundantly proved that the Word of God announced to all nations the ancient form of their ancestors´ religion, as the new covenant does not differ from the form of holiness, which was very ancient even in the time of Moses, so that it is at the same time both old and new. It is, as I have shown, very, very old; and, on the other hand, it is new through having been as it were hidden away from men through a long period between, and now come to life again by the Saviour´s teaching.





The Nature of the Life according to the New Covenant proclaimed to All Men by Christ.

JUST as a life of virtue and a system of holiness is through the teaching of Christ preached to all nations without any reference to the Mosaic legislation, so by these men of old time the same independent ideal of holiness was upheld. They cared nothing for circumcision, nor do we. They did not abstain from eating certain beasts, neither do we. For instance, Moses introduces Melchizedek, priest of the Most High God, uncircumdsed, not anointed with prepared |29 ointment according to Moses, knowing naught of the Sabbath, paying no heed whatever to the commandments afterwards given by Moses to the whole Jewish race, hut living exactly according to the Gospel of Christ. And yet Moses says he was the priest of the Most High God, and the superior of Abraham. For he is introduced as blessing Abraham. Such too was Noah, a just man in his generation, whom as a kindling seed of the human race Almighty God preserved in the destruction by the flood when all men on earth were destroyed. He again was quite ignorant of Jewish customs, he was uncircumcised, he did not follow the Mosaic law in any point, yet he is recognized as conspicuously just. And Enoch before him, who is said to have pleased God, and to have been translated, so that his death was not seen, was another like person, uncircumcised, with no part or lot in the law of Moses, living a distinctly Christian rather than a Jewish life.

And Abraham himself, coming later than those already named, being younger than they according to the age men reached in those times, though an old man in reality, was the first to receive circumcision as a seal, for the sake of his descendants, and he left it to those who should be born of him according to the flesh as a sign of their descent from him. He too before he had a son, and before he was circumcised, by his rejection of idolatry, and his confession of the one omnipotent God, yea, by his virtuous life alone is shown to be one who lived as a Christian, not as a Jew. For he is represented as having kept the commandments and the precepts and the ordinances of God before the enactments of Moses. That is why God giving the oracle to Isaac says:

"And I will give to thy seed all this land, and in thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed. Because Abraham thy father heard my voice, and kept my commandments, and my laws, and my judgments, and my statutes."

So there were before the Mosaic law other commandments of God, and ordinances not like those of Moses, other laws and precepts of Christ, by which they were justified. Moses |30 clearly shews that these were not the same as his own enactments, when he says to the people:

"Hear, Israel, the ordinances and the judgments, all that I speak in your ears this day, and ye shall learn them, and observe to do them. The Lord your God made a covenant with you in Choreb; the Lord did not make this covenant with your fathers, but with you."

See how distinctly he alludes to this covenant, when he says God did not give the same covenant to their fathers. For if he had said that absolutely no covenant was given to their fathers it would have been a false statement. For Holy Scripture testifies that a covenant of some kind was given both to Abraham and Noah. And so Moses adds that one "not the same" was given to their fathers, implying that other greater and glorious covenant, by which they were shown forth as friends of God. So Moses records that Abraham by his faith in Almighty God attained righteousness when he says:

"Abraham believed in God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness."

This text shews clearly that he received the sign of circumcision after his attainment of righteousness and after the witness to his holiness, and that this added nothing at all to his justification.

Again, you would find Joseph in pre-Mosaic times in the palaces of the Egyptians living in freedom not burdened by Judaism. Moses himself, the leader and lawgiver of the Jews, lived from his babyhood with the daughter of the King of Egypt, and partook of the Egyptian food without question. What is to be said of Job the thrice-blessed, the true, the blameless, the just, the holy, what was the cause of his holiness and justice, was it Moses´ commandments? Certainly not. Was it the keeping of the Sabbath, or any other Jewish observance? How could that be, if Job was earlier than the time of Moses and his legislation? For Moses was seventh from Abraham, and Job fifth, preceding him by two generations. And if you regard his life, you will see it was untouched by the Mosaic legislation, but not foreign to the teaching of our Saviour. Thus in reviewing his life in his apology to his friends he says: |31

"12. For I saved the poor from the hand of the powerful, and I helped the orphan who had no helper. The mouth of the widow blessed me, 14. and I was clad in righteousness. I put on judgment as a cloak, 15. an eye was I to the blind, a foot to the lame, 16. I was a father of the weak."

