OT Wrath vs. NT Love - Deeper meanings

[Cardinal]

 :laughing7: Don't you just HATE it when that happens, LOL? Been there, done that.......

[AbbasChild]

David asked God to strengthen his arm to wield his sword and stated that God had taught him to fight. There is such a thing as a just war when evil men exist who would murder the innocent.

I agree with much you are saying John. Yet, concerning your quote above, it just came to my mind that David was forbidden to build the Lord's house, because he was a man of war and had blood on his hands. It seems to me that this was still not Father's perfect way, as it is revealed in His Son.

I don't know all the answers, but it seems to me that a lot in OT was allowed because of man's hardness of heart, and not Father's good, acceptable and perfect will. When Jesus said that no one knew the Father but the Son, the prophets, priests and kings of old must have been included in this.

Now here it comes back again to why did He allow evil in the first place and why does He allow His people to misrepresent Him, in the age of the law, as well as the age of the church. Could it be that people didn't even really know what Love is until Jesus came and reconciled humanity to the Father's heart? Could it be that we are born with a legal mindset that demands an 'eye for an eye' and that part of Father's plan for His creation is to come out of this mentality, bit by bit?

As I said, I don't know the answers, but this are the quesitons that go around in my head at the moment.

[Cindi]

I cannot deny that the Hebrew language portion of Holy Scripture is, along with it's Greek counterpart, God-breathed and above all other writings in existence (unless there are several otherwise secret Scripture portions not in the official canon kept by God for those that specially need them.)  While I believe in having love and respect for every human, I do not accept they are led of God to reject His Logos, the written as well as the incarnate.   I find I have to accomodate a common stodgy belief in the Bible that afflicts most followers of Jesus.  Love me or hate me for it.  I can do no other.

I too have a "belief in the Bible." Just because I don't see it as you do, does not mean I discount it, discredit it or disrespect it.  I think it stands as God wants it to read....and just as he allows modern translations to distort the doctrine of judgment and an eternal hell for his purposes....so he allows certain portions of the OT to distort his character.  Even Jesus "corrected" scriptures in the OT when he said "You have heard that it was said, 'An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.'  But I say to you, Do not resist an evildoer. But if anyone strikes you on the right cheek, turn the other also;  and if anyone wants to sue you and take your coat, give your cloak as well;  and if anyone forces you to go one mile, go also the second mile.

"You have heard that it was said, "You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.'  But I say to you, love your enemies, bless those who curse you, do good to those who hate you, and pray for those who spitefully use you and persecute you, that you may be sons of your Father in heaven; for He makes His sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and on the unjust.

And he said, "You search the Scriptures, for in them you think you have eternal life; and these are they which testify of Me. But you are not willing to come to Me that you may have life."

So, for my part, I am going to Jesus....in whom we have a clear, exact representation of who the Father is....and with the guidance of the Holy Spirit whom Jesus promised would lead us into all truth, I am going to read the scriptures.  If the OT scriptures do not bear witness to the character and nature of God I see in Jesus, then I "have no choice" but to go with Jesus...and the very clear example he gave us in the four gospels that all tell virtually the same story.  In the OT they did not have that "clarification"....so I am going to filter the OT atrocities through Jesus.  We see through a glass darkly...but the glass was infinitely darker for those who lived in OT times.

John Gavazonni tells the story of how he came to UR.  He was preaching a hell fire and brimstone sermon one day....at a college gathering I think....and as he preached, God spoke to his heart and said, "You don't really believe that about me, do you?"  which brought him to the startling revelation that he did not....and he silently replied..."NO. I don't believe that about you"  So when I read certain parts of scripture in the OT, I hear that same question whispered to my heart...."You don't really believe that about me do you?" to which I must reply...."NO."

And as you succinctly expressed in your post, "Love me or hate me for it.  I can do no other."

Cindi....

[Kratos]

There is no contradiction between these two totally opposite kinds of killings. I will be glad for the day when all of us can beat our swords into plowshares, but it is not this day.

John

A question...how do you think that day will come about?  Sincerely asking how you think we will get from where we are today (living with worldwide violence) to the day we beat the swords into plowshares? 

