Can the God of Moses be reconciled with Jesus of Nazareth?

[Danmark]

If God is Eternal and changeless, can the God of Moses and Abraham be reconciled with the divinity of Jesus and his union with that God as declared in the doctrine of the trinity?
The 'Old Testament' God is clearly a tribal God. He is the God of the Hebrews. He punishes Pharaoh and his people and leads his people out of Egypt, destroying tribes along the way so his chosen people can take their land.
Yet Jesus tells the story of the good Samaritan and rewards the Canaanite woman's faith.*
How can the universal love preached by Jesus be reconciled with the tribal God of Moses and Abraham?

_______________________________
* The woman came and knelt before Him. Lord, help me! she said. He replied, It is not right to take the childrens bread and toss it to their dogs. Yes, Lord, she said, but even the dogs eat the crumbs that fall from their masters table.
Then Jesus answered, Woman, you have great faith! Your request is granted. And her daughter was healed from that very hour.
Despite initially showing the prejudice of his tribe, Jesus recognizes we are all one people.

[alwayson]

Jesus is straight from the Old Testament, as Paul repeatedly indicates.

Septuagint version of Zechariah 3 and 6 gives the exact Greek name of Jesus, describing him as confronting Satan, being crowned king in heaven, called "the man named 'Rising'" who is said to rise from his place below, building up Gods house, given supreme authority over Gods domain and ending all sins in a single day.

Daniel 9 describes a messiah dying before the end of the world.

Isaiah 52-53 describes the cleansing of the world's sins by the death of a servant.

Psalm 22-24 describes the death-resurrection cycle.

[Neatras]

Man, I had figured that the utter abandonment of liamconnor's earlier post showed at least a sliver of dissonance regarding the nature of the OT god's portrayal. The fact that Yahweh Sabaoth grew in popularity from the time of Israel's founding to the point where the Deuteronomists invoked made up laws replacing the Hebrew people's monolatrist polytheism with monotheism shows that the idea of Yahweh evolved until he was stripped of all the humanity that went into his pagan origins, and then universalized as a means of spreading the religion, as that was the most effective way of imposing him as an almighty lord.

The fact that he was retconned into being a universal god ("he made all races, therefore he's universal" is a weak argument since his status as a creator wasn't even written into his comical list of powers until much later into the Yahwists rise to power) doesn't excuse the inheritance from earlier origins in the Hebrew pantheon, where El Elyon ruled as the god of gods.

[Mithrae]

Man, I had figured that the utter abandonment of liamconnor's earlier post showed at least a sliver of dissonance regarding the nature of the OT god's portrayal. The fact that Yahweh Sabaoth grew in popularity from the time of Israel's founding to the point where the Deuteronomists invoked made up laws replacing the Hebrew people's monolatrist polytheism with monotheism shows that the idea of Yahweh evolved until he was stripped of all the humanity that went into his pagan origins, and then universalized as a means of spreading the religion, as that was the most effective way of imposing him as an almighty lord.

The fact that he was retconned into being a universal god ("he made all races, therefore he's universal" is a weak argument since his status as a creator wasn't even written into his comical list of powers until much later into the Yahwists rise to power) doesn't excuse the inheritance from earlier origins in the Hebrew pantheon, where El Elyon ruled as the god of gods.

Of course in this view, 'Moses' was a legendary figure who probably never existed, and the thread title makes no sense to begin with.

But even from a secular perspective I'm not sure I agree with that assessment. The J and E sources of the Pentateuch were most likely derived from the parallel but distinct traditions of the northern and southern kingdoms of Israel and Judah: And if that's the case, then their basic concepts including all the material of Genesis 1-12 portraying Yahweh/Elohim as the universal creator would most likely go back to the 10th or 11th centuries BCE, if not earlier. That's long before the D material came onto the scene in the late 7th century. Similarly a number of the universalist references which I provided for Danmark are from Isaiah (8th century) and from Psalms whose origin may have been older still.

Edit: Turns out the specific quotes I provided were from deutero-Isaiah and non-Davidic Psalms, but Isaiah 37:16 and Psalm 124:8 likewise describe Yahweh as a universal creator.

[Danmark]

Mithrae:

Your question was about the God of Moses, Abraham and the Old Testament, the god believed in by those people. I have showed you what they believed, and it was a universal God...

You have done no such thing. Not even close. They believed in THEIR God and that he made a special deal with them. This is the essence of a tribal god. As I have explained, carefully to you, that they think all others, everyone from different tribes should accept THEIR god a the god for all, does not make him a universal god. This is simply a claim they made, and that you repeat.

And thus the other suggestion of your opening post - that there is some irreconcilable distinction between the old and new - is also evidently false, as I pointed out all the way back in post #5.[/quote]
Yes, you keep making the same error. I gave you chapter and verse on on the obviously tribal, exclusive claims made in the OT and that many of these are repeated in the NT. What Jesus did and what Paul tries to do is to place more emphasis on evangelism, on the spreading of this tribal religion to "all the world." In some ways, I agree with you that the message has never changed; the god of one tribe is THE only god and other tribes should accept their god, or perish. This has not changed. What has changed is implied in the question of the OP, "How can the universal love preached by Jesus be reconciled with the tribal God of Moses and Abraham?"
The difference is that the God who drowned the entire world and set his 'chosen people' out to commit genocide, has been replaced by an allegedly divine God, Jesus, who preaches love, forgiveness, and acceptance rather than genocide and hatred of others.

[Mithrae]

Mithrae:

Your question was about the God of Moses, Abraham and the Old Testament, the god believed in by those people. I have showed you what they believed, and it was a universal God...

You have done no such thing. Not even close. They believed in THEIR God and that he made a special deal with them. This is the essence of a tribal god. As I have explained, carefully to you, that they think all others, everyone from different tribes should accept THEIR god a the god for all, does not make him a universal god. This is simply a claim they made, and that you repeat.

