What sort of assumption makes one think.......

[Truman]

That’s what the Bible says, but some interpret it as Jesus inviting the wicked to a spot of tea and crumpets.

I believe the right interpretation is English muffins!

 

[Truman]

The lake of fire is a hot tub!

 

[TEXBOW]

Far out GH. You are doubling down on the very character assassination that Lucifer began in heaven and exported here. Can you not see that Jesus is God's Son and therefore the true express image in character and nature? That there is no difference between them and the misconceptions expressed by Judaism had nothing to do with reality? You keep bringing up instances of how you believe scripture, in describing the journeys and experiences of Israel, are a genuine and accurate reflection of what you believe to be a violent and destructive God. You are wrong.

We have yet to see the true measure of wrath that God will bring down on those who reject him. Wait until all of those who reject our Savior are cast into the lake of fire. That might cause your feelings to melt figuratively speaking of course..

 

[TEXBOW]

Did not say it was not relevant and Christ and the twelve and Paul were Jews. So there is definitely a connection.
But again Christ warned about mixing these two religions.
Christ freed us from the Mosaic Law, which again most do not know the Mosaic Law and do not understand the environment that it produced. The only way someone could understand the misery of it all would be to live under it, their life depending on it. But you cannot, you would end up in prison or an insane asylum. Women are not property. You cannot sell your daughters as sex slaves....have multiple wives....and kill women that are raped and stone people. The Mosaic Law either allowed these things or commanded these things. By Christian standards that social-religious environment was hideous and has no place in practice or in spirit in Christianity.
Relevant? Yes, thank God we are free of it.
Paul described the Mosaic Law as the ministry of death, written and engraved on stones....a curse that Christ freed us from.

When we draw a distinction between the O.T. and the N.T we would be better off in our understanding to draw the line before the cross and after the cross. It would make more sense to me if the scriptures were divided into Old Testament, Middle Testament and New Testament.

 

[Wrangler]

When we draw a distinction between the O.T. and the N.T we would be better off in our understanding to draw the line before the cross and after the cross. It would make more sense to me if the scriptures were divided into Old Testament, Middle Testament and New Testament.

It's just tradition, history, which I love. The middle testament are the Gospels.

BTW, welcome to the forum.

 

[Grailhunter]

When we draw a distinction between the O.T. and the N.T we would be better off in our understanding to draw the line before the cross and after the cross. It would make more sense to me if the scriptures were divided into Old Testament, Middle Testament and New Testament.

Testament is a funny word because of how far it goes back through the languages. Ever heard of.... last will and testament...
In our modern language it still carries a meaning of an agreement.
But in the biblical era going into the Middle Ages its main definition meant significant covenant or accord.

We call them the Old and New Testament and mostly ignore the near 400 years between them.

The early translators thought that Christ was talking to Christians in the Gospels or at least talking about Christianity most of the time.....how they got that I do not know. Most of the red letters in the Gospels document Christ a Jew, talking to Jews, about Judaism. Less than a hand full came to Him to ask Him about Salvation and usually in secret and Christ very seldom said the word salvation. According to the KJV the word does not appear in the Gospels of Matthew or Mark. And in Luke and John Christ only says the word two times.

Mostly what you read in the Gospels is Christ telling most everyone to be good and do good. He is not going around telling people He is the Son of God and to believe in Him, repeat, and be baptized....nor that that would happen in the near future. The sequence of the New Covenant could be explained that; Christ proposed the New Covenant at the Last Supper and enacted the New Covenant at His "death on the cross" and ratified the New Covenant at His Resurrection.

But "they" divided the Covenant at the 400 year no zone.

The point being we can say that the New Covenant with Christ started at "His death on the cross" or His Resurrection. Either way "they" felt that the New Covenant started at Christ's birth.

Your estimation of... It would make more sense to me if the scriptures were divided into Old Testament, Middle Testament and New Testament.