Cindi......

Cindi,

To me, the Bible is the body or the flesh of the Word of God in the same way as we have a body which contains the treasure within which is our spirit. When God speaks from the Bible, His Word is heard which is spirit and life. Thus, the Bible reveals the way that God appears in the world of the flesh, but one day we will know Him as He is and know Him in the spirit.

One day, when Tabernacles has fully come, flesh will have passed away and there will be no more war or need for weapons or killing. Unfortunately, it is not this day nor was it so in the days of David. As long as demonized men are walking into malls or churches with assault weapons and killing innocent woman and children, I will continue to trust that God also has taught my hand to war. We all will rejoice when this day has passed away, but it is both foolish and naive IMO to disarm or become a passivist until this day has fully come.

John

[Cindi]

One day, when Tabernacles has fully come, flesh will have passed away and there will be no more war or need for weapons or killing. Unfortunately, it is not this day nor was it so in the days of David. As long as demonized men are walking into malls or churches with assault weapons and killing innocent woman and children, I will continue to trust that God also has taught my hand to war. We all will rejoice when this day has passed away, but it is both foolish and naive IMO to disarm or become a passivist until this day has fully come.

John

So you think it will be a sudden kind of thing?  Not the gradual laying down of weapons, choosing not to pay back violence with more violence?  I've been hanging out in "peace church" circles for about the past year...Mennonites, Quakers....two sites that are worth taking a look at are called "Every Church a Peace Church" and  "Preaching Peace".  From their viewpoint, there is no justifiable violence and that the only way to really stop the epidemic of violence is choosing to react nonviolently to violence....even in our day to day lives...even in the big things like world events and conflicts.  They believe "let there be peace on earth and let it begin with me." Otherwise, how will that day come about when we beat the swords into plowshares?  All at once or little by little?  In a moment, in the twinkling of an eye? Or slowly, painfully as people choose to react nonviolently to acts of violence? I don't have the answer for sure...and I have certainly not learned to react nonviolently.  If someone cuts me off in traffic, I'm ticked...and have gone so far as to express this loudly out the window.  But in theory, it seems to be the example that Jesus set for us....non violence, forgiving 7 times 70, turning the other cheek...... 

It can be argued that the demonized men are victims of violence (and a violent society) that stretches back to the days of David and beyond and that we will continue to produce demonized men until the cycle stops. 

There is an article I read online that talks about real life political situations that were solved or greatly improved through active nonviolence.  The article is called The Global Spread of Active Nonviolence and can be found at , http://deatspeace.tripod.com/global1.html

Ghandi is one who is well known for his stand on violence, his acts of non violent bravery.....he said: For this cause I too am prepared to die, but for no cause, my friend, will I be prepared to kill.

John Prine (an eclectic singer/poet) said: Jesus don't like killing no matter what the reason for....

I don't know....will he change us in a moment....the way I would much prefer....or will it perhaps not be that way at all... 

Cindi.....

[Kept]

Great posts
Cindi  :girlheart:

Yahweh according to some scholars rose to his heights from being one of many gods to the God and he was a storm god to begin with, a god of war. Back then the skys with its lightening storms, high winds were controlled by the Gods, along with the earth with its volcanos, earthquakes and such. When the clouds blotted out the sun to much the gods were not smiling on them and their crops and on and on it went.

All of this is so important as you read the ot, God would be on top of the mountains with fire and smoke. He spoke out of the clouds and such.

I very much believe the ot is inspired and I find much spiritually in the more metaphorical reading but as a literal book I find much left to be desired in much of it. I just think we shouldnt deny those things but in fact consider that the view of god in the ot was very marred by their views of nature. How they 'heard' god speak and lead them was very mixed with their own views of how god speaks.

Even God showed this to Elijah, the still small voice.

