Christians - how do you account for God's demeanor changing in the Testaments?

Duck stop watching Bill Mehr, the History Channel, The Discovery Channel, TV, and know that this thread is ridiculous.

 

Nah.

 

I view it as the OT personification of God as a parent nurturing, admonishing, protecting and disciplining a child when needed or appropriate.

In the NT God is personified more as a partner and friend. Maybe that is why the Church is referred to as "the Bride of Christ", a partner.

You seem to be missing an important factor.
The incarnation of God in person of Jesus wasn't for God's benefit, but rather man's. It is man's perspective that needed adjustment in regards to humanities relationship with God, not God's.

I came to understand a lot more of these seeming discrepancies after I became a parent and raised children into adulthood. When a child is young and growing the parent/child relationship takes on one "demeanor" . When the child has matured into adulthood the relationship adopts a new and different one. But it is still the same two parties involved in the relationship, and often it is the growth and maturity of the child that dictates the how and when of such changes, not the parent.


One other fine point that is often glossed over in these discussions is that God NEVER expected mankind to follow the law, nor is mankind capable of it. The question was posed "What does God consider righteousness" So God responds with the law, which is God's standard. Nowhere did God expect man to be able to live up to it, that is the reason for the sacrifices, and the need for God to provide Himself as pure and righteous sacrifice.

Remember Jesus said he did not come to do away with the law and the prophets, but rather to fulfill them and thereby fulfill the role of the kinsman redeemer for mankind. If you don't get that reference, I suggest you go back and check out what was needed and how a one could become the kinsman redeemer of a relative. The incarnation fulfilled those requirements as well as many others, but the kinsman redeemer is strong stuff as far as that goes.

 

I will never understand why ppl truly believe the bible is an accurate historical document of what happend. The bible is just thoughts written up by ppl who have never been there but heard the stories told by them by others who have never been there but who heard the stories from ppl............
It's like asking ppl in the 1600's to write about God and then asking ppl now a days to write about God. You get two different stories. And that's what they are, stories, full of metaphores in which there could be a lesson to be learned. The OT and the NT are different cause it were different ages with ppl living different lives and in different environments.

 

you ride that wave pretty well

 

I'm not. And I'm missing the whole damn religion, anyways =P I was merely responding to someone else's proposition, and speaking without bounds of it, as I expanded upon it.

So then, do you feel that man had to evolve/grow to a certain extent socially, so that they would be ready/worthy for the coming of the messiah?

Or am I missing something here?

 

More or less, I feel that is sort of the gist of it. It is more an unfolding of the grand play that is human existence.
But I hesitate to use the term "worthy" as the whole main thread of the Bible is that man is NOT worthy and no amount of action or inaction on the part of humans can change that. That is the whole concept of grace, unmerited favor. Again that is a main principle that 99% of the population fails to really comprehend when it comes to the Biblical religions.

It would appear that this thread, as well as the vast majority of threads in these forums pertaining to Christianity, is going to ultimately be inundated with posts from people opposed to Christianity due to a lack of understanding and knowledge of what the Bible actually teaches and more based on popular misrepresentations, misconceptions and the actions of the practioners of the religion.

Far too often these threads are akin to judging the worth and literary merit of the works of Shakespeare based solely on the performance of the actors on the stage rather than the content of the actual plays themselves.

People if the thread is about the Bible and it's teachings, let's keep there, if it's about the people who follow the Biblical religions, then keep it in that arena. There is a difference.

I try to keep it clear what the book actually says and what is my opinion of what it says, wish more people could do the same.:afro:

 

Much of what say is true. There is a distinction between what the bible says and how we interpret it. It is done to fortify our perceived notions of who and what God is and what he approves of or disapproves of.
No one is exempt - you nor I. We look at the text and spin it the way we are most comfortable with. Joshua saw it as one message, Paul as another and Jesus as yet another.
For me - I see it as a handbook for love and peace, forgiveness and kindness - for turning away from our judgement and leaving that judgement to an entity far more understanding than we can hope to conceive of.