Middle Testament would be just as inaccurate. People can debate if the Jewish Covenant with Yahweh is still in effect. And it would be accurate to say that our Covenant with Christ started at His resurrection.

Since in the Hebrew Bible one Covenant would end when a New Covenant was ratified or began, some will say that Jewish Covenant ended when the "New Covenant began. Of course that is not what the Jews believe.

 

[Brakelite]

I couldn't read through all that, I'm sorry.

Disappointing.

Third option, ridicule someone who disagrees?

But having not read his thoughts, you don't know what you are disagreeing with.

 

[Brakelite]

I went back to look over what you wrote again,

Well done. If only others were so willing to genuinely tackle the hard questions. QT has asked something that certainly challenges our long held perceptions. What I found fascinating is that without any reference to his question, other members of our church are asking similar questions here in Melbourne, and discussing this very topic...how does the traditional perception of the character of the OT God harmonize with what we know of His Son? In other words, does God kill? Or is there are different lens through which we need to understand scripture, and thus to understand who God is? Several in this thread have disappointingly simply double downed on their assumptions, and criticized QT for asking what I believe is a very important question. How can we claim to really know God when we dismiss such questions that justifiably challenge our beliefs?

 

[bbyrd009]

God approved of Elijah slaying 400 priests of Baal or David slaying his thousands?

you are fam with "conquest genre" and that that is most likely what you are reading there? "The Yankees slaughtered the Mets last night" like that? I guess it was pretty much de rigueur to write that way back then

 

[Brakelite]

We have yet to see the true measure of wrath that God will bring down on those who reject him. Wait until all of those who reject our Savior are cast into the lake of fire. That might cause your feelings to melt figuratively speaking of course..

Is that truly what God is doing? Destroying sinners? Or is it that now, after thousands of years of deliberately distancing Himself from sinners in order that they live, He now comes and allows His presence to bring about what has always been inevitable... The destruction of sin. That human beings become so entangled in wickedness and refuse to turn away from sin, they cleave resolutely to that which destroys them. Not God, but sin itself.
What is the lake of fire? Is not God Himself a consuming fire, yet there are those who aren't affected by it. Why is that? Who can stand in the midst of everlasting burnings?
KJV Isaiah 33:15-17
15 He that walketh righteously, and speaketh uprightly; he that despiseth the gain of oppressions, that shaketh his hands from holding of bribes, that stoppeth his ears from hearing of blood, and shutteth his eyes from seeing evil;
16 He shall dwell on high: his place of defence shall be the munitions of rocks: bread shall be given him; his waters shall be sure.
17 Thine eyes shall see the king in his beauty: they shall behold the land that is very far off.

 

[Brakelite]

Adam and Eve hid from God because they were afraid. Did God say at any time that He would kill them? No. He did say they would die that day, yet they didn't. Why not? Because God takes no pleasure in the death of the wicked. He had mercy. The moment they sinned, there was a Mediator who stepped in and declared, I shall redeem.
So why were they afraid? Because they didn't understand God. It was sin, not God, that made them believe God was going to judge them and kill them. Does not God grant us something else other than the spirit of fear? Is that not love, the essence of His own character? What then does love accomplish that we fear not death? That God looks away from sin? Ignores it? No. Love frees is from sin by the power of the cross... The very power of self sacrificial love saves is from sin. We are delivered from it's power and death no longer has dominion over us.
What God hates most dwells within what God loves most. His purpose then is to take away what He hates from that which He loves. Sadly, the vast majority of mankind refuse, even Christians, to allow God to do this. Despite the pleadings, the imploring of God for man to repent and turn away from sin, man refuses. Man even justifies his refusal by declaring that to cease from sin is impossible. And that comes from church pulpits. And to add insult to injury, they blame God for their ultimate demise when all God is doing is getting rid of sin. Man has become so infatuated with sin they are now one and same, and all the thoughts of his heart is only evil continually.

