Tentmaker Forum

Essentially I am a NT guy and have not delved deep into the Old Testament.

The Misogyny thread and another have probably run their course.

The purpose of this is to collect those wrathful OT texts and if the Lord has shown you a deeper meaning to them to present them with parallels here.

Hi Seeker,

I sort of look at it as "the destruction of all flesh" (every man, woman, and child).

The flesh must be destroyed so that the spirit can be saved in the day of the Lord.

:bottlebump:

 :cloud9: How long have you got, LOL? I think probably every scripture in the OT reveals hidden truth that reveals some aspect of the spiritual works of God and Christ. Even single Hebrew words and even Hebrew letters speak of it. It can't do anything but that, because it came out of Him. Blessings to you.......

Seeker,

I still have trouble with the wrath of God in the OT, but am coming to an understanding of its necessity.  I see the core human problem, call it "original sin" if you like, is self-righteousness-our desire to be right with God by what we do.  We need the law and wrath to demonstrate that there is nothing we can do to be right with God by our actions.  Any attempt to follow the law will inevitably lead to death or giving up and looking to Jesus...the author AND FINISHER of faith. Thank God that Jesus took all the wrath of God for us and destroyed the law.

It's not very well thought out yet, but maybe you get my gyst???

Giz

Quote from: Gizmo on December 02, 2007, 10:10:48 PM
Seeker,

I still have trouble with the wrath of God in the OT, but am coming to an understanding of its necessity.  I see the core human problem, call it "original sin" if you like, is self-righteousness-our desire to be right with God by what we do.  We need the law and wrath to demonstrate that there is nothing we can do to be right with God by our actions.  Any attempt to follow the law will inevitably lead to death or giving up and looking to Jesus...the author AND FINISHER of faith. Thank God that Jesus took all the wrath of God for us and destroyed the law.

It's not very well thought out yet, but maybe you get my gyst???

Giz

Hi Giz

I agree except for the red bit, if that refers to all 630 odd levitical laws, I agree.  The 10 however remain.  8 of these are in all cultures in some form or another.  Of these 10, Jesus IMO fulfilled them and did not replace them.  Even so, we are under Grace not the law, neither the 10. However the 10 are written on our hearts and not on stone tablets.

Basically, Thou shalt not kill, is still relevant today.  Committing adultery has consequences esp. if you are caught.

Hope you get my gist.

I plan to do a study of the Levitical laws in the new year and see how they tied into the Hebrew culture.  What I see so far, the Levitical laws were add-ons and contradicted many times the Thou shalt not kill. IOW the levites had a view "Thou shalt not kill, unless...." fill in the blank and deferred it to Jehovah spake to Moses saying.....

Blessings

I am doing some studying on that myself and finding some very interesting things in that they were not a singular god people before they settled on yehweh as their god and he was actually one of the gods they believed in elevated to a singular god status. He was a god of war to begin with so its natural they would be a very warring nation and hear this god speak to them in this way.

its all very very interesting

kept

QuoteI am doing some studying on that myself and finding some very interesting things in that they were not a singular god people before they settled on yehweh as their god and he was actually one of the gods they believed in elevated to a singular god status. He was a god of war to begin with so its natural they would be a very warring nation and hear this god speak to them in this way.

its all very very interesting

That is a really interesting.  Where did you find this info, kept?  What are you studying?

Cindi....

Mercy Not Sacrifice (http://mercynotsacrifice.blogspot.com/)

Cindi Im reading several books at a time on the same basic subject but I will pm you the names

kept

Seeker said:

QuoteI plan to do a study of the Levitical laws in the new year and see how they tied into the Hebrew culture.  What I see so far, the Levitical laws were add-ons and contradicted many times the Thou shalt not kill. IOW the levites had a view "Thou shalt not kill, unless...." fill in the blank and deferred it to Jehovah spake to Moses saying.....

.....and then later "Jehovah spake" to Joshua saying......"you know those Amorites to the west, and those Caananites by the coast...well this is what I want you to do to them...but first, let's talk about the city of Jehrico"

I am rereading Joshua right now.  Quite an eye re-opener.

Cindi....

Mercy Not Sacrifice (http://mercynotsacrifice.blogspot.com/)

Quote from: Cindi on December 04, 2007, 12:41:06 PM
Seeker said:

QuoteI plan to do a study of the Levitical laws in the new year and see how they tied into the Hebrew culture.  What I see so far, the Levitical laws were add-ons and contradicted many times the Thou shalt not kill. IOW the levites had a view "Thou shalt not kill, unless...." fill in the blank and deferred it to Jehovah spake to Moses saying.....

.....and then later "Jehovah spake" to Joshua saying......"you know those Amorites to the west, and those Caananites by the coast...well this is what I want you to do to them...but first, let's talk about the city of Jehrico"

I am rereading Joshua right now.  Quite an eye re-opener.

Cindi....

Mercy Not Sacrifice (http://mercynotsacrifice.blogspot.com/)

Hi Cindi

Like I said, hopefully next year.  I cannot force anything unless God is directing me.  What I have shared here is merely a glimpse.  When I study I tend to dig into the word as opposed to a teaching.  That keeps my approach unbiased.

There are many stories in the OT that no one her even touch, Ezekiel's, "spaceship" for example.  In fact even in the mainstream I only once heard a teaching of it, that too is in the pipeline.

Jesus came to fulfil the Law so it stands to reason, in that fulfilment is a key to the OT.

Many say is is a shadow and/or a parable/prophesy of Jesus which I do not object to yet there has to be a deeper truth.

Jesus' main contention was with the "law keepers" in the NT and His ministry, what was supposed to have been revealed by the Law and the Prophets was kept hidden.

I like Molly see the whole bible in Gen 1-3 and there are sooo many layers there.  Knowing the Scribes and Pharisees were essentially the focus of Jesus' admonition and criticism, then it stands to reason, the fulfilment was not a replacement theology but demolition of the order of the day.  Blood sacrifice you did not desire etc. comes out of OT references and I would go so far as to say even the temple, and it's purpose and the rituals are questionable.

Did the Levites get it wrong, so far it looks like it.  When the veil was rent in two, what did it expose?  What was in the ark?  Where is it today, Ethiopia? Does it matter?

