GOD OF THE OT / GOD OF THE NT.......IS IT THE SAME GOD?

[Carry_Your_Name]

We'd have to discuss what the mark of the beast is.
We'd have to discuss if children are responsible for their actions --- according to God.

So it's not a simple yes or no answer.
Plus, I don't know enough about Revelation.

I'm just thankful we have a merciful God and will be judged by HIM.

Obviously children are not responsible, their legal guardians are, but both they and their legal guardians will be judged if they take the mark. You don’t need to be a scholar of Revelation to understand that this mark is Satan’s counterfeit of the Seal of God, taking it means pledging allegiance to Satan and being remade in the image of the Beast. I think this is sufficient to demonstrate that God of the NT is the same.

 

[Alfred Persson]

I'm slow AP.

Could you translate what you wrote above?
Thanks.

The other day I copy pasted a reply I couldn't understand, to ChatGPT and asked it to explain what was said. It did a good job. Try it.

 

[kjw47]

Yeah, and spirit means wind or breath. Breath + body = soul, simple as that.

There is no actual spirit being living within one.

 

[Alfred Persson]

There is no actual spirit being living within one.

Oh my gosh! Imposters in the city of God!

22 But you have come to Mount Zion and to the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, to an innumerable company of angels,
23 to the general assembly and church of the firstborn who are registered in heaven, to God the Judge of all, to the spirits of just men made perfect,
24 to Jesus the Mediator of the new covenant, and to the blood of sprinkling that speaks better things than that of Abel.
25 See that you do not refuse Him who speaks. For if they did not escape who refused Him who spoke on earth, much more shall we not escape if we turn away from Him who speaks from heaven, (Heb. 12:22-25 NKJ)

 

[GodsGrace]

Just ask?
Mark 10:8 kjv
8. And they twain shall be one flesh: so then they are no more twain, but one flesh

Are both merging into one flesh?

The disciples in Corinth decided it might be better for some not to marry (because of distractions away from serving Christ Jesus)? 1 Corinthians 7

Mississippi redneck
eddif

Ed, I don't understand what this has to do with either the OP or what the other member posted.
If you care to clarify....

 

[GodsGrace]

Obviously children are not responsible, their legal guardians are, but both they and their legal guardians will be judged if they take the mark. You don’t need to be a scholar of Revelation to understand that this mark is Satan’s counterfeit of the Seal of God, taking it means pledging allegiance to Satan and being remade in the image of the Beast. I think this is sufficient to demonstrate that God of the NT is the same.

Carry, I respect your intelligence, but what you're saying in this regard has me baffled to be honest.

First you say that children are not responsible.
Which is correct.

Then you say that their legal guardians are. And then so are they....??

So where in scripture does it state that the son is responsible for the father's sins?
Nowhere.

If what you state is correct,,,,,then a guardian's effect of baptism would be passed on to the child and this is also not correct.

We are responsible ONLY for our own sins:

2 Corinthians 5:10
For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, so that each one may receive what is due for what he has done in the body, whether good or evil.



Galatians 6:5
For each will have to bear his own load.



Ezekiel 18:20
The soul who sins shall die. The son shall not suffer for the iniquity of the father, nor the father suffer for the iniquity of the son. The righteousness of the righteous shall be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon himself.



James 4:17
So whoever knows the right thing to do and fails to do it, for him it is sin.

 

[Alfred Persson]

Carry, I respect your intelligence, but what you're saying in this regard has me baffled to be honest.

First you say that children are not responsible.
Which is correct.

Then you say that their legal guardians are. And then so are they....??

So where in scripture does it state that the son is responsible for the father's sins?
Nowhere.

If what you state is correct,,,,,then a guardian's effect of baptism would be passed on to the child and this is also not correct.

We are responsible ONLY for our own sins:

2 Corinthians 5:10
For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, so that each one may receive what is due for what he has done in the body, whether good or evil.



Galatians 6:5
For each will have to bear his own load.



Ezekiel 18:20
The soul who sins shall die. The son shall not suffer for the iniquity of the father, nor the father suffer for the iniquity of the son. The righteousness of the righteous shall be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon himself.



James 4:17
So whoever knows the right thing to do and fails to do it, for him it is sin.

One aspect often overlooked, scripture must be diligently studied to know the truth. For example:

9 ...For I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children to the third and fourth generations of those who hate Me,
10 but showing mercy to thousands, to those who love Me and keep My commandments. (Deut. 5:9-10 NKJ)

God doesn't visit the iniquity of the fathers upon children who love Him, ONLY upon those who hate Him up to the third and fourth generations.

These nuances are in all the texts. Christ revealed the Father is Love, so does the OT. But one must diligent and not miss it.

 

[GodsGrace]

The other day I copy pasted a reply I couldn't understand, to ChatGPT and asked it to explain what was said. It did a good job. Try it.

Well AP
I'm not about to ask chatgpt what YOU meant to say.

Is this what we've come to?

If you care to converse, fine.
If you're getting tired of it, that's fine too.

But please don't send me to chatgpt to have explained to me something you said.
Thanks.

