Open Theism Discussion Board

Open Theism Discussion Board > Public Forums > Questions about Christianity > (No Subject)

Forum Quick Jump

[ << Previous Thread | Next Thread >> | Show Newest Post First ]

writerdad
Registered Member

Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 448

Posted 2/25/2002 6:12 AM (GMT -6)

There have been various posts regarding the "hard" events attributed to God in the Old Testament and how one reconcils them with the New Testament's teaching of love and the life of Jesus Christ. I have a question that I have not seen and perhaps someone could give me some thoughts on it.
How does one take issue with the Old Testament with taking issue with Jesus himself, who embraced the Old Testament, claime to fulfill the law and, in his transfiuration, was seen with Moses and Elijah (Elijah, the one who asked God to judge the "youths"). Jesus never seemed shy about the Old Testament depiction of his Father. He must have been very familiar with the judgments of God in the Old Testament. If Jesus was that much different than the God of the Old Testament, one would think he would have said something about it. I don't understand a person can embrace Christ and, at the same time, seem to think that the Old Testament is that much different, given that Christ embrace the Old Testament. In other words, how can a person embrace Jesus without embracing the Old Testament, which Jesus was rooting in? To take issue with the Old Testament is (it seems to me) to take issue with Jesus himself. Harold

Semeia
Registered Member

Date Joined Aug 2001
Total Posts : 522

Posted 2/25/2002 10:50 AM (GMT -6)

Great question, Harold. I don't have time to get into this, but a couple of quick comments. You said:

quote:

If Jesus was that much different than the God of the Old Testament, one would think he would have said something about it.

I think he did say something about it. Although he certainly upheld the Ten Commandments, he reinterpreted them in the Sermon on the Mount in such a way that no one could escape their own sinfulness. And when he says that we must love not only our brother and our neighbor but even our enemy I think he forces us to look at the Old Testament with different eyes. Certainly "an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth" cannot mean what we thought it meant, in light of Jesus.

And the meaning of the words "I came not to abolish the Law but to fulfill it" is not as immediately apparent as we might hope. Books could be written about what that really means. Unfortunately, I don't have time for even a paragraph on it!

I certainly believe that the Old Testament is the inspired word of God. But I also believe that any place in which it seems to be at odds with what Jesus said and did, we must let Jesus be the deciding factor. Jesus' whole problem with the Pharisees was with their strict interpretation of the letter of the Law - of the Old Testament - to the detriment of the spirit of the law. He tried to reveal to them what God was really like - but they clung to their interpretation of scripture - to the point that they could not recognize God right before them.

I look forward to any other responses to your question.

Thanks,
Semeia

"The opposite of sin is not virtue, but faith."--Soren Kierkegaard

Empiress
Registered Member

Date Joined Jan 2002
Total Posts : 363

Posted 2/26/2002 5:14 AM (GMT -6)

I agree with Semeia's point above, she and I seem to be very much on the same wavelength on this topic.

I don't take issue with the Old Testament in it's entirety, only certain portions that seem to reveal God as fundamentally different from God as revealed in Jesus Christ. From my understanding, we have the right and responsibility to "take issue" with the Old Testament because this is Jesus' example. I spoke of this on another thread with Doc but it bears repeating here:

Why don't we look at the way Jesus deals with the Old Testament without just theologizing his approach away. He continually contradicts Old Testament texts. His, "You have hear it was said....but I say to you" texts point to this.

For example, Jesus refers to Exodus 21:23-25:
"If any harm follows, then you shall give life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, stripe for stripe"

Jesus says in Matthew 5:38-42: "You have heard that it was said, 'An eye for an eye and a tooth for 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. Give to everyone who begs from you, and do not refuse anyone who wants to borrow from you." He is directly contradicting this Scripture verse.

Jesus goes on to say, "You have hear that it was said, 'You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy." Clearly this is a line of thought that religiously stemmed DIRECTLY from the OT. This in fact, does seem to be what the OT teaches. But then Jesus says, "BUT I SAY TO YOU, LOVE YOUR ENEMIES AND PRAY FOR THOSE WHO PERSECUTE YOU." He contradicts it again.

Another example is John 8:4-11. In essence, the people are asking for Jesus' opinion on the Old Testament Scriptures and its mandates! Jesus answers quite clearly.

They say: "Teacher, the woman was caught in the very act of committing adultery. Now the Law of Moses commanded us to stone such women. NOW WHAT DO YOU SAY? They said this to test him, so that they might have charge to bring against him.....Jesus said to them, 'Let anyone among you without sin cast the first stone at her....and said to her, "Neither do I condem you."

But the OT condemns her...calls for her execution! (Exodus 20:10). But Jesus OUTRIGHT denies this as valid, while at the same time cleverly avoiding the "trick" they had set for him. In essence he is saying, "No one is worthy to be judge...or to take the life of another." But that is NOT what the OT says.