 

[quietthinker]

Adam and Eve hid from God because they were afraid. Did God say at any time that He would kill them? No. He did say they would die that day, yet they didn't. Why not? Because God takes no pleasure in the death of the wicked. He had mercy. The moment they sinned, there was a Mediator who stepped in and declared, I shall redeem.
So why were they afraid? Because they didn't understand God. It was sin, not God, that made them believe God was going to judge them and kill them. Does not God grant us something else other than the spirit of fear? Is that not love, the essence of His own character? What then does love accomplish that we fear not death? That God looks away from sin? Ignores it? No. Love frees is from sin by the power of the cross... The very power of self sacrificial love saves is from sin. We are delivered from it's power and death no longer has dominion over us.
What God hates most dwells within what God loves most. His purpose then is to take away what He hates from that which He loves. Sadly, the vast majority of mankind refuse, even Christians, to allow God to do this. Despite the pleadings, the imploring of God for man to repent and turn away from sin, man refuses. Man even justifies his refusal by declaring that to cease from sin is impossible. And that comes from church pulpits. And to add insult to injury, they blame God for their ultimate demise when all God is doing is getting rid of sin. Man has become so infatuated with sin they are now one and same, and all the thoughts of his heart is only evil continually.

Something happened the very day Adam and Eve ate the forbidden fruit....they died spiritually; they lost how they had previously understood their best friend. They also died emotionally. Previous to their disobedience they were enamoured with each other as a couple, now they were blaming....what happened to their compassion? .... 'the woman you gave me' Adam said to God.......and down the track, they died physically.

That deadness inherited cannot enter God's kingdom because it is dead..... so God rebirths us. He gives us a new representative even though we didn't ask. He knew our disadvantage and did something....now he desires to give us a new vision and a new heart so radical Jesus likens it to a new birth.......or has the religious language become so familiar it has dulled our dull senses?

 

[Brakelite]

This topic, as I said, is under discussion with my friends from church. There are sound arguments on both sides. I'm coming to the conclusion that yes, there are incidents where God found it necessary to destroy, for reasons sometimes we don't understand, but we simply have to trust His judgement. But that said, that necessity comes not from Himself, but from us. In order to protect His people from evil, and thence partaking of that evil and bringing ruin upon themselves, God has to step outside His own comfort zone and act according to necessity, not from character, although the necessity comes from love, with the death of others an strange adjunct to love which in the near future will be found no longer needful. Destroying and killing does not come natural to Him. That's the nature of the devil. And many times I believe we need to give credit where credit is due. When we witness destruction and death, don't be so hasty to apportion responsibility upon God believing it to be judgement upon the wicked.
On the other hand, there are many times I believe where God does step aside, and allows our choices to bring about the inevitable result, which oftentimes is death. Those choices range from diet, to extreme sport. From sin, to selfishness. We reap what we sow.
In conclusion I don't really want to take one side or the other. What I do know it's God's attitude to sin and evil. He will destroy it. Completely. We do need to separate ourselves from all manner of sin and wickedness. That's our choice. The way has been opened whereby we may overcome. Obedience to God's Commandments are a condition to entering life eternal. Which is why God says, "come out of her My people, that ye partake not of her sins, and receive not of her plagues".

 

[quietthinker]

We as people, particularly those who call themselves Christians find it difficult to say that God does not kill because of the various accounts which we read about in the Bible which appear to make it so obvious that God does kill or at least approves of it in certain circumstances.

Here are some things to think about....
When one has an assumption which in ones own mind is unquestionable one see's everything through that lens ie, everything is interpreted to be consistent with that assumption.

We have several accounts in the scriptural record which verifies this; here is one.....Job who along with his friends assumed it was God who was afflicting him, no questions asked; no doubt in their minds. From that position this evolved; Job wanted an explanation from God why he was making him suffer as he did because he knew he had integrity. His friends however deducted it was Job who was at fault; that he had hidden sins which only God knew about and now was the time for payback.

