Is the God of the OT the same as the God of the NT?
Published on October 15, 2006 By KFC Kickin For Christ In Religion
There seems to be some sense of belief that the God of the OT is not the same God of the NT. Is there two different concepts of God? Does the OT present only a God of wrath, while the NT deals only with God's love and mercy absent the wrath?

Well we do see OT stories of God's commanding the destruction of Sodom, the annihilation of the Canaanites, the killing of the firstborn Egyptian babies and other such stories. So the accusers claim this proves a primitive, warlike deity which totally contradicts Jesus' love and mercy. After all Jesus taught us to love one another and to turn the other cheek.

So at first glance, yes ,it does seem to be a contradiction but careful examining of the scriptures teach otherwise. Jesus himself declared that the whole OT may be summed up by the commandments to love God and love your neighbor, Matt 22:37. He also taught that the God of the OT desired love and mercy rather than sacrifice, Matthew 9:13, 12:7.

God says in Ezekiel 18:23, "Have I any pleasure in the death of the wicked....and not rather that he should turn from his way and live?"

God as a God of justice could not let the nations' evil go unchecked. He could not and did not condone their behavior. Sin, in the bible is likened to yeast. Anyone who is familiar with that pantry product knows fully well what happens when yeast does its thing. It permeates the dough. It actually "sours" the dough. That's why the Jews rid their houses of all leavened products before the Passover begins. God is serious about sin and this ceremony serves as a reminder. Maybe we all need to do that once a year, rid our homes of leaven, to remind us of how God abhors sin. It wouldn't hurt.

God is always giving second, third and fourth chances. He is very patient and longsuffering. You don't hear about that attribute of God from His accusers. In the case of the Ammorites God gave them hundreds of years to repent, yet they chose not to. Noah preached for 120 years before the flood. We all know about Jonah. Do you know how evil the Assyrians were? Yet God spared them because they chose to turn around after hearing the message Jonah put out. But later on, they went back to their wicked ways, and God did eventually destroy them.

So we can see the proper OT picture of God is one of patience, giving the people numerous opportunities to repent and turn back to Him, and only when they refuse does He judge and punish them for their evil deeds.

So now let's look at the NT and Jesus. Contrary to popular belief Jesus himself was responsible for some of the strongest statements of judgment and wrath in the bible. Matt 23 is an example. He lashes out at the religious leaders, calling them hypocrites and false leaders and informing them their destiny was eternal banishment from God. Pretty strong language coming from Jesus that is not pretty to hear. The truth is not always attractive especially to one who is not practicing it. At one point he tells them they are of their father....the devil.

In Matt 10:34 Jesus said that he came to divide, not unite. He said, "Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword." He goes on to say that His Word will divide families. We see today that it still does.

This is a biggie in our day. We're being taught that spiritually we must all come together as "one" and be united. Where in the world does this come from? Not Jesus. Anyone familiar with the Tower of Babel knows that this is not a good thing. Eccumenicalism today is the shofar blast of old. In ancient days the blast of the ram's horn meant the gathering of all to hear what was about to be addressed to the people by their leaders and perhaps even to lead them into battle.

We find love and judgement scattered throughout the NT, and love and mercy as well as judgment throughout the OT. God does not change. He is constant and reliable. Different situations do call for different emphases and maybe that's the rub. But when the two testaments are read, as they were inteneded, you can't help but see the same God who is rich in mercy but will not allow sin to go unpunished.


Comments (Page 3)
5 Pages1 2 3 4 5 
on Oct 18, 2006
I think that God's gonna get tired of all the arguments over interpretation that he's gonna create the Cylons to come and kill us all . . . "Please save us Galactica!"

Good luck sorting it all out, folks.
on Oct 18, 2006
Therefore when God said he hated Esau, it was not the person but the sin.


It doesn't say God hated Esau's sin. It says God hated Esau. You twist the Bible to make it say anything you like and them hypocritically condemn anyone who doesn't agree with you. It's your way or we aren't Christians.