I would like to contrast this passage from John and Jesus' response to the woman, with Ezekiel 16:36-38: "Thus says the Lord God..."I will judge you as women who commit adultery... and bring blood upon you in wrath and jealousy." Please tell me how we reconcile God as portrayed in Ezekiel with Jesus here!

Jesus directly denies all of the laws regarding clean and unclean food in the verses in Levitcus. He calls upon people to use COMMON SENSE. He says, "DO YOU NOT SEE that whatever goes into a person from outside cannot defile, since it enters, not the heart but the stomach...? (thus he declared all food clean)" (Mark 7:18-19). The book of Acts overturns the OT rules as well when Peter gains a vision from God saying, "What God has declared clean, you must not profane" (Acts 11:5-12).

In all of these verses, Jesus is actually OVERTURNING and CONTRADICTING the teachings of the Old Testament. He breaks all the RULES. He's not treating all of the OT Scriptures as infallible unchanging commands from God, or even that they necessarily always reveal God's intention towards humanity! He's showing us a more exellent way, he's showing us the heart of God. THIS is Jesus' example of approaching Scripture. He was no literalist and he clearly doesn't treat the Old Testament like a Sacred Cow! He overturns the teaching and DIRECTLY CONTRADICTS the Old Testament at many points. I take Jesus' example as my example. So, as I said in earlier posts, wherever the Old Testament contradicts the portrait of God as revealed in Jesus I REJECT IT, as Jesus did.

....

Jesus and Paul both clearly respect the Scriptures...we see there are lessons there, truth, it has value, and we should wrestle with the texts. What they did DO NOT do was demonstrate some kind of inexhaustible authority or "infallibility" of the Old Testament. I think we should take their example in looking at both the Old and New Testaments.

I too respect the Scriptures. I believe there are jewels of truth throughout the Old and New Testaments. I focus mainly on the Gospels myself. But I will not accept texts that contradict God as revealed in Jesus. I will not accept texts that contradict Jesus' own teachings. I believe humans have attributed all kinds of things to God that were NEVER intended to be. Humans USE God as a fear tactic, as a security blanket, as political backing, and as justification for their own ends no matter how vile or destructive they are. This is WRONG and EVIL. When we spot it, we should contradict it and declare it as FALSE.

....

Suffice to say, I agree that Jesus sees the Old Testament as the living, active word of God through which the Spirit speaks. He uses it with authority at many points. I too affirm this. But that doesn't negate that Jesus takes great liberties at re-interpreting and even contradicting the Old Testament laws in many ways.

I hope this helps answer your question! If you want examples of problematic OT texts specifically, let me know and I can find some references for you.

Peace,
Miss E

Edited by - empiress on 02/26/2002 10:19:40 AM

Starkman
Registered Member

Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1747

Posted 2/26/2002 12:55 PM (GMT -6)

I think it's worth noting that the God of the OT and NT are the same; the means by which God was working was different.

Jesus never contradicted the OT for one reason; in Him the OT was completed! There's no contradiction to that which is completed by it's author, Jesus Himself.

The entire tone of the NT (the very lifestyle of the Christian for that matter) is different than the OT's lifestyle. Death was constantly used by God, NOT as a "Well, I'll get you, you evil, no good for nothing..." tool, but as a means of communicating the tremendous importance of God, His holiness and all that compared to man and his unholiness and all that. When Uzzah touched the Ark and died, as it was being carried and fell off it's mantle, the implication there, as is in all of the Levitical deaths that would result from mishandling God's Law, is cessation of againstness.

In other words, you could die for the strangest things because all those strangest things spoke of the One to come who would make sense out of it all; He would complete it all.

Also, you can't approach God apart from the One who makes complete. You can only die. It's not "Why you no good for nothing...", it's simply a life...no, a death analogy, if you will of the need to understand the gulf that's between God and us. Do things His way so as to live. And soon the One will come to explain it all, as the Samaritan woman proclaimed in John 4.

Death is so looked at by us as if the end of the world has come. But in the OT death is looked at and treated by God as if the end of the world WOULD come if you were one were allowed to think that one's way of approaching God is acceptable. Goes all the way back to Cain and Able.

No, I'd have to say that Jesus was simply saying...

"Okay, I'm on the scene, things are changing. Oh, I'm not going to do away with the OT as if it is to never have existed. No, I'm going to complete it. I AM the completion. In Me you can now avoid death! BUT you must extend the same new thinking to others, even your enemies; for they, too are as you are - in need of Me. God is changing now the way He'll relate because He's completed in Me what He set out to do" Love, love your neighbor, love your enemy? Who is your enemy? Why, your neighbor. And now it's time to fulfill the real desire of God's heart in yours - all that He's worked toward; to love and be one with Him and Me, and to love others as yourself."

