I rarely pontificate on theology. I do not frequently discuss or debate theology. I even less frequently espouse my own theological beliefs. I find religion to be a very personal issue, and also a very private issue. So, since I will be undoubtedly offensive to someone (as opposed to being offensive to everyone, which I’m fine with), you can click the little link there to read the whole post.
Ok, the background info first. This comes in response to this post on Gerv’s blog. Gervase Markham is a really cool guy who does a boatload of work for the Mozilla Foundation and the general Mozilla community. But, in my opinion, he falls into the same trap of hyper-zealotry many Christians do. It seems most common among the “born again”, converts, and the Christian fundamentalists, although I attribute no malice to converts, born-again Christians, and some right-wing conservatives (but yes, I do feel the rest of the Religious Right, like Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell, Trent Lott, George Bush, they’re all perverting Christianity and are in fact as far from Christ as one can be without eating babies, and I’m not totally convinced they don’t do that, too).
I’m a Roman Catholic. I was born into a Catholic family and baptised in the Church a month and a half later. I took my Catholic Catechism classes through my First Communion, Confession, and later Confirmation. I will be married in the Catholic Church. I attend mass every Christmas and all throughout Lent and at Easter, and sporadically through the year. I have some differences with the Church, especially about abortion (I believe it is not my right as a man to make laws that can only negatively affect women, but never affect me, although I also feel that abortion is a terrible choice, but sometimes necessary in cases of health, rape or incest, or other emergency situations), birth control (I’m 112% in favor of it, to the point of openly advocating the teaching of contraception in all sex-ed classes in schools, teaching it to teenagers, etc), and other issues, but in the end, I stand with the Church as an institution of God that can do immense good on Earth.
Now, why I’m writing all this. Gerv wrote this line: “It may offend people to say it, but it’s true – anyone praying who wasn’t praying to the one true God of the Bible was wasting their time.” If you feel it’s taken out of context, I provided a link to the post, go read it. I don’t find it offensive as much as I find it totally sinful, un-Christian, and morally repugnant.
First, the Christian God is one of love, unconditional love. He loves the priests and the ministers no more than he loves the whores and the thieves, and no less. He loves the carpenter and the arsonist, the laborer and the tax collector, the child and the abusive parent. He hurts when people sin, but he still loves us, and wants us to repent and try to make right in the world. This was made very very clear by Christ, so clear that it is incomprehensible that anyone could misconstrue this. It was so clear that I feel even the idea of an eternal Hell is gone. I believe that Christ is always listening to everyone’s prayers, and will always forgive those who come to him, even in death and beyond. He came for our salvation, the salvation of all men, not just those who follow him. I do not believe for a second that God would turn his back on a person solely for being Buddhist, or Muslim, or Jewish, or even Atheistic. I think that anyone who lives a good moral life in the spirit of Christ, even without doing so intentionally, is worthy of his salvation and love.
So the idea that non-Christians are “wasting their time” is just awful. Not only is it un-Christian itself, but it projects an AWFUL image, not better than the Islamic Fundamentalists who call non-Muslims infidels and wage campaigns of terror against them. Both extremists create a terrible image for their religions, as they are not the core views of their respective religions. Both views dehumanize non-believers, and in the end promote violence, such as the Crusades, the Inquisition, the Israeli/Palestinian Conflicts, and the current Islamist Terror groups. Further, any believers who do not agree with their extreme views become non-believers in the extremist viewpoint, and are also dehumanized. It becomes a tighter and tighter group, directly in conflict with the true ideals of the religion.
To be true to Christ you must be tolerant and forgiving to those who do not share your belief, and you must not judge them, or state they are “Wasting their time”. It is not your right, nor your place. That is for God to decide, not you. Do not confuse your role with His, because in the end, His will trumps your interpretation of His will.
Also, it’s rather rude to just slap well wishers in the face with that. Gerv may believe differently, but there’s no reason to be that rude for whatever reason.
Lastly, this goes to my statement way up there that I feel religion is very private. It’s rare for me to quote the Bible, as I think the Old Testament is a group of parables meant to teach, not a factual history, and the New Testament isn’t the greatest for self-continuity. I find Christ’s teachings and life to be the most valuable part of the Bible, and the only thing worth quoting. It’s from the Book of Matthew, Chapter 6 (King James Version, or New International Version, verses 5 through 8 specifically.
When you pray, do not be like the hypocrites, for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and on the street corners that they may be seen by men. Verily I say to you, they already have their reward. When you pray, go into your room, close the door and pray to your Father, who is unseen. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you. And when you pray, enter into your closet and close the door, pray to the Father which is in secret; and what the Father sees in secret shall reward openly.