We see many trying to find their roots in the Hebraic culture wrt to Christianity.  The root of Christianity is Christ, He is the cornerstone.  He is the foundation. Reconciling us to the Father via Himself, was the object of His ministry.  If you find Jesus in the NT, why go back to the OT to look for Him there?  We need to merge the God of Love in the NT with the God of wrath of the OT, can you say religion?

I found Jesus more than enough in the NT.

Blessings

Amen !

me too Seeker, its really radically changing everything for me

can we say one stone will not be left on another? I see a destruction here going on in my life but Im simply standing here looking at the Lord thru the dust and He hasnt changed one iota, still the same, yesterday, today and forever!

He is a GOOD GOD

I believe and I choose this day whom I will serve

just the way it is and it is what it is to me

kept

Quote from: Kept on December 04, 2007, 12:46:42 AM
I am doing some studying on that myself and finding some very interesting things in that they were not a singular god people before they settled on yehweh as their god and he was actually one of the gods they believed in elevated to a singular god status. He was a god of war to begin with so its natural they would be a very warring nation and hear this god speak to them in this way.

its all very very interesting

kept

There seems to be two strains or streams of "history of religions" and you're reading in one of them.  Much there is unsubstantiated logic, that polytheism was original and monotheism a later development.  There were always witnesses in the earth to the One True and Living God.  The great falling away in the days of Noah nevertheless did have Noah and his family.  Monotheism is the original belief and you can be sure that the descendants of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob kept a pure hand-me-down body of knowledge and experience of God.  This is why He says He chose Abraham, "Because I know that you will teach your children and they will teach their children, even unto many generations, whatsoever I tell unto you."

Yes there is the one truth but it has gotten picked up and mixed many times

I am not just reading one side by the way, I have both sides going and to top it off bible scholars that give credence to the 'other side' while remaining christian and not secular.

I appreciate you offering that because everyone should not take my words for anything but study to show themselves approved and wait on God to reveal things.

thanks

sadly we have to go these things alone for the most part because there is no room for questioning the norms ya know, not in groups

:HeartThrob:

kept

The anti-Biblical strain of Theology is a fairly recent development in only the last 150 to 200 years, though only with a strangle hold on mainline Protestant Seminaries since about 1890 in Europe and 1920 in the US, as well as Catholicism since about 1920 in Europe and 1940 in the US.  The following is an overly short presentation of this problem through a particular group that makes a racket out of proportion for their qualifications.
------------------------------------------------------
excerpt from

The Jesus Seminar: The Slippery Slope to Heresy

By Craig Branch

"Thus Saith the Lord" or "Hath God Said?"

The gradual shift from the inerrancy, infallibility, and authority of Scripture to the current state has been a complex historical process. The results of this digression has been a measurable degeneration and apostasy in many mainline Christian churches. Membership in these churches has significantly declined and American culture has shifted from a Judeo-Christian base to a humanistic, New Age, relativistic one, with increasing moral decline.

The growth of heterodoxy (heresy) grows best under certain conditions which enhance the mutations. The foundational departure creating a toxic dump for the growth of the weeds of this apostasy began over a hundred and fifty years ago in the early nineteenth century.

Social Darwinism's influence spread into many academic areas, including many seminaries. The rationalism of the Enlightenment began to dominate New Testament scholarship, especially in Germany. Evolution and scientism naturally challenged Biblical accounts of creation, miracles, and the supernatural (Christianity Through the Centuries, Cairns, p. 426).

German scholastics Wellhausen and Graf posited a theory that the Pentateuch was not written by Moses but evolved and was compiled from four different sources or traditions. This theory was surmised because of apparent stylistic and content differences present in the text.

This theory plus the philosophical ideas of Immanuel Kant greatly influenced the direction of liberalism and the science of textual criticism (Ibid., pp. 410-412). The area of textual criticism that has become mainstream in liberalism and neo-orthodoxy is called the historical-critical method.

The historical-critical method uses several approaches. Literary (source) criticism, form criticism, and redaction criticism are the most popular (see extended definitions in the Glossary of Liberal Theological Terms).

A primary example of this approach can be seen in what the "scholars" term "the Synoptic Problem." Some theologians see a problem in the fact that the Matthew, Mark, and Luke texts in the gospels have a number of very similar and some different accounts in them.
The assumption is that they either copied each other or from an unnamed, undiscovered text (i.e., the mysterious, phantom "Q" document), or that some editors (redactors) compiled oral stories much later and attributed them to the disciples (Is There a Synoptic Problem?, p. 10). These "scholars," who began with an anti-supernatural bias, speculated that books of the Bible were written much later than claimed, or that there were many mythological events recorded in the Bible. Most of these liberal pronouncements were demonstrated to be specious with the multitude of archeological discoveries verifying the historicity, as well as many thousands of manuscript discoveries dating very close to the original autographs of the New Testament.

In summary, the basic principles of the liberal historical-critical theory is the presupposition or a priori assumption that supernatural revelation from God as objective propositional truths is inconceivable to the critical intellect. God is excluded from consideration from the start. Biblical accounts are assumed to contain only man's evolving thoughts about God. Therefore God's word cannot be understood apart from careful use of hypothetical constructs of "scientific" critical approaches (Historical Criticism of the Bible, pp. 84-85).

(finis)
----------------------------------------------------
Gregory Boyd astutely observes, "Historical theories should be built upon the foundation of what is present in concrete evidence that is available; not in what is absent in hypothetical evidence that is altogether unavailable."

Thanks for that post, I havent read The Jesus seminars but have studied the jdep theory and it is facinating.

Anyways, there is a reason much hasnt been mainstream till now, the internet being one and the other for instance you mention wellhausen which if Im not mistaken was the original theorist of the jedp theory, and well if you research you can find out what happened to folks like him.

Whether we want to admit it or not, anyone actually testing things like Did Moses actually write the first five books will surely find themselves persecuted if not completely cut off. This has always been the norm for christianity. Start questioning some things and there is some very strong evidence that Moses did not in fact pen the first five books, but hey, lets not go there, too much crap to deal with if you do and you will find yourself cast out.

If one ever begins to question the bibles errancy and that what we have been taught to believe just might have gaping holes then all hell breaks loose

signs of a cult to me and for me Im looking and remaining as unbiased as I can be

thanks
kept

This subject was a stumbling block for me and actually partly caused me to become an athiest for awhile. I could not believe some of the things the OT God was doing....I didn't want to worship such a vengeful, wrathful God and I could not reconcile things in my head. When I asked questions, people would say "well, God knows best and the people deserved (insert situation.)

