I have a question. God is generally thought to be omnipotent, at least in Christianity. Well, in school, we were learning about the old testament. We learned that God gave moses the ten commandments, and that set of rules along with the laws and rules that came with it was known as the Sinai Covenant, or the Mosaic covenant. Now, we also learned that when Jesus came to us he taught us an updated set of laws (I forgot the official name of this) about how to live. These laws were looser, and less focused on strict accordance with laws and rituals.

My question is, if God is perfect and omnipotent, why did he have to come down and revise his teaching? He should have gotten it right the first time. And I don't think one can say it is because of our free will that we weren't following it correctly, because if God is omnipotent, then he would know how we would live or lives with the laws beforehand.

There may be a simple answer, I was just curious.

*Waits for Rust to come in here with a huge rant on omnipotence.*

Uh oh. Should I be scared?

god is omnipotent so no other god can claim to be more powerful

its propaganda so you dont convert to anouther religon.

Uhhh....Okay.... What I am asking is does what I said in a sense disprove omnipotence?

The Beatitudes(rules you referenced) do not contradict or override the 10 commandments, therefore it really doesn't prove a thing.

Both are meant to be followed. The beatitudes weren't the result of God going back and realizing he was wrong, but more like him adding to his list.

Napolean, wouldn't God have gotten it perfect the first time around?

the only reason god is said to be omnipotent is because they dont want any other religion to seem more powerful in comparison

religion is a carefully constructed morale guide which is beleived despite lack of understanding; because it is not necessary to understand why morales are good, it is only necessary that you uphold them.

which is why they word things and structure their religion in a way which encourages you to beleive in there specific morales and fear the consequences.

really you should not be questioning his omnipotance if you want to avoid hell.

quote:Originally posted by Paradise Lost:

Napolean, wouldn't God have gotten it perfect the first time around?

Were they necessary for the time.

The beatitudes were more specific, and geared towards a different people.

The 10 commandments were issued to stop warfare and savagery.

Different rules for different people/times/cultures.

However, both still can be applied today.

Plus, the beatitudes had to be issued through the Messiah, so they couldn't have been given to the Jews.

But if God is truly omniscient then it would have known ahead of time that more laws would need to be added.

*Waits to have my ass handed to me...*

quote:Originally posted by Paradise Lost:

But if God is truly omniscient then it would have known ahead of time that more laws would need to be added.

*Waits to have my ass handed to me...*

Well, there is nothing to suggest it didn't know..... http://www.totse.com/bbs/confused.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/confused.gif)

Do you not understand how they're rules, or is it something else?

Gulielmus, the thread starter wanted to know if God was omnipotent why didn't God get the rules right the first time around.

quote:Originally posted by Paradise Lost:

*Waits for Rust to come in here with a huge rant on omnipotence.*

Why? Napoleon's reason was plausible. Not because god couldn't know what the other cultures/people/traditions/etc. would be in the future, but because it would make no sense to include laws, now, that apply only to people decades in the future.

Though why did he use Jesus for such a thing, when he didn't even need to lift a finger, or spend one infinitesimal period of time, to have the same exact results Jesus did, without the need of Jesus and thus without the need for killing him.

Yes. Also on that subject, why did God make a flood to kill everyone but Noah and his family? As you say, he would just have to take a nonexistant amount of energy to instantly zap all sinners and save Noah.

Also, why did God have to exterminate most life? That means he screwed up, and wasn't pleased with us? God shouldn't screw up...

The more important question is... where (in the judeo-christian tradition) does the belief in God's omnipotence come from?

quote:Originally posted by inquisitor_11:

The more important question is... where (in the judeo-christian tradition) does the belief in God's omnipotence come from?

an extremely good point.



btw what was the answer to your trivia question? the thread was deleted before i could find out.

[This message has been edited by jackketch (edited 06-18-2005).]

quote:Originally posted by inquisitor_11:

The more important question is... where (in the judeo-christian tradition) does the belief in God's omnipotence come from?

The other day i had made a guess off the top of my head, and asked you if it was Gen 1:1.

