God, the Father of Jesus is not the god of the Jew/Old Testament

Marcion and Marcionism 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". [1] 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. Jealous God 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. Unloving God 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. Unshared Glory 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. gods 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. ---------------------------- [1] "Lost Christianities", Ehrman, pgs 104-109 (Excellent book. Highly recommended)