Jon Lyrik wrote:
Ok, let's try a new method for today. Rather than poking holes in the Bible, which is too easy, let's try debating the methods of this alleged "god".
What drove "god" to sort of "reform" from the OT to the NT? In the OT he has the liking of killing of a maniacal dictator (I don't see how anyone could debate how the OT "god" is not driven by extreme cruelty), in the NT, he sends down his "son" to sort of clean the slate. His "son" is a bleeding-heart liberal, hanging out with the poor and even prostitutes, trying to help them, when in the OT "god" would have wiped them out sooner (at least the prostitutes) than guide them to his "light".
What do you think made "god" change, box, and why?
Wow, did you wait for an answer or what?
Jon, "God" did not change, the portrayal of Him did.
Keep in mind what I stated earlier: God is as much an image of man as man is an image of God.
When God strikes a deal with Abraham, the identities, and existence, of both comes to rely on that of the other. Abraham is told to leave his land and people and settle elsewhere, a Promised Land that is only Abraham's and his descendants because God said so, and not for any other reason. The legitimacy of the claim, indeed the legitimacy to the claim that their are special in any way is that God said so.
Thus, God has to be created in order for them themselves to be unique in any way. Quite literally, without God they are nothing, as they simply would have no indentity that would distinguish them from other groups.
On God's side, since they need Him, they will obey. He needs them to obey Him because else, He Himself loses His indentity: He is their God. They must obey Him. Keep in mind the first commandment:
Quote:
I am God your Lord, who brought you out of Egypt, from the place of slavery. Do not have any other gods before Me. Do not represent [such] gods by any carved statue or picture of anything in the heaven above, on the earth below, or in the water below the land. Do not bow down to [such gods] or worship them. I am God your Lord, a God who demands exclusive worship.
Stated otherwise: I'm the only one, you need me. I need YOU to worship ME. I need YOU to acknowledge me. Exclusively. That is what will shape your indentity, that you have one God whom you will worship.
So why should they? Because if they don't, then they become nothing. Where's the legitimacy to the land, or to their sense of being special? Every group of people, every nation, has a set of guidelines that seperates them from everyone else. America has its Constitution, it has its anthem, etc. Israel's is the most extreme there has ever been, among any group: God, the cause and goal of everything, is our God and we are His people (and unlike Christianity and Islam, you generally cannot join us). Due to its extremity, since God is everything, without God, there is nothing.
The threat that is always there therefore is that God will abandon them. Exodus is basically one passage after another where God and His people constantly bitch about each other, with Moses occasionally getting fed up, sometimes God, sometimes the nation of Israel (ie: of Jacob). Ok, make that often :razz:
This is, in a nutshell, the God of Genesis and Exodus.
Thereafter, there cease to be those big signs and miracles a la the parting of the Red Sea (though there are more to come, such as the David/Goliath incident). That is not needed, because the laws have been laid out in Exodus, Leviticus, Deuteronomy, and Numbers. The Israelites can enter the Promised land (and on the way wipe a select few people who lived there off the surface of the earth), with the word of God safely in their keeping.
There is, however, one big problem: the Israelites do not worship God as He commanded them to. They begin to wander away, and this is alarming. Enter the them crazy guys, the prophets. The basic message of the prophets is: get back to worshipping God, or else.
Else what? Else he'll turn this fertile land into another Sodom. Else, he will abandon you, if you abandon him.
This is the God of Israel, the God of the Hebrew Bible (referred to as the Old Testament). He might come off as a tyrant because he is exactly that: a tyrant who demands nothing less than complete and total submission and devotion. But then again, the Israelites demand nothing short of total devotion to them from Him. Whoever it is that must be gotten rid of, whatever the price is that must be paid (even in lives), if it keeps the relationship going, it is worth the effort. There is never a moment of relaxation in the relationship. The struggle is consistent and does not end. The name gives it away: "Israel" is the name given to Jacob after Jacob wrestles with God (or his messenger). The name means "to strive with God", and that, in a nutshell, is the Hebrew Bible in its entirety.
Now to the New Testament.
What makes it so different? The fundamental difference is that through Christ, everyone has the chance to be among God's chosen people. Essentially, the covenant, by being extended, is destroyed. Israel's uniqueness among nations is done with, or rather, everyone who wants to become unique, which is another way of saying that no one is unique.
In order for this to work, one thing needs to be made certain: that Jesus is the Christ, the messiah who is the fulfillment of the prophecy, and at their base, all four Gospels aim to make that clear.
Matthew is by far the mot 'Jewish' gospel writer, and with good reason: his audience is intended to be Jewish. As a result, it is the most HB (OT)-conscious gospel. Every single description of Christ is a reference to something someone states in the OT. This extends to John the Baptist as well. He is described as the voice, crying out from the wilderness, prepare the way for the Lord. That is an exact quotation from Isaiah, and places John and Jesus within the HB/OT context.
Mark is writing for the Greeks, Luke for the Romans, and John's gospel is a meditation on Jesus' life and place in the overall scheme of things (from a biblical perspective). All 4 gospels are advertising campaigns.
Jesus, above all, is portrayed as someone who gives freedom. Whoever the person is, they can be safed. You're a leper and need healing? You got it! You're a whore and need to be saved? Check! Wait, you're dead and need to be raised? Done it. Done it twice, actually, for the girl, and Lazarus.
This extension of the chosen people to include potentially everyone is anathema to Judaism, and changes the entire God/people dynamic. The thread being abandoned it done away with, since now everyone is God's people, if they follow him. As well, the Promised land ceases to be a geographic location: it's Heaven, and that's in the afterlife. As for any aspirations in this world, just keep to the Word, and you'll get there.
As well, there is a profound and really unimaginable humbling of God in the New Testament: God sacrifices His Son, Himself essentially, so as to save humanity. This is a far cry from the vindictive God of Exodus who demands
them to obey
Him.
So, to summarize, the relationship between God and His people shapes the portrayal of God. The urgent and volatile nature of the relationship in the Hebrew Bible gives way to the profoundly humble and expansive nature of the relationship between God and His people, now extended to include humanity as a whole, in the New Testament. This transition is achieved through Jesus Christ, His life, death and resurrection.
I hope that clarified some things. Cheers
Note: When I mention the nation of Israel, and the Israelites, I am NOT referring to the present state which calls itself Israel, but to the Biblical reference to those who are the descendants of Jacob, who is also called Israel. The nation of Israel is therefore that group of people who are descendents of Jacob, who is in turn descendet from Abraham.
The present state of Israel has nothing to do with that other than through a forced etymological connection. You can be a citizen of the current state of Israel without being a descendant of Jacob.
Oh you!