This is from Albert Barnes notes on the Bible (i'm gonna leave the Hebrew characters in the post, although they are going to show up garbled.. i'll put << >> around them):

" <<**1488;**1500;**1492;**1497;**1501;>> 'e**774;lohi**770;**770;ym, “God.” The noun <<**1488;**1500;**1493;**1492; >> 'elo**770;ah or << **1488;**1500;**1492; >> 'eloah is found in the Hebrew scriptures fifty-seven times in the singular (of which two are in Deuteronomy, and forty-one in the book of Job), and about three thousand times in the plural, of which seventeen are in Job. The Chaldee form << **1488;**1500;**1492; >> 'ela**770;h occurs about seventy-four times in the singular, and ten in the plural. The Hebrew letter << **1492; >> (h) is proved to be radical, not only by bearing mappiq, but also by keeping its ground before a formative ending. The Arabic verb, with the same radicals, seems rather to borrow from it than to lend the meaning coluit, “worshipped,” which it sometimes has. The root probably means to be “lasting, binding, firm, strong.”Hence, the noun means the Everlasting, and in the plural, the Eternal Powers. It is correctly rendered God, the name of the Eternal and Supreme Being in our language, which perhaps originally meant lord or ruler. And, like this, it is a common or appellative noun. This is evinced by its direct use and indirect applications.

Its direct use is either proper or improper, according to the object to which it is applied. Every instance of its proper use manifestly determines its meaning to be the Eternal, the Almighty, who is Himself without beginning, and has within Himself the power of causing other things, personal and impersonal, to be, and on this event is the sole object of reverence and primary obedience to His intelligent creation.

Its improper use arose from the lapse of man into false notions of the object of worship. Many real or imaginary beings came to be regarded as possessed of the attributes, and therefore entitled to the reverence belonging to Deity, and were in consequence called gods by their mistaken votaries, and by others who had occasion to speak of them. This usage at once proves it to be a common noun, and corroborates its proper meaning. When thus employed, however, it immediately loses most of its inherent grandeur, and sometimes dwindles down to the bare notion of the supernatural or the extramundane. In this manner it seems to be applied by the witch of Endor to the unexpected apparition that presented itself to her 1Sa_28:13."



If anyone gets Creation Magazine, there is a really interesting article by Russell Grigg entitled "Who really is the God of Genesis?", in Vol 27 no. 3 (the june-august 2005 issue)

Maybe in the near future i'll take the time to share (copy) it here, as it hasnt been included yet, on the AiG web site.

think about this..if God is really omnipotent then He is everywhere at once and knows all that happened, is happening, and will happen. If this is true than we don't really don't have free choice..because for God to be omnipotent than everything has to be predestined to happen since He knows it will happen. Therefore, we have no choices since the future is already known and we are destined to either go to Heaven or Hell. It all depends on if you are saved by God's divine grace.

quote:Originally posted by mjolnir:

think about this..if God is really omnipotent then He is everywhere at once and knows all that happened, is happening, and will happen. If this is true than we don't really don't have free choice..because for God to be omnipotent than everything has to be predestined to happen since He knows it will happen. Therefore, we have no choices since the future is already known and we are destined to either go to Heaven or Hell. It all depends on if you are saved by God's divine grace.



Knowing what happens does not mean that he is making you do what you will do in the future(hope that makes sense).

quote:Originally posted by mjolnir:

think about this..if God is really omnipotent then He is everywhere at once and knows all that happened, is happening, and will happen. If this is true than we don't really don't have free choice..because for God to be omnipotent than everything has to be predestined to happen since He knows it will happen. Therefore, we have no choices since the future is already known and we are destined to either go to Heaven or Hell. It all depends on if you are saved by God's divine grace.



Did you ever consider that omnipotence is a concept beyond our ability to fully understand as human beings, thus is something of God?

I don't profess to know the answer to this question, but I sometimes think that may be god knows everything there is to know about existence, but may be existence is everchanging. May be god is everchanging.

Cheers,

Lost

Mjolnir. Watch The Matrix. Just because a greater power can know what decision you are going to make, does not mean that you don't have freewill, it is just that they know what you will do with that freewill.