This surely is exactly the same teaching which is preached to us all in the Gospel. Then again as one well acquainted with the words, "Weep with those that weep," and "Blessed are they that weep, for they shall laugh"; and "If one member suffer, all the members suffer with it,"which are included in the Gospel teaching, he shews his sympathy for the miserable by saying:

"25. And I wept for every weak one—I groaned when I saw a man in difficulties."

Then, again, this holy man forestalls the Gospel teaching, which forbids unseemly laughter, when he says:

"5. But if I had gone with scorners, and if my foot has hasted to deceit 6. For I am weighed in a just balance, and the Lord knows my innocence."

And where the Mosaic law says "Thou shall not commit adultery,"and assigns death as the punishment of adulterers, He who draws out the law of the Gospel teaching, says: "It was said to them of old time, Thou shall not commit adultery; but I say unto you, thou shall not desire at all."

Look well at the man of whom we are speaking; he was so good a Christian in his life that he restrained even his looks when they were wayward, and made it his boast so to do— for he says:

"9. And if my heart has followed my eye for the wife of another man."

And he gives the reason, as he continues:

"11. For the spirit of a man is not to be stayed, in the case of defiling another man´s wife. 12. For it is a fire burning on every side, and where it enters, it utterly destroys." |32

Here he shows his incorruptibility:

"7. If, too, I have touched gifts with my hands; 8. then let me sow, and others eat, and let me be uprooted from the earth."

How he treated his servants we may learn from his teaching here:

"13. And if I have trifled with the cause of my servant, or handmaiden, when they pleaded with me."

And again he gives the reason:

"14. What, then, should I do, if the Lord should try me? ... 15. Were not they also formed as I was in the womb? Yea, we were formed in the same womb."

He adds:

"16. I did not cause the eye of the widow to fail. 17. And if I did eat my morsel alone, and did not share it with the orphan, ... 19. and if I saw the naked perishing, and did not clothe him."

And again he proceeds:

"24. And if I trusted in a precious stone, 25. and if I rejoiced when my wealth was great, and if I laid my hand on unnumbered (treasures)."

And again he gives the reason:

"26. Do we not see the sun waxing and waning, and the moon eclipsed? "

So, again, whereas the teaching of the Gospel says:

"43. It was said to them of old time, Thou shall love thy neighbour and hate thine enemy. But I say unto you, Love your enemies": Job wonderfully anticipating the command by his own original teaching actually carried it out, for he says:

"29. And if I, too, was glad at the fall of my enemies, and said in my heart, It is well—30. then let my ear hear my curse."

And he adds:

"But the stranger did not remain outside, and my door was opened to all that came,"

showing himself no stranger in spirit to Him, who said, "I was a stranger, and ye took me in."Then hear what he says about offences done unintentionally: |33

"33. Or if too, having sinned unintentionally, I hid my sin. 34. For I did not stand in awe of a great multitude, so as not to speak boldly before them. And if I did not let the poor depart (from my door) with an empty bosom . . . 35. And if I had not feared the hand of the Lord. And as to the written charge which I had against any . . . 37. I did not rend it and return it, taking nothing from the debtor."

So and in such ways the pre-Mosaic saints (for from the record of one we may imagine the life of all), waged their renowned contests for good, and were reckoned friends of God, and prophets. What need had they of the commandments of Moses, which were given to weak and sinful men? From all this it is abundantly proved that the Word of God announced to all nations the ancient form of their ancestors´ religion, as the new covenant does not differ from the form of holiness, which was very ancient even in the time of Moses, so that it is at the same time both old and new. It is, as I have shown, very, very old; and, on the other hand, it is new through having been as it were hidden away from men through a long period between, and now come to life again by the Saviour´s teaching.

