God, the Father of Jesus is not the god of the Jew/Old Testament
Debate Rounds (3)
For the sake of this argument, we are assuming that some form of Christianity is true.
BoP is shared.
I have to provide reason to believe that God the Father of Christ Jesus is a different god than the Jewish/Old Testament god.
Con has to provide reason to believe that God the Father of Christ Jesus is the same god as the god of the Old Testament.
I thank Kyle for accepting and find his name quite ironic as I will be building my case somewhat parallel to how some scholars think Marcion of Sinope built his case for the same argument.
As some may know, Marcion was the most prominent heretic of the 2nd century. In fact, Marcionism and Catholicism were, in a way, fighting to see which idea would win out.
Now, not all my arguments will be Marcionite in origin, but it would be a lie to say that he hasn't influenced much of what I am going to argue.
And so, onto my main arguments.
The god of the Jews is not the God of Christ Jesus.
Jew, God, and Love
The god of the Jews himself said that he is a jealous god:
"You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God, punishing the children for the sin of the parents to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me,"
But God the Father of Christ Jesus is Love.
1 John 4:8
"But anyone who does not love does not know God, for God is love."
And we know, thanks to St. Paul, what love means.
1 Corinthians 13:4
"Love is patient and kind. Love is not jealous or boastful or proud"
God the Father of Christ Jesus is Love, and Love is not jealous.
The god of the Jews is jealous, and therefore is not Love, and therefore is not the Father.
Jewish god of evil and Christ's father of good.
As found in Marcion's Gospel of the Lord,
"For there is no good tree that produceth corrupt fruit; nor corrupt tree that produceth good fruit"
We can find this also in the more common Gospel of Luke:
"For an evil tree bringeth forth not good fruit; neither does a good tree bring forth evil fruit. For every tree is known by his own fruit."
Because of this, we can know that the jewish god is not a good god, it is not a benevolent god. For it is stated in Isaiah:
"I am the Lord, and there is none else; I form the light, and create darkness; I make peace, and create evil"
The god of the Jews says he creates evil! Yet, no evil comes from good, and thus no good god can create this evil.
The god of the Jews must therefore be an evil god, which contrasts with the all loving, all kind God that is the Father of Christ Jesus.
The Jewish god is ignorant, the Father is not
We can see that God the Father of Christ Jesus is all knowing:
1 John 3:20
"Whenever our hearts condemn us. For God is greater than our hearts, and he knows everything"
"“Oh, the depth of the riches of the wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable his judgments, and his paths beyond tracing out!"
Yet, we can clearly see that the god of the Jews is an ignorant god, one that cannot be seen as all-knowing!
"The Creator called out to Adam, "Where art thou?" as if ignorant of where Adam was; and when Adam alleged that the shame of his nakedness was the reason for hiding himself, the Creator inquired whether he had eaten of the tree, as if he were in doubt (Genesis 3:9-11)."
"In the case of Sodom and Gomorrha, he says "I will go down now, to see whether they have done altogether according to the cry of it which is come to me; and if not, I will know"; another instance of his uncertainty in ignorance."
What about Christ Jesus himself?
As found in the Gospel of Marcion,
"But when Jesus perceiving their reasonings, answered and said unto them, What reason ye in your hearts?"
And more commonly in Luke
"Jesus knew what they were thinking, so he asked them, "Why do you question this in your hearts?"
Clearly, the god of the Jews is not as all-knowing as the Father or as Jesus himself.
The jewish god's power is limited, the Father's is not
"For I can do everything through Christ, who gives me strength."
Paul, through the power of Christ and the Father, is able to do anything.
And in the Gospel of Marcion:
"And he said, The things which are impossible with men are possible with God"
Also found in the more common Gospel of Luke
"He replied, "What is impossible for people is possible with God.""
It is clear that the Father's power is great, that all things are possible though him.
But what about the jewish god?
"And the LORD was with Judah; and he drave out the inhabitants of the mountain; but could not drive out the inhabitants of the valley, because they had chariots of iron."
The jewish god couldn't even stop chariots of iron? This is not an all-powerful god, this is but a limited god!
Yet, through the Father all things are possible. Is not stopping chariots of iron something that falls under the category of "all things"?
