Jews and True Christians worship exactly the same God

[McCulloch]

True Christians (that hold to the beliefs and teaching of Jesus and the first century congregation) worship exactly the same God as the Jews. YHWH (Yaweh or in English "Jehovah").

Questions for debate:

1. Did Jews and Jesus worship exactly the same God?
2. Did Jews and the first century Christians worship exactly the same God?
3. Did the first century congregation worship exactly the same God as most modern Christians?
4. Do Jews and most modern Christians worship exactly the same God?
5. [bonus question] Is the god of Islam the same God or a different one?

[fewwillfindit]

I have to say that this is why I am very contemptuous of hermeneutics. They go and make a large huge effort to make it passages say what it doesn't say. They find elaborate excuses and complicated explanations to make something mean other than the most simplest explanation. I noticed that they parsed out the passages, and interpreted even passage fragments in isolation from each other. ... and I also see that there is a translation change. Don't you love when they change the translation of a passage just to soften it's meaning.?

Yes, and become 'all things to all people'.. that does indeed summarize the passage. He became a chameleon to mimic other people.. and pretend to be what he is not.

"They" didn't parse out the passages. I parsed them out. The only copy and paste I did of someone else's words was the one at the bottom where I gave him credit. And I chose the ESV for the scriptures because that is one of the best translations IMO, and the one I use most. It is widely recognized by biblical scholars to be one of the most literal and accurate translations of the original Greek. There is no "they" here. If you disagree with the translation, then please show, from the Greek, how it is a poor translation. Would you like me to use the NASB, the KJV or the NKJV instead?

I separated them out so as to explain each one in more detail. This is not "hermeneutical gymnastics" like you have said of me before. This is letting scripture interpret scripture.

Your interpretation requires Paul to be a liar. If Paul is a liar, then the Bible is not authoritative, and that is not allowed in this subforum. But please, rather than just giving your opinion, by all means, show me in each instance where your interpretation is right and mine is wrong, and do it using New Testament scriptures, as I did.

Otherwise, as was discovered in our other debate, it is merely your opinion, and not fact. It seems that you don't like it when I actually have answers for your questions, and instead of proving your case, you resort to opinion.

[fewwillfindit]

Yet, we can quote the bible to show where Paul says he used deceit.. including the deceit of being Jewish.


1 Cor 9:19-22

9:19 For though I be free from all men, yet have I made myself servant unto all, that I might gain the more.
9:20 And unto the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might gain the Jews; to them that are under the law, as under the law, that I might gain them that are under the law; (9:20-22) "I am made all things to all men, that I might by all means save some."
Paul syas he'll do whatever it takes to get people to believe in order to save them from a God who will torture them for their honest disbelief.
9:21 To them that are without law, as without law, (being not without law to God, but under the law to Christ,) that I might gain them that are without law.
9:22 To the weak became I as weak, that I might gain the weak: I am made all things to all men, that I might by all means save some.

Can you specifically pin point the part where he says he's a deciever?
He lied, or is that an assumption on your part?

You ever thought that 1 Cor 9:19-22 means something else.

Like he is serving and TRYING to relate to others to spread the Gospel not decieve them.

Lets add in v23 "I do all this for the sake of the gospel, that I may share in its blessings."

If he 'became as a Jew to gain the Jews', he never was Jewish.

That is deception.

This completely ignores my initial post to you, in which I refute your claim with scripture. Are you going to continue to give your opinion or are you going to back it up with proof from the New Testament?

[Goat]

I have to say that this is why I am very contemptuous of hermeneutics. They go and make a large huge effort to make it passages say what it doesn't say. They find elaborate excuses and complicated explanations to make something mean other than the most simplest explanation. I noticed that they parsed out the passages, and interpreted even passage fragments in isolation from each other. ... and I also see that there is a translation change. Don't you love when they change the translation of a passage just to soften it's meaning.?

Yes, and become 'all things to all people'.. that does indeed summarize the passage. He became a chameleon to mimic other people.. and pretend to be what he is not.

"They" didn't parse out the passages. I parsed them out. The only copy and paste I did of someone else's words was the one at the bottom where I gave him credit. And I chose the ESV for the scriptures because that is one of the best translations IMO, and the one I use most. It is widely recognized by biblical scholars to be one of the most literal and accurate translations of the original Greek. There is no "they" here. If you disagree with the translation, then please show, from the Greek, how it is a poor translation. Would you like me to use the NASB, the KJV or the NKJV instead?