"
The Bible has been so messed up over the years with various translations and removal of books as TPTB thought fit, who can believe any of it as gospel truth. Never a more blood-thirsty tome. "

Roman Catholics have retained the books which were removed in the reformation. Other than that, if you read different versions they´re almost identical except worded slightly different. The content is still basically the same stuff found in the dead sea scrolls.

The Old Testament law with its 500+ rules and admonitions represented a temporary jurisdiction and dispensation with a carnal nation. The purpose of that law was to "convict" its subjects of sin -- to demonstrate the futility and impossibility of achieving and maintaining any genuine righteousness via a modus operendi of legalistic attempts to obey outward injunctions. It was to demonstrate that the heart of man must be changed and regenerated from within, and that this cannot occur from "the outside in" -- from legal promptings and decree. Thus Israel´s utter failure as chronicled in the Old Testament.

In Romans, Paul said that the purpose of the law was thus to point the way toward Christ, who regenerates the inner spirit allowing genuine spiritual fruit of love to be borne. The law was just a temporary schoolmaster or stepping stone intended to demonstrate the utter futility of struggling to acheive righteousness by legalistic means. Paul thus praised the law, but only in that context of its true purpose and aim. He points out that anyone who attempts to gain justification or progressive santification (i.e., spiritual growth) by that method is following a false and fruitless path.

The book of Mathew describes primarily the early phase of Jesus Christ´s mission to the house of Israel. Since the Old Covenant was still in effect, He upheld and promoted the law to those to whom He was sent and who were under the Old Covenant. He told them to tithe mint and cummin, pay the temple tax, and obey their scribes and pharisees. He spoke truthfully when He said, "If thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments." But He amplified the intent and spirit of the law to the extent that no one could possibly keep it. He equated anger with murder and lust with adultery. He was showing the impossibility of "keeping the law."

When He was crucified and resurrected He "fufilled" the law by making possible the inner regeneration and gift of the Holy Spirit that gives rise to genuine love. And this natural love fulfills the law and the ultimate spiritual intent of the law. Legalism is not the correct vehicle for either justification (reconciliation and union with God) or progressive santification (spiritual growth). Putting any emphasis on it whatsoever is to substitute the shadow with the substance, the letter with the spirit, the forerunner with the fulfillment -- and quite frankly, it amounts to putting something in place of God and Christ, and thus represents "idolatry." Paul made all of this clear in his letter to the Galations.

It´s all really quite simple: the true Christian life is one of faith and Spirit from start to finish and totally supercedes the dispensation of law which Paul called a "curse." So if you are one who idolizes the law, come out from under that curse. Read Romans and Galations and pray for your understanding to be opened.

Jehova was a Lizzi-Gram...

OP qoutes "because he said distinctly the ´old law´ is no longer valid."

Not true, the old law relied on animal blood sacrifice as a symbol of the requirements of paying for our sins. Jesus paid the full price for our sin by His sacrifice. Thus He made the old law redundant but He holds the power by His sacrifice which He gave back to the Father - God -.

OP states " meaning Yahweh´s racist elistist self was not the way or the truth and the light???"

No He who creates, the Father God is Yahweh of the old testament - and with His son Jesus or Yeshua being His Hebrew name is justified in all for they are not guiltyof anthing, other than love, WE ARE.

serious question here.

jesus was against the old testament god, it´s pretty obvious.
that was no god of love. that was a tribal god of hate and nationalism and war and xenophobia

Jesus Christ is the only begotten Son of God and the Son of man. Why would Jesus talk against His Father who He loved more than His life.

Now you’re getting it, Sparky!

The different God’s represent our descent into a lower consciousness of ego and emotions. The head of tree of life is Satan. This is the mistake in the statement used to persecute the true Jewish people. This is NOT the God they worshipped for there are three stages of consciousness BEYOND this head of the tree of life.