1Ki 19:11  And he said, Go forth, and stand upon the mount before the LORD. And, behold, the LORD passed by, and a great and strong wind rent the mountains, and broke in pieces the rocks before the LORD; but the LORD was not in the wind: and after the wind an earthquake; but the LORD was not in the earthquake:
1Ki 19:12  And after the earthquake a fire; but the LORD was not in the fire: and after the fire a still small voice.


just some thoughts, in that, I dont think we have to divorce our reason from our faith but use both God given gifts to read and discern the ot imo

kept

[Molly]

Reason and faith are divorced by definition.  At least, at first.  What is rational about being told to pick up your belongings and leave your known way of life and family and friends and move to an unknown place?  Nothing.  What is rational about being told you are going to have a baby at 90?  Nothing.  What is rational about being promised descendants more numerous than the stars when you are childless at 100?  Nothing.

Yet, Abraham had faith.



Genesis 15:6
And he believed in the LORD; and he counted it to him for righteousness.


What we call 'rational' is just a boundary that we arbitrarily put on our own knowledge and understanding.  If we plucked someone out of the jungle 100 years ago and put them into the middle of new york city today, would they think anything they were seeing was 'rational'?  They'd probably be scared to death.  Is what is rational scary?  But, they would be terrified.  Their boundaries would not yet be stretched to include what we take for granted every day.  To them, it would be magic and miracles.  Have faith, we might say to them, that it is all good and reasonable, you just don't understand it, yet.

What we would be telling them is the truth, but they would only believe us if they trusted us.

Abraham had faith because no matter how unreasonable it might look to him, he trusted God.



Genesis 21:3
And Abraham called the name of his son that was born unto him, whom Sarah bare to him, Isaac.


"Isaac"


H3327
יצחק
yitschâq
yits-khawk'
From H6711; laughter (that is, mockery); Jitschak (or Isaac), son of Abraham: - Isaac. Compare H3446.



6And Sarah said, God hath made me to laugh, so that all that hear will laugh with me. --Genesis 21

[Cindi]

just some thoughts, in that, I dont think we have to divorce our reason from our faith but use both God given gifts to read and discern the ot imo

kept

Actually isn't that what God means when he declares "come let us reason together".....shortly after he tells them that he is sick of their sacrifices, that their hands are full of blood and urges them to learn to do good;seek justice,reprove the ruthless, defend the orphan, plead for the widow. Interesting chapter...Isaiah 1. 


Cindi.....

[Kept]

Yes and isnt that beautiful  :HeartThrob: I see God speaking thru that veil all thru the ot. When I see His great heart speaking I perk up. But some of it I wont just say that somehow in His ways being higher than ours its spiritual and good that He orders genocide and such. To me that is no longer acceptable. I can only go as the Spirit leads me and see what is revealed. I can either dismiss what is being shown to me with the old standard 'God said it , I believe it, that settles it.' or I can go to God about these things and reason with Him as you pointed out. And in doing that I feel very much like I am being obedient.

God bless you sis, you bless me so much

kept  :girlheart:

[Cindi]

kept said:

But some of it I wont just say that somehow in His ways being higher than ours its spiritual and good that He orders genocide and such.

I came across a writing by George MacDonald the other day called, simply, Light.  It was written to discount the arguments for an eternal hell....but it spoke volumes to me about the view of the god of genocide and plunder and pillage in the OT.  I am not usually a big George MacDonald reader because of his sentences that go on for several paragraphs and the archaic language that he uses but I really liked this one. Following are a few excerpts from the writing....

  Away with your doctrines! Away with your salvation from the 'justice' of a God whom it is a horror to imagine! Away with your iron cages of false metaphysics! I am saved--for God is light! My God, I come to thee. That thou shouldst be thyself is enough for time and eternity, for my soul and all its endless need. Whatever seems to me darkness, that I will not believe of my God. If I should mistake, and call that darkness which is light, will he not reveal the matter to me, setting it in the light that lighteth every man, showing me that I saw but the husk of the thing, not the kernel? Will he not break open the shell for me, and let the truth of it, his thought, stream out upon me? He will not let it hurt me to mistake the light for darkness, while I take not the darkness for light. The one comes from blindness of the intellect, the other from blindness of heart and will. I love the light, and will not believe at the word of any man, or upon the conviction of any man, that that which seems to me darkness is in God. Where would the good news be if John said, 'God is light, but you cannot see his light; you cannot tell, you have no notion, what light is; what God means by light, is not what you mean by light; what God calls light may be horrible darkness to you, for you are of another nature from him!' Where, I say, would be the good news of that?