This is why the NT is so important; it only completes not adds what God was always wanting. Galatians talks about the Law being fulfilled; don't go back to it's weak and beggerly ways. Romans talks about this very weakness of the Law. Hebrews talks about the method of this weakness and why it's neither a weakness anymore nor a complication; Christ has completed and fulfilled for us all that OT spoke of.

This means the entire concept and approach to God, and God's approach to us, has changed. Both the method and means!

I hope this adds to the post.

For the conversation,

Starkman

Empiress
Registered Member

Date Joined Jan 2002
Total Posts : 363

Posted 2/27/2002 5:28 AM (GMT -6)

Starkman said:

quote:
No, I'd have to say that Jesus was simply saying...

Okay, I'm on the scene, things are changing. Oh, I'm not going to do away with the OT as if it is to never have existed. No, I'm going to complete it. I AM the completion. In Me you can now avoid death! BUT you must extend the same new thinking to others, even your enemies; for they, too are as you are - in need of Me. God is changing now the way He'll relate because He's completed in Me what He set out to do" Love, love your neighbor, love your enemy? Who is your enemy? Why, your neighbor. And now it's time to fulfill the real desire of God's heart in yours - all that He's worked toward; to love and be one with Him and Me, and to love others as yourself."

Yes, I understand this is the traditional explanation of the OT versus the NT...we had to come up with something to explain the HUGE discrepancy between the ways God acts and relates as recorded in the OT with the life and person of Jesus Christ. The problem is, I don't buy it...and I'm far from alone. So you see, this is the very point I'm taking issue with.

My argument is that God is revealed most fully in Jesus Christ...and because certain portions of the OT contradict so directly what we see and hear in Jesus (in addition to it contradicting our own God-given moral intuition and intellect), we cannot accept all of it as accurate accounts of God and God's will. It seems clear that humans have added their own concepts of God throughout the OT which suited their personal and political purposes (war, violence, rape, murder, greed, sexism, racism, etc.) which contradict the clear revelation of WHO God is in Jesus Christ.

I am aware of the arguments against my position and I find them weak, illogical, out of sync with my personal experience of God, my moral intuition, and my intellectual reasoning, and that of the majority of human beings. IF we can justify such acts of violence towards humanity and call them "good" because they exist in a "holy book"...we can justify anything. And not to be inflammatory, but this is exactly what we see happening in the world today...people using their "holy books" which condone violence against humanity in the name of God and "righteousness" to commit all and every kind of atrocity. It is HIGH time we declare such accounts immoral and in contradiction to the heart of the God that we know and worship in Jesus Christ.

In Peace and in hope of being understood,
Miss E

Starkman
Registered Member

Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1747

Posted 2/27/2002 11:04 AM (GMT -6)

Miss E,

I cannot tell you how much I admire you for your honesty in your search for truth! You are not one to avoid an issue because you just don't want to believe it. You implore your intellect (I do wish I had your intellect!). YOU are encouraging!

Just a few things to post regarding your post (time, I tell ya! Time!)...

"My argument is that God is revealed most fully in Jesus Christ...and because certain portions of the OT contradict so directly what we see and hear in Jesus (in addition to it contradicting our own God-given moral intuition and intellect), we cannot accept all of it as accurate accounts of God and God's will."

Consider Ex 34:6-7 "And the Lord passed before him and praclaimed, "The Lord, the Lord God, merciful and gracious, longsuffering, andabounding in goodness and truth, keeping mercy for thousands, forgiving iniquity and transgression and sin, by no means clearing the guilty, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children and the children's children to the third and forth generations"

This is the same God as the one Jesus proclaimed! But as I say, there is clearance of sin: Acts 17:30-31 "Truly, these times of ignorance God overlooked, but now commands all men everywhere to repent, because He has appointed a day on which He will judge the world in righteousness by the man whom He has ordained. He has given assurance of this to all by raising Him from the dead."

Again God KILLED Annanias and Saphira in Acts 5 - flat, plain killed them for lying! Others were sick and dying (per Paul in I Cor) because of partaking of the Lord's supper for the wrong reasons. You see, the same God is working, but not by the same method

You stated too: "I am aware of the arguments against my position and I find them weak, illogical, out of sync with my personal experience of God, my moral intuition, and my intellectual reasoning, and that of the majority of human beings.

Hmmm! Well, consider that Jesus endorsed the OT in several places: the authorship and accuracy of Moses to the Law (the first 5 books); Daniel and his prohecies, Isaiah, etc. He endoresed the God of the Bible (the OT the books of which were canonized for some time).