This was beyond my comprehension as I always believed God was loving and forgiving. A lot of people have not actually read all of the OT and they speak of it freely....
To me, I see a huge difference between the OT God and the NT God.

I am not allowing this to be a stumbling block anymore as today I choose to believe in God. However, that being said, I still have trouble trying to reconcile the OT God to the God I worship....

Freebird you do well to follow hard after thee imo that thee that lives and breathes in you, ur makes room for that good God you know deep within you but even ur has holes imo

I dont know that there is a 'group' that really has the inerrant truth, but ur is by far closest to what I know in my heart to be true for me and Im so glad you found this camp. Its a great place to be.

I  hear ya about the ot God vs the nt God, someone once said 'Did God get saved between the ot and nt' well that sounds laughable but to us that have this wonderful good God within us often it sure seems like it huh haha

blessings on your house  :HeartThrob:

kept

Quote from: Cindi on December 04, 2007, 12:41:06 PM

.....and then later "Jehovah spake" to Joshua saying......"you know those Amorites to the west, and those Canaanites by the coast...well this is what I want you to do to them...but first, let's talk about the city of Jehrico"

Mercy Not Sacrifice (http://mercynotsacrifice.blogspot.com/)

Yeah, "first, let's talk about the city of Jehrico."

It means "the city of Palms" or, "the city of the Moon."  After being circumcised again, crossing into Canaan, and establishing a reiteration of all that God had said and done before, Jericho was the first article of new business on their plate.  This is the false city of God, the false Bride.

here's an excerpt from my 9/7/07 post elsewhere  on tentmaker:
     D. Barton Payne gave us a sizable volume called Encyclopedia of Biblical Prophecy.  Using his calculations, after "Christ," which is number one, the prophetic topic with the second largest number of verses, three times as many as any other, is "Babylon."  Hidden within the Bible, every little boy and girl carries to Sunday School a book called, "Mother of Whores."  Yet the best selling books on the Church in the last couple of decades that I've examined remind us of the ostrich in the wilderness.  Perhaps their lack of judgment explains their popularity.  They make no mention of a false vine, false brethren, or the harlot:  Babylon.  She is not the Church.  The Church does not deceive us.  It is Babylon that "lies in wait at every corner" (Pr 7:12) to seduce.  The Ecclesia is God's girlfriend, the wife Christ died to obtain.  Too many use the term "Church" to refer to the Institutional Church which is more properly Babylon.  God's people are "called out" of Babylon, not out of the Church.

When they possessed the land it was to build a temple on a mountain in the capitol city.  In the Temple was the holy of holies, the heart of it all.  The temple had friezes of palm trees in gold all about it's interior.  The moon is not a cruel and perverted city of idolaters but the bride, then Israel, now including a fuller realization as the Church (Ecclesia.)  Until we deal with the false, we can't enter on into our inheritance.  Scripture says God's throne is founded and established on judgment.  Solomon brought in the glory and is a type of inheriting "the land" of our bodies by way of the promise of the Father, the Holy Spirit, in incorruptible immortality as is this entrance into Canaan.  The first thing Solomon did on ascending to the throne was to have three men executed.  Ah, but which three?

---James Rohde

Again I would just like to point out that it doesnt have to be extremism, dang that thing just keeps popping up, its like the jack in the box and its always being wound by this unseen hand lol

There is a path in the middle of these things to me

kept

Kept,
I don't dismiss you from the bride in my heart, even if you entertain some of the more liberal critical theories and such.  It is obscure to me why they were never convincing to me.  Even more important is what we do with what we are supposed to be Masters over, and I know I knew God when I couldn't get myself to obey what I knew to be right.  Should I not walk in that mercy to others?  How I suffered because I could not believe in God's persistent display of grace to me, a wretched "Pete and repeat" sinner.  Have I learned my lesson?  Really, the "no condemnation" realm is inhabited by walking around after the Spirit.  Many think it is only to themselves, but as long as you believe others are condemned, you can't get rid of condemnation except deceptively, which is where many are stuck.  Am I pleased with the grin on the face of Him around the corner, leaning on...what is it?  Is it a chastening rod?
---James

well thanks for not dismissing me  :HeartThrob:

God bless

kept

QuoteReformer: Yeah, "first, let's talk about the city of Jehrico."

It means "the city of Palms" or, "the city of the Moon."  After being circumcised again, crossing into Canaan, and establishing a reiteration of all that God had said and done before, Jericho was the first article of new business on their plate.  This is the false city of God, the false Bride.

ReFORMer, I didn't know that Jericho meant that!  Thank you!  City of the Moon, huh?  I
remember that in Rev. too, the "woman" who gave birth to the MANchild had the MOON
under her feet!  YOu
will remember that it was said "don't build Jericho again!"  Just recently I heard connected to
that was "if I build again those things that I destroyed, I make myself a transgressor." 

That sort of goes with what you said. 

James

is chastening evil to you or God using evil? It is to many apparently.

I dont lump chastening into God using evil. Love has many spectrums just as white does.

To me the fact that evil exists is a mystery of iniquity that some seem to be sure they understand

I dont claim to understand it but one thing I do claim to believe

God is Love and Love doesnt act like a terrorist

1Co 13:4 Love (God) has patience,(God) is kind; love (God) is not envious; love (God) is not vain, (God)is not puffed up;
1Co 13:5 (God) does not behave indecently,(God) does not pursue its own things, (God)is not easily provoked,(God) thinks no evil;
1Co 13:6 (God) does not rejoice in unrighteousness, (God)but rejoices in the truth.
1Co 13:7 (God)Love quietly covers all things, (God)believes all things, (God)hopes all things,(God) endures all things.
1Co 13:8 (God)Love never fails.


kept

When I was pregnant I was gathering info on how to parent. I was raised very disfunctionally so how is this going to work God?

I read a James Dobson book on raising a child. When My daughter was very very small she became very defiant one night. I put the Dobson plan in action and I spanked her, no difference. Same behavior, but dobson said to stick to your ground, do not give in or they will run over you the rest of your life. This is the time to set the stage for her future. So I stood my ground, I spanked her again. This happened several times till we both were broken and sobbing.

She has never been spanked since that night and the Dobson book was thrown in the garbage where it belonged.