The Catholic Catechism I got for Confirmation says that God is omnipotent. And I think it says he is unchanging, and constant. Now, I'm not saying I believe that, but that's just the Catholic stance.

Maybe God is changing, and that is why he seems at times a vengeful god in the Bible, and at times he seems quite the opposite. But in my opinion, if there is a God, a singular god, than it is likley that he is omnipotent and perfect. And if he is omnipotent and perfect, than he is constant.

Maybe God be omnipotent, and changing constantly, through different forms etc. in a sense being perfect. But now I'm just pulling theories out of my ass. : \

quote:Its improper use arose from the lapse of man into false notions of the object of worship. Many real or imaginary beings came to be regarded as possessed of the attributes, and therefore entitled to the reverence belonging to Deity, and were in consequence called gods by their mistaken votaries, and by others who had occasion to speak of them. This usage at once proves it to be a common noun, and corroborates its proper meaning. When thus employed, however, it immediately loses most of its inherent grandeur, and sometimes dwindles down to the bare notion of the supernatural or the extramundane. In this manner it seems to be applied by the witch of Endor to the unexpected apparition that presented itself to her 1Sa_28:13."

Now that is a telling statement, particularly if you ascribe to non-mosaic authorship of the big 5.

Im certainly not a guru on hebrew or NT greek, but I have it on hear-say (farily good hear-say though) that the omnipotence of God (the way that modern western thinking has constructed it) is quite differt from the early hebrew and later hellenized constructions of it. i.e. that when we see the word Almighty it is not say omnipotent as we understand it. Rather the first time that the conecpet of Omnipotence comes into play is in a passage in Revelation where it speaks of God coming into the fullness of all power.

Now, being the bible-illiterate, back-sliding liberal that I am, I havent got the proof texts handy. But, through the power of google I was able to find this on a thoroughly calvanistic website:

quote:The formal conception of omnipotence as worked out in theology does not occur in the Old Testament. The substance of the idea is conveyed in various indirect ways. The notion of "strength" is inherent in the Old Testament conception of God from the beginning, being already represented in one of the two divine names inherited by Israel from ancient Semitic religion, the name 'El. According to one etymology it is also inherent in the other, the name 'Elohim, and in this case the plural form, by bringing out the fullness of power in God, would mark an approach to the idea of omnipotence.

quote:Rather the first time that the conecpet of Omnipotence comes into play is in a passage in Revelation where it speaks of God coming into the fullness of all power.

you mean i got it right the other day? damn! not bad for that time of the morning .

ORIGINAL POSTER:

There was no revision.

Christ was the fulfillment of the Law of Moses, not the destroyer of it.

However, Moses' Law was given to the people to teach them that they were sinners and were in need of redemption, and Christ's Law was to allow those that received his redemption the opportunity to live their lives in accordance with God's will.

Jesus' Law was woven with love, and Moses Law was woven with wrath.

We could not have understood and appreciated the love of the Law under Christ until we had understood the burden of the Law under Moses.

Make sense ?

quote:Originally posted by inquisitor_11:

The more important question is... where (in the judeo-christian tradition) does the belief in God's omnipotence come from?

OMNIPOTENT: Having unlimited or universal power, authority, or force; all-powerful. http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=omnipotent

"When Abram was ninety-nine years old, Yahueh appeared to Abram, and said to him, 'I am God Almighty; walk before me, and be blameless.'" Gen. 17:1

"I know that you can do all things, and that no purpose of yours can be thwarted." Job 42:2

"Ah Lord Yahueh! It is you who made the heavens and the earth by your great power and by your outstretched arm! Nothing is too hard for you." Jer. 32:17

"But Jesus looked at them and said, 'For mortals it is impossible, but for God all things are possible.'" Matt. 19:26

"And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, 'All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth.'" Matt. 28:18

Some more: http://www.bibletopics.com/topics/336.htm

Hope that clears it up for ya.

http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif)

QUOTE Originally posted by inquisitor_11:

Now, being the bible-illiterate, back-sliding liberal that I am,

arent we all?.. well, maybe besides the "liberal" part. http://www.totse.com/bbs/wink.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/wink.gif)

You and I, i think, are basically saying the same things.