Personal experience of God, moral intuition, intellectual reasoning, and that of the majority of human beings can never dictate authority, or we'd all be in trouble fighting for or against the many "authorities". Perhaps, though, we should reconsider our approach to the OT IN VIEW of Christ being the fullness of expression of God (remember Ex 34:6-7) (Man, I wish I had the time to develop this a bit better, you know, but that darned clock on the wall!!!)

You stated: "IF we can justify such acts of violence towards humanity and call them "good" because they exist in a "holy book"...we can justify anything."

I do not justify any evil or perceived evil as being good, particularly because it's in the Word of God. What I don't do, however, is confine all death to a result of direct evil; it is an object lesson in many cases, one of such magnitude with regard to relationship between God and man. The same is seen in Acts and I Cor, as I noted, but on a much less scale as that of the OT. Same God, same concepts, different method of communicating them.

Yes, Miss E, I do understand you, haven't worked out the bugs myself, and appreciate the struggle, for sure. I guess what has helped me, though I've never faced the issue nearly as squarely as you are (and that gets me to thinking more on it, praise the Lord), is my approach being called into check; What is God saying in the OT and NT about relationship? That's what I ask. In view of the NT writers showing no signs of this struggle about which we're conversing, I have to ask "What did they know in their approach and Jewish culture about the God of the OT that I need to know. What's their framework?" And for that I suppose cultural and language studies certainly can contribute along with trying to find the path of thinking throughout the OT.

Well, I'm outta time.

Rats!

For the search,

Starkman

PotOnWheel
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890

Posted 2/27/2002 12:23 PM (GMT -6)

To ALL:

Here is theLINK to the "Meph, E- and Modes...read this." thread.

The content includes:

The God of Scripture and the God of Christian experience is a God who speaks in diverse ways and on many occasions to human beings.
There has been a great deal of discussion of divine inspiration, especially inspiration of Scripture; likewise there has been a great deal of discussion of divine revelation. But neither inspiration nor revelation is the same as speaking.

And the second of four sections ends with:

Does this perhaps offer a way forward in understanding how the biblical writers can reflect their own, often fallible, understanding of various things, while nonetheless speaking the infallible Word of God?

Edited by - potonwheel on 02/27/2002 9:51:24 PM

writerdad
Registered Member

Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 448

Posted 2/27/2002 4:09 PM (GMT -6)

Thanks for all the great posts, but I would like to add something: my point is not that Jesus and God in the Old Testament are different, or do things different. Or that there is a big distance bewteen them, or even that Jesus contradicted the way God worked with in the Old Testament. My point was that Jesus endorsed the God of the Old Testament as his Father and if you have problems with that, you have to somehow reconcil that fact.
Having said that I further want to add that I don't believe Jesus contradicted the how God operated in the Old Testament. I think God (Jesus) went from a relationship with a nation (Israel) which needed law to work to a relationship with individuals which brought about grace. God worked within a particular nation in a particular way which was unique in history. But there far as condemning people to death, as Starkman pointed out, God can be just as harsh in the New Testament as well as the Old Testament. Harold
I would also wonder how the Old Testament can be the inspired word of God, be at odds with Jesus, who claimed he fulfilled the law. It would seem that Jesus is at conflict with himself.

PotOnWheel
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890

Posted 2/27/2002 5:24 PM (GMT -6)

Hi Harold. I had trouble reading your post, because I missed the word "not" at the beginning. I read most of it really worrying about you, and being surprised.

Help me out though. Exactly what do you mean at the end: "I would also wonder how the Old Testament can be the inspired word of God, be at odds with Jesus, who claimed he fulfilled the law. It would seem that Jesus is at conflict with himself."

I'm hoping you don't mean: "I would also wonder..."

I'm hoping that you DO mean something like: I would [then--if I though "that Jesus and God in the Old Testament are different"] also wonder how. . .

Thanks for the response.

PoW

Empiress
Registered Member

Date Joined Jan 2002
Total Posts : 363

Posted 2/28/2002 5:33 AM (GMT -6)

Thanks for the honest discussion Stark.

You said:

quote:

Personal experience of God, moral intuition, intellectual reasoning, and that of the majority of human beings can never dictate authority, or we'd all be in trouble fighting for or against the many "authorities".

Then perhaps you understand better why I asked people to explain what criteria I/we CAN use to judge the truth claims of "divine" texts. And so I pose the question to you again...if I can't simply go on personal experience of God, moral intuition, intellectual reasoningg or other human beings....what can I go on? And what do you go on? That was my question in the other post.