Jewish god was of revenge, but not Jesus
Let's look at what the Jewish god thinks should be done when you are wronged:
"Eye for an eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot"
And what about what Jesus taught?
Acording to the Gospel of Marcion
"And unto him that smiteth thee on the one cheek offer also the other; and him that taketh away thy cloke forbid not to take thy coat also."
And, more commonly, Luke 6:29:
"If someone slaps you on one cheek, offer the other cheek also. If someone demands your coat, offer your shirt also."
How can one look at these different attitudes and conclude that Jesus is the son of the jewish god?
The Jewish god thought that you should punish those who wronged you. They punch you, you punch them. They take your eye, you take their eye.
Jesus taught that you shouldn't seek revenge. If someone hits one cheek, allow them to hit the other.
It is clear that the Jewish god and Jesus taught entirely different things!
Whose is glory?
Let's look at how the jewish god views glory:
"I am Yahweh, that is my name-And my glory to another will I not give"
The jewish god views glory as something to keep all to himself!
But this is not God that is the Father of Christ Jesus!
"And now, O Father, glorify Thou Me with thine own self with the glory I had with Thee before the world was."
The Father of Jesus shared his glory!
What do we see?
We see in many instances that God the Father of Jesus, as well as Jesus himself, contradict the Jewish god.
One may say that Judaism and Christianity must be polytheistic, but is this necessarily true?
"Then God said, "Let us make human beings in our image, to be like us. They will reign over the fish in the sea, the birds in the sky, the livestock, all the wild animals on the earth, and the small animals that scurry along the ground.""
See how it often says "us"? Plural?
I can already predict that it might be claimed that this is due to the trinity, but that doesn't really explain the following then:
"The LORD of Heaven's Armies, the God of Israel, says: "I will punish Amon, the god of Thebes, and all the other gods of Egypt. I will punish its rulers and Pharaoh, too, and all who trust in him"
It obviously is recognizing the existence of other deities!
Even Paul, in Galatians when talking about Christians who started practicing Jewish law again mentions other "gods"
"However at that time, when you did not know God, you were slaves to those which by nature are no gods. But now that you have come to know God, or rather to be known by God, how is it that you turn back again to the weak and worthless elemental things, to which you desire to be enslaved all over again?"
The word that Paul uses to refer to these other gods, which he does multiple times through his letters, is Archon (which we know in gnosticism and marcionism to refer to the "gods" that were subserviant to the demiurge, the false god of the Jews).
But this isn't even the most convincing part yet of how we can know these are separate gods.
The unknown God
As we can see in Marcion's Gospel
" All things were delivered to me by my Father: and no man knoweth who the Father is, but the Son, and who the Son is, but the Father, and he to whomsoever the Son wishes to reveal him."
And in Luke 10:22
"All things have been committed to me by my Father. No one knows who the Son is except the Father, and no one knows who the Father is except the Son and those to whom the Son chooses to reveal him"
Did not the patriarchs of the Jews know the Father? Moses? Noah? David?
No! They knew the god of the Jews, but not the Father of Christ Jesus.
Interpolation by the Jew loving "Christians"
But what of the passages and writings that seem to indicate that Jesus is the son of the Jewish god?
Well, Dr. Markus Vinznet has argued in his book "Christ's Resurrection in Early Christianity and the Making of the New Testament", quite well, that Marcion's Gospel was the first and that the others were, ultimately, responses to his Gospel!
Furthermore, when FC Buar sought to prove that Marcion was the one that edited the Pauline epistles, he ended up with the conclusion that it was impossible to show that such had been the case and, in fact, it appeared as if the orthodoxy edited the epistles after Marcion published his canon!
It seems like they said that he edited them as a counter to the fact that they had, in fact, edited them! Just like what they said about the Gospel of Luke which, we now know thanks to Vinzent, Tyson, Price, and many other scholars that Marcion came first!
The same can be said about many other documents which argued for the gnostic or marcionite position, that the pro-orthodoxy portions are from later interpolations.
This helps us understand that the earliest Christian writings clearly have God the Father of Christ Jesus as an entirely separate entity from the Jewish god.
Combine that with the rest of the evidence and it becomes clear, that they are two different entities.
All references for my argument will be from the KJV Bible, and will be listed as they are quoted.