As I said on the other blog, I've shaken the dust off my feet regarding you. Your safety and comfort has led you to believe that you are favored because of your righteousness, as you expressed once about people being spared harm because of how they live. You claim that people who don't agree with you don't REALLY read the Bible, and aren't really Christians. I suppose making up the definition on the same authority that you re-interpret scripture.

Live in your little world. Eventually I have to come to grips with where I'm casting my pearls, and my efforts are wasted here. You'll live in your little hateful world where God's favored are spared harm in traffic accidents and God strikes down the stiff-necked. Your punishment is living with that kind of hateful sickness in you.
on Oct 18, 2006
I think that God's gonna get tired of all the arguments over interpretation that he's gonna create the Cylons to come and kill us all . . . "Please save us Galactica!"


hahaha...
on Oct 19, 2006
t doesn't say God hated Esau's sin. It says God hated Esau. You twist the Bible to make it say anything you like and them hypocritically condemn anyone who doesn't agree with you. It's your way or we aren't Christians.


It's saying what you want it to say. Let me ask you this. Did you go back to the original story to compare with the verse you picked in Malachi? Did you get the "rest of the story" in Hebrews which further sheds light on the issue? I've been waiting for you to mention that and you have not. Why? Because just maybe Baker you'd have to reconsider. If you reconsider, it makes you wrong. And we all know Baker cannot be WRONG. I think you and the "Fonze" have something in common.

Just to bring more to light let's check that scripture you are ignoring in Hebrews.

"Lest there be any fornicator, or profane person, as Esau, who for one morsel of meat sold his birthright." Heb 12:16

Esau was an example of the “profane” person. He was called a fornicator in scripture. We see nothing of this in the physical sense but in the spiritual sense it's used as adultery against God. Apostasy is often closely linked with immorality. So here we see Esau was immoral in the spiritual sense being wordly and materialistic. So God had every right to hate Esau. But it wasn't the person, it was what He represented. God is not a God of Hate. His attribute is LOVE.

Why is it hard for you to see that God "hated" the sin and not the sinner? Because you look at one scripture that tells you otherwise? Well what about the rest of it? It's like looking a a puzzle piece and guessing what it is without getting the other pieces that fit with it that will make it much clearer. See Baker, the real story is that if the Bible is true, and is what it claims to be, the Word of God, then you'd have to listen to it and you don't want that accountability. Isn't that the truth here?

You claim that people who don't agree with you don't REALLY read the Bible, and aren't really Christians


really? I said that? I never said reading the bible is a prerequisite for Christianity. Never. But if you're reading "other" books and claiming they are God's words, then I'd have a problem with that.

Your anger, speaks volumes. Where does it come from Baker?

where I'm casting my pearls,


but this is a bible verse in a book you don't honor. Why would you use this? I'm the one that should be making this statement. It sounds like it could be a command by Jesus that I'm not being obedient on right now given your temperment.





on Oct 19, 2006
(Citizen)jlaur65October 18, 2006 22:48:44


glad someone thought it was funny . . .
on Oct 19, 2006
"Why is it hard for you to see that God "hated" the sin and not the sinner? "


Because it SAYS God hated Esau. It says because of that he made God habitation miserable. It doesn't say God loved Esau but hated his sin. YOU are the one that says the Bible translates itself. I guess it only translates itself for the whitewashed 'elect'...

"See Baker, the real story is that if the Bible is true, and is what it claims to be, the Word of God, then you'd have to listen to it and you don't want that accountability. Isn't that the truth here? "


I am holding myself accountable for EVERYTHING I say and do. YOU are the one pawning your morality off on paper and ink. YOU are the one saying that you're just "following orders". If I am wrong, it will be because *I* was wrong, not some book.

So don't pretend like you've one-upped me on accountability. You are the one who pretends to have obvious signs and directives so that you don't have to take responsibility for your actions. In the end, though, pointing to paper and ink won't be any excuse.

"really? I said that? I never said reading the bible is a prerequisite for Christianity. Never. But if you're reading "other" books and claiming they are God's words, then I'd have a problem with that. "


You said that when you wrote off other denominations as not REALLY being Christian:

"Well I can only give you my experience in these other denominations. Many called themselves Christian but in fact were hiding behind that title. They were not. It was total deception. They really didn't follow the tenants of Christianity. They did not follow Christ's words nor really believed them to begin with. The other thing I found was they would disregard some/most/all of the scriptures and replace with other books or in some cases nothing."