Both parties were assured their position was unquestionable.....both, as we the readers know from what else was recorded, were wrong. Behind the scenes which neither Job or his friends knew about was a lurking foe responsible for the whole sordid activity of Job's suffering.
I would even go so far as to say this hidden foe was behind the plentiful accusations of Job's friends thereby maligning Job and God.

The writers of Scripture also had their assumptions....assumptions which were culturally ingrained over millennia....assumptions never questioned and therefore found no need to consider differently.

Have we ever had 'experiences' or ahh haaa moments when what we thought was unquestionable suddenly unravelled and in short space and we see with new eyes? ...I certainly have! Maybe you haven't? Maybe there is a wake up call right now to reconsider ones assumptions?

We know from scripture that Jesus is the definitive Word of God. We know that God himself spoke at least a couple of times saying 'listen to him'.....'listen' meaning not just the audible words but learn from his whole attitude and behaviour. God was saying, this Jesus is how I AM.

We don't find it persuasive enough and counter with, what about the flood, what about Sodom and Gomorrah, what about the command to wipe out all the Palestinian nations.....what about, what about, what about?
Yes, they are certainly questions which need addressing to be sure.....and we need to do it with open hearts and minds.

We have no problems with seeing God as a killer because it suits our natural disposition and because the God of this world (Satan) has blinded our eyes and superimposed his own malevolent designs onto God. Will we also superimpose our malevolent designs onto Jesus to justify making God in our image?

Ok, I've said enough in this post.....I hope the wheels are turning.

 

[marks]

We have several accounts in the scriptural record which verifies this; here is one.....Job who along with his friends assumed it was God who was afflicting him, no questions asked; no doubt in their minds.

So then, we are to take the example of a man mistaken, and use that to overturn clear statements from God Himself? As if He were likewise mistaken?

That is the flaw is this argument to me. It's about the type of statement being made.

The Bible says that a man said, "the fire of God fell", and that man was wrong. But the Bible was right, it's what he said. We should believe the statements of the Bible.

Genesis 19:24 KJV
24) Then the LORD rained upon Sodom and upon Gomorrah brimstone and fire from the LORD out of heaven;

Exodus 9:23 KJV
23) And Moses stretched forth his rod toward heaven: and the LORD sent thunder and hail, and the fire ran along upon the ground; and the LORD rained hail upon the land of Egypt.

Are you really trying to convince me to not believe what these passages say??

Much love!

 

[marks]

Well done. If only others were so willing to genuinely tackle the hard questions. QT has asked something that certainly challenges our long held perceptions. What I found fascinating is that without any reference to his question, other members of our church are asking similar questions here in Melbourne, and discussing this very topic...how does the traditional perception of the character of the OT God harmonize with what we know of His Son? In other words, does God kill? Or is there are different lens through which we need to understand scripture, and thus to understand who God is? Several in this thread have disappointingly simply double downed on their assumptions, and criticized QT for asking what I believe is a very important question. How can we claim to really know God when we dismiss such questions that justifiably challenge our beliefs?

Justifiably challange?

Not the way I see it.

I see this as against faith in the statements of the Bible. That you can't believe what you read. And I plan to stand against that to my dying day.

Much love!

 

[Brakelite]

So then, we are to take the example of a man mistaken, and use that to overturn clear statements from God Himself? As if He were likewise mistaken?

That is the flaw is this argument to me. It's about the type of statement being made.

The Bible says that a man said, "the fire of God fell", and that man was wrong. But the Bible was right, it's what he said. We should believe the statements of the Bible.

Genesis 19:24 KJV
24) Then the LORD rained upon Sodom and upon Gomorrah brimstone and fire from the LORD out of heaven;

Exodus 9:23 KJV
23) And Moses stretched forth his rod toward heaven: and the LORD sent thunder and hail, and the fire ran along upon the ground; and the LORD rained hail upon the land of Egypt.

Are you really trying to convince me to not believe what these passages say??

Much love!