Stark said:

quote:
I do not justify any evil or perceived evil as being good, particularly because it's in the Word of God. What I don't do, however, is confine all death to a result of direct evil;

Did I read you right? You don't condone evil or percieved evil just because it's in the Bible? What do you do with texts like this:

quote:
Is. 13:9-18: See the day of the Lord comes cruel, with wrath and fierce anger, to make the earth a desolation, and to destroy its sinners from it. ...I will punish the world for its evil....I will make mortals more rare than fine gold, and humans than the gold of Ophir....Whoever is found will be thrust through, and whoever is caught will fall by the sword. Their infants will be dashed to pieces before their eyes; their houses plundered and their wives ravished...Their bows will slaughter the young men; they will have no mercy on the fruit of the womb; their eyes will not pity children.

Stark said:

quote:
In view of the NT writers showing no signs of this struggle about which we're conversing, I have to ask "What did they know in their approach and Jewish culture about the God of the OT that I need to know. What's their framework?"

Oh my no! The apostles and authors of the New Testament had many heart-wrending struggles to make sense of it all! I see St. Paul struggling and grappling to make meaning of what to do and make of the law throughout Romans and Galations (apparently everyone was confused!). Peter and Paul had a big falling out over how to apply the OT laws in Acts. Poor Peter is so confused that God finally settles the food laws he was struggling with in a dream (Acts 11:5-12). Apparently they struggled endlessly over these issues...it was supreme confusion and it caused splits in the early church.

--------------

writerdad said:

quote:
I would also wonder how the Old Testament can be the inspired word of God, be at odds with Jesus, who claimed he fulfilled the law. It would seem that Jesus is at conflict with himself.

Jesus didn't seem to have confusion. He was fine contradicting and overturning the Old Testament in many places (as I gave witness to above). He also upheld it where he saw fit. It's not an either/or situation with the Old Testament...we can accept some of it without accepting ALL of it.

Peace and all good,
Miss E

writerdad
Registered Member

Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 448

Posted 2/28/2002 10:52 AM (GMT -6)

POW: I don't wonder...it was a question for those who believe there is some kind of conflict bewteen God in the Old and New Testament. I do not understand how a person can both affirm Jesus and deny the God of the Old Testament when Jesus affirmed that he was the God of the Old Testament. In fact one can make a strong case that the God pronouncing judgment in the Old Testament was Jesus.
To say, for instance as Miss E does, that Jesus condicts the Old Testament in his teachings when Jesus claimed the divine name and therefore is the God of the Old Testament makes for a strange god indeed. As I have already stated, God was working under different circumstances in each, but to say that Jesus contradicts the God of the Old Testament basically states that Jesus was in conflict with himself and that opens God up to a mess of problems (who wants to believe in God, no matter how loving, who can't even agree with himself?).
As I said, I am not wondering...I just don't understand how people can believe that way...Jesus endorsed and fully accepted the Old Testament view of who God was. In fact he claimed to be that God. If the Old and New conflict, then God is confused and certainly not worth our time. How one can say that they embrace Jesus yet must somehow "reinterpret" the Old Testament to "clean it up," so to speak, when Jesus reflects and fulfills the God of The Old Testament is something I do not understand. Harold

Starkman
Registered Member

Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1747

Posted 2/28/2002 4:20 PM (GMT -6)

Hiya all,

I'm in a rush here - got to get up very early tomorrow, but I'm going to get some typing in here!

Miss E,

As I mentioned, Jesus seemed to enforce all the OT without question. The compiliation of the books was the same as it is today. Jesus didn't have a problem with the God of the OT or any portion there of. So, I take that to be my supreme authority of truth. I may not understand all of Scripture, why things happen, etc., but it is THE source of truth: Jesus said "Man shall not live by bread alone, but by EVERY word that procedes out of the mouth of God", a quote from Deut 8:3. If anything He endorsed the Law, the first five books of the Bible in their entirety, nothing added or subtracted from them. And some pretty serious stuff is in those books!

As for Isaiah, his book is quoted extensively by the NT Writers and Jesus Himself. Again, an endorsement of both the integrity of the content and that it was authoritative; God's Word.

See, we first have to accept the God who was the God of the NT writers and who Jesus affirmed to be God; the God of the OT. Only then can we begin to unravel the delicacy of your very potent questions. There's well more than enough evidence to support the OT integrety as the Word of God (according to Jesus and the NT writers and Jews of then) as well as it being the soul authority by which all else rides upon. That's how I see it.

Now, with regard to my statement about the NT writers not struggling...what I meant was they didn't struggle over your question, not that they didn't struggle at all. Heavens, yes, the did struggle; just trying to find out how to incorporate their new found freedom in Christ with Judiasm was enough of a struggle to last a lifetime!