I realize that you bolded the first sentence emphasis of your point, but the sentence right after that one is equally important, and i think, saying the same thing as Barnes did. " The substance of the idea is conveyed in various indirect ways."

Then both references appear to be saying the same thing, that considering the root and the context, the meaning is "implied" or perhaps "foreshadowed".

Also "implied" or "foreshadowed", is the nature of God, (leading to the) understanding of the Trinity, Eternity and the omni-(powers/nature)... And these seem to me, atleast, all conveyed in the very first verse of God's Word.

Just for comparison, isnt this:

quote:The formal conception of omnipotence as worked out in theology does not occur in the Old Testament. The substance of the idea is conveyed in various indirect ways. The notion of "strength" is inherent in the Old Testament conception of God from the beginning, being already represented in one of the two divine names inherited by Israel from ancient Semitic religion, the name 'El. According to one etymology it is also inherent in the other, the name 'Elohim, and in this case the plural form, by bringing out the fullness of power in God, would mark an approach to the idea of omnipotence.

pretty much saying the same as this (ps, i got rid of those pesky strong's numbers that just showed up from the copy/paste):

quote: 'elohiym, “God.” The noun 'eloah or 'eloah is found <<snipped word count>> in the Hebrew scriptures... in the plural<<word count and location snipped>> The Chaldee form 'elah occurs about <<again, snipped>> <<<snipped >>>

The root probably means to be “lasting, binding, firm, strong.”

Hence, the noun means the Everlasting, and in the plural, the Eternal Powers. It is correctly rendered God, the name of the Eternal and Supreme Being in our language, which perhaps originally meant lord or ruler. And, like this, it is a common or appellative noun. This is evinced by its direct use and indirect applications.

Its direct use is either proper or improper, according to the object to which it is applied. Every instance of its proper use manifestly determines its meaning to be the Eternal, the Almighty, who is Himself without beginning, and has within Himself the power of causing other things, personal and impersonal, to be, and on this event is the sole object of reverence and primary obedience to His intelligent creation.

Its improper use arose from the lapse of man into false notions of the object of worship. Many real or imaginary beings came to be regarded as possessed of the attributes, and therefore entitled to the reverence belonging to Deity, and were in consequence called gods by their mistaken votaries, and by others who had occasion to speak of them. This usage at once proves it to be a common noun, and corroborates its proper meaning.

The dogs woke me up so they could go potty. I think i'll put on some coffee... would you like some? I'm sure Jackketch would...

white and 2 sugars please.

quote:Originally posted by jackketch:

white and 2 sugars please.



non-dairy creamer is all we have, hope that's fine

i've kinda high cholesterol http://www.totse.com/bbs/frown.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/frown.gif)

boy do i miss real cream...

Well, if you're going, I'll have 5 sugars, and 5 creams.

Cream? *shakes head* crazy americans. Thanks for the offer though.

reply pending- ive got 2500 words of essay to write in the next 5 hours... will return to &totse at 12:01

quote:Originally posted by xtreem5150ahm:

QUOTE Originally posted by inquisitor_11:

Now, being the bible-illiterate, back-sliding liberal that I am,

arent we all?.. well, maybe besides the "liberal" part. http://www.totse.com/bbs/wink.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/wink.gif)

You and I, i think, are basically saying the same things.

I realize that you bolded the first sentence emphasis of your point, but the sentence right after that one is equally important, and i think, saying the same thing as Barnes did. " The substance of the idea is conveyed in various indirect ways."

Then both references appear to be saying the same thing, that considering the root and the context, the meaning is "implied" or perhaps "foreshadowed".

Also "implied" or "foreshadowed", is the nature of God, (leading to the) understanding of the Trinity, Eternity and the omni-(powers/nature)... And these seem to me, atleast, all conveyed in the very first verse of God's Word.



Ya, thats kinda what I was trying to say. I think the main point I was trying to make is that the text itself doesn't attribute omnipotence to God (exceping in Rev.) but that often we take what it does say (which may indeed talk about the great power of God, and say that He is the most powerful in contrast to the other gods) and read it as "omnipotence".