When God destroyed Sodom, what was so offensive to Him that it needed destruction? The people... Or the sin that the people refused to separate from, making the people collateral damage? Hence the reluctance on God's part to judge arbitrarily but was willing for Abraham to bargain, and God's determination to witness for Himself that all the reports were true. He doesn't want to see anyone die." Why will ye die O house of Israel"? Sure, fire came from God out of heaven... At least from the prophets viewpoint, but the motive... Was it to destroy men, or the evil that men were so one with they couldn't be separated from it?
I just tend to think that all this destruction and mayhem we attribute to God upon people maybe has a nuance we could do well to consider. And as QT said, the life of Jesus, who was the express image of His Father, is a fair argument, and yes, justifies the challenge to the way we think about the God of the Bible.

 

[marks]

I just tend to think that all this destruction and mayhem we attributes to God upon people maybe has a nuance we could do well to consider. And as QT said, the life of Jesus, who was the express image of His Father, is a owl argument, and yes, justified the challenge to the way we think about the God of the Bible.

I'll still just point to the wording in the Bible.

Isn't it possible to a police officer to rescue a kitten from a tree, to drive a child to the hospital, to love his wife and children, and shoot dead an armed robber?

I don't see the conflict that some apparently do.

I still think of this challange as a challenge to the accuracy of the Bible itself.

Much love!

 

[quietthinker]

So then, we are to take the example of a man mistaken, and use that to overturn clear statements from God Himself? As if He were likewise mistaken?

That is the flaw is this argument to me. It's about the type of statement being made.

The Bible says that a man said, "the fire of God fell", and that man was wrong. But the Bible was right, it's what he said. We should believe the statements of the Bible.

Genesis 19:24 KJV
24) Then the LORD rained upon Sodom and upon Gomorrah brimstone and fire from the LORD out of heaven;

Exodus 9:23 KJV
23) And Moses stretched forth his rod toward heaven: and the LORD sent thunder and hail, and the fire ran along upon the ground; and the LORD rained hail upon the land of Egypt.

Are you really trying to convince me to not believe what these passages say??

Much love!

What I'm saying Mark is that God does not have two sides to himself. He is not both good and evil at the same time even though many of the Prophets believed this to be the case and wrote in those terms. Here is one as an example, Isaiah 45:7 “I form the light and create darkness: I make peace and create evil: I the Lord do all these things.

Jesus, the greater revelation of God clarified many of these misunderstandings about God, for instance he would say 'you have heard said an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth but I say unto you do not resist an evil person....' Matthew 5:38-39....the 'but' nullifies what went before.
I would add, where did they hear of these things Jesus references?......it was from the Prophets.

John, as you know, under the direct influence and walking with Jesus for for three and a half years writes in his opening epistle, 'This is the message which we have heard from him (Jesus) and declare to you that God is light and in him is no darkness at all.

Do we have a contradiction here between what Isaiah wrote and what John came to understand?

I think the prophets did not have the same advantage as the disciples did. The prophets like all of us wrote from the best understanding they had of God which did not escape cultural assumptions about God. I also think that is why of all the things God could have said from the cloud on the mount of transfiguration, he said 'this is my Son, listen to him'

We now have a greater understanding of God than past generations because of Jesus. Will we revert to the old views held by lesser lights?

Of course the new wine so to speak will challenge many previously held views, however the new wine is far superior to the old

 

[marks]

I think the prophets did not have the same advantage as the disciples did. The prophets like all of us wrote from the best understanding they had of God which did not escape cultural assumptions about God.

To me this is a blatant attack on the authority of Scripture, and something that is explicitly denied in the Bible.

"Prophecy did not come from private interpretation, rather, the holy men of God wrote as the Spirit moved them."

Your claim then is that the OT is a book of false assumptions about God? I have to say, it surprises me to hear you say that.

You seem to have the idea that any and all killing is evil, is that so? That anyone born to this world has the right to possess that life, even against God Himself?

Much love!