Finally, Miss E, you said: "Did I read you right? You don't condone evil or percieved evil just because it's in the Bible? "

Yes, that's right. Look closely at what I said; I don't CONDONE evil! Neither does God! The context of the Isaiah 13 passage is judgment! Would one say that God's judgment is cold, calculated evil just for the sake of evil? I don't think so. Would we agree that Jesus attested to the veracity and historicity of Isaiah, as well as several NT writers? Yes. Doesn't this then call for us to ask ourselves the question "Perhaps I need to re-evaluate my concept of God's right to judge as He sees fit and not place Him in the box of my conceptualization of proper judgment?". Shouldn't WE be the first ones to consider that, yes, though it's cruel to dash babies against the rocks, it just might be that this is equal punishment due those who have judgment coming to them? That isn't to 'condone' evil, it's retributin WHICH CAN BE AVOIDED if one simply repents and turns to God with all their heart, mind, soul and spirit (Deut 6:5 quoted too by Jesus in Mt 22:37), and loves one's neighbor as one's self (Lev 19:18 also quoted by Jesus)?

Miss E, what I'm trying to say is that it isn't the OT that's in question! It's our approach to an understanding of what is right and wronng for God to do, particularly in His judgments. He's over and over, in the OT, made it very clear that He's merciful, loving, kind and ready to pardon, but ONLY if we understand that we MUST first respect Him for who He is (The beginning of wisdom/knowledge is the fear of the Lord - Prov 1:7), and second that we APPROACH Him on His terms. The Law and all its wrath was to make it clear man is forever seperated form relationship with God unless he comes to God according to His method. That method took on a new scope in Christ. You could even say that God Himself gets to take a sigh of relief from the context of the OT approach; for Jesus has come!

I don't know, Miss E, that you'll ever be able to resolve the issue of a NT verse OT God without first adhering to His Word (fully endorsed by well to many in the know to ignore such a matter) and then secondly being willing to re-evaluate (with considerable prayer and patience of waiting) your approach to this God in view of this struggle. Again, there wasn't this struggle at all by the NT writers. They seemed to either ingnore the issue or it wasn't an issue to them at all; they understood something about this God and His Word, and that was enough.

I don't really know how else it can be resolved without getting into tearing out the portions of the OT one struggles with. Better safe than sorry: stick with first trusting God's Word to be His whole Word based on, if nothing else, the external testimonies of those who vouched for it, and a reconsideration of God's judgement in regard to a theodicy of evil, etc.

I sure hope that helps some, Miss E! (I do confess, Miss E, that I can write this much easier than you can accept it, because I've not gone into the depths of the question as you have. Were I to I'd probably be balling my eyes out with clenched fist before God demanding and understanding. But, I think the truth of the two main points still stands regardless, and is, in fact, the starting point of digesting any and all spiritual truth regarding evil.)

Well, someone put time on hold for a few more minutes, will ya???

For the search,

Starkman

Empiress
Registered Member

Date Joined Jan 2002
Total Posts : 363

Posted 3/1/2002 12:57 AM (GMT -6)

Writerdad said:

quote:
I do not understand how a person can both affirm Jesus and deny the God of the Old Testament when Jesus affirmed that he was the God of the Old Testament.

I'm not denying the God of the Old Testament; I'm saying there are portions of text in the OT that portray God in ways that do not seem to be in keeping with how God is portrayed in Jesus Christ. Do you see the difference?

Writerdad said:

quote:
God was working under different circumstances in each, but to say that Jesus contradicts the God of the Old Testament basically states that Jesus was in conflict with himself and that opens God up to a mess of problems

Jesus wasn't in conflict with himself at all; he seems to know quite clearly who God is and who God isn't. For Jesus to overturn certain concepts and laws in the OT does not put him at odds with himself. What it DOES show is that not all of the OT is binding or authoritative in my opinion.

Writerdad said:

quote:
How one can say that they embrace Jesus yet must somehow "reinterpret" the Old Testament to "clean it up," so to speak, when Jesus reflects and fulfills the God of The Old Testament is something I do not understand.

If you still don't understand, I'm not sure what else to say; it doesn't seem difficult or confusing to me.

----------------------------------------

Starkman said:

quote:
As I mentioned, Jesus seemed to enforce all the OT without question.

Errrr...I posted a bunch of texts where Jesus didn't do this...could you respond to those?

Starkman said:

quote:
See, we first have to accept the God who was the God of the NT writers and who Jesus affirmed to be God; the God of the OT.

I do accept that they're the same God. That doesn't mean I take everything attributed to God in the OT as "accurate" or "authoritative" though. Humans wrote the OT; I'm saying I don't trust portions where they pit God as a cruel violent deity bent on bloodshed and destruction including the murder of children. How is that in keeping with God as revealed in Jesus?

And actually, I take the idea that Jesus and the God of the OT are the same God seriously, THAT'S WHY I'm saying we have to do something when the portraits of them so blatantly contradict one another...there must be some kind of human error going on here. Do you see what I'm getting at?