In the beginning, God does a bit of what the Bible calls "creating." In Genesis 1:4,10,12,18,21 & 25, after a particular portion of the "creation" is completed, God "saw that it was good." One must wonder why an omniscient and omnipotent being, that is perfect and can make no error would need to look down upon His own work and see that it is good. A closer look will show us that God the Father did not do any creating, but left that to His Son.
Note: the following verses are mentioned in my opponents argument, and are not presented here as a rebuttal, nor is the contradiction intended.
Genesis 1:26 states: And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness... And Genesis 3:22 states: And the Lord God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us...
This indicates that the singular word "God" does not indicate a singular individual "God." Individuals that perfectly agree and are equal in all but position can be called by a non-plural name just as many buildings that agree can be called by a non-plural company name. For instance, when speaking of Walmart as a company, we don't say "Walmarts"; plural, to account for all the stores and offices, we simply say the singular, Walmart. Another example would be that we don't say the Catholic churches, when speaking of the religion, but the Catholic church.
Having established that "God" can be the Father and the Son (separate beings, not two parts of a "trinity", though the Holy Spirit is a separate part of the Godhead), let us note that in the New Testament, Christ mentions a number of times that he doesn't do his own will, but the will of the Father: John 6:38. We also know that Christ is the "creator" of all things: John 1:3. If we put the facts together, it appears that Christ is "creating" the earth under the direction and will of His Father, who then looks upon the work, and sees that it is good. So here, we have a strong indication that God, the Father of Jesus in the New Testament, is the same as the God of the Old Testament.
Scriptural evidence to support this can be found in Numbers 16:22 and 27:16:
...O God, the God of the spirits of all flesh...
...the God of the spirits of all flesh...
These Old Testament passages credit just one God as the God of the spirits of all flesh. Not just the spirits of flesh in the Old Testament. This strongly indicates that the God of the Old Testament is the same as the God of the New Testament.
This is further supported by Malachi 2:10:
Have we not all one father? hath not one God created us?
Then there are scriptural parallels, or scriptural links, if you prefer, that strongly support that God, the Father of Jesus is the same God in the Old Testament:
Speak the words the Father Commands:
I will raise them up a Prophet from among their brethren, like unto thee, and will put my words in his mouth; and he shall speak unto them all that I shall command him.
For I have not spoken of myself; but the Father which sent me, he gave me a commandment, what I should say, and what I should speak.
See also: John 8:28.
I have begotten thee:
I will declare the decree: the Lord hath said unto me, Thou art my Son; this day have I begotten thee.
God hath fulfilled the same unto us their children, in that he hath raised up Jesus again; as it is also written in the second psalm, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee.
See also: Hebrews 1:5 & Hebrews 5:5
And the most substantial link of all:
Moreover he said, I am the God of thy father, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob. And Moses hid his face; for he was afraid to look upon God.
The God of Abraham, and of Isaac, and of Jacob, the God of our fathers, hath glorified his Son Jesus; whom ye delivered up, and denied him in the presence of Pilate, when he was determined to let him go.
The passages speak for themselves, and require no explanation. I believe I have substantially shown that God, the Father of Jesus and the God of the Old Testament are the same being.
I thank Kyle for this debate and for some decent arguments.
But onto rebuttals!
" One must wonder why an omniscient and omnipotent being, that is perfect and can make no error would need to look down upon His own work and see that it is good."
But does this not presuppose that the god of the Old Testament is Omnipotent?
Does this not presuppose that the god of the Old Testament is Omniscient?
Does this not presuppose that the god of the Old Testament is perfect?
I think I demonstrated in my previous round that the god of the Old Testament can be none of these things.
But, furthermore, how can this god find the world "good"?
As St. Paul said in 1 Corinthians 15:50
"I declare to you, brothers and sisters, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God, nor does the perishable inherit the imperishable."
The God of Paul, the god that is the Father of Jesus, does not allow physical bodies into heaven.
We can see similar passages throughout Paul's letters and through Marcion's Gospel (which means Luke's as well, but deceptively hidden) that God the Father of Christ Jesus is spiritual, and deals with the spiritual.
We can see, as Marcion taught, that physical reality is a trap created by the god of the Jews and his archons.
Only the spiritual can be perfect and good, but the god of the Old Testament, of the Jews found physical reality perfect and good!