I learned my daughter does not need a spanking, she needs reasoning and love. My daughter learns really well. She is not without the ability to understand without a two by four approach.

Maybe Im just blessed but I tend to think all children really learn best from real love and time and reasoning together.

Let the big bad evil world and the devil and his compadres throw evil at her but from her parent she will always get love and reasoning till she gains the upper hand and knows how to walk on him, how to be in the world and not of it.

Evil can stay where it belongs and Love where it belongs

just my  :2c:

About Jehrico....

When I consider God orchestrating the taking of the city of Jerhico and the later decree concerning the Amorites and the Caananites, and all the rest of the "ites"... I simply can not reconcile it with the image of God I see depicted in Jesus.  When the disciples wanted to call down fire on those who did not welcome them, Jesus rebuked them and said "you don't know what manner of spirit you are of."  To me, to think that the same God we see in Jesus would....centuries before....call for the murder of the entire city....kill them all, man, woman and child.....and all the animals too....take all the gold for himself....then burn the city down.  It just does not add up.   And to reduce the carnage, the pillage and the plundering, to terms like "possess the land" whitewashes and sanitizes what happened there.  And to explain it taking place as some kind of picture to point out a spiritual truth is to trivialize the very real human beings who suffered and died there.  Perhaps Joshua thought he heard God tell him to lead the children of Israel to "possess" the land but I am more inclined to believe that is just what Joshua thought he heard....because that's what he wanted to hear.  Just my opinion...

Cindi.....

Mercy Not Sacrifice (http://mercynotsacrifice.blogspot.com/)

Seeker,
I agree.  He destroyed the law written on stone tablets.  All of us have His law on our hearts.  Keeping or not keeping does not make us right with Him...what makes us right with God is Jesus!
Peace,
Giz

To all who struggle with this issue, I would recommend this writing:

http://members.ozemail.com.au/~moorea/goodness_love_virtue.html

There are some things I don't agree with 100%, but it has been a great help to understand a few things, Father has shown me at the beginning of my walk.

edit

Quote from: Cindi on December 05, 2007, 12:51:07 AM

About Jehrico....

When I consider God orchestrating the taking of the city of Jerhico and the later decree concerning the Amorites and the Caananites, and all the rest of the "ites"... I simply can not reconcile it with the image of God I see depicted in Jesus.  When the disciples wanted to call down fire on those who did not welcome them, Jesus rebuked them and said "you don't know what manner of spirit you are of."  To me, to think that the same God we see in Jesus would....centuries before....call for the murder of the entire city....kill them all, man, woman and child.....and all the animals too....take all the gold for himself....then burn the city down.  It just does not add up.   And to reduce the carnage, the pillage and the plundering, to terms like "possess the land" whitewashes and sanitizes what happened there.  And to explain it taking place as some kind of picture to point out a spiritual truth is to trivialize the very real human beings who suffered and died there.  Perhaps Joshua thought he heard God tell him to lead the children of Israel to "possess" the land but I am more inclined to believe that is just what Joshua thought he heard....because that's what he wanted to hear.  Just my opinion...

Cindi.....

Mercy Not Sacrifice (http://mercynotsacrifice.blogspot.com/)

Cindi!!!

I can NOW say a word or two about that! I just got this!  I was reading this passage recently
and noticed that it says "don't build Jericho again."  I see things spirtual myself, but
what we have "destroyed" ......concepts, beliefs, etc., realms on our journey, we must
learn to leave it behind us, I think it was Paul that over in the new testament said, "If I
build again the things that I destroyed, I make myself a transgressor." I read that the other
night and thought of how they were not to rebuild Jericho.  Well, it makes sense at least
spirituallly to me.  Let us "Keep" our eyes on the nature of God that Jesus showed us, for
it was the right IMAGE that showed us LOVE.........oh! What a treasure God has put in our
earth, so powerful, that "many waters" cannot quench it!

RedletterVoice said:

QuoteI was reading this passage recently
and noticed that it says "don't build Jericho again."  I see things spirtual myself, but
what we have "destroyed" ......concepts, beliefs, etc., realms on our journey, we must
learn to leave it behind us, I think it was Paul that over in the new testament said, "If I
build again the things that I destroyed, I make myself a transgressor." I read that the other
night and thought of how they were not to rebuild Jericho.  Well, it makes sense at least
spirituallly to me.

Perhaps if I thought the OT was JUST a myth and did not involve real life flesh and blood people...like Aesop's Fables....I could accept that.  I think it was Preston Eby who wrote about the connection of the names of all the "ites" (Cannanites, Amorites, Hittitites etc. etc.) with things to be driven out of our flesh...and he even connected the names to character traits....you know...like greed or lust....etc. etc.  I can't remember more specific details about the writing than that...but I do remember being disgusted that God would use thousands and thousands of people...killed in terrifying, painful ways just to give us this spiritual picture.  And are the things that occur in the OT really moral?  Is the God of the OT a moral being...plundering, pillfering...killing? Do we see anything that remotely resembles Jesus in these stories?  The people of Jehrico were scared to death of the children of Israel.  Would they have surrendered if that was an option...or was the only option to die at the hands of the Israelites? 

Rahab told the spies:

Joshua 2:9 I know that the LORD has given you the land, that the terror of you has fallen on us, and that all the inhabitants of the land are fainthearted because of you. 10For we have heard how the LORD dried up the water of the Red Sea for you when you came out of Egypt, and what you did to the two kings of the Amorites who were on the other side of the Jordan, Sihon and Og, whom you utterly destroyed. 11And as soon as we heard these things, our hearts melted; neither did there remain any more courage in anyone because of you, for the LORD your God, He is God in heaven above and on earth beneath.

and later on in chapter 5 it says:

Joshua 5:1 So it was, when all the kings of the Amorites who were on the west side of the Jordan, and all the kings of the Canaanites who were by the sea, heard that the LORD had dried up the waters of the Jordan from before the children of Israel until we had crossed over, that their heart melted; and there was no spirit in them any longer because of the children of Israel.

My friend Brian, on another list, posted the following which seems to indicate to me that sometimes the people of the OT THOUGHT they heard God tell them to do something...but later it was realized that it was not God afterall. 