Well you may as well keep telling yourself that, and be sure to keep on ignoring the praise for Melchizedek and Cyrus - non-Hebrews with different names for God who were nevertheless monotheists - and all the bits about God creating the heavens and the earth and all its people

Yours is the absolutist position here, so it's quite telling when we note your failure to address points which were raised in post #3 of the thread (at least regarding Melchi and Cyrus; and let's face it, your 'god according to Danmark' theory that a tribal god was universalized pretty much undermines your whole thread). The more nuanced perspective is that the Tanakh portrays a supposedly universal God through the eyes of a particular tribe: The many universalist comments in the Tanakh are obviously crippling for an insistence to the contrary, while the many comments about and centered on the tribe which wrote it are entirely to be expected.

[William]

[Replying to post 33 by Danmark]

"How can the universal love preached by Jesus be reconciled with the tribal God of Moses and Abraham?"
The difference is that the God who drowned the entire world and set his 'chosen people' out to commit genocide, has been replaced by an allegedly divine God, Jesus, who preaches love, forgiveness, and acceptance rather than genocide and hatred of others.

Through the idea of GOD in relation to the idea of Panpsychism, it is possible to connect the two aspects as actions of the one GOD.
First off though, I would think it necessary to sort the wheat from the chaff in regard to the Flood story, which - if I am not mistaken, has been shown by science to not have actually happened as an event.

If so then - while it might be one of the many mythologies attached to this particular idea of GOD, it is not true, so can be placed to one side.
The same goes for stories regarding supposed annihilation of other tribes. It may be just a story, rather than actual truth.

One can then ask something along the lines of 'well, if these actions are not actually true, what is the nature of the GOD?', and then we can look at these beliefs as things used to dress the GOD up to look a certain way, but which are not really things which can actually be attributed to the GOD.

Which is the impression I get when I read the character in the story of Jesus rebuking high priests and religious dogma as being human invention rather than truthful representation of GOD.

I suppose that in relation to words attributed to Jesus, we are still faced with having to sort the chaff from the wheat, but for me at least, if I see a connect between words attributed to the OT idea of GOD and those words attributed to Jesus re his idea of GOD, it adds to the pieces of the puzzle in relation to the attributes of the Earth Entity as the GOD who was the only GOD who could have made any connection with human beings in the first instance, due largely to Its local and natural ability to do so.

Which is also why I value the thoughts of other religions on the subject of GOD, because therein too, are connections which help one form a likely picture as to the nature of the Earth Entity, or even apart from that - at least a type of device for reconciliation between most, if not all, religions.

So really the answer to the question "Can the God of Moses be reconciled with Jesus of Nazaret" is 'Yes' - depending of course on what position of understanding one is coming from.

[Danmark]

Well you may as well keep telling yourself that, and be sure to keep on ignoring the praise for Melchizedek and Cyrus - non-Hebrews with different names for God who were nevertheless monotheists - and all the bits about God creating the heavens and the earth and all its people

Here's a perfect example of Christianity in practice that demonstrates the opposite of your claims:
"A U.S. Air Force chaplain who ministers to thousands of men and women at an Ohio base is asserting that Christians in the U.S. Armed Forces serve Satan and are grossly in error if they support service members' right to practice other faiths."
http://www.newsweek.com/chaplain-urges- ... nce-665614
Your argument continues as if the CLAIMS of the writers represent the truth in their assertion that their claim of a universal god is more important than their claim of exclusivity and hegemony. " " does not strengthen your argument.

[Danmark]

[Replying to post 33 by Danmark]

"How can the universal love preached by Jesus be reconciled with the tribal God of Moses and Abraham?"
The difference is that the God who drowned the entire world and set his 'chosen people' out to commit genocide, has been replaced by an allegedly divine God, Jesus, who preaches love, forgiveness, and acceptance rather than genocide and hatred of others.

Through the idea of GOD in relation to the idea of Panpsychism, it is possible to connect the two aspects as actions of the one GOD.

This is exactly the problem. NO, it is not possible to connect two opposite characters in the same 'god.' The early church leaders had the same problem. They knew that there was only one god, yet they claimed (some of them) that Jesus was 'god.' This was impossible and one of the chief reasons the Jews rejected the blasphemy of Christianity.

So, how did the early church get around this: The impossibly illogical mental contortion called 'the trilogy.' They simply declared, by fiat, that the one true god was actually three (3) gods, while at the same time being ONE (1) god. So, to reconcile the OT god with the divine Jesus, the church had to 1) preach blasphemy, and 2), claim black is white while claiming black is not white.

[Mithrae]

[Replying to post 36 by Danmark]

I can't decipher that second last sentence I'm afraid, and it's difficult to ascertain the relevance in any case. Are you pointing out that 21st century Christians don't have the same beliefs as bronze and iron age Hebrews? Or are you pointing out that they believe in a universal God with more specific traits and also believe that other gods without those traits are therefore, by definition, false? Or are you trying to claim in this case also that they don't believe in a universal God?

[William]

[Replying to post 37 by Danmark]

NO, it is not possible to connect two opposite characters in the same 'god.'

Yet I just did the 'impossible' in my explanation in my last post. I see you chose not to comment on that.

I even went as far as to say I could identify connections of the OT idea of GOD with other religions ideas of GOD.

Once one removes the chaff, therein is the wheat.

As to the doctrine of trinity, that still separates human consciousness from GOD consciousness and is evidently a product of human invention related to how elitist think. This too is a common aspect with other religions.

GOD is not an elitist.

See further data re this:

The Dangers of Separating Human Consciousness From Any Idea of GOD

and

Separating any idea of GOD from All other Consciousness.