Honestly though, i dont have enough first-hand info to really appropriate this idea into my own theology, let alone start selling it to other people. Which is one of the things that really piss me off about contemporary christianity- theres this whole Faucaldian "fear of the expert" thing going on that makes it hard to find (or evaluate) reliable sources of information on stuff, as so many have their entire worldview itied so closely to the subject matter.

Inquisitor, did you see the scriptures I posted ? They define the nature of God...

Not just in Revelation, either.

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:

[B] OMNIPOTENT: Having unlimited or universal power, authority, or force; all-powerful.

[/QUOTE]"When Abram was ninety-nine years old, Yahueh appeared to Abram, and said to him, 'I am God Almighty; walk before me, and be blameless.'" Gen. 17:1[/QUOTE]

The hebrew for Almighty, as xtreem's post shows isn't synommous (sp) with our western concept of Omnipotence.

quote:"I know that you can do all things, and that no purpose of yours can be thwarted." Job 42:2

"Ah Lord Yahueh! It is you who made the heavens and the earth by your great power and by your outstretched arm! Nothing is too hard for you." Jer. 32:17

IMO God is being ascribed qualities of "great power" with God is able to acheive God's purposes, I certainly dont dispute that. However, its not the same concept as having "all power".

quote:"But Jesus looked at them and said, 'For mortals it is impossible, but for God all things are possible.'" Matt. 19:26

see above

quote:"And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, 'All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth.'" Matt. 28:18

Now this is a pretty interesting statement (and off the top of my head) is probably partially eschatalogical (sp). And in terms of the christian meta-narrative, it is through Christ's victory (which is both a present and a future reality) that God's power will come into "all-fullness under one head" or whatever the Rev. quote is. Therefore it might be fair to conclude that like much of what Jesus talked about (e.g. the Kingdom of God) it speaks of a reality now (Gods power) that will come into its fullness later.

Again im just working through this myself, so i'm keen to hear other peoples criticisms.

quote:IMO God is being ascribed qualities of "great power" with God is able to acheive God's purposes, I certainly dont dispute that. However, its not the same concept as having "all power".

yep.

First I am seeing a bunch of references to the "10 commandments" that were handed to Moses on Sinai...you really think it took him that long to chisel 10 commandments? Kinda slow don't you think? In actuallity there are 613 commandments in the "old testament", including Kosher laws, laws about dress, sexual cleanliness, sexual conduct, business conduct etc. You are all forgetting one possible line of thought, that Jesus isn't G-d at all, and therefore G-d didn't change, people were just mislead. In the example of G-d's destruction of the world except for Noah and his family, you forget it wasn't G-d who failed, it was humans. And for now I think that will do.

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:

ORIGINAL POSTER:

There was no revision.

Christ was the fulfillment of the Law of Moses, not the destroyer of it.

However, Moses' Law was given to the people to teach them that they were sinners and were in need of redemption, and Christ's Law was to allow those that received his redemption the opportunity to live their lives in accordance with God's will.

Jesus' Law was woven with love, and Moses Law was woven with wrath.

We could not have understood and appreciated the love of the Law under Christ until we had understood the burden of the Law under Moses.

Make sense ?



Wrong, the laws of Moses were not punishment, they were a gift. They were intended to guide humanity to him. God has no wrath towards his creations as can be exampled by his comment to the Israelites upon his drowning the Pharoh in the sea "Why do you celebrate when my children are dead" He only has wrath against evil actions, because they take his creations, his children at a risk of sounding cliche, away from him. Those laws are only a burden for those who mourn their faiths rather than rejoicing in it (yes it is modified from Dogma, so what? still valid point). If you follow the laws to avoid punishment you'll do alright. If you follow them to be close to G-d, then you'll be blessed.

Your argument contradicts.

quote:God has no wrath towards his creations

quote:He only has wrath against evil actions

Evil actions are his creation.

God's formal omnipotence was well established in the Tanakh. El Shaddai is the name for Him that establishes his omnipotence. Commonly translated as God Almighty, in Latin as Deum Omnipotentem. A more literal translation would be Eternal Power of All-Sufficiency. People in the Tanakh are often rebuked for doubting his omnipotence, et cetera...