Why do I quote this? Wearing your faith on your sleeve does not impress God. Having a strong faith without an audience, and living as a good person, that impresses God. That’s why I don’t talk about mine much, or debate it much. God knows my faith, and that’s enough for me. Thanks for reading.
I agree more or less completely with you Jesus_x.
It was not cool of Gerv to use his misfortune to promote his religion, and to promote his religion at the expense of people who responded to his friend’s request to wish him well. It was not cool of him to say "[I] respectfully disagree with a couple of the theological statements" — prayers are not theological statements.
Gerv seemed to be replying to Jews and Muslims when he said "anyone praying who wasn’t praying to the one true God of the Bible was wasting their time". Jews and Muslims worship the same god.
He made it clear that he was not responding to atheists who wished him well, only to people of other religions who prayed. I wonder why.
Jesse, jewish atheist
God, schmod. Just be good.
MightyMu, muish atheist.
I would have commented earlier, but I didn’t get a trackback ping.
I’m glad you find Christ’s teachings to be the only part of the Bible worth quoting; but I’m afraid to say that Jesus wouldn’t agree with almost any of what you’ve written.
jesus_x: "It was so clear that I feel even the idea of an eternal Hell is gone."
Jesus: "It is better for you to enter the kingdom of God with one eye than to have two eyes and be thrown into hell, where ‘their worm does not die, and the fire is not quenched.’" [Mark 9:47-48]
jesus_x: "He came for our salvation, the salvation of all men, not just those who follow him."
Jesus: "I am the way and the truth and the life. No-one comes to the Father except through me." [John 14:16]
jesus_x: "I think that anyone who lives a good moral life in the spirit of Christ, even without doing so intentionally, is worthy of his salvation and love."
Jesus: "I know that you do not have the love of God in your hearts." [John 5:42]
Paul: "There is no one righteous, not even one." [Romans 3:10]
Gerv
Jesse said: ‘It was not cool of him to say "[I] respectfully disagree with a couple of the theological statements" — prayers are not theological statements.’
You misunderstand what I was referring to. I was talking about, for example, <a href="http://weblogs.mozillazine….‘s assertion</a> at the top of the original comments, that we are all a figment of God’s imagination.
Jesse said: ‘Jews and Muslims worship the same god.’
I’ve talked about that a bit over at <a href="http://blog.ebrahim.org/arc…‘s blog</a>. The Christian God is not the same as the Jewish God or Muslim God, in any meaningful sense.
Jesse said: ‘He made it clear that he was not responding to atheists who wished him well, only to people of other religions who prayed. I wonder why.’
Why not ask me if you want to know? 🙂 I did respond to the atheists – I said their sentiment was appreciated. Which it was.
Gerv
Gerv:
"The Christian God is not the same as the Jewish God or Muslim God, in any meaningful sense."
I’m astounded you say this. Is not our God the God of Abraham, the God of Cain and Abel, Noah, Moses, Jacob, and of Jesus?
Second, I did state that is my interpretation that eternal Hell doesn’t exist. I can’t reconcile an all loving, forgiving God who wants us to come to him being the same God who would condemn us to eternal damnation because we missed a deadline of our death. I honestly can’t understand why we could go to hell, and then see the light of God, and yet it would be too late. He’s God, not McDonald’s breakfast menu.
"I am the way and the truth and the life. No-one comes to the Father except through me."
And yet he turned away no one. He welcomed ALL, at any time, not just those that joined the club early. He welcomed the perfume of the whore, eate with the tax collector, comforted the lepers, and blessed the thief while on the crucifix. He pled to God for forgiveness for the rest of mankind, "Forgive them, Father, for they know not what they do." Luke 23:33. His death opened the gates of Heaven for all who had died before him. He came for the salvation of man, not just some.
"I know that you do not have the love of God in your hearts."
The love of God is to follow his example, to be kind and caring, to have compassion and forgiveness. Following Romans, do you believe the uncircumcised are equally damned?
And if we’re figments of God’s imagination, he’s one twisted guy.
jesus_x: "Is not our God the God of Abraham, the God of Cain and Abel, Noah, Moses, Jacob, and of Jesus?"
The Jews don’t recognise Jesus at all, and the Muslims merely recognise him as "another prophet". They don’t believe he died for the sins of the world.
