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

[Carry_Your_Name]

You're not free to degrade and misrepresent members of this site. Please state what you believe but being respectful to others. There are TOS rules to follow on this site.
Use Talk with Staff if you don't understand.

The only thing I'm disrespectful to is the three wise monkeys - "see no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil," a common attitude I find among today's Christians. I have no regret or remorse for calling it out. For the record I've stated multiple times that God was using Israel to purge the remnant of the giants and their corruption, and I used the extermination of Nazi as an analogy, nothing more.

 

[GodsGrace]

The only thing I'm disrespectful to is the three wise monkeys - "see no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil," a common attitude I find among today's Christians. I have no regret or remorse for calling it out. For the record I've stated multiple times that God was using Israel to purge the remnant of the giants and their corruption, and I used the extermination of Nazi as an analogy, nothing more.

Christians are far from perfect and that's for sure.

I think it's great that you've resolved this "dichotomy" in your mind and heart.

The only point of this thread is to ask if and how each of us has resolved this. Some members don't even think it requires a revsolution.

To go beyond this is to go against the topic at hand.

Thanks for your reply.

 

[Fastfredy0]

The point of this thread is to show how God is not adhering to His nature.

Impossible. By definition every creature and God Himself adheres to its nature. One's "nature" is who they are. One cannot be himself.
"A person's nature" refers to the fundamental characteristics, qualities, and inherent traits that define an individual. This encompasses their typical patterns of thought, behavior, emotional responses, and overall disposition. It includes innate tendencies and predispositions, as well as learned behaviors that have become deeply ingrained over time. A person's nature is often considered the core of who they are, influencing how they interact with the world and others around them. ChatAPT

Not to discuss His nature

The question at hand is:

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

Discussing God's nature is the answer to the question. God's nature is that He is IMMUTABLE. 1 Samuel 15:29 Psalm 102:27 Malachi 3:6a For I the Lord do not change ,,, ,yada, yada...

 

[eddif]

God is the only one handing out life everlasting. On a paradise earth, never sick, never without. peace always. Loved ones resurrected and given a second chance.
Not all is as appears in a satan ruled world. He and his teachers( 2 Cor 11:12-15) transform into angels of light and mislead.
Jesus started 1 single religion, he is only with 1 single Christian religion, the rest are false

The problem you point out, is the outside satanic forces trying to force their way into authority.

Adam and Eve did not have the Holy Spirit gifts to resist.

We are now to the problem. Adam and Eve were a two part creation. Body and soul.

Not body soul and Spirit, but body and soul.
The body has many parts. The soul has many parts.
But
The Spirit does not appear (inside them) till Pentecost.

God is evidently aware:
Do not eat of the tree of good and evil.

God is not changing, but man is. They were warned outwardly, but no inner warning Spirit.

Man had to be brought up to date. Why ? Hey I am a redneck. Poor vision but net totally blind.


We have to discuss the who whole theology and knowle of man. We have to expand our individual knowledge. Teaching all things , and not just our groups favorite 12?.

So are we?:
Bipartite?
Tripartite?

Fancy words? I am open to using less religious words. IMHO man was two parts till Pentecost.

I will shut up. Discussion?

Mississippi redneck
eddif

 

[eddif]

Word studies usually go bad.
We seem to have trouble with understanding Agape love.
Or
The differences in Bible words translated as love?
Mississippi redneck
eddif

 

[Carry_Your_Name]

The problem you point out, is the outside satanic forces trying to force their way into authority.

Adam and Eve did not have the Holy Spirit gifts to resist.

We are now to the problem. Adam and Eve were a two part creation. Body and soul.

Not body soul and Spirit, but body and soul.
The body has many parts. The soul has many parts.
But
The Spirit does not appear (inside them) till Pentecost.

God is evidently aware:
Do not eat of the tree of good and evil.

God is not changing, but man is. They were warned outwardly, but no inner warning Spirit.

Man had to be brought up to date. Why ? Hey I am a redneck. Poor vision but net totally blind.