To say that what our deepest conscience calls darkness may be light to God, is blasphemy; to say light in God and light in man are of differing kinds, is to speak against the spirit of light. God is light far beyond what we can see, but what we mean by light, God means by light; and what is light to God is light to us, or would be light to us if we saw it, and will be light to us when we do see it.

Let no one persuade thee that there is in him a little darkness, because of something he has said which his creature interprets into darkness. The interpretation is the work of the enemy--a handful of tares of darkness sown in the light. Neither let thy cowardly conscience receive any word as light because another calls it light, while it looks to thee dark. Say either the thing is not what it seems, or God never said or did it. But, of all evils, to misinterpret what God does, and then say the thing as interpreted must be right because God does it, is of the devil. Do not try to believe anything that affects thee as darkness. Even if thou mistake and refuse something true thereby, thou wilt do less wrong to Christ by such a refusal than thou wouldst by accepting as his what thou canst see only as darkness.

You bless me too, kept...... :Hi5:

[jfraysse]

Sister Cindi:  You wrote this: 

"So when I read certain parts of scripture in the OT, I hear that same question whispered to my heart...."You don't really believe that about me do you?" to which I must reply...."NO."

How many times have I said this myself!? 

I'm not exactly sure what your response to this "still-small-voice" is, but my reaction is to outright DISBELIEVE the "evil" events or commands in the Biblical Text!   This is not as hard for me as others as I have never been a Bible Literalist.  Further, I see at least some of the OT as Historical Fiction which may also be interpreted Metaphorically where it makes sense.

Many will ask, how then can I know what to believe and what not to believe.  Very good question!  My answer is by my God-Given power of Reason and His Spirit! This idea may not be right for others but it does work for me.  Bottomline, I don't honor the Book (the idol?) where it doesn't honor the Spirit of our (Good) Heavenly Father.

Thanks, Cindi for being brave enough to even suggest that you don't believe some of the Biblical texts!  If I have interpreted your post incorrectly, please accept my apologies.  But the good news is that you won't have to sit next to me in Hell!

Grace & Peace, John  :HeartThrob:

[Cindi]

How many times have I said this myself!?

I'm not exactly sure what your response to this "still-small-voice" is, but my reaction is to outright DISBELIEVE the "evil" events or commands in the Biblical Text!   This is not as hard for me as others as I have never been a Bible Literalist.  Further, I see at least some of the OT as Historical Fiction which may also be interpreted Metaphorically where it makes sense.

Many will ask, how then can I know what to believe and what not to believe.  Very good question!  My answer is by my God-Given power of Reason and His Spirit! This idea may not be right for others but it does work for me.  Bottomline, I don't honor the Book (the idol?) where it doesn't honor the Spirit of our (Good) Heavenly Father.

Thanks, Cindi for being brave enough to even suggest that you don't believe some of the Biblical texts!  If I have interpreted your post incorrectly, please accept my apologies.  But the good news is that you won't have to sit next to me in Hell!

Grace & Peace, John

My response to that still small voice is similar to yours....and I tend to lean toward the view espoused in writings like

The Voice of the Good Shepherd excerpt following in "maroon" which looks like more like brown on my computer screen  :sorry:

Running through the sacred literature of the three monotheistic world religions of Judaism, Islam and Christianity, the voice of two "gods" may be heard.  In what Christians call the "Old Testament", the good God was identified as "the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob."  In the book of Job, a second ruling spirit-being is identified, called Satan.  The two gods (or "Lords") converse and transact in the first two chapters of the book.  The origin of this second "god" is further stated in Isaiah 14, called "Lucifer."  He is further identified in Ezekiel 28. An examination of these chapters reveals that the good God by sovereign decree has legitimated the worldly rule of Satan.  He is free to impersonate the true God (do things in his name) and free to "deceive the nations."  Satan is a "minister" of the good God and subject to Him, for God is sovereign over all.  Satan is the instrument by which the true God has "committed all humans to disobedience, that He might have mercy on all" (Romans 11:32).
   When the devil (also called, the tempter) came to Jesus, he said to Him that he would give Jesus "all the kingdoms of the world, and their glory."  Though Jesus told Satan to "beat it!" Jesus did not deny that Satan indeed did have this kind of power to bestow.  For it was Jesus, "The Word" who had granted him his god-like power and status in the first place.