RE: “Why would Jesus talk against His Father who He loved more than His life.”

He would not speak against His Father. Only the false God of deception. Thus he criticized and contradicted the Ten Commandments which were given by this false God.

Put the pieces together yourself. Jesus said, “In LOVE there is NO FEAR.” How can you possibly believe that the God everyone feared (remember Moses shaking in his boots every time this maniac God of revenge made an appearance) is Jesus’ father?

And you said it yourself when you said:

“Jesus Christ is the only begotten Son of God and the Son of man.”

Get it? Probably not. Jesus is the ONLY BEGOTTEN Son of God and Son of Man. He was born of a VIRGIN! This would imply a woman THAT DID NOT HAVE SEX. That means, the Christ consciousness is born of a woman that is virginal – the soul. This is where the only true son of the original God resides.

I know most Christians are not aware of this teaching since it is simply not taught in Bible schools and in Church. But think of how Jesus is represented. He is the Keeper of the Sacred Heart. Remember that picture that some thought scary where He shows the beating, brilliant shining heart? It is here that resides the Son of God and the only Begotten Son of Man. You simply MUST release this Son of God from your heart. It is the only way. Remember Christ saying, “I am the only way.” Well, that like everything else He spoke is the truth.

How you do so is up to you.

The Kingdom of God is within you.

When I read the New Testament and compare it to the Old Testament I have to admit I´ve wondered if Jesus is talking about the same God that is represented in the OT.

The God Jesus speaks about is loving and merciful; often in the old Testament the "God" referred to is not that way at all. Me thinks the Hebrews took some, shall we say, "liberties" with the Old Testament. For that reason I almost never venture into the Old Testament anymore unless I´m participating in a Bible Thread on this forum. Other than that I prefer to stick with the New Testament and even then I weigh everything against the gospels, Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. That´s plenty enough to tell us what we need to know and it "jives" with the "spirit of the law" Jesus spoke about.

Even if a person believes all the Bible, OT and NT, trying to incorporate the OT and the NT without proper guidance and an accurate knowledge of history can cause a Christian to "go crazy" which we´ve seen happening more and more in recent years.

Since Jesus IS God, Jehovah and Yaweh, this thread is invalid and only serves to be a display of IGNORANCE.

A/C 3:23 -

RE: “Since Jesus IS God, Jehovah and Yaweh, this thread is invalid and only serves to be a display of IGNORANCE.”

Yes, but whose ignorance?

This is just such a complicated concept to get across if you are not familiar with what I’m speaking about.

Jesus was born of and in a “body.” In other words, He was inside a “material body.” This “material body” had the same false Gods of ego that trick and deceive each and everyone of us (or most of us since some of those that walk the earth are enlightened). Therefore, He and His body were a combination of ALL THE GODS, but His consciousness was ONLY the True God that is released through enlightenment. Liken it to a caterpillar changing into a butterfly. Are they the same? Obviously not. But obviously there is something WITHIN the caterpillar that can change or become a butterfly.

Here are links to some pictures of Jesus showing everyone the Sacred Heart. This is the Secret He held.

[link to en.wikipedia.org]

Why do you think there is a crown on the Sacred Heart? Why do you think He’s pointing to His Heart?

Note also this fascinating quote from the website:

“Many non-Catholics, particularly fundamentalist protestants, have criticised devotion to the Sacred Heart as idolatry.”

Now why would fundamentalists be criticizing the Truth? Perhaps to purge and keep the Secret a Secret from us all?

Remember, we have ALL been deceived by lies so no one is better than anyone else. Add to this the fact that some of us have been indoctrinated to believe that a false god is the god we must worship and people become fearful to even try to reason this out.

You really are as stupid as your name would indicate.

anonymer held is on the right track.

>>You really are as stupid as your name would indicate.<<

Are you a Christian? That doesn´t sound like something Jesus would say, that´s why I ask.

[edit to add] btw - I didn´t think your post sounded stupid at all AH.