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

There is an interesting example in the bible itself where a prophet explicitly contradicts an account written in an earlier book of scripture. In 2 Kings, the prophet Elisha anoints Jehu as king and tells him to "strike down the house of your master Ahab, so that I may avenge on Jezebel the blood of my servants the prophets" (2 Kings 9:6-7). Jehu got the Samaritans to wage war on Ahab and to bring him the heads of Ahab's 70 sons in baskets. Then Jehu marched into Samaria himself and "killed all who were left to Ahab in Samaria, until he had wiped them out, according to the word of the Lord that he spoke to Elijah" (2 Kings 10:17). According to the story in 2 Kings, God was pleased with this outcome :



The Lord said to Jehu, "Because you have done well in carrying out what I consider right, and in accordance with all that was in my heart have dealt with the house of Ahab, your sons of the fourth generation shall sit on the throne of Israel."

(2 Kings 10:30)



But the prophet Hosea was having none of this : he declared that God would "punish the house of Jehu for the blood of Jezreel, and...put an end to the kingdom of the house of Israel" (Hosea 1:4).  ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

So who heard God right?  Elisha or Hosea?  Somebody heard wrong.  Or he purposely mislead one of them.  To me attributing the violence in the OT to "God told me to do it"  just does not add up....and the acts he commands bear no resemblence to the the image of the invisible God I see in Jesus.  In the verse above, God praises the slaughter and says that it was "in accordance with all that was in his heart.  How do I reconcile that with the life Jesus lived?  The mercy he showed?  At this point, I can't see it any differently than I see it....

Cindi.......

Thats just it Cindi in a nutshell

Did anyone actually see the video of the guys sawing the head off of the one guy in the Iraqi war? Imagine that times 70 and then add in all the others in the verses above. Then imagine them throwing all those heads in large baskets and traveling with them to their destination and putting them on display.

This is real stuff, not movies, I think in part we are so used to getting our spiritual allegorical blessings in the bible that we have learned to compartmentalize, divorce ourselves from reality when we read it I guess

we certainly are peculiar alright lol

omgosh can you imagine if that happened today. We walk up to this lovely display and start pointing out all the symbology

now kids see those dangling heads on poles? They represent the flesh that God is cutting off and that pole represents the tree that Christ was cruicified on and ........see the spiritual symbolism children?

kept

Quote from: Cindi on December 07, 2007, 01:11:46 PM
RedletterVoice said:

QuoteI was reading this passage recently
and noticed that it says "don't build Jericho again."  I see things spirtual myself, but
what we have "destroyed" ......concepts, beliefs, etc., realms on our journey, we must
learn to leave it behind us, I think it was Paul that over in the new testament said, "If I
build again the things that I destroyed, I make myself a transgressor." I read that the other
night and thought of how they were not to rebuild Jericho.  Well, it makes sense at least
spirituallly to me.

Perhaps if I thought the OT was JUST a myth and did not involve real life flesh and blood people...like Aesop's Fables....I could accept that.  I think it was Preston Eby who wrote about the connection of the names of all the "ites" (Cannanites, Amorites, Hittitites etc. etc.) with things to be driven out of our flesh...and he even connected the names to character traits....you know...like greed or lust....etc. etc.  I can't remember more specific details about the writing than that...but I do remember being disgusted that God would use thousands and thousands of people...killed in terrifying, painful ways just to give us this spiritual picture.  And are the things that occur in the OT really moral?  Is the God of the OT a moral being...plundering, pillfering...killing? Do we see anything that remotely resembles Jesus in these stories?  The people of Jehrico were scared to death of the children of Israel.  Would they have surrendered if that was an option...or was the only option to die at the hands of the Israelites? 

Rahab told the spies:

Joshua 2:9 I know that the LORD has given you the land, that the terror of you has fallen on us, and that all the inhabitants of the land are fainthearted because of you. 10For we have heard how the LORD dried up the water of the Red Sea for you when you came out of Egypt, and what you did to the two kings of the Amorites who were on the other side of the Jordan, Sihon and Og, whom you utterly destroyed. 11And as soon as we heard these things, our hearts melted; neither did there remain any more courage in anyone because of you, for the LORD your God, He is God in heaven above and on earth beneath.

and later on in chapter 5 it says:

Joshua 5:1 So it was, when all the kings of the Amorites who were on the west side of the Jordan, and all the kings of the Canaanites who were by the sea, heard that the LORD had dried up the waters of the Jordan from before the children of Israel until we had crossed over, that their heart melted; and there was no spirit in them any longer because of the children of Israel.

My friend Brian, on another list, posted the following which seems to indicate to me that sometimes the people of the OT THOUGHT they heard God tell them to do something...but later it was realized that it was not God afterall. 


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

There is an interesting example in the bible itself where a prophet explicitly contradicts an account written in an earlier book of scripture. In 2 Kings, the prophet Elisha anoints Jehu as king and tells him to "strike down the house of your master Ahab, so that I may avenge on Jezebel the blood of my servants the prophets" (2 Kings 9:6-7). Jehu got the Samaritans to wage war on Ahab and to bring him the heads of Ahab's 70 sons in baskets. Then Jehu marched into Samaria himself and "killed all who were left to Ahab in Samaria, until he had wiped them out, according to the word of the Lord that he spoke to Elijah" (2 Kings 10:17). According to the story in 2 Kings, God was pleased with this outcome :



The Lord said to Jehu, "Because you have done well in carrying out what I consider right, and in accordance with all that was in my heart have dealt with the house of Ahab, your sons of the fourth generation shall sit on the throne of Israel."

(2 Kings 10:30)



But the prophet Hosea was having none of this : he declared that God would "punish the house of Jehu for the blood of Jezreel, and...put an end to the kingdom of the house of Israel" (Hosea 1:4).  ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

So who heard God right?  Elisha or Hosea?  Somebody heard wrong.  Or he purposely mislead one of them.  To me attributing the violence in the OT to "God told me to do it"  just does not add up....and the acts he commands bear no resemblence to the the image of the invisible God I see in Jesus.  In the verse above, God praises the slaughter and says that it was "in accordance with all that was in his heart.  How do I reconcile that with the life Jesus lived?  The mercy he showed?  At this point, I can't see it any differently than I see it....

Cindi.......

Some things to think about. At the moment it seems as if this topic is following me everywhere I am going and I become more and more aware, that only the Son truly knows the Father.