The Bible presents two "Lords"—God the Father and god "the father of lies."  The God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, and the "god of this world."  The voices of both resonate through the pages of the bible, both named as "the Lord" (guess which voice is loudest).  The term "Lord" is simply a title, and may be applied to either "god." In many cases, the Bible writers were assuming the voice to be that of the good God, when in fact it was the "Lord", Satan.  We are to "try the spirits, to see if they be of God."  There were many things said and done in the pages of the Bible in "the name of the Lord" that we may know of a certainty were not an expression of the voice of the true Shepherd, but the voice of the "evil one."  The Holy Spirit is promised to all and it is promised to "guide them into all truth"—the highest truth being that of God's own nature.  It is this Spirit that intercedes and interprets for us which actions and events in the Bible are of God, and which are of the god of this world.  

and a similar essay by the same author

The Grand Experiment ....excerpt following
"In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them" (2 Corinthians 4.4)

   In previous essays I've attempted to show the intrinsic character difference between the true God and the god whom St. Paul called, "the god of this world"—a "god" whose voice is heard in scripture and to whom the Gnostic Christians referred as the "lesser god." This they did with good reason in that the voice of this god in scripture patently does not conform to the character-image we see plainly in Jesus.


I know that implies gnosticism but truly, I don't care about religious labels or what is considered by many as heresy.  Plainly in the excerpt above, it declares that God is sovereign....the HE has legitimized Satan's worldly reign for the purpose of eventually having mercy on all but that part of our journey is to discern between these two voices.  Along with the total determinists, I must agree that God "created the waster to destroy" or as the footnote in the Good Shepherd essay declares....

  The true God is subject to his own law, which is to say that the law expresses to some degree His nature and God will not violate his own nature. For example, it is "impossible for God to lie" (Hebrews 6:18). God also does not kill, maim, cause disease or do any of a number of things attributed to Him. He allows the devil to do these things. God is sovereign over the light and dark: "The day and the night are the same to You." In the book of Job we see the two Lords interacting.  The devil, "the god (or Lord) of this world" is only able to affect us to the degree permitted by the true God.  So, in a sense there is only one Lord, in that God is sovereign over all. And yet, God himself makes the distinction: "I have created the destroyer to destroy" (Isaiah 54:16). If such distinction is made, it must be important to God that we know his essential good nature: This God with whom we have to do and "with whom is no variableness, neither shadow of turning" (James 1:7).  "For such an high priest (Jesus) became us, who is holy, harmless, undefiled..." (Hebrews 7:26). The lovely timbre of Jesus' voice as the true shepherd is wonderfully heard in the Joshua novels, written by retired priest Joseph Girzone.

The only other alternative to this view I can accept is that they may have thought they heard God say...kill, pillage, plunder and destroy....but truly it was their own selfish desire and carnal nature. 

Thanks for your response.

Cindi........

[jfraysse]

Hi Sister Cindi:   

Thanks for you considered response!

In the summary of your latest post, you wrote:

The only other alternative to this view I can accept is that they may have thought they heard God say...kill, pillage, plunder and destroy....but truly it was their own selfish desire and carnal nature.

This is an interesting approach. Along this line of thought, I think it follows that if they were carnal enough to "miss God" on this horrific level and actually commit these deeds, they could have been also carnal enough to make up a legend,  if for no other reasons that to "inspire" and/or control future generations and establish a National Identity for the Hebrew People as a force to be reckoned with.

In total, I submit that anytime we see "the flesh" or carnality, it should be disbelieved as a model of God's Nature, no matter where or when it occurs – this includes the Bible.

Grace & Peace, John  :HeartThrob:

[autoimmune]

I hope it's okay to continue discussions that ended a few months ago, but this is one I am interested in and would like to add to.  I have enjoyed all the various viewpoints I've read so far.