We have to discuss the who whole theology and knowle of man. We have to expand our individual knowledge. Teaching all things , and not just our groups favorite 12?.

So are we?:
Bipartite?
Tripartite?

Fancy words? I am open to using less religious words. IMHO man was two parts till Pentecost.

I will shut up. Discussion?

Mississippi redneck
eddif

They were not allowed to eat the tree of knowledge because they were immature, they were mentally kids, they couldn't handle the knowledge - YET. When they ate it prematurely, disasters happened, like playing with fire.

And I, brethren, could not speak to you as to spiritual people but as to carnal, as to babes in Christ. I fed you with milk and not with solid food; for until now you were not able to receive it, and even now you are still not able; for you are still carnal. (1 Cor. 3:1-3)

 

[eddif]

They were not allowed to eat the tree of knowledge because they were immature, they were mentally kids, they couldn't handle the knowledge - YET. When they ate it prematurely, disasters happened, like playing with fire.

And I, brethren, could not speak to you as to spiritual people but as to carnal, as to babes in Christ. I fed you with milk and not with solid food; for until now you were not able to receive it, and even now you are still not able; for you are still carnal. (1 Cor. 3:1-3)

I don’t know if we totally mature into Spiritual things.

Born again seems a description too.

Mississippi redneck
eddif

 

[Alfred Persson]

Common question.
Different answers.
Wm Lane Craig has a new one that is rather disturbing.

Persons are rather disturbed that God ordered all men, women and CHILDREN, to be killed

Numbers 31:

​

New Living Translation Par ▾ Conquest of the Midianites 1Then the LORD said to Moses, 2“On behalf of the people of Israel, take revenge on the Midianites for leading them into idolatry. After that, you will die and join your ancestors.” 3So Moses said to the people, “Choose some men, and arm them to fight the LORD’s war of revenge against Midian. 4From each tribe of Israel, send 1,000 men into battle.” 5So they chose 1,000 men from each tribe of Israel, a total of 12,000 men armed for battle. 6Then Moses sent them out, 1,000 men from each tribe, and Phinehas son of Eleazar the priest led them into battle. They carried along the holy objects of the sanctuary and the trumpets for sounding the charge. 7They attacked Midian as the LORD had commanded Moses, and they killed all the men. 8All five of the Midianite kings—Evi, Rekem, Zur, Hur, and Reba—died in the battle. They also killed Balaam son of Beor with the sword. 9Then the Israelite army captured the Midianite women and children and seized their cattle and flocks and all their wealth as plunder. 10They burned all the towns and villages where the Midianites had lived. 11After they had gathered the plunder and captives, both people and animals, 12they brought them all to Moses and Eleazar the priest, and to the whole community of Israel, which was camped on the plains of Moab beside the Jordan River, across from Jericho. 13Moses, Eleazar the priest, and all the leaders of the community went to meet them outside the camp. 14But Moses was furious with all the generals and captainsa who had returned from the battle. 15“Why have you let all the women live?” he demanded. 16“These are the very ones who followed Balaam’s advice and caused the people of Israel to rebel against the LORD at Mount Peor. They are the ones who caused the plague to strike the LORD’s people. 17So kill all the boys and all the women who have had intercourse with a man. 18Only the young girls who are virgins may live; you may keep them for yourselves. 19And all of you who have killed anyone or touched a dead body must stay outside the camp for seven days. You must purify yourselves and your captives on the third and seventh days. 20Purify all your clothing, too, and everything made of leather, goat hair, or wood.”

Craig stated it's OK because God created them and has the authority to kill them....
The children will be better off in heaven...

I believe we must all come to terms with the Old Testament God.
Although the attributes are the same, God, in the OT, does seem to compromise His nature by ordering killings.

How did you come to terms with this problem?


Riven

Its the same God.

The apostate Midianite Nation who had joined Satanists against Israel was judged, so genocide is ordained to wipe them out of the Holy Land. Only virgins who couldn't perpetuate the Midianite nation are permitted to live.