"These Old Testament passages credit just one God as the God of the spirits of all flesh."
Does this not presuppose that god would not lie?
He has a history of lying, in fact he told the very first lieto Adam!
Adam did not die the day he ate the fruit, yet that is what god told him.
So why wouldn't this false god lie and say that he is the god of all?
But to expand on this point, this god is the god of flesh, of the impure physical reality, but God the Father of Christ Jesus is the true god, the god of spirit!
"For I have not spoken of myself; but the Father which sent me, he gave me a commandment, what I should say, and what I should speak."
Who says that this means that Jesus is the messiah of the Jews? Marcion believed that the Jewish messiah would still come, just that Jesus was not his messiah. Structural parallels do not necessarily prove that this Jesus is related to the god of the Jews.
Now we get into more interesting territory.
When talking about scripture we cannot ignore the history of said scripture.
Fo example, Kyle says to look at John 8, but why should we?
We have evidence that the Gospel of John has been redacted, maybe multiple times.
John 8 is heavily thought to be one of those later additions due to it not being in all the earliest copies of John that we have. It also seems to have been taken by the later redactor straight out of Luke.
Other parts of John that Kyle uses (ealrier) include John 1, but this is also part of what is believed to be added later!
John 1 makes the words "Word" (logos) and "grace" seem extremely important, yet they only appear in the first 18 verses.
And what about the use of Acts?
As we know thanks to the Acts Seminar, John Knox, Joseph Tyson, Markus Vinzent, Matthias Klinghardt, Robert M Price, and many many other scholars, Acts was written specifically to counter the Paul of Marcion, but the Paul of Marcion was the Paul of the Pauline Epistles! It was not written to be a history, but to move Paul from the "herecy" of Marcion and the gnostics into being more in line with orthodoxy thought.
How can we trust such a source that would try and edit the words of an apostle?
I apologize if this round seems a little lack-luster. Something had come up and so I do not have the amount of time I thought I would to write up this rebuttal.
However, I think I have sufficiently shown that God the Father of Christ Jesus is not, and cannot be the god of the Old Testament/Jews.
Marcion was a dedicated scholar with an opinion approaching fanaticism. He rejected the God of the Old Testament as evil and separate from the loving God, the Father of Jesus, in the New Testament. He had little to support this separation aside from his own personal interpretation. An interpretation that was at first accepted, but then quickly rejected by the majority of religious followers. Marcion's dilemma was that in the Pauline letters, which he considered canonical, there are many quotes from the Old Testament that show historical ties to Judaism, and therefore a connection to the Old Testament God. Paul, Marcion's literal hero, believed that the God of the Old Testament and the New Testament were the same. Marcion's solution:
In a manner reminiscent of the later Jefferson Bible, Marcion removed all the passages offensive to his views. In the words of his proto-orthodox opponent, Tertulllian, Marcion interpreted his scripture "with a pen knife". 
For this reason, I believe it reasonable to dismiss Marcion as a reliable scholar in determining whether the God of the Old Testament and the God of the New Testament are separate beings or the same being, so I will not be addressing the passages attributed to Marcion.
My opponent presents Exodus 20:5 to show that the Old Testament God is a jealous God, and then presents 1 Corinthians 13:4 to show that a jealous God cannot be a loving God. But the word "jealous" in each of these passages has a different meaning.
In the Exodus passage, "jealous" is from qannah, a word invoking feeling and emotion, not bitter envy, which is the Hebrew word qinah. In the following passage, Exodus 20:6, God shows mercy for love, because His jealousy must be provoked: Deut. 32:16 & 1 Kings 14:22.
Paul understood the difference: 2 Corinthians 11:2
For I am jealous over you with godly jealousy: for I have espoused you to one husband, that I may present you as a chaste virgin to Christ.
In the Corinthians passage presented by my opponent, "jealous", which is translated "envy" in the KJV is from the word zelos, which invokes bitter desire, not emotion from concern.
The words have different meanings, therefore the comparison of passages to differentiate the Old Testament and New Testament God is invalid.
All Knowing and Powerful/Not All Knowing and Powerful
My opponent presents an all knowing God in the New Testament, and contrasts that with a God that must inquire for answers or see for Himself to be sure in the Old Testament.