I separated them out so as to explain each one in more detail. This is not "hermeneutical gymnastics" like you have said of me before. This is letting scripture interpret scripture.

Your interpretation requires Paul to be a liar. If Paul is a liar, then the Bible is not authoritative, and that is not allowed in this subforum. But please, rather than just giving your opinion, by all means, show me in each instance where your interpretation is right and mine is wrong, and do it using New Testament scriptures, as I did.

Otherwise, as was discovered in our other debate, it is merely your opinion, and not fact. It seems that you don't like it when I actually have answers for your questions, and instead of proving your case, you resort to opinion.

Well.. If I am taking what Paul says as authoritative, and he says he is a liar, who am I to say differently?

[fewwillfindit]

I have to say that this is why I am very contemptuous of hermeneutics. They go and make a large huge effort to make it passages say what it doesn't say. They find elaborate excuses and complicated explanations to make something mean other than the most simplest explanation. I noticed that they parsed out the passages, and interpreted even passage fragments in isolation from each other. ... and I also see that there is a translation change. Don't you love when they change the translation of a passage just to soften it's meaning.?

Yes, and become 'all things to all people'.. that does indeed summarize the passage. He became a chameleon to mimic other people.. and pretend to be what he is not.

"They" didn't parse out the passages. I parsed them out. The only copy and paste I did of someone else's words was the one at the bottom where I gave him credit. And I chose the ESV for the scriptures because that is one of the best translations IMO, and the one I use most. It is widely recognized by biblical scholars to be one of the most literal and accurate translations of the original Greek. There is no "they" here. If you disagree with the translation, then please show, from the Greek, how it is a poor translation. Would you like me to use the NASB, the KJV or the NKJV instead?

I separated them out so as to explain each one in more detail. This is not "hermeneutical gymnastics" like you have said of me before. This is letting scripture interpret scripture.

Your interpretation requires Paul to be a liar. If Paul is a liar, then the Bible is not authoritative, and that is not allowed in this subforum. But please, rather than just giving your opinion, by all means, show me in each instance where your interpretation is right and mine is wrong, and do it using New Testament scriptures, as I did.

Otherwise, as was discovered in our other debate, it is merely your opinion, and not fact. It seems that you don't like it when I actually have answers for your questions, and instead of proving your case, you resort to opinion.

Well.. If I am taking what Paul says as authoritative, and he says he is a liar, who am I to say differently?

Please, I'll ask you again; address the specific verses and refute my interpretation using the New Testament. Are you going to take the easy way out and continue to reiterate your original opinion without proving it?

You again call into question the authority of the Bible. Are you going to continue to break forum rules, or are you going to operate within them and have a rational discussion?

I explained exactly why Paul is not a liar. Please address the explanation I already gave you.

[Cathar1950]

I have to say that this is why I am very contemptuous of hermeneutics. They go and make a large huge effort to make it passages say what it doesn't say. They find elaborate excuses and complicated explanations to make something mean other than the most simplest explanation. I noticed that they parsed out the passages, and interpreted even passage fragments in isolation from each other. ... and I also see that there is a translation change. Don't you love when they change the translation of a passage just to soften it's meaning.?

Yes, and become 'all things to all people'.. that does indeed summarize the passage. He became a chameleon to mimic other people.. and pretend to be what he is not.

"They" didn't parse out the passages. I parsed them out. The only copy and paste I did of someone else's words was the one at the bottom where I gave him credit. And I chose the ESV for the scriptures because that is one of the best translations IMO, and the one I use most. It is widely recognized by biblical scholars to be one of the most literal and accurate translations of the original Greek. There is no "they" here. If you disagree with the translation, then please show, from the Greek, how it is a poor translation. Would you like me to use the NASB, the KJV or the NKJV instead?

I separated them out so as to explain each one in more detail. This is not "hermeneutical gymnastics" like you have said of me before. This is letting scripture interpret scripture.

Your interpretation requires Paul to be a liar. If Paul is a liar, then the Bible is not authoritative, and that is not allowed in this subforum. But please, rather than just giving your opinion, by all means, show me in each instance where your interpretation is right and mine is wrong, and do it using New Testament scriptures, as I did.

Otherwise, as was discovered in our other debate, it is merely your opinion, and not fact. It seems that you don't like it when I actually have answers for your questions, and instead of proving your case, you resort to opinion.

Well.. If I am taking what Paul says as authoritative, and he says he is a liar, who am I to say differently?