 

[Alfred Persson]

Well AP
I'm not about to ask chatgpt what YOU meant to say.

Is this what we've come to?

If you care to converse, fine.
If you're getting tired of it, that's fine too.

But please don't send me to chatgpt to have explained to me something you said.
Thanks.

I wanted to share what I found helpful. I wasn't getting tired of anything.

For example, this is how ChatGPT explained my point. A bit wordy, but it got it right:

This passage discusses the presence of atheists and agnostics among contemporary theologians who, due to their professional obligations, do not openly disclose their lack of faith. It suggests that some theologians engage in controversies within their field for personal gain, such as fame or financial benefits from speaking engagements and book sales. The author expresses a concern that these theologians' objections to traditional interpretations need to be addressed to prevent them from gaining undue credibility.

The reference to Caragounis illustrates a specific theological controversy regarding the interpretation of Matthew 16:18, which states, "You are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church." Caragounis notes that many Protestant exegetes (biblical scholars) who interpret "the rock" as referring to Peter do so while believing that this passage may not be authentic. Instead, they view it as a later addition by a faction within early Christianity that supported Peter, or as a response to Paul. The passage reflects a broader concern that not all biblical scholars or theologians are necessarily faithful Christians, a realization that the author found surprising before reading Caragounis's work.

Generally I knew some of them were lacking when it came to following Christ. But I aways exempted Protestant scholarship from suspicion. Perhaps naive, but I once did. Caragounis opened my eyes. A text which exhibits fine craftsmanship as Mt. 16:18, dismissed as inauthentic is to me the strongest proof many scholars don't have a clue:

Jesus’ Janus Parallelism on PETROS in Matthew 16:18 | End Time News

In Matthew 16 18 Simon Peter's name in Greek is Petros. According to Oscar Cullmann, Dalman, Billerbeck[1] to name a few, in Jesus' day there was in Aramaic a Jewish proper name[2] meaning "firstborn" that when transliterated into Greek is spelled petros. . According to Markus Bockmuehl its...

endtimenews.net

 

[eddif]

Ed, I don't understand what this has to do with either the OP or what the other member posted.
If you care to clarify....

Not that it is earthshaking.
We were talking about natures of God and man. The comment was made about the wife (Virgin) taking on the husband’s nature .
IMHO they become one flesh. (They)

I just tied in a letter to the Corinthians about marriage.


eddif

 

[GodsGrace]

One aspect often overlooked, scripture must be diligently studied to know the truth. For example:

9 ...For I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children to the third and fourth generations of those who hate Me,
10 but showing mercy to thousands, to those who love Me and keep My commandments. (Deut. 5:9-10 NKJ)

God doesn't visit the iniquity of the fathers upon children who love Him, ONLY upon those who hate Him up to the third and fourth generations.

These nuances are in all the texts. Christ revealed the Father is Love, so does the OT. But one must diligent and not miss it.

Actually, I don't agree with your interpretation.
But that's not what we're here for.

Just quick:
It says nowhere that it's speaking about believers.
The message is from God - Moses - to the Israelites.
The message is for ALL of them.

So it cannot mean what you believe it does.
This will not be discussed on this thread.

You could begin a thread if you care to discuss.

 

[GodsGrace]

I wanted to share what I found helpful. I wasn't getting tired of anything.

For example, this is how ChatGPT explained my point. A bit wordy, but it got it right:

This passage discusses the presence of atheists and agnostics among contemporary theologians who, due to their professional obligations, do not openly disclose their lack of faith. It suggests that some theologians engage in controversies within their field for personal gain, such as fame or financial benefits from speaking engagements and book sales. The author expresses a concern that these theologians' objections to traditional interpretations need to be addressed to prevent them from gaining undue credibility.

The reference to Caragounis illustrates a specific theological controversy regarding the interpretation of Matthew 16:18, which states, "You are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church." Caragounis notes that many Protestant exegetes (biblical scholars) who interpret "the rock" as referring to Peter do so while believing that this passage may not be authentic. Instead, they view it as a later addition by a faction within early Christianity that supported Peter, or as a response to Paul. The passage reflects a broader concern that not all biblical scholars or theologians are necessarily faithful Christians, a realization that the author found surprising before reading Caragounis's work.

Generally I knew some of them were lacking when it came to following Christ. But I aways exempted Protestant scholarship from suspicion. Perhaps naive, but I once did. Caragounis opened my eyes. A text which exhibits fine craftsmanship as Mt. 16:18, dismissed as inauthentic is to me the strongest proof many scholars don't have a clue:

Jesus’ Janus Parallelism on PETROS in Matthew 16:18 | End Time News

In Matthew 16 18 Simon Peter's name in Greek is Petros. According to Oscar Cullmann, Dalman, Billerbeck[1] to name a few, in Jesus' day there was in Aramaic a Jewish proper name[2] meaning "firstborn" that when transliterated into Greek is spelled petros. . According to Markus Bockmuehl its...

endtimenews.net

Gosh AP

We all know about theologians.
We have our opinions about Peter being, or not being, the Rock.
We could discuss without the aid of chapgpt or even other men....
Caragounis -- I don't even know who he is.