Starkman said:

quote:
Doesn't this then call for us to ask ourselves the question "Perhaps I need to re-evaluate my concept of God's right to judge as He sees fit and not place Him in the box of my conceptualization of proper judgment?". Shouldn't WE be the first ones to consider that, yes, though it's cruel to dash babies against the rocks, it just might be that this is equal punishment due those who have judgment coming to them? That isn't to 'condone' evil, it's retributin WHICH CAN BE AVOIDED if one simply repents and turns to God with all their heart, mind, soul and spirit

Well I guess this is where we disagree then. I'm saying that IN NO CASE do innocent children deserve to be murdered...that is it ALWAYS evil to rape and murder, end of story. If you say this is righteous JUST because it's in the Bible and humans attributed it to God's will...then I will part company with you. This is NOT the God I know in Jesus, so if I have it wrong, if God is a Deity JUST LIKE THE PAGAN DEITIES that do this, then I will give up my faith. I have no choice. I do not follow a Deity that is bent on violence, rape, and murder. I choose not to follow Allah, Loki, Thor, or any other diety for the same reasons. If this is wrong of me, then I guess I'll just have to take that risk. which, if most Christians are right, will include hell. If Satan came to me and threatened me unless I condoned murder as righteous, I guess Satan would get the better of me too. I'm at the mercy of powers higher than me in that sense; I won't call good that which I know to be evil for any reason.

Starkman said:

quote:
Better safe than sorry: stick with first trusting God's Word to be His whole Word based on, if nothing else, the external testimonies of those who vouched for it, and a reconsideration of God's judgement in regard to a theodicy of evil, etc.

I agree! Better safe than sorry! It's safer to say that God is not responsible for evil then to blame God for evil deeds that are not of God! I am afraid that by condoning the entire OT (just because it is an accepted part of human tradition), I endanger myself of blasphemy, especially when I believe Jesus has shown me the TRUE heart of God and it contradicts portions of the OT.

In peace and hope,
Miss E

writerdad
Registered Member

Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 448

Posted 3/1/2002 6:48 AM (GMT -6)

Miss E: I would simply differ on how you interpret the Old Testament. I believe it was written by humans under the watch of God. In other words, what was written was what God wanted written. Therefore it reflects in a true way who God is. It is truth.
Second, I do not see a conflict between God in the Old Testament and God in the New Testament. Jesus stated clearly that he did not come to abolish the law but to fulfill it. When you said Jesus contradicted certain parts of the Old Testament, you are basically saying that Jesus came to do away with certain parts of the law, directly contradicting what Jesus himself came to do. So I disagree with that.
To say that you believe that the God of the Old Testament is the same as the New Testament, yet at the same time also stating that you don't believe certain parts of the Old Testament are acturate makes me wonder if you are taking the parts you "like" and making God more acceptable. This is not to critise you, but rather just an observation. Certainly there are parts of both the Old and New that a person struggles with. But to dismiss them because we have problems with them is, to me, leading one down a rough road. There are many things that make one uncomfortable, yet that doesn't mean they are not true.
I have already dealt with how I view Jesus' comments on the Old Testament. He was bringing the Old Testament laws down to reflect on what we truly need: grace. He had started with a nation and was now bringing about the church. I do understand what you are stating and my question still stands...Jesus contrdicts himself if he contradicts the Old Testament. Is such a God trustworthy? Harold

Empiress
Registered Member

Date Joined Jan 2002
Total Posts : 363

Posted 3/8/2002 12:57 AM (GMT -6)

My response to Orpheus over on this thread is a good explanation and illustration of the kind of trouble I have with the Old Testament. It deals with this verse:

quote:
He went up from there to Bethel; and while he was going up on the way, some small boys came out of the city and jeered at him, saying, "Go away, baldhead! Go away, baldhead!" When he turned around and saw them, he cursed them in the name of the Lord. Then two she-bears came out of the woods and mauled forty-two of the boys.

2 Kings 2:23-5

This may help people who don't understand why I have trouble with certain OT passages better. Here is it is::

Jason,

Thanks for spending the time to offer a response and work through this
verse. I believe there was a thread previously that dealt with this...I'm
not sure what conclusions they came to.

The problem here is, I don't find your explanation or what it says about God
any more moral or even less evil. In fact, it seems that God is no better
than a tyrant of a deity.

You said:

quote:
First off, any translation that refers to the antagonists as "small
boys" or anything else that would give the impression of young children is
highly misleading. The Hebrew expression neurim qetannim is best rendered
"young men".

Whether they were young men and not little boys does not resolve anything
for me. Killing at any age is not all right. We've still got 42 deaths on our hands that seem unjustifiable....