Literaly the scripture says:

John 1:18  Nothing (Greek  oudeis) has perceived (Greek horeo) God at any time; the Only-begotten Son, who is in the bosom (heart) of the Father, He has declared Him.

John 5:37  And He sending Me, the Father Himself, has borne witness of Me. Neither has his voice been heard at any time, nor his form perceived (Greek horeo).

This, at least the first, posted earlier on the topic before this thread was split off of it.  They are really worth reading.

http://www.christian-thinktank.com/qamorite.html  (http://www.christian-thinktank.com/qamorite.html)

http://www.christian-thinktank.com/rbutcher1.html  (http://www.christian-thinktank.com/rbutcher1.html)

I heard on Nat'l Public Radio the other day that the result of certain research was that we could now, by doing certain things, lower our risk of dying by half.  I've heard this kind of thing before.  I just wonder how they can say it with a straight face.  Until entering the next age when immortals will be manifest as determining the course of human affairs, humans die, period.  You can't lessen the risk of dying which is 100%!

This is what seems to be lacking:  the realization that people die.  In an earlier post I pointed out that all lambs die.  Some died on the altars, set apart to God.  The same with people.  Some of all who die are examples of God's judgment against sin.  They would die anyway.  There are some who die as martyrs, sanctified to a higher purpose in their deaths.  They also would die anyway.  It seems the underlying fact of death at all would be the culprit here, not that some deaths are more meaningful for the Human community and for God.

While I have much sympathy for you, to those who say that, "I don't like it and I don't think it's the real God ordering people's death's in O.T. Scripture," how do you warm to the fact that He sees to it that everybody dies?

---James

QuoteWhile I have much sympathy for you, to those who say that, "I don't like it and I don't think it's the real God ordering people's death's in O.T. Scripture," how do you warm to the fact that He sees to it that everybody dies?

Death is inevitable.  Taking a life saying it was ordained of God contradicts His law, in fact it contradicts all secular laws.  Even execution of a murderer contradicts the law of God, why would Jesus tell us to love our enemies when bringing up the eye-for-an-eye law?

Any justice carried out by man is subjective.  By that I mean, murder of a baby of 1 week is murder yet PBA is not.  What is the difference if I insert a suction piece into a born baby's head and suck out the brains as opposed to one en route down the birth canal.

That punishment should exist for murder, yes.  Killing the murderer does not bring back the life of the victim, it appeases the lust for revenge of the victim and is called justice.  God's justice does not work that way.

You say we do not see God ordering the genocides, that is correct.  If He did, then He is inconsistent and deserves no respect or worship or love.

Being appointed once to die by natural causes is OK with me.  That would include earthquakes, hurricanes and any so called "act of God" and in motor vehicle accidents.  No one can tell me that war killing is Okayed by God, that is man at his vilest.  In war, choosing to lay down ones life for a cause is noble, both sides are indoctrinated to think this way, I know, I was in the army and they are good at turning a person into a killing machine and they did not even use the bible.

The army nurtures hate and have subtle ways of making that happen, they appeal to your survival instincts and it is kill or be killed, far from God's law.  Now if there is any guilt, the moral side is dealt with subtly too.  Once you are immune to guilt and you conscience is dulled, you can kill women and babies, no problem whatsoever.

You only care for those that care for you and visa versa, called camaraderie, that is what they espouse in the war movies.  There comes a time when the conscience kicks in and either you crack or you become a psychopath.

Soldiers are expendable commodities, to them, the meaning of life is indoctrinated to meet the ends of the Generals who are not in harm's way.

Pro 10:11  The mouth of a righteous man is a well of life: but violence covereth the mouth of the wicked.

Ecc 7:15  All things have I seen in the days of my vanity: there is a just man that perisheth in his righteousness, and there is a wicked man that prolongeth his life in his wickedness.

Eze 18:27  Again, when the wicked man turneth away from his wickedness that he hath committed, and doeth that which is lawful and right, he shall save his soul alive.

I lost many a friend in the war I was in and what for?  All wars serve no useful purpose and all that is finally remembered is the atrocities carried out by both sides of the conflict.

I we believe God is one that instigates war then He is not a God of Peace.

What I am trying to say, when you take God and add man's opinions to Him, you see only the man and no longer God.  The God I know is Love and and Peace.  If the scripture says He did not desire blood sacrifice, how then can we say He desired that man kill his fellowman?

For me that does not add up.  Illogical.  Immoral.  Unjust.  Foolishness.

Blessings

QuoteWhat I am trying to say, when you take God and add man's opinions to Him, you see only the man and no longer God.  The God I know is Love and and Peace.  If the scripture says He did not desire blood sacrifice, how then can we say He desired that man kill his fellowman?

For me that does not add up.  Illogical.  Immoral.  Unjust.  Foolishness.

I tend to agree with you here Bernie but.......

I've read the articles James posted.  Actually I have both of them (and quite a few others from that site and another site that is very similar called Tektonics) printed off in a binder.  They are both long articles.  The one is somewhere around 35 pages long....the other is around 45 pages.  I have read them both from start to finish. I also wrote a blog post about it...very, very short summary of some of the points the articles cover

Another View of the Old Testament Atrocities (http://mercynotsacrifice.blogspot.com/2007/10/another-view-of-old-testament.html)

There are many things to mull over in these articles.....snippets of history and culture and the traditions of the peoples of that area taken from historians and scripture that do put a different slant on the things that occurred in the OT.  There are similar writings at another site called "Tektonics."  I believe that both sites (Christian Think Tank and Tektonics) are sort of geared to answer the questions and objections atheists often raise.  They are very detailed in their information...and even if you do not come to the same conclusions about everything that  they do, (for example, they do both promote the logic and justice of an eternal hell) there are insights there to be gleaned.   

There is a lot of information in these two articles and I agree with James' suggestion that anyone who struggles with the OT God and "his" acts and directives should read these articles...along with the articles I mentioned at the God Quest site which take a completely different view. 

A Grand Experiment (http://godquest.org/essays/Current%20Essay.doc)

The Voice of the Good Shepherd (http://godquest.org/essays/The%20Voice%20of%20the%20True%20Shepherd.doc)


...and there is one more that I've come across which I've also written about on my blog...more along the lines of another "explanation" of how and why the OT atrocities occurred.  It also brings out some points one might not initially think about when pondering the OT.