The wicked of the earth are judged unworthy a place in the Kingdom of God, and so a genocide of them is ordained, to wipe them out of the Holy Land.

I don't see where or how God changed?

 

[GodsGrace]

Its the same God.

The apostate Midianite Nation who had joined Satanists against Israel was judged, so genocide is ordained to wipe them out of the Holy Land. Only virgins who couldn't perpetuate the Midianite nation are permitted to live.

The wicked of the earth are judged unworthy a place in the Kingdom of God, and so a genocide of them is ordained, to wipe them out of the Holy Land.

I don't see where or how God changed?

Virgins couldn't perpetrate so they were permitted to live.
Can children perpetrate?

 

[GodsGrace]

Impossible. By definition every creature and God Himself adheres to its nature. One's "nature" is who they are. One cannot be himself.
"A person's nature" refers to the fundamental characteristics, qualities, and inherent traits that define an individual. This encompasses their typical patterns of thought, behavior, emotional responses, and overall disposition. It includes innate tendencies and predispositions, as well as learned behaviors that have become deeply ingrained over time. A person's nature is often considered the core of who they are, influencing how they interact with the world and others around them. ChatAPT




The question at hand is:

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

Discussing God's nature is the answer to the question. God's nature is that He is IMMUTABLE. 1 Samuel 15:29 Psalm 102:27 Malachi 3:6a For I the Lord do not change ,,, ,yada, yada...

I agree with your definition of nature.

What would you call a particular aspect of nature?
For instance, let's say my nature moves me to be charitable to everyone and give away money and material things that are necessary to others.

One day I can't be charitable anymore.
Has my entire nature changed or just a certain aspect of it?

If only a certain aspect of it, how would I refer to that change in my nature??
You're going to answer that my nature remains the same but I'm unable to fulfill IT.
Which would be correct.

So....how to refer to the aspect of it which has "changed"?

 

[GodsGrace]

Yes, it does. It seems there is, as I pointed out, a basic misunderstanding of what God's love entails. If God is loving, should he let infant sacrifice to continue? If he is loving should he let bestiality, orgy offerings, incest of all manner, homosexual practice, etc., go unpunished so that it continues to corrupt the innocent, including those people he has chosen as a people unto himself? Do they not have a right to be free from living amongst that filth? Not that the Israelites were innocent, but God wanted them to be a holy people.

Any reply of mine will be too off topic.
You know I'm not a stickler for this....but there's a limit and you go far beyond the limit.

Another member began a thead on God's nature.
I'll be happy to discuss this with you on that thread.

I believe it's in reply to this thread:

Right Thoughts About God....

And believers, how you do injustice towards the Lord when you view Him as cruel, merciless, pitiless, and always angry, because He neither immediately delivers you from your threatening and pressing circumstances, nor grants you your desires, nor answers your prayers. You dishonor God with such...

christianforums.net

That is why I said that love and justice are two sides of the same coin. God's love means he must necessarily provide justice for the innocent and pure, which means punishment for the wicked.

I NEVER stated God is ONLY Love.
God is balanced in all His attributes.

On the one hand, yes, God does have a right to do what he wants; he is the Creator and we were created for him. On the other hand, God will never do something that goes against his nature; that's an impossibility.

OK. And I've said that it's good that you have this reconciled with yourself.

I couldn't trust a God like that either. What you said here is key: "We say that God cannot change.....well, it certainly seems to me that He HAS changed."

We say God cannot change because he cannot and does not change. If it seems that he has changed, then there is something wrong with our perception.

I posted 2 or 3 verses in reply to you.
You didn't directly address the verses.
If a person read them, they would perceive a difference in the "person" of whom it's speaking.

Because, philosophically speaking, to pit evolution against God creating is a category error. Technically, evolution is a mechanism and intelligent agents, such as God, use mechanisms to accomplish something. Evolution could have been the mechanism by which God created. Much like an exceedingly complex computer program (mechanism) by a Master Computer Programmer (intelligent agent), with all the initial conditions set (variables and information). As the program runs, things unfold, at whatever pace the Programmer specified. Sometimes the program may ask for additional inputs (Cambrian Explosion). Etc.