It sounds VERY much to me like you are saying there that the "Christians" who don't agree with you aren't really Christians, doesn't it? As for the reading the Bible part, I get that from where you said of me:

"All I can say is, you need to read it for yourself.....without your preconceived notions....and REALLY read it. Many have delved into that Word with one motive in mind, and that was to prove it was a fake, only to walk away a believer."


...that's where you said it. I've only been doing the all caps on "REALLY" because you said it of me first. The truth is a problem for you, isn't it? Evidently your posts "translate" themselves, too.

"but this is a bible verse in a book you don't honor. Why would you use this? I'm the one that should be making this statement. It sounds like it could be a command by Jesus that I'm not being obedient on right now given your temperment."


You can't fathom the idea that a book that isn't inerrant could have religious value. You read all your evangelical propaganda knowing full well it isn't inerrant and come away with a lot.

Why do you promote all these backward evangelists to me, knowing they aren't infallible?


on Oct 19, 2006
""really? I said that? I never said reading the bible is a prerequisite for Christianity. Never."


Doesn't it hurt to get hoisted on your own petard like that? Don't you even think back to what you said before you deny you said it?

Your fruits appear to be lies, so I can't judge you very well.
on Oct 19, 2006
I stand by my statement.

I do not believe reading the bible is a prerequisite for Christianity. If that were the case, I'm afraid we would see no illerates in heaven. Peter and the other fishermen probably didn't do much reading before they were "saved" either.

The "groups" I was talking about or "religions" I have been involved with....I'll say again, showed no fruit. Sure they met together, sure they had some good deeds here and there. Mostly they quoted from their founders and other religionists while they threw out the scriptures. They replaced the words of Christ with other doctrine....the doctrine the NT writers warned about. Yes, they called themselves Christian. One group had 37 volumes of mysticism and threw out all scriptures but the Psalms and a bit of the gospels. Yet they call themselves Christian. A Christian follows christ. A Christian listens to Christ. He said the sheep know my voice. How can they, if they listen to another?

Christ said himself, many many in that day will say....hey, we're Christians, didn't we do this in your name, didn't we do that?" He will say...."I do not know you." Yet they called themselves by His name. But they did not follow him.

By saying that, doesn't mean I contradicted myself. Are you related to LW?

You really need to calm down Baker. You are getting way too riled up. It's just a discussion.

glad someone thought it was funny .


well I did too. It's good to have some humor interjected here. I think Baker's gonna have a heart attack. So to lighten the load, feel free to send some smiles.






on Oct 19, 2006
Because it SAYS God hated Esau. It says because of that he made God habitation miserable.


ok here's some more info for you. Are you familiar with Edom? Or the Edomites? Huh?

Well Esau's people were from Edom. They were known as Edomites. You may want to read up on that before you do much more griping at me. You can check the one chapter in Obadiah.

While Genesis mentions no divine hatred toward Esau, Obadiah’s prophecy over a 1,000 years later indicated that the Lord’s hatred was against Esau’s idolatrous descendants and it's no wonder. When we go back to Genesis we see that Esau, like Cain, had murder in his heart towards his brother. Same story, different family. Satan again. This is that flesh vs spirit I keep telling you about. In the same way, the Lord’s love for Jacob refers to his descendants who were His sovereignly elected people through whom the world’s Redeemer would come.

I noticed you said nothing about the Hebrew 12 passage I just gave you above. So what's good for the gander is not the same for the goose? You griped at me for not answering you or "dodging" you but you do likewise.

again, more pieces of the puzzle that YOU have not brought up. Why not? It's either because you DID NOT know this, or YOU DID not want to share it because it wouldn't suit your POV.

on Oct 19, 2006
"I stand by my statement.

I do not believe reading the bible is a prerequisite for Christianity. If that were the case, I'm afraid we would see no illerates in heaven. Peter and the other fishermen probably didn't do much reading before they were "saved" either."