Here is the link to my blog post:

Old Testament "Killer God" blog post (http://mercynotsacrifice.blogspot.com/2007/10/what-about-this-old-testament-killer.html)

and a link to the article:
What About This Old Testament "Killer God"by Lorraine Day (http://goodnewsaboutgod.net/studies/otkillergod.htm)

James said:

QuoteWhile I have much sympathy for you, to those who say that, "I don't like it and I don't think it's the real God ordering people's death's in O.T. Scripture," how do you warm to the fact that He sees to it that everybody dies?

This remark seems a bit dismissive of those who see the OT differently.

It seems to imply that with no thought or research or prayer or contemplation or leading of the holy spirit (who resides within all of us and will eventually lead us all into all truth) those who do not see things the way James does have just decided we "don't like it" and choose to simply not believe it....against all evidence to the contrary.  Just because others come to a different conclusion does not necessarily mean they arrived there "on a whim."  We ALL see through a glass darkly at this point, don't you think?

Cindi.....

Hi Cindi

TY for the reply

I do not struggle with the OT God.  I struggle with the Hebrew interpretation of God.  God is a principle meaning HE never changes, He is Love.

When I read much of the wars and the Genocides, having a military experience forced on me by way of conscription, I know how easy a 18 year old is indoctrinated.  It does make you am man but at a price.  You need look only at your own veterans and their testimonies of how they battle to adapt to civilian society afterwards. Ever wondered why the call them the Armed Forces.

Having nearly "killed" two people with my bare hands, if I were not pulled off them by others, I know how they turned me from a school going pacifist to a monster.

Thankfully the Lord has helped me overcome that.

I will look at your blog.

Blessings

Hey SeekerSA

Mat 12:3  But he said unto them, Have ye not read what David did, when he was hungry, and they that were with him;
Mat 12:4  How he entered into the house of God, and did eat the shewbread, which was not lawful for him to eat, neither for them which were with him, but only for the priests
Mat 12:5  Or have ye not read in the law, how that on the sabbath days the priests in the temple profane the sabbath, and are blameless
Mat 12:6  But I say unto you, That in this place is one greater than the temple.

Mat 12:7  But if ye had known what this meaneth, I will have mercy, and not sacrifice, ye would not have condemned the guiltless.
Mat 12:8  For the Son of man is Lord even of the sabbath day.

Jesus over and over made an open show of the whole system , isnt it amazing that Jesus the Son of God/Man reiterated what God spoke in the ot

as for me, mercy and not sacrifice, is very much alive in me! Everywhere I look God is speaking to me about this. He really is so good

ps I really see there is a religious system that claims the name of Christ and yet is nothing more than a continuation of the whole ot system and at the root of that system is sacrifice, Not Mercy!



bless ya
kept

Seeker, not to hijack this thread, but what you are talking about--turning boys of 18, 20, and older into killing machines--so needs to be talked about.  You should write a book.  Young men need to know what they are getting into, how it will change them.  It is a voice that is not heard--the voice of war veterans, nor does the establishment want it heard, because what if they had a war and nobody showed up?

There is no reason for war anymore, except that it is very profitable to a few, and gives them more power.  Is this necessary?  To let a few bring down the whole human race?  So they can stand on top of dead bodies and beat their chests?

Right now, we are the most powerful country in the world.  If we say there is no war, there is no war.

I watched one of the WWII battles on tv the other day--Normandy I think it was--thousands of american boys being thrown at a beach where the enemy was high on the bluffs just cutting them down, like shooting fish in a barrel.  What kind of monster general could order such a thing?  As if they didn't know what was going to happen--and in a war where the same people funded both sides...

You will know them by their fruit!

Maybe we get the God we deserve...

I agree Molly, more needs to be said on this topic. Churches all across America encourage their young men to inlist and fight and when they come home they are at war with themselves within.

sad

kept

well, you know, Kept.. If you had asked me my dream 10 years ago, it would be for a great Christian country like ours to be the most powerful in the world.

Now I bitterly repent of that dream..

Maybe the brutality of the Old Testament is still where most of us live.

It is where most of christianty lives Molly, exactly where they live!

They are singing about the shed blood of Jesus on sundays, standing under a fountain washing themselves and then going out on monday and calling for war!! Sick sick sick

its a continuation of the ot bloodthirstiness of mankind, they will never be satisified! Gods own blood didnt change their hearts and they use it to call for more blood! They could kill the last person on earth, be standing alone and then they would take the sword to themself because they are sick and need to see the true savior, the heart of God needs to be revealed to them! They dont know Him, hearts of stone covered in blood.

just my  :2c:

kept

May God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ give our brothers and sisters peace and love along with faith.

24 His favor is with everyone who has an undying love for our Lord Jesus Christ. --Ephesians 6

Its just so heart breaking to me and Im seeing this ot bloodthirstiness that has been at the forefront of my own life! It appalls me now.

God please totally completely deliver me of this spirit is my prayer

kept

Psalm 23:6
Surely goodness and mercy shall follow me all the days of my life: and I will dwell in the house of the LORD for ever.


I heard a man who had died and been brought back from the dead talk on youtube a while ago.  Yes, I do occasionally listen to things like that lol.  He was weeping as he recounted how he had misunderstood this verse.  He thought the mercy and goodness were for him.  He said he learned during his experience that the mercy and goodness were supposed to follow him because he himself was  supposed to be displaying mercy and goodness wherever he went.  So it would always be behind him wherever he walked.


"shall follow" me
H7291

râdaph
raw-daf'
A primitive root; to run after (usually with hostile intent; figuratively (of time) gone by): - chase, put to flight, follow (after, on), hunt, (be under) persecute (-ion, -or), pursue (-r).

Thats beautiful Molly, really beautiful!  :HeartThrob:

Rev 14:12  Here is the patience of the saints: here are they that keep the commandments of God, and the faith of Jesus.
Rev 14:13  And I heard a voice from heaven saying unto me, Write, Blessed are the dead which die in the Lord from henceforth: Yea, saith the Spirit, that they may rest from their labors; and their works do follow them.

goodness and mercy are the works that follow them!

kept

Quote from: Cindi on December 08, 2007, 03:30:02 PM


James said:

QuoteWhile I have much sympathy for you, to those who say that, "I don't like it and I don't think it's the real God ordering people's death's in O.T. Scripture," how do you warm to the fact that He sees to it that everybody dies?

This remark seems a bit dismissive of those who see the OT differently.