Agreed.

But, that most certainly is another topic.


But, this topic will never make sense if we don't understand God's nature

Maybe we don't.
Maybe we know only what has been revealed to us.
Maybe what has been revealed wasn't correctly passed down to us in writing.
Can we trust the entire OT?
If there's a part of it we cannot know for sure, should we throw out the entire OT?

You see....you bring this thread way off topic if I reply to you.

You've put the cart before the horse. You're trying to argue from his actions to his nature and then conclude that he is not consistent. That misses sin as the whole reason for his actions (again, Gen 15:13-16). But, it is precisely because of his nature that we see him punishing sin in the OT by commanding the killing of various Canaanite groups. So, this shows God's immutability since sin is punished at various points in the NT, and then finally at the end of the ages.

I'm not putting anything before anything.

I'm discussing the views of one man....a very much respected Philosopher/Theologian, and how his views are disturbing to many theologians.

Yes, we see more of God's grace in the NT, especially through finally providing the means of salvation and redemption, but he was also gracious in the OT. We see God's punishment of sin more overtly in the OT, but it very much is in the NT. And, as I stated, God's orders to kill the Canaanites were limited to the Israelites, for specific reasons, in a limited time frame. We must always begin with who God is, what we know of his nature, and then we try and understand his words and his actions.

God does not change from the OT to the NT.

Answered.
The OT was written in the bronze age.
Could there be any possibility that there are some aspects we don't understand?
Must I agree with you in order to be a good Christian?

This: It all comes down to this one fact: God will never act contradictory to his nature; he absolutely cannot. He will always act perfectly justly and lovingly because he is perfectly holy. So, if one thinks that God's actions contradicted his nature, then their understanding of his nature is incorrect or deficient at some point.

Well, as you know, I'd have a lot to say, but not here.

 

[GodsGrace]

You've never heard a sermon? Is there a difference between hearing a sermon and reading a book? Were the Apostolic Fathers correct in everything? How do you know? When were their errors corrected and who correct them? How do you know the corrections are correct?

Off topic again.
I'm replying now but will no longer reply to any statement not pertaining to the theme of the OP....

Sermons are meant to encourage people after a week in the world.
If they go beyond this...it's a lesson and would be more suitable to bible study.

Yes. The Apostolic Fathers were correct in 99% (nothing is perfect).
I know because the Apostles taught them.
Jesus taught the Apostles.

If they don't know,,,,who would know??

No errors to correct.

Who are you to judge that they are (merely) "Men's ideas"? How do you know that the Holy Spirit didn't guide them into the truth of what they say? Are you the only one able to "hear the Holy Spirit," the only one to whom God gives true understanding of Scripture? (Just rhetorical to get you thinking; not meant to be harsh.)

It's a man
It's an idea
THUS....It's a man's idea.
I prefer God's ideas which are found in the bible He inspired.

Free, I've been thinking for over 45 years.
I doubt there's any topic you could bring up to which I don't have a reply.

The Holy Spirit:
Do YOU hear the Holy Spirit?
How come we don't agree in our theology?
How do we determine who is correct?

Please start a new thread...

Well, that could be a part of the problem. As I stated previously, we are never to "do theology," that is, try and understand God and his revelation to us, by ourselves. This actually sets oneself up as the chief theologian and Bible scholar in all Christian history. Not a great place to be. Christians are called to loving community, that is at the core of what we are called to. And that absolutely includes "doing theology."

But you see....I'm not all by myself setting up my own theology.
You're not grasping what I'm saying.

I read the bible.
I read the Apostolic Fathers. The Patriarchs.
I DO NOT make up my own theology.

Others. OTOH, are reading up on new theology which came about one thousand five hundred years after Jesus and believe THEY have the truth.

There is no new revelation after Jesus.
The Mormons are wrong,
The JW are wrong,
All others that came about 1,500 years after Jesus are necessarily wrong because they're ideas of men.

Besides, as was pointed out in another thread, without the voices of all theologians and scholars past and present, we are significantly more likely to fall into error, as the whole "the Holy Spirit is all I need" idea is highly subjective. How does one know if the Holy Spirit is actually speaking to them? There was one point on these forums many years ago when several members were saying that only the Holy Spirit led them to understand the Bible, and they all eschewed "the writings of men." Yet, they all disagreed with each other on various things, each convinced they were right because "the Holy Spirit told them."

I'm not in the above group so I won't reply.
Where did I ever state that the Holy Spirit is all one needs?
Not me...

It doesn't mean the Holy Spirit will not illuminate something as we read, but we must listen to God when he says he gifts certain believers with the ability to teach, and therefore understand that his primary way of communicating to us by his Spirit, is through others, not independent of others. This is all the more important today, being 2000 years out, reading English translations of writings written in languages that haven't been around for quite some time. All the more reason we need to consult commentaries and lexicons.

Commentaries are of men.
You post one you agree with,
I post one I agree with.
Where has that gotten us?

Lexicons are pretty much useless.
Also, it means you don't trust the translators of the bible you're reading.
You think Strong's could explain a word in a sentence?

You think we know what an aorist tense is?
It's not even a time....it's an action.

I know theologian (go figure) who speaks 7 languages or so.
I asked him about the aorist tense when it was all the rage about 4 yrs or so ago.
He said to forget about trying to understand it unless I wanted to learn Greek.

I speak 3 languages.
I think I know about translating stuff.

But, we will never find the answer if we don't discuss sin

What answer?
What are we discussing in this thread?

But, again, his nature is at the very center of it all. It alone shows exactly why there is no difference between God in the OT and in the NT.


He hates all sin, but the world is fallen and we are the cause of it.

And soon it'll all end. Again.
Somehow.

Because, God didn't and absolutely cannot murder nor command murder. Because God is perfectly holy, he is perfectly just and justified in punishing sin through death, even if it means women and children.

No comment.

Possibly. But, what about genetics? Those do predispose people to certain things. However, it is also possible that, as with the Israelites, God often deals with people groups as a whole. The whole American and Western idea of super-individualism must largely be left at the door when it comes to Scripture (and living the Christian life).

I believe it must be left at the door in all cases.
I like the group mentality.
I live in a place that practices this.

Exo 34:6 The LORD passed before him and proclaimed, “The LORD, the LORD, a God merciful and gracious, slow to anger, and abounding in steadfast love and faithfulness,
Exo 34:7 keeping steadfast love for thousands, forgiving iniquity and transgression and sin, but who will by no means clear the guilty, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children and the children's children, to the third and the fourth generation.” (ESV)

What does to the 3rd or 4th generation mean?
We could get into this on a different thread.

But look at this:

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.

Is this another conflict?

But, this is a misunderstanding of the utter sinfulness of sin. (I think that is probably the biggest problem in the Church, at least in the West.) The innocent, including Canaanite children and all the Israelites, were in immediate danger. Murder is killing without justification. God is always justified in punishing sin, even by death.

How were the Israelites in immediate danger?
They weren't.
They didn't just wake up one day and walk into Canaan and kill everyone.
It took planning and time.
Was the purpose to rid the land of the Baal worshippers?
Or was it to provide land for the Israelites?
If it was to rid the land of the baal worshippers, I would hope that He could have done it sooner to put a stop, if for nothing else, all the babies that were offered up to baal, and in a rather horrific method.

You see Free...many questions come up.
It's not as simple as some members here are making this.

Aside from the fact that we're not addressing the topic...

It makes all the difference. If God murdered, it means he killed without justification, and then I would absolutely agree that something is wrong. But, he didn't, because God is perfectly holy, which means everything he does is always perfectly just.

Of course, I agree.
But my above questions need answering too.

Absolutely not.


Absolutely.


Sin and God's judgement, based on his nature, are the very core of this topic. That has been my point from the start. Sin is abhorrent to God, so much so that he says the wages of sin is death. So, it must be judged and punished if he is Holy, Just, and Loving, and it all will be.

The horrific wickedness in Noah's day resulted in a flood killed almost everyone. The horrific wickedness of the Canaanites resulted in God's command to wipe them out, lest the Israelites join in their sin (which they ended up doing and also ended up paying dearly for). At the end of all things, everyone who didn't accept Christ's sacrifice and put their faith in him will face the worst punishment of all. The OT is tame compared to the lake of fire.

Answered.

 

[GodsGrace]

Well Yeshua said not one bit of the Mosaic Law would change.
But then either changed it or disagreed with it.

The Law of divorce…. Moses permitted you….to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard…..But it was not this way from the beginning….Another set of Laws?

This pretty much sets the Mosaic Law on its ear.

Then you have the Mosaic Law saying…. Show no pity: life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot.

And Christ saying….. You have heard that it was said, ‘Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth. But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to them the other cheek also.

What are we to do with this? If we consider the Laws of the Old Testament a work of fiction….Is this the answer? Where does it end?

This is addressing what the OP is about.
There's discussion going on about how the OT God seems to be different from the NT God.
Maybe they're not different?
How could they be, there's only ONE GOD.

How do we explain that Jesus is CORRECTING God??
This is impossible.

So, there must be another answer.
The answer is not that the OT is fiction...it's God revealing Himself to us.
But He seems to become more and more mature with time....
Or is it man that is becoming more mature in understanding Him?

If Jesus is correcting what Moses proclaimed...
Perhaps it's Moses making the law and not God.

After much consideration, I believe that this is a viable conclusion/solution and one that is not invented by me.

Now as I said the Gnostics threw the Old Testament and Yahweh away making Yeshua the Creator God and God Almighty. And we see some of this in John’s writings. But is that the answer?

This is at NT time...but yes, I agree with you.
That is not the answer.

As I see it Judaism is not a Christian religion. Except for information it does not offer anything to Christianity, not for guidance and not for spirit.

There has been talk of separating from the OT...
But that would take away the prophesying...the plan....the beginning....etc.
We would lose so much...

However, the two must be reconciled.
Did you ever read These Stones Will Shout?
Can't remember the author.
A Jewish explanation of the OT.
Very simple and fast read.

In the end Yahweh gave His own Son to save us and that is what matters. Gave His own Son and that is a sacrifice in itself.

Love God and love one another.
Be good and do good.
The Johnny Appleseed of Truth

Amen.

 

[Grailhunter]

This is addressing what the OP is about.
There's discussion going on about how the OT God seems to be different from the NT God.
Maybe they're not different?
How could they be, there's only ONE GOD.

How do we explain that Jesus is CORRECTING God??
This is impossible.

So, there must be another answer.
The answer is not that the OT is fiction...it's God revealing Himself to us.
But He seems to become more and more mature with time....
Or is it man that is becoming more mature in understanding Him?

If Jesus is correcting what Moses proclaimed...
Perhaps it's Moses making the law and not God.

After much consideration, I believe that this is a viable conclusion/solution and one that is not invented by me.


This is at NT time...but yes, I agree with you.
That is not the answer.


There has been talk of separating from the OT...
But that would take away the prophesying...the plan....the beginning....etc.
We would lose so much...

However, the two must be reconciled.
Did you ever read These Stones Will Shout?
Can't remember the author.
A Jewish explanation of the OT.
Very simple and fast read.


Amen.

Ya I was posing questions.
Mainly because there is not a good resolution.
No I have not read These Stones Will Shout?

 

[GodsGrace]

Its the same God.

The apostate Midianite Nation who had joined Satanists against Israel was judged, so genocide is ordained to wipe them out of the Holy Land. Only virgins who couldn't perpetuate the Midianite nation are permitted to live.

The wicked of the earth are judged unworthy a place in the Kingdom of God, and so a genocide of them is ordained, to wipe them out of the Holy Land.

I don't see where or how God changed?

Re your last sentence:

theologians seem to see where God changed !
This is the entire topic here.

If you don't even see the conflict, then, in your mind, there is no conflict and no solution is necessary.

What the theologians are discussing is how this conflict could be resolved.

 

[Carry_Your_Name]

Virgins couldn't perpetrate so they were permitted to live.
Can children perpetrate?

The same God will pour out seven bowls of plagues specifically upon all who have taken the mark of the Beast - with no mercy in Rev. 16, ask yourself whether that includes children or not. Either yes or no, the same answer applies to those evil Midianites.

 

[Alfred Persson]

Virgins couldn't perpetrate so they were permitted to live.
Can children perpetrate?

Virgins take on the identity of their husbands, so the decree against the Midianite nation wasn't subverted if they lived. Boys remain what they are, so had to die to fulfill God's Sovereign decree against the Midianites.

There's a lesson here for the apostates who will follow the antichrist Beast. No mercy is extended to them.

 

[Alfred Persson]

Re your last sentence:

theologians seem to see where God changed !
This is the entire topic here.

If you don't even see the conflict, then, in your mind, there is no conflict and no solution is necessary.

What the theologians are discussing is how this conflict could be resolved.

Some theologians today are atheists, agnostics or worse, but their day job doesn't permit they reveal themselves. They start the controversies that rage among their fellows, for the fame and $$$ it brings in speaking fees, perhaps a book.

But we should answer their objections, lest anyone think they have a point.

Before I read the following from Caragounis, it never occurred to me commentaries and theologians weren't faithful Christians:

Commenting on how many Protestant exegetes accept the eisegesis of Mt. 16:18 that "Peter is the rock" of the church:

Most Protestant exegetes who refer πέτρα to Peter do so under the assumption that the passage is inauthentic, i.e., that it is either a later interpolation by some Christian hand or more precisely a later creation by a Petrine party, or in polemic against or at least in reaction to Paul.-Chrys C. Caragounis, Peter and the Rock, (Walter de Gruyter, Berlin, New York, 1990) pp. 2-3.

 

[Grailhunter]

Some theologians today are atheists, agnostics or worse, but their day job doesn't permit they reveal themselves.

There are so many branches of collegiate study on the topic of religion that it is impossible to make a sweeping statement on it.

Especially when you are talking about theologians. I am a theologian…formal schooling in 5 countries for most of my life and I have never met an atheist theologian.

Now academic studies on religion can be about all world religions and the indigenous people that believe in them. There you could have some atheists.

The discipline does include people of all religions. But a Christian Theologian being an atheist is pretty much a contradiction of terms. Of course anyone can become religious and anyone can lose their faith.

Now I have heard people say things like this but it is usually about being intimated by educated and knowledgeable people. Insinuating if you are educated and knowledgeable you are carnal or without faith or spiritual insight.

 

[Alfred Persson]

There are so many branches of collegiate study on the topic of religion that it is impossible to make a sweeping statement on it.

Especially when you are talking about theologians. I am a theologian…formal schooling in 5 countries for most of my life and I have never met an atheist theologian.

Now academic studies on religion can be about all world religions and the indigenous people that believe in them. There you could have some atheists.

The discipline does include people of all religions. But a Christian Theologian being an atheist is pretty much a contradiction of terms. Of course anyone can become religious and anyone can loose their faith.

Now I have heard people say things like this but it is usually about being intimated by educated and knowledgeable people. Insinuating if you are educated and knowledgeable you are carnal or without faith or spiritual insight.

About this I rather be wrong than right... Of course, neither of us have facts unless you know of an Anonymous survey exploring this.

Although I lack the formal training you have, I can research the experts on any topic quite easily, in Logos10. Over the decade I have amassed an extensive library covering all of Christendom, Catholic, Protestant and Orthodox plus a few "cults".

I'm excited about AI rendering fresh translations of ancient texts, what that will bring to light. I have good reason to believe Logos11 or greater, will offer that.