Exactly, it seems use of the Bible as an authority is highly selective and become no authority at all and is used as a bludgeon as these threads are examples.
It is hard to argue he became a Jew TO Jews IF HE WAS ALREADY Jewish. I SUSPECT HE WAS AN Herodian.

[fewwillfindit]

I have to say that this is why I am very contemptuous of hermeneutics. They go and make a large huge effort to make it passages say what it doesn't say. They find elaborate excuses and complicated explanations to make something mean other than the most simplest explanation. I noticed that they parsed out the passages, and interpreted even passage fragments in isolation from each other. ... and I also see that there is a translation change. Don't you love when they change the translation of a passage just to soften it's meaning.?

Yes, and become 'all things to all people'.. that does indeed summarize the passage. He became a chameleon to mimic other people.. and pretend to be what he is not.

"They" didn't parse out the passages. I parsed them out. The only copy and paste I did of someone else's words was the one at the bottom where I gave him credit. And I chose the ESV for the scriptures because that is one of the best translations IMO, and the one I use most. It is widely recognized by biblical scholars to be one of the most literal and accurate translations of the original Greek. There is no "they" here. If you disagree with the translation, then please show, from the Greek, how it is a poor translation. Would you like me to use the NASB, the KJV or the NKJV instead?

I separated them out so as to explain each one in more detail. This is not "hermeneutical gymnastics" like you have said of me before. This is letting scripture interpret scripture.

Your interpretation requires Paul to be a liar. If Paul is a liar, then the Bible is not authoritative, and that is not allowed in this subforum. But please, rather than just giving your opinion, by all means, show me in each instance where your interpretation is right and mine is wrong, and do it using New Testament scriptures, as I did.

Otherwise, as was discovered in our other debate, it is merely your opinion, and not fact. It seems that you don't like it when I actually have answers for your questions, and instead of proving your case, you resort to opinion.

Well.. If I am taking what Paul says as authoritative, and he says he is a liar, who am I to say differently?

Exactly, it seems use of the Bible as an authority is highly selective and become no authority at all and is used as a bludgeon as these threads are examples.
It is hard to argue he became a Jew TO Jews IF HE WAS ALREADY Jewish. I SUSPECT HE WAS AN Herodian.

My explanations continue to be ignored. Please address my explanation rather than reinforcing Goat's opinion.

It is not hard to argue, unless you are approaching it from an angle that the Bible is spurious. Perhaps you two should take this into the C & A subforum where you can question the veracity of the Bible all you like.

[Ann]

Since the coming of Jesus Christ, it is wholly apparent that Jews do not worship the God as Christians. It is a simple fact that Jews reject the divinity of Jesus Christ. They deny Jesus as the Messiah. Therefore, they reject Him. Neither does Islam worship the same God as Christians.

It is also a fact that the teaching of Islam denies the Most Holy Trinity, God. Article 2 of the Koran says: "He who believes in the Trinity is impure just like excrement and urine."

Moreover, the Bible teaches that the gods of non-Christian religions are demons. 1 Cor. 10:20; Psalm 95. This is also the teaching of the Holy Church.

[cnorman18]

Since the coming of Jesus Christ, it is wholly apparent that Jews do not worship the God as Christians. It is a simple fact that Jews reject the divinity of Jesus Christ. They deny Jesus as the Messiah. Therefore, they reject Him. Neither does Islam worship the same God as Christians.

It is also a fact that the teaching of Islam denies the Most Holy Trinity, God. Article 2 of the Koran says: "He who believes in the Trinity is impure just like excrement and urine."

Moreover, the Bible teaches that the gods of non-Christian religions are demons. 1 Cor. 10:20; Psalm 95. This is also the teaching of the Holy Church.

I understand that if one is a Roman Catholic, that settles the matter; Holy Mother Church is the ultimate authority and cannot be questioned or gainsaid. But how would you convince a non-Catholic that these essentially self-supporting opinions are correct?

[Ann]

Do Christians worship Jesus Christ as God? Yes.
Do Jews worship Jesus Christ as God? No.

Hence, Jews do not worship the same God. Need it be any clearer?

[cnorman18]

Do Christians worship Jesus Christ as God? Yes.
Do Jews worship Jesus Christ as God? No.

Hence, Jews do not worship the same God. Need it be any clearer?

I wasn't necessarily speaking of convincing Jews, but as long as you've addressed yourself to my people; can you convince me of the truth of your apparent claim that Jews worship a demon?