It seems to imply that with no thought or research or prayer or contemplation or leading of the holy spirit (who resides within all of us and will eventually lead us all into all truth) those who do not see things the way James does have just decided we "don't like it" and choose to simply not believe it....against all evidence to the contrary.  Just because others come to a different conclusion does not necessarily mean they arrived there "on a whim."  We ALL see through a glass darkly at this point, don't you think?

Cindi.....

Well, I don't like it.  I'm not sure what is meant by perceiving me as "dismissive;" but, I meant to get to the root of the problem, death, which also I doubly don't like.  It seems unarguable that God is ordering everybody's death, not just Hebrew Scripture deaths like the about 3 1/2 % of the Amorites that refused their more than 40 years warning to flee.  I really believe Jesus has at will a permanent, undiminishable and incorruptible physicality and others in history have also entered into immortal conditions, though dependent on Jesus who alone possesses it to bestow.  This was the prize Paul described himself in a race to obtain.  God is no respecter of persons; so, until I enter that very real opened door, I'm seeking why and how as I pursue the presence of God.  This is why I intensely dislike death.  It is now escapable, however rare to even believe that or rarer to obtain.

My own life is too devoted for many years to searching Scripture and other's understanding of it (I really do read commentaries,) as well as earnest prayer and also waiting on the Lord in self-emptying before Him to suggest to anybody I have or will speak to that they should cease such activities and just believe my opinion.  The message that Christ is the head of every human is one for which I've suffered.  I don't believe in other mediators.  We each need to become experienced in using our direct line to God until we are aware of being constantly in one another's presence.  It just breaks my heart to meet so many church people who have next to nothing to say about God.  Their whole Christian life has been spent as members of an audience for professional preachers.  Because of the way they meet, by practice they've learned they have nothing.  That is the Preacher's job.  Any who step out of bounds in those venues are seen as "off," or, "eccentric," or, "rebels."  Of course, our own being led of the Holy Spirit is left at the door.  The only ones that can possibly be led to do anything are those pre-approved on stage.  What we can be exercised in is trying to discern how annointed or not they are, thus becoming private critics rather than public participants.

When you falsely accuse me of dismissing those who are led of the Spirit you speak of the, "...leading of the holy spirit (who resides within all of us and will eventually lead us all into all truth.)"  If by this you mean that every human has the Holy Spirit residing within them I certainly do not agree.  This is part of why I talk to as many as I can as well as I am able about the things of God:  that they might receive the gift of the Holy Spirit which God has promised to them that love and obey Him and that those who have Him would be more given over to Him, better able to agree with His leading and teaching.  Ultimately all will be  brought to a changed mind and will acknowledge the truth.  That they can live a lifetime here after recognizing and obeying the truth, without all the destruction they might otherwise cause and instead with all the blessing that comes from intercourse with God is a very real motive to find means of communicating to as many as possible.

While this has been enough to answer, I will go on to expand what I meant in saying, "I have much sympathy with you."  I imaginatively put myself in the place of others.  I have believed there is no God on purpose just to understand what it is to think that way.  What is it like to be a Godly soldier?  What is it like to be an ignorant or passionate or other teenager of this or that kind today?  We are to pray for those in bonds as though in bonds ourselves.  One thing I have also definitely done is dwell in an inner attitudinal world where all death is wrong.  I believe there is much truth in it.  In some ways these discussions have pushed me there more; however, for reasons altogether not related to whether Divinely ordered executions are acceptable or not to me, 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.

---James

I think that a lot of problems can arise by taking different verses in different context and mixing them together. In one place, God says that "thou shalt not kill" and the Hebrew means "murder" as taking the life of an innocent person without cause. This is God's Law which reflects His will regardless of whether we are still uner that Law or not.

In another place, God says:

Gen 9:5  And surely your blood of your lives will I require; at the hand of every beast will I require it, and at the hand of man; at the hand of every man's brother will I require the life of man.
Gen 9:6  Whoso sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed: for in the image of God made he man.  

This is also the Law and the revealed will of God. Some see a contradiction here, but I see perfect harmony. In the Ten Commandments God says that we shall not commit murder and if a person does commit murder, than that person shall be killed by God ordained government authority. Both are killing, but both are not murder. Capital punishment is God's answer to murder and not another kind of murder by society. It is because of God's respect for human life that He has ordained the ultimate punishment for it being casually wasted through murder.

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.

There was a case today that expresses this perfectly. A man came into a church in Coloradp yesterday with an assault rifle and killed several people including a father and his two teenage daughters. A female security guard armed with only a handgun asked God to strengthen her courage and her skill as she stepped out of cover and walked toward this assault rifle armed assailant shooting and killing him. What this man did was murder and what this woman did was justifiable killing to protect the lives of innocent families.

Surely anyone can see the difference. As long as men are going to walk into churches and malls with assault rifles to kill innocent women and children, others will have to be willing to do what is neccesary to stop them.

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

QuoteThere 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......

James...
I don't have time this morning to reply to your post (which was a reply to a post written by me). I DID answer yesterday...a rather long reply but I knocked over a cup of coffee...splashed my laptop and in my haste to get it shut off quickly before anything started to sizzle, I lost the post.  The laptop is fine (splashed only the cover) but I don't want to appear to be ignoring your response....

Cindi......

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

Quote from: Kratos on December 11, 2007, 05:33:13 AM

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.

QuoteI 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....

Quote from: Cindi on December 11, 2007, 01:15:31 PM

QuoteThere 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

QuoteOne 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 (http://www.ecapc.org/)" and  "Preaching Peace (http://www.preachingpeace.org/)".  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  (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.....

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

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

Quotejust 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.....

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:

kept said:

QuoteBut 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:

Sister Cindi:  You wrote this: 

Quote"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:

QuoteHow 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 (http://www.godquest.org/essays/The%20Voice%20of%20the%20True%20Shepherd.doc) 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 (http://www.godquest.org/essays/Current%20Essay.doc) ....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........

Hi Sister Cindi:   

Thanks for you considered response!

In the summary of your latest post, you wrote:

QuoteThe 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:

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

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.

Quote from: jabcat on June 16, 2008, 07:49:23 AM
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 

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

Quote from: autoimmune on June 16, 2008, 09:25:10 AM
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.

Quote from: martincisneros on June 16, 2008, 10:09:04 AM
: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