Like most here, I agree that there's no room for wrath as it is traditionally described in a God of love.

The bible was translated through many generations, each time subject to the same human problem with divine-to-human communication.  Yes, the original words and ideas--the underlying truths about God's love found in the bible--were inspired by the Spirit of God, yet the men who wrote them down had only their own human nature, history, experience and language with which to choose the words to describe the internal images seen when being directed what to say. 

I like to write, so I had to learn about premise, metaphor, use of symbol, characterization, conflict, human issue and a host of other writing tools,  As I did, I came to see the inspired authors of the bible had to use (and were limited by) the same human tools in setting down the infused knowledge they received from the Spirit. Knowing this doesn't change the truth behind those words, just the expression of them for human consumption . . . and words never do a spiritual reality justice.

For example, when I tried to speak or write about a certain experience of God that changed my life, I found that words always fell FAR short of the ineffable reality. The best I can do is approximate it with symbols and ideas our human minds can cope with.

A second problem lies in the editing once a work has been written.  In translating from one language to another the aim of any editor is to choose words that maintain a perceived consistency in image and meaning.  Therefore, when faced with a number of definitions available for the original Hebrew and Greek words, they try to pick them by considering context--and the context is usually determined by the historical meaning given that translation. 

The context most attribute to the Old Testament images describing God is that of a strict, wrathful Creator-God as seen through the eyes of a young child--Israel.  They explained their history in terms of that context.  If they won a battle it was because God was on their side.  If they lost, it was because they had failed to hold up their side of the covenant.  If they were prosperous, God was blessing them.  If they had famine it was because they had fallen away from God.

Consider what set the atmosphere for all the retellings of the wars the Israelites had once they entered the promised land under the guidance of this "wrathful" and warlike God—their first "corporate" meeting with God when He communicated with them from Mount Sinai.  When these tribes first "heard" God through the thunderings and lightenings, smoke and noise, they were terrified like little children.  They backed away and begged Moses to be the one who communicated with this fearsome God for them instead.

As little children they could not see the wonder and might and glory of such a God; they saw only the fearsome aspects of the way He communicated with them.  It was natural, imo, that after that they would record all that happened through those childlike eyes of fear. 

When they reached the promised land, fear kept them from entering and so they were punished and made to return to the desert 40 years before they were considered ready to enter.  When Abraham first came to the land he was sent to, the people there rebuffed him, so he turned away and left (just as later with those in the exodus from Egypt).  When he returned (after having lived in Egypt a bit), he made peace with the same neighboring tribe who originally sent him away, and they lived peaceably together as allies.

When the Israelites came out of the desert 40 years later, perhaps the lesson was supposed to be that they should enter the land more in the fashion of Abraham, trusting that God would make the way for them.  But, having experienced this awful, frightening, terrifying God at Sinai, they felt He was leading them to take the land physically and cleanse it because such a terrible God could not possibly accept anything less than their complete allegiance to Him only.

The truth is there in the scriptures, but it was heard, written and interpreted through the human ability to communicate these encounters with God.  The original images presented to the mind/heart/soul of the writer of that scripture may have implied something totally different.  An older, more spiritually mature person might place the words in an entirely different context and therefore choose different meanings for words long considered to connote wrath, anger and punishment.

We can be fairly sure this is true because Jesus later clarified that point, saying something very similar, that none of the Jews actually knew who the Father was or what He was like.

So, when it comes to understanding the Father, I have to take the Son's word for what He is like.  If it differs from the image expressed by the Israelites in the OT, I understand the difference lies in the relationship of the person describing Him to Him—and I opt for the description given by the Son who has seen Him, rather than the historically childlike retelling of the Israelites of their remote encounters with Him at a distance through eyes of fear.