Anyway, regardless of that, it’s not "the same God" in any meaningful sense. That’s because if Jews, Muslims and Christians all believe different things about God, and relate to him in totally different ways, then (at least) two of the groups are worshipping and relating to a false image of God – an idol.
jesus_x: "I can’t reconcile an all loving, forgiving God who wants us to come to him being the same God who would condemn us to eternal damnation because we missed a deadline of our death."
So he "wants us to come to him" but doesn’t mind if we don’t – he’ll forgive us anyway?
Jesus has plenty to say about judgement, all through the gospels. Our rebellion against God is so serious that justice _demands_ that there be a hell. If you think that’s harsh, you haven’t understood how serious our sin is, and how much we deserve to be punished for it, and how gracious God is to rescue even one of us from that fate.
"The Jews don’t recognise Jesus at all, and the Muslims merely recognise him as "another prophet". They don’t believe he died for the sins of the world."
Aha! Incorrect. Jews believe Jesus was a real person, some teach he was even a rabbi himself, although they do not believe he was the Messiah. And yes, Muslims believe he was another prophet. But all three religions worship the same God, in every meaningful sense. It is the forms of worship, and what he has done for us since the creation that differs.
"So he "wants us to come to him" but doesn’t mind if we don’t – he’ll forgive us anyway?"
I don’t recall being taught we had a deadline for coming to God. I’m not saying there isn’t a Hell, I’m saying there isn’t an ETERNAL Hell, where we are beyond being saved. This is one point where I blatantly disagree with the Church, and make no apologies for it.
Since you seem to feel Hell is eternal, how do you reconcile total forgiveness with the total abandonment that is an eternal damnation?
"Jews believe Jesus was a real person"
I said that they didn’t "recognise" him – what I meant by that is that they don’t recognise him as the Son of God, or anything other than just another human being.
If I say "I don’t recognise George Bush as the President of the USA", it doesn’t mean I don’t think he exists, it means I don’t recognise his authority, because he stole the election 😉
"I don’t recall being taught we had a deadline for coming to God."
The parable of the ten virgins [Matthew 25]? The parable of the talents [also Matthew 25]? The parable of the tenants [Mark 12]? "Seek the LORD *while he may be found; call on him *while he is near*." [Isaiah 55:6]? You may not have been taught it, but the Bible teaches it 🙂
"how do you reconcile total forgiveness with the total abandonment that is an eternal damnation?"
God is both completely just and completely merciful – not one or the other. We have all rebelled against God, and totally deserve eternal damnation. If we all went to hell, not one of us could say "that’s not fair". Sin is a massive deal to God.
However, God has chosen to save some, because he is merciful and loving. He paid a terrible price for it, too – Jesus died on the cross, and his relationship with the Father was broken. We can’t begin to imagine how excruciatingly painful that must have been. It makes his physical agonies pale into insignificance.
But forgiveness is a two-person thing. You can’t forgive someone who doesn’t want to be forgiven. It’s available to all who ask for it, and who trust Jesus as their Saviour and accept him as their Lord.
Many people think they don’t need a Saviour, and certainly don’t want Jesus as their Lord, ruling their lives. They want to rule their own lives – and that’s the rebellion that God will justly punish.
Ahh, and now we venture into the land of interpretation. You have been taught Matthew 25 teaches there is limited time to recieve Christ. It is completely sensible to also interpret it differently. Jewish weddings at the time of Christ were far different affairs. There could be 11th hour negotiations between the groom and the bride’s family, meals not yet ready. It was commonplace for the entire wedding party to be delayed for hours, as I’m sure you know. So the parable of the Ten Virgins could also mean that you should be wise with your time on earth. Do not put off things you feel important, ro you may find you have run out of time. This does not necessarily relate to coming to God. The parable of the talents can also mean that God has given us each gifts, and that we should use them wisely, and not squander them.
Mark 12 is frequently quoted for the "Give unto Caesar that which is Caesar’s, and give unto the Lord that which is the Lord’s." Which is a reinforcement of the first Commandment, that God is the creator, and Caesar is merely a man, a leader. It also teaches to be wary of they who walk around more concerned with form and appearance of holiness than with God (the scribes), and that the meaning of one’s sacrifice is more important than the amount (the offerings to the treasury).
Further, the beginning of Mark 12 you seem to take out of context. This is a continuation of Mark 11, where Jesus is entering Jerusalen through the east gates, in fulfillment of Jewish Scripture. He is using the scripture against the corrupt Priests, to show they are not holding to God’s laws, but herely inhabiting God’s house for their own gain. The parable of the "tenants" is that the Priests are living in God’s house (the Temple on the Mount) but are not givig to God what is his, prayer and worship, but using his house for their own ends, and that God will not rewardthem for this. This is also reinforcement of the first commandment, as at this time in history, the Priests were viewing themselves as having complete impunity. So, I think this reference is completely mistaken.