Oh, was the A/C 3:47 referring to me? Thank you both for defending my honor and pointing out to me that the attack was against me.

Now that I know, what does “You really are as stupid as your name would indicate” mean? I don’t understand. The poster’s name appears to be, “Anonymous Coward.” Does this indicate someone intelligent?

Oh, well, when in doubt, use an ad hominem argument That’s what I always say.

And say, “ad hominem” ten times really fast.

The reason that there seems to be a contradiction between the Old Testament God and the New Testament God is because the Old Testament period was deliberately portrayed as and intended to be representative of law, edict, and disobedience -- and resultant judgment. It was intended to be viewed as a lesson and a CONTRAST to the New Covenant system of grace which is based on divine provision and inner spiritual regeneration, with genuine love as the fruit.

It says in the New Testament (and it says it in this context of discussing law and grace as mutually opposing systems) that the things written in the Old Testament were to be studied as lessons -- one of those lessons being that the law and the entire framework around which it was built was a curse that held no power to enlighten or save anyone without the gift of the Holy Spirit. The depiction of God as an angry judgmental God is part of this scenerio and part of this lesson --- part of this contrast. It´s similar to the concept that you can´t appreciate goodness and light without the opposite experience of evil and darkness to compare it with. Look beyond the mere literal and see the metaphor -- this is what the apostles taught.

Oh how you err.

Jehovah´s laws are not racist or elitist.

It´s a plan. A plan for a perfect sacrifice to redeem mankind. That plan required that the blood of man not be tainted by that of angels as was a big problem prior to the flood.

If you would take the time to try and understand the meaning of God´s word you would know that already.

Jesus would not speak against his own Father. Which of course means Jesus is NOT God. Jesus came to fulfill the Law and he did. It doesn´t mean the law is bad it is just means that we come to God through Jesus now and not animal sacrifices and many laws.

jesus was against the old testament god, it´s pretty obvious.
that was no god of love. that was a tribal god of hate and nationalism and war and xenophobia







You are not a Christian or you would know that Jesus´ Father is not like that at all. You obviously do not understand the background of those wars and why they were needed. He is a God of Love but it is a righteous love that does not tolerate evil.

Nope.

Jesus used the Old Testament as a foundation to build upon. He never contradicted or negated anything in the Old Testament, which like the New Testament, is the Living Truth from God.

Jesus Christ always loved YHWH but he had a problem with MANS interpretation. God has brought the spirutual here but man has developed religion. How could something imperfect develop something perfect? Man is the one full of ego that is deceptive, not God. Christ tried to help the peolple achieve a LIVING faith vs ritualized dogma man was enamored with. The rabbis of old as the church leaders today abused their position. This is what Christ abhorred. Peac be with you seeker

Christ was here to actualize the spirit of God and overcome. Once he had done that he was to be a living resurrection to show the people the way. His blood would be used as payment in place of ours. Blood is the payment for violating God´s Laws. Man was unable to defeat sin, unable to abide by the law-even the saints. Christ came as the Redeemer. To redeem us from our rebellion and fall into sin. Read and it shall be revealed. Knock and the door shall be opened.

Jesus referred to some parts of the OT including the apocrypha; and he contradicted other parts including this: "stoning a woman caught in the act of adultery". Jesus did not put the stamp of approval on the wars in which the Jews were commanded to kill everyone and keep the virgins for themselves, or dash the little ones against a stone; Jesus said not to prevent little ones from coming to him. Jesus did say that anyone who harmed a little one would be better off with a millstone around his neck.

Sure doesn´t sound like the same "God" to me unless God (the father that Jesus knew) didn´t command those atrocities. Perhaps the Jews "added to" in those parts to justify what THEY wanted to do. If that´s the case then God is getting a bad rap.

Even if you believe the OT is accurate to a "T" we´re living in the new covenant of the NT; therefore, it is WRONG to use those old testament wars LITERALLY as an excuse to commit the same thing today. Jesus Christ set the example we are to follow, not the Jews of the OT.