Mary Ellen

[jabcat]

Hi Mary Ellen.  I appreciate the gentleness with which you handle the topic, and also that you don't just toss out the scriptures because they may be difficult for us to reconcile, understand, and/or accept at times.  However, IMO, we need to remember to keep in this equation that scripture was/is breathed by God, and the Holy Spirit was instrumental in expressing what God wanted/wants expressed.  Again, IMO, even what may or not be mistranslations, persons' expressed perceptions, etc., God works all according to the counsel of His will, and even what we may call glitches, are still a part of God revealing Himself to us, as, and when He wills.  I agree to a point with your POV wrt human instruments having attempted to transcribe the mind of God, along with the recognition of our human frailties; however, Psalm 119:89 says God's logos is settled in the heavens to the ages.  So IMO, we must not minimize God's voice even within (maybe especially within) what we consider the "difficult" scriptures.  To do so, we may discount as "just men's perspective" a message that God intends to use to continue shaping us into His image, and into a deeper appreciation of, and walk with, Him.

God's blessing, James.

[autoimmune]

Hi Mary Ellen.  I appreciate the gentleness with which you handle the topic, and also that you don't just toss out the scriptures because they may be difficult for us to reconcile, understand, and/or accept at times. 

Hello, James.  Nice to chat with you.  No, I don't toss out a scripture because it is difficult.  I find that what usually needs to be tossed out is the underlying assumptions men have made concerning a particular interpretation of scripture.

Rest assured, I absolutely believe the scriptures are inspired by the Holy Spirit. Since I'm new here perhaps I should give a short outline of how I view it.  I can see where you might misunderstand my use of the writing simile :)

First, I believe in the UNITY OF TRUTH which can be found within biblical texts, not that each word of any particular translation is correct or not.  Makes no difference to me which version I use, or what inaccuracies there might be, known or unknown. Truth can be found only as a unity, because the WORD, Jesus Christ, IS that unity. We cannot break Him, His teachings, or His Way of Life and Truth into conflicting pieces to satisfy our own human ego drives and needs--and declare we have found the truth.

The complete picture of God's Plan for creation is there if I am humble enough to stop insisting that God be Who I insist He must be or His Plan for mankind be the one I believe just and right.

The translation used is no more than a written tool.  The WORD is a living reality, the truth is SPOKEN to us and heard, not something read or understood with our minds.

We cannot know that Truth with our minds, we can only come into relationship with Him through our willing hearts.  Through that relationship with the WORD (rather than the words of the bible), HE explains Himself to us if we are willing to let go of our preconceived ideas of who He must be in order for our interpretations to be true, and He uses the scriptures to show the things He says to us are true.

Scripture must be filtered through the teachings of Christ in order to find the truth within them. We cannot take an OT or NT passage and, without reference to Christ's teachings, try to explain them.

God speaks to all men in all times through the bible. Each generation is tasked with finding that truth within the bible and applying it to their times and understanding of themselves and all creation.

The truth doesn't change, only our understanding of it and the way we express it so the people of the times can "hear" it. As we mature in our relationship to God, both individually in our lifetime and collectively over the millenia as the people of God, so should our understanding of Him deepen with a more mature understanding of the truths within the bible. So should our ability to convey those truths to the people of those times.

For instance, I believe there is a possibility that UR is the small scroll given to John in the Book of Revelation that was sweet to the taste, but sour in the stomach.  Most recognize the sweetness of it right away.  I don't think many as yet have seen the "sour" or difficult to digest aspect of it yet. Yet, I believe UR points to a much more difficult Love being ultimately revealed through it (and asked of us) than many first coming to the joyful realization that hell is not what they've been taught can see at first glance.

UR calls us to God's Love, but the Body of Christ should expect to live that Love in the same Way Christ did, to the same death (either of self or martyrdom) in service to others.  I believe our willing acceptance of suffering for others as He did means we will play a part in the restoration of all men similar to His part in the crucifixion for our sins. I haven't seen any URists speaking about this as yet, but I think it is something those of us who have studied it for a while may be just beginning to see.  So far, all people have looked at is the "happy" Love of God, not the sacrificial Love He calls us to as His Body here on earth or as His Bride at the judgment, or the part we may play in the eventual restoration of all things.