In Genesis 3:9-11, where God asks for Adam's whereabouts, and if he ate the forbidden fruit is not an indication of a God that doesn't know, but rhetorical questions presented for Adam and Eve's sake. In the previous verses, God is walking and talking in the garden just after Adam and Eve partake of the fruit. Are we to believe that God just happened to be there at that particular time, or is it clearly apparent that God well knew that they had done that which He forbade them to do, and was making them sweat a bit with a few rhetorical questions for their transgression?
In Genesis 18:21, where God must go down to see how things are in Sodom and Gomorrah before He takes action, God is not confessing not knowing, but is allaying Abraham's concerns. In verse 20, God states that the cities are indeed wicked; He knows. We know that in verse 21 that God is speaking to a concerned Abraham, because Abraham responds to Him, trying to talk Him out of destroying the cities. God continues to let Abraham pray for mercy: "What if there are this many righteous, or that many righteous?" God basically says, "I will look and see", even when He already knows, as can be seen in verse 20.
These passages do not portray an ignorant God, but instead an all knowing fatherly God.
Judges 1:19 is presented to prove the weakness of the Old Testament God:
And the LORD was with Judah; and he drave out the inhabitants of the mountain; but could not drive out the inhabitants of the valley, because they had chariots of iron."
If we read this correctly, we can see that it isn't the Lord who couldn't drive out the inhabitants of the valley, but Judah.
Translating from one culture/language to another can at times be confusing. For instance, Judges 4:3 reads:
And the children of Israel cried unto the Lord: for he had nine hundred chariots of iron; and twenty years he mightily oppressed the children of Israel.
So, does the Lord have nine hundred chariots of iron? It certainly appears that way, but it is not. We learn from the previous verse and verse 15 that the chariots belonged to Sisera:
And the Lord discomfited Sisera, and all his chariots, and all his host, with the edge of the sword before Barak; so that Sisera lighted down off his chariot, and fled away on his feet.
As a note, God does, in fact, defeat the iron chariots in verse 15, so it turns out He was able to do it after all.
There are many instances where God acts severely, but we must keep in mind that the Israelites were a thick-headed, weak-hearted people who were often easily swayed by the wickedness that surrounded them. There are also many instances of the love of the Old Testament God, i.e., Duet. 7:8; 10:15; 23:5; Isaiah 63:7; Jer. 31:3.
Let us note that violence is not owned by the Old Testament God. Christ, who did only the will of the Father, whipped the money changers, and overturned their tables. There are times when harsh methods are the best methods.
My opponent presents Isaiah 42:8 to portray a selfish God, but if we look at the entire passage, we see that He refuses to share His glory with a graven image:
I am the Lord: that is my name: and my glory will I not give to another, neither my praise to graven images.
So, it's not selfishness, but wisdom, which is consistent with both the Old and New Testaments.
There are many uses and interpretations for the lower case "g" gods. Even Christ called us gods: John 10:34-35. For this reason, I cannot see the relevance of gods differentiating deity in the Old and New Testament.
This ends my rebuttal. In fairness of the debate, I will not rebut my opponents rebuttal save to say that if we are going to dismiss certain books in the Bible due to scholarly controversy, then it would be necessary to dismiss them all, as they are all subject to scholarly controversy, which would make this entire debate moot. What we have in the Bible should be fair use, despite scholarly controversy. What is referenced in one book should be as valid as in any other.
I leave the readers and potential voters to come to their own conclusions.
 "Lost Christianities", Ehrman, pgs 104-109 (Excellent book. Highly recommended)
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by demonlord343 9 months ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||5||0|
Reasons for voting decision: This was a very good debate, however I was disappointed at the lack of overall sources. And I mean a lack of sources as in the biggest source used here was the Bible, and others were merely referenced once or twice throughout the debates. There were tons of places where I as a reader was asking questions as to where some of these ideas were coming from and also, towards the end this whole debate began to seem kind of moot. It was a nit-pick debate, as in whomever did the best nit-picking through individual phrases of the bible won. And honestly from what I saw, there were tons of things that could have been discrepancies due to a variety of errors in translation and copying processes that occured in the early days of the bible. The reason why I went with Pro who had the most convincing arguments and most reliable sources as pro did use more references for me to look up, however whom I agree with is Con because of the reason I stated above. Easily broken down to translation errors.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.