Isaiah is worthless, as he lived half a millenia before Christ. It’s just another historical tale as the rest of the Old Testamant, half used for history, half used for Jewish law to keep the people in line.
So, those as example of what the Bible "teaches" are less than clear.
I have never rebelled against God, as very few people have. Original Sin is a myth. It is another tool of the Old Testament to keep people in line. Pork is forbidden by Jewish law because 4,000 years ago it was impossible to keep it free from worms and disease, so to keep people from eating it and getting sick or dying, spreading disease it was made a law of God. After all, you may question a human leader, but you didn’t question God…
Christ’s relationship was not broken in any sense on the Cross. I haven’t any clue where the hell that came from. His crucifixion was fulfillment of the Scriptures, in accordance with his plan and God’s plan, to usher in the new era of salvation. It CONFIRMED the relationship.
Forgiveness is NOT a "two-person thing". That’s absurd, and also directly in conflict with Mark 11 (which you brought up by way of Mark 12). "And when ye stand praying, forgive, if ye have ought against any: that your Father also which is in heaven may forgive you your trespasses."
Tell God of your forgiveness of others, so that God may forgive your sins. Not tell he who you forgive, but tell God. Not "make sure the other guy accepts your fogiveness". And God forgives us of OUR sins from the beginning, it is only up to us to accept it, but if we do not, that does not mean it is not there for us to take.
As for rebellion being justly punished, again, that is not for you to say. That is God’s decision, and he can make it quite well without your help or interpretation. What is and is not rebellion is also not for you to say, but God. At best, you can pray for those who have not found God and Christ, that he may touch them. The self-importance people give themselves that they are somehow fit to judge others’ religion and deign what is and is not acceptable to God is in and of itself a sin.
If I may ask, where did you learn what you have, what helped form your opinions as they are today?
Oh, lastly, quoting a verse ot two from the bible is easy. Quoting it in context is significantly harder. Many people frequently toss around single verses that are far mroe often than not taken out of context, but sound authoritative. Even the devil can quote scripture to fit is purposes. 🙂
I apologise for not being more specific in pointing out which part of the parables I was referring to. Let me rectify that, and hopefully therefore prove that I wasn’t quoting out of context.
Matthew 25 (the ten virgins): when the virgins turn up late to the party, the host (i.e. Jesus) says "I tell you the truth, I don’t know you.". And then they are shut out of the party permanently. This teaches that you only have a limited time to put your trust in Jesus, if you want to be at the party.
As well as what I said, the parable of the talents also means what you say – I didn’t claim that it only teaches one thing 🙂 The parts which bring out the limited time are when the master returns, judges the work of the servants, and then says "And throw that worthless servant outside, into the darkness, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth."
Again, Mark 12 (the tenants) also teaches as you outline. But it does teach limited time – there will be a time when the vineyard owner returns in wrath, and judges the tenants.
"Isaiah is worthless, as he lived half a millenia before Christ." – yet he accurately predicted the Christ’s suffering and death. I challenge you to read Isaiah 52:13 – 53:12 and tell me it doesn’t refer to Christ (as the Gospels say it does, in several references.)
"I have never rebelled against God, as very few people have. Original Sin is a myth."
How then do you interpret Romans 5:12 onwards? "Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all men, because all sinned…" This is a key point in Paul’s letter, which explains the meaning of the cross and the message of salvation.
"Christ’s relationship was not broken in any sense on the Cross. His crucifixion was fulfillment of the Scriptures, in accordance with his plan and God’s plan, to usher in the new era of salvation."
So what happened on the Cross, if Christ did not take the punishment for our sins (separation from God)? After all, if there’s no hell, then there’s no punishment for sins. So what was the Cross for?
"What is and is not rebellion is also not for you to say, but God."
You say (further up) that you’ve never rebelled against God. How do you know whether you have or not? By your own argument, surely it’s not for you to say, but God?
Leaving that aside, you say you’ve never rebelled against God. Does this mean you’ve kept his laws and decrees in every detail? You’ve never lied, stolen, or coveted, for example?
This is a fascinating argument. Can anyone play?
Gerv writes of the "God of the Bible" and yet he seems to only believe in Jesus. God made a covenant in the Old Testament of the Bible and chose a People to himself. They were and are the Jews. God doesn’t break His covenants, so the Jews still ARE his Chosen People.