Peter the Rock....quick:
It might have been added to please the universal, catholic church of the time that was having to decide all the doctrine that would eventually come to be known as Christianity.

But then we also would have to discuss Jesus giving Peter the keys to the Kingdom.
And other verses having to do with the same idea.
Peter was the most important Apostle...always mentioned first in lists.
The one that had to go to the empty tomb...
John pulled back and let Peter go in first.

Too much to discuss here.

 

[kjw47]

Oh my gosh! Imposters in the city of God!

22 But you have come to Mount Zion and to the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, to an innumerable company of angels,
23 to the general assembly and church of the firstborn who are registered in heaven, to God the Judge of all, to the spirits of just men made perfect,
24 to Jesus the Mediator of the new covenant, and to the blood of sprinkling that speaks better things than that of Abel.
25 See that you do not refuse Him who speaks. For if they did not escape who refused Him who spoke on earth, much more shall we not escape if we turn away from Him who speaks from heaven, (Heb. 12:22-25 NKJ)

144,000 go to heaven-Rev 14:3--only these are bought from the earth. They will be changed into spirit beings. These will sit on thrones) Rev 1:6, Rev 20:6)= the little flock=the anointed bride of Christ. The great crowd is not promised heaven any where in the bible. Prov 2:21-22 assures they remain on earth.

 

[Alfred Persson]

Actually, I don't agree with your interpretation.
But that's not what we're here for.

Just quick:
It says nowhere that it's speaking about believers.
The message is from God - Moses - to the Israelites.
The message is for ALL of them.

So it cannot mean what you believe it does.
This will not be discussed on this thread.

You could begin a thread if you care to discuss.

I'll honor your wish, but anything in the OT that reveals who God is and how He acts is pertinent to the OP and how He is depicted in the NT.

 

[GodsGrace]

Not that it is earthshaking.
We were talking about natures of God and man. The comment was made about the wife (Virgin) taking on the husband’s nature .
IMHO they become one flesh. (They)

I just tied in a letter to the Corinthians about marriage.


eddif

One flesh.
OK
We also are joined with God.
OK

I'll take what I need from your statement!
?

 

[Alfred Persson]

144,000 go to heaven-Rev 14:3--only these are bought from the earth. They will be changed into spirit beings. These will sit on thrones) Rev 1:6, Rev 20:6)= the little flock=the anointed bride of Christ. The great crowd is not promised heaven any where in the bible. Prov 2:21-22 assures they remain on earth.

How can this be? Spirit beings have physical foreheads that can be written upon?

And I looked, and, lo, a Lamb stood on the mount Sion, and with him an hundred forty and four thousand, having his Father's name written in their foreheads. (Rev. 14:1 KJV)

 

[GodsGrace]

I'll honor your wish, but anything in the OT that reveals who God is and how He acts is pertinent to the OP and how He is depicted in the NT.

This particular rule that you've brought up applies both in the OT and the NT.
Curses traverse generations because of their effect.
Not obeying God has consequences.
Sometimes they are passed on to the next generation.

 

[GodsGrace]

144,000 go to heaven-Rev 14:3--only these are bought from the earth. They will be changed into spirit beings. These will sit on thrones) Rev 1:6, Rev 20:6)= the little flock=the anointed bride of Christ. The great crowd is not promised heaven any where in the bible. Prov 2:21-22 assures they remain on earth.

This is not the proper thread for the above comment.
Please post in End Times if this is your forte.
Thanks.

 

[Fastfredy0]

So where in scripture does it state that the son is responsible for the father's sins?

Deut 5:9 You shall not worship them or serve them; for I, the Lord your God, am a jealous (impassioned) God [demanding what is rightfully and uniquely mine], visiting (avenging) the iniquity (sin, guilt) of the fathers on the children [that is, calling the children to account for the sins of their fathers], to the third and the fourth generations of those who hate Me, AMP

Responsible - Required to render account; answerable


Oh, looks like someone already beat me to the truth. Well done Alfred. Kewl name too. :yes

9 ...For I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children to the third and fourth generations of those who hate Me,
10 but showing mercy to thousands, to those who love Me and keep My commandments. (Deut. 5:9-10 NKJ)

*giggle* ... apparently someone else knows that that children can be responsible for the actions of their fathers, grandfathers, ...

 

[GodsGrace]

Deut 5:9 You shall not worship them or serve them; for I, the Lord your God, am a jealous (impassioned) God [demanding what is rightfully and uniquely mine], visiting (avenging) the iniquity (sin, guilt) of the fathers on the children [that is, calling the children to account for the sins of their fathers], to the third and the fourth generations of those who hate Me, AMP

Responsible - Required to render account; answerable


Oh, looks like someone already beat me to the truth. Well done Alfred. Kewl name too. :yes

*giggle* ... apparently someone else knows that that children can be responsible for the actions of their fathers, grandfathers, ...

Well, then YES,,,,,the bible DOES contradict itself!!

Great post FF.
You have proven the point of the Theological naysayers that believe God changes.

Please do not derail this thread.
Thanks.