Orpheus said:
quote:
public insult against Elisha was aimed ultimately at the God whom he
represented. Indeed Elisha's whole prophetic ministry was in jeopardy;
therefore the taunt had to be dealt with decisively.

First the text does not allude to this...this seems speculative. Second, it
seems to me there's much more moral, humane ways to deal with an insult than
a bear mauling! Where does "turn the other cheek" factor in here?? Where is the example of Jesus?

The commentary said:
quote:
They regarded God's prophet with contempt....Elisha then called down
a curse on the villains.

All they did was say he was bald...I mean honestly, that hardly classifies
them as "villians." But this is exactly where I see Christians continually
demonizing people and entire races in order to justify everything in the
Bible.

quote:
"If you remain hostile toward me and refuse to listen to me, I will
multiply your afflictions seven times over, as your sins deserve. I will
send wild animals against you, and they will rob you of your children,
destroy your cattle and make you so few in number that your roads will be
deserted." (Lev 26.21-2)

Verses like this do not sound to me like God in Jesus...they sound like an
angry pagan deity who uses a system of reward and punishment to the most
extreme degree...threatening and oppressing anyone that does not do exactly
what they demand. This makes me very fearful...a deity that threatens to
kill my children if I don't "listen" to him. I might "follow" this deity's
demands out of fear for my children's lives...but not out of love and faith!

quote:
This visible display of the power of YHWH served as a
warning.

The visible display of power served as a warning? Why such a terrifying,
murderous, and ruthless METHOD of warning? Yikes.

quote:
Had Israel heeded the warning and turned back to God, the suffering
of the Assyrian destruction of Samaria could have been avoided.

So let me get this straight: If people don't heed the "warnings" that
include mass killings, they will be punished with greater death and
destruction. Fun! I feel my faith and trust coming back already.

I can think of many tribal and pagan deities that operate on the same basis!
In animism, you do exactly what the local spirits/deities tell you to do or
you and your family will be killed. I saw it happen when I was in
Thailand...it was amazing. The witchdoctor (prophet?) told people that the
local deity expected something from them...like land or the sacrifice of an
animal...and if they didn't give that to the deity, the diety would strike
them dead. Following the "disobedience" of one extremely poor family, tne
family's children died in their sleep. I was terrified...it actually
happened!!

I thought Jesus showed us that this ISN'T how God operates...God is a God
who sacrifices himself, not others. But apparently not...apparently there is
no discernable distinction between the God of the Bible and these pagan and animistic
deities. I can expect God to act in the same ways as tribal deities and I
can expect Christians to condone it because, well, their deity is "holy" and
according to them I'm a finite creature who lacks true knowledge of right
and wrong. What a great position to be in as a human!

quote:
God was acting in a manner that was ultimately benevolent, that is he
was acting for the overarching good of his covenant people.

First, I don't see how the killing of 42 non-Jewish boys helps the
Israelites in anyway, but more importantly, it seems VERY scary that it is
considered "benevolent" to kill a group of people because it serves God's
"chosen race." We could build an entire philosophy on that precept and call
it neo-Nazism..

This is EXACTLY the kind of problem I have with portions of the Old
Testament...you've highlighted it very well.

I only hope people will stop and consider what it is they are CONDONING and
calling RIGHTEOUS. Why oh why must we condone everything in these texts?
Why do we have to justify everything when it contradicts what is in our
hearts and what we see of God in Jesus? Why do we feel the need to justify
or make excuses or explain away everything if it's in the "Bible," no matter
how horrible, so that we can keep our "holy tradition" about the inspiration
of the entire canon??? WHY!? Honestly, I don't understand.

In total confusion,
Miss E

might-be-don
Registered Member

Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 830

Posted 3/8/2002 3:48 AM (GMT -6)

Miss E says:

quote:
I thought Jesus showed us that this ISN'T how God operates...God is a God who sacrifices himself, not others. But apparently not...apparently there is
no discernable distinction between the God of the Bible and these pagan and animistic
deities.

While I'm not sure how far I'd push this ( I've mentioned it before in other threads ) , I've seen our "worship" to be not much different than the worship of pagan deities. While the subject of the worship is God, the method is not much different. We go to the "temple", bow down in a unified manner, and offer our sacrifices ( money ) . This troubles me in the light of Jesus' treatment of the woman at the well where He announces that the time is coming when we will neither worship on the mountain ( pagan ) or in Jerusalam ( temple ) . It seems to me that we base much of our "worship" on the temple model. More often than not, using David as an example of the "perfect" worshipper. Didn't Jesus indicate a better way was about to be ushered into being?

Just more of my rambling...

peace and love, don

A quote from Rev. Gregory A. Boyd, PhD ... " Has anyone seen my keys? "

Electra
Registered Member

Date Joined Feb 2002
Total Posts : 611

Posted 3/8