Many people believe that God sent Jesus to bring MORE people to Himself, not to exclude people. The Jews were first, then Paul got out there and converted the Greeks. Not enough. God wants us all, so He sends Mohammed to bring the Arabs into the family.
There is no contradiction. God wants us all to serve Him, our Creator. He has chosen different prophets for different people. It seems to me that we can each follow our own prophet without offending each other. It might help to recall that God’s words have been written down and translated by humans, and are therefore susceptible to error (read <i>God’s Secretaries</i> or <i>In the Beginning: A History of the King James Bible</i> or any of the other recent Bible histories if you doubt this).
One other point that leapt out at me. Regarding forgiveness: I have children. They could turn out to be axe-murderers and I would forgive them. Oh, I’d want them locked up behind bars, but I’d visit them, and forgive them, and I would not — COULD not stop loving the children I created.
Is God’s love for His children less powerful than my paltry human love? I doubt it.
The God in the Old Testament punished sin harshly, but the God of the New Testament has been mellowed by Jesus’ sacrifice. God forgives.
As for the reference, Here is some verses about Jesus the Messiah from Quran (There are more than 50 verses about Jesus and Mary)
— Birth and Miracles —
3:46 "He shall speak to the people in childhood and in maturity. And he shall be (of the company) of the righteous."
3:47 She said: "O my Lord! How shall I have a son when no man hath touched me?" He said: "Even so: Allah createth what He willeth: When He hath decreed a plan, He but saith to it, ‘Be,’ and it is!
3:49 "And (appoint him) an apostle to the Children of Israel, (with this message): "’I have come to you, with a Sign from your Lord, in that I make for you out of clay, as it were, the figure of a bird, and breathe into it, and it becomes a bird by Allah’s leave: And I heal those born blind, and the lepers, and I quicken the dead, by Allah’s leave; and I declare to you what ye eat, and what ye store in your houses. Surely therein is a Sign for you if ye did believe;
— Children of Israel —
5:78 Curses were pronounced on those among the Children of Israel who rejected Faith, by the tongue of David and of Jesus the son of Mary: because they disobeyed and persisted in excesses.
— He is only a prophet —
4:171 O People of the Book! Commit no excesses in your religion: Nor say of Allah aught but the truth. Christ Jesus the son of Mary was (no more than) an apostle of Allah, and His Word, which He bestowed on Mary, and a spirit proceeding from Him: so believe in Allah and His apostles. Say not "Trinity" : desist: it will be better for you: for Allah is one Allah. Glory be to Him: (far exalted is He) above having a son. To Him belong all things in the heavens and on earth. And enough is Allah as a Disposer of affairs.
5:75 Christ the son of Mary was no more than an apostle; many were the apostles that passed away before him. His mother was a woman of truth. They had both to eat their (daily) food. See how Allah doth make His signs clear to them; yet see in what ways they are deluded away from the truth!
43:59 He was no more than a servant: We granted Our favour to him, and We made him an example to the Children of Israel.
2:136 Say ye: "We believe in Allah, and the revelation given to us, and to Abraham, Isma’il, Isaac, Jacob, and the Tribes, and that given to Moses and Jesus, and that given to (all) prophets from their Lord: We make no difference between one and another of them: And we bow to Allah (in Islam)."
" This is a fascinating argument. Can anyone play"
Of course 🙂
"God made a covenant in the Old Testament of the Bible and chose a People to himself. They were and are the Jews."
God’s chosen people are indeed those descended from Abraham – but not by blood, by faith. Paul explains this in Romans 9:
"For not all who are descended from Israel are Israel. Nor because they are his descendants are they all Abraham’s children. On the contrary, ‘It is through Isaac [not Abraham’s first-born] that your offspring will be reckoned.’ In other words, it is not the natural children who are God’s children, but it is the children of the promise who are regarded as Abraham’s offspring."
The Jewish nation today, Abraham’s natural children, have mostly rejected the Messiah which the Scriptures prophesied would come; therefore, they are no longer children of the promise.
"The God in the Old Testament punished sin harshly, but the God of the New Testament has been mellowed by Jesus’ sacrifice."
On the contrary. God "is the same, yesterday, today and for ever." [Hebrews 13] Gemma makes that point, among many other good ones: http://www.ramblinations.co…
mdakin has, in his quotations from the Qu’ran about Jesus, clearly shown the massive gulf between Christianity and Islam. He could have shown it even more clearly if he had quoted the verse which states that Jesus did not die on the cross; but the point is well enough made.