I tend to get long-winded. Sorry, I'll stop now .  Just meant to reassure you, I have spent years exploring the implications of what UR truly means in biblical terms.  Yes, it's the Blessed Hope, but that doesn't mean everything is now just a matter of "Christ did it for me and now I get all the warm fuzzies" :)

Hope to chat with you later,
Mary Ellen 

[jabcat]

 Things worth thinking on for sure, thanks.  :handshake:

[martincisneros]

Hello, James.  Nice to chat with you.  No, I don't toss out a scripture because it is difficult.  I find that what usually needs to be tossed out is the underlying assumptions men have made concerning a particular interpretation of scripture.

Rest assured, I absolutely believe the scriptures are inspired by the Holy Spirit. Since I'm new here perhaps I should give a short outline of how I view it.  I can see where you might misunderstand my use of the writing simile :)

First, I believe in the UNITY OF TRUTH which can be found within biblical texts, not that each word of any particular translation is correct or not.  Makes no difference to me which version I use, or what inaccuracies there might be, known or unknown. Truth can be found only as a unity, because the WORD, Jesus Christ, IS that unity. We cannot break Him, His teachings, or His Way of Life and Truth into conflicting pieces to satisfy our own human ego drives and needs--and declare we have found the truth.

The complete picture of God's Plan for creation is there if I am humble enough to stop insisting that God be Who I insist He must be or His Plan for mankind be the one I believe just and right.

The translation used is no more than a written tool.  The WORD is a living reality, the truth is SPOKEN to us and heard, not something read or understood with our minds.

We cannot know that Truth with our minds, we can only come into relationship with Him through our willing hearts.  Through that relationship with the WORD (rather than the words of the bible), HE explains Himself to us if we are willing to let go of our preconceived ideas of who He must be in order for our interpretations to be true, and He uses the scriptures to show the things He says to us are true.

Scripture must be filtered through the teachings of Christ in order to find the truth within them. We cannot take an OT or NT passage and, without reference to Christ's teachings, try to explain them.

God speaks to all men in all times through the bible. Each generation is tasked with finding that truth within the bible and applying it to their times and understanding of themselves and all creation.

The truth doesn't change, only our understanding of it and the way we express it so the people of the times can "hear" it. As we mature in our relationship to God, both individually in our lifetime and collectively over the millenia as the people of God, so should our understanding of Him deepen with a more mature understanding of the truths within the bible. So should our ability to convey those truths to the people of those times.

For instance, I believe there is a possibility that UR is the small scroll given to John in the Book of Revelation that was sweet to the taste, but sour in the stomach.  Most recognize the sweetness of it right away.  I don't think many as yet have seen the "sour" or difficult to digest aspect of it yet. Yet, I believe UR points to a much more difficult Love being ultimately revealed through it (and asked of us) than many first coming to the joyful realization that hell is not what they've been taught can see at first glance.

UR calls us to God's Love, but the Body of Christ should expect to live that Love in the same Way Christ did, to the same death (either of self or martyrdom) in service to others.  I believe our willing acceptance of suffering for others as He did means we will play a part in the restoration of all men similar to His part in the crucifixion for our sins. I haven't seen any URists speaking about this as yet, but I think it is something those of us who have studied it for a while may be just beginning to see.  So far, all people have looked at is the "happy" Love of God, not the sacrificial Love He calls us to as His Body here on earth or as His Bride at the judgment, or the part we may play in the eventual restoration of all things.

I tend to get long-winded. Sorry, I'll stop now .  Just meant to reassure you, I have spent years exploring the implications of what UR truly means in biblical terms.  Yes, it's the Blessed Hope, but that doesn't mean everything is now just a matter of "Christ did it for me and now I get all the warm fuzzies" :)

Hope to chat with you later,
Mary Ellen 

:goodpost: :ty: :iagree: :2thumbs: Not sure if I ever bring this up enough, but St. Paul's message of UR is indissoluably linked with our destiny to be conformed to the image of Jesus Christ.

[autoimmune]

:goodpost: :ty: :iagree: :2thumbs: Not sure if I ever bring this up enough, but St. Paul's message of UR is indissoluably linked with our destiny to be conformed to the image of Jesus Christ.

Thanks, Martin.  Since I'm new here, it might be easier to ask you for links to any threads on the topic you are aware of than to search them out myself.  DO you know of any offhand?

ME