... it boggles the mind. Not an inch farther down you say:

"Yes, they called themselves Christian. One group had 37 volumes of mysticism and threw out all scriptures but the Psalms and a bit of the gospels. Yet they call themselves Christian."


Now you are saying that you don't even have to read the Bible to be a Christian? You call yourself a 'biblical CHristian'. Would you describe the non-biblical kind? You said once that you "can't separate Christ from His word". You said once that one of the criteria you use to tell if someone is a Christian is whether they read God's word.

Didn't someone once say:

"We are to read it to become wise, believe it to be saved and practice it to be holy. It contains strength to direct you, food to support you, comfort to cheer you. It is the travelers map, the pilgrims staff, pilots compass, the soldiers' sword and the Christians' charter. Here heaven is open and the gates of Hell disclosed. Christ is its grand subject and good is its design and the glory of God is its end. It should fill the memory, rule the heart and guide the feet."


Sounds like from that description you'd have a darn hard time being a Christian and not read the Bible, at least from your own definitions.





This whole line of discussion is a diversion on your part anyway, because what I said was:

"You claim that people who don't agree with you don't REALLY read the Bible, and aren't really Christians"


...not that they don't 'read' it, that they don't "REALLY" read it. I guess in the same way the Bible says God hated Esau, but He didn't REALLY hate Esau. You've told me before that even though I know the Bible that I don't understand it.

"ok here's some more info for you. Are you familiar with Edom? Or the Edomites? Huh? "


Again, slowly.

-This doesn't have anything to do with Hebrews, or the Edomites, or anything else that you are trying to divert to.

-You said that God didn't hate people. The Bible says God hated Esau, and you put forth that the Bible is the literal, inerrant word of God.

Why not just admit it? Either admit that it isn't inerrant, or accept that God hated Esau. Smoothing it over by saying God hated Esau's sin is just backpeddling.

God DID hate Esau's sin, no doubt, but that isn't what that verse says. Accept it, or accept that it is wrong.



on Oct 19, 2006
If a Muslim came to you and said...


"Oh yeah, well if you don't think the Koran is perfect, how come the Koran SAYS its perfect"


...would it have much impact on you? Would you look at it and say...


"Oh, well, now that I read it Mohamed does in fact claim to God's prophet. It says it right there in black and white. Can't really dispute that..."




Hey KFC, I'm re-posting this, not as an attack or affront, but out of honest curiousity about an answer to this. How would you react in this situation? Just wondering.



This shouldn’t be overlooked by fundamentalists. I think it’s one of those blind-spots again.

Why not adhere to the Qu’ran?

Millions of people currently believe – deeply and fervently - that all Christians will perish after death in the Muslim-hellfire, forever and ever. Why do they believe this? Because it’s written in black and white in the Qur’an.

Engaging with the fundamentalist wavelength for a minute, the Qu’ran actually has one up over the Bible regarding authority and credibility. Why? Because the Qu’ran was directly dictated by God Himself. The Bible, however, was inspired by God through the filters of normal folk. (How do we know the Qur’an was directly dictated by God, incidentally? Because the Qur’an says so, in black and white.)

Attuned now with fundie-logic, all Christians should quickly become committed Muslims, before they perish.

It’s written, Look! ...

“Disbelievers worship false gods. The will burn forever in the Fire” - Surah 2.257

“Don't bother to warn the disbelievers. Allah has blinded them. Theirs will be an awful doom”. – Surah 2.6


When we look outside the sphere of the fundie bubble world, we are able to see that the reason why Christians don’t believe in the Qur’an, is - generally speaking - because they were born into a different household and a different culture to Muslims. Otherwise they’d be living in a different bubble world altogether.
on Oct 19, 2006
I would like your thoughts Baker and KFC on this........Does inerrancy and taking the Bible literally have to go hand in hand?

Can I believe the Bible is the Word of God but not take everything literally?


on Oct 19, 2006
I don't think so. KFC takes some scripture literally and some not, but sees it as all inerrant. I see it as figurative and literal and a mix of truth and mythology.