The New Testament is centred completely on Jesus death and resurrection, as atonement for our sins. The Qu’ran denies this ever happened. The New Testament states the Jesus is God – God is one God in three persons. The Qu-ran also denies this (although it seems fairly clear that Mohammed didn’t get the idea of the Trinity. That’s understandable – a lot of people don’t.)
One of the Bible and the Qu’ran is wrong. It really is that simple.
Interesting thoughts, Gerv.
I have to say, that I am not a big Pauline. I find that Paul’s words are too tied to his own time and place, unlike Jesus’ words in the Gospels or Acts. Nevertheless.
The passage you quoted simply supports Paul’s ministry – evangelizing the Gentiles – it really doesn’t exclude the Jews so much as it allows the non-Jews a place a the table without being required to undergo circumcision and observance of the Mosaic law (which I believe was a big point of contention between Paul’s faction on the road and JAmes’ in Jerusalem).
I would also have to disagree with you regarding the Jews’ rejection of the Messiah. If you read the Messianic prophecies in a good translation of the Old Testament, Jesus does NOT fulfill some of them without serious twisting of words. It seems quite reasonable to me that the Jews would expect their Messiah to fulfill all the details of each prophecy quite specifically. Otherwise, how were they to recognize him? Jewish history is scattered with false Messiahs.
I can’t believe that God would reject His chosen people because of their strict interpretation of His word.
God is not as petty as Humans, and I think it a grave error to suggest as much. Jesus exposed God to us as a loving father, not as a vengeful ruler. No loving father rejects his children.
God is unchanging? Yes, but our perception of Him changes. Nowhere is the three-fold nature of the Christian God discussed in the Old Testament. And nowhere is the female aspect of God discussed in the New Testament. If God’s observed/reported behaviour has changed, how does one describe this? Perhaps we are seeing new aspects of God as He chooses to reveal them. This point alone could make for an excellent discussion.
🙂
For Gerv, here is two verses on "Jesus was not killed"
4:157 That they said (in boast), "We killed Christ Jesus the son of Mary, the Messenger of Allah.;- but they killed him not, nor crucified him, but so it was made to appear to them, and those who differ therein are full of doubts, with no (certain) knowledge, but only conjecture to follow, for of a surety they killed him not:-
3:55 Behold! Allah said: "O Jesus! I will take thee and raise thee to Myself and clear thee (of the falsehoods) of those who blaspheme; I will make those who follow thee superior to those who reject faith, to the Day of Resurrection: Then shall ye all return unto me, and I will judge between you of the matters wherein ye dispute.
Talmida said:
"it really doesn’t exclude the Jews so much as it allows the non-Jews a place a the table"
I never claimed the Jews were excluded; I said that they had no _special_ consideration because of their birth. Paul develops this theme at great length in Romans. There are Christian Jews (using "Jew" as an ethnicity) today, just as there are Christians in other cultures.
"If you read the Messianic prophecies in a good translation of the Old Testament, Jesus does NOT fulfill some of them without serious twisting of words."
Could you give examples? Some Jews today are convinced that Jesus is the Messiah, based on the Messianic prophecies. And I suspect many of them read the OT in the original Hebrew 🙂
"Nowhere is the three-fold nature of the Christian God discussed in the Old Testament."
I would agree that God reveals himself progressively, but no new revelation of God can ever contradict an old one, because God does not change. And through our New Testament spectacles, we can detect some fairly big hints about the Trinity in the Old Testament. You don’t have to look any further than Genesis 1:
"Then God said, "Let us make man in our image,…"
"Us"? 🙂
Since I don’t know which translation of the Bible you use (or whether you use a translation at all!), it might be a bit difficult to discuss in this forum. There is a good overview here, however: http://www.jewsforjudaism.o…
As for the Genesis quotation? There are a lot of theories, and I like yours. There are other equally convincing ones. According to Richard Elliot Friedman in his Commentary on the Torah, it might be God referring to Himself using the "royal we" or He might be addressing a heavenly court of some kind. Or, it might be comparing the language of God to the way that the chief pagan god addressed his council, and thus showing that the God of Israel was now top banana.
This is the ONLY instance in the Torah of God speaking of Himself in the plural, and I have my own theory as to why: man has 2 images, male and female, and THAT is why God spoke in the plural.
😀
Bottom line, Gerv, I can’t see believing in a God who is bigoted or biased or exclusive — He created us all and She loves us all.