The difference is she thinks what is literal and figurative is obvious, just like she thinks it 'translates itself'. I think a couple thousand years of church division, cruelty, hundreds of protestant denominations, etc., would be enough to prove that what is literal and figurative isn't as obvious as she makes it out to be, but then she's the 'prophetic' one here, not me...
on Oct 19, 2006
Can I believe the Bible is the Word of God but not take everything literally?


Of course you can. I believe it is the word of God. But I don't take everything it says literally. Of course, I believe the bible to be the word of God "as far as it is translated correctly." None of the translators of any of the current bibles were led by the hand of God to the correct interpretation of all things. Thus the confusion.

But . . . then, I'm not a real Christian by KFC's definition. I believe in other books, too. But her and I have already agreed to disagree about that.
on Oct 19, 2006
Now you are saying that you don't even have to read the Bible to be a Christian? You call yourself a 'biblical CHristian'. Would you describe the non-biblical kind? You said once that you "can't separate Christ from His word". You said once that one of the criteria you use to tell if someone is a Christian is whether they read God's word.


When a person comes to Christ, they may never have had an opportunity to even pick up a bible. So yes, you can be a Christian and not even have read a scripture. It helps, but it's not a prerequisite. The gospel is good news that is preached by a Christ follower to another. They would have to BELIEVE it to be saved, but NOT READ it to be saved. Does that make better sense? The Gospel is the Good News that Christ came to take away our sins. We need to leave the world behind and follow him.

One criteria of a Christian is that a person loves the word of God, yes. But NOT reading scripture is not a criteria for salvation and it's not the ONLY criteria either. A Christian follows Christ...period. He said if you love me "keep my commandments." He said "go out and MAKE disciples." Well to do so, involves teaching/preaching the word of God and showing how to be a Christian by good example. A Christian gives glory to God, and has evidence of the fruit of the spirit...love, joy, peace, etc....so it's not just read God's word. I actually believe there are many people reading the bible that are NOT SAVED.

You've told me before that even though I know the Bible that I don't understand it.


well, I don't always understand it. So that's not a huge insult here. But when you make a certain comment, I'm just addressing you maybe don't understand the whole of a certain subject like the Esau and Pharoah controversy. If you said, God is a mean ol' God then I'd say....it's because you don't understand it.....what's wrong with that? You're too concerned with being right. If it's the truth you're after then being right will take a back seat.

Why not just admit it? Either admit that it isn't inerrant, or accept that God hated Esau. Smoothing it over by saying God hated Esau's sin is just backpeddling. God DID hate Esau's sin, no doubt, but that isn't what that verse says. Accept it, or accept that it is wrong.


I can't accept it because then it makes chaos of the bible. The bible is to be taken literally, yes......but only when it's meant to be taken literally. When it makes sense,then yes do so. But the bible is also symbolic as well. So when it says Jesus is the door or the bread of life, do I take that literally? No. It wasn't meant that way. This is why so many believe there is contradictions because they take a broad brush and paint it all the same. But it can't be done like that. We read over and over that God takes no delight in the destruction of the wicked, we read that God weeps over sin. We read that God is a God of Love. Then smack in the middle of Malachi we read God hates Esau. Well Esau was long dead by this time. He was gone. This is where you have to say, well this doesn't make sense. So you look elsewhere for the answer and you find it in Hebrews, Genesis and Obadiah. This is how scripture is put together. When you take a cloudy verse and build a belief on it, you can't get the full meaning of the whole of scripture. You're interpretating it then, not the scripture itself. You have to disregard other scripture quite often to get what you want out of it. This is why we have so many religions out there.

Can I believe the Bible is the Word of God but not take everything literally?


Good question. Well it would probably decide on what you don't want to take literally. If you don't take literally that Jesus is God, then you'd have a problem. If you don't take literally that the only way to eternity is thru his blood, you'd have a problem there as well. I mean we were not to take the figurative langauge literally so I'd have to say the answer is an easy yes. Because you asked .....take EVERYTHING literally. I do not take everything literally. It's impossible.

But . . . then, I'm not a real Christian by KFC's definition. I believe in other books, too. But her and I have already agreed to disagree about that.


you know SC....you, I like!! Now, if I could only brainwash you to my way of thinking........ JK!!!!!




5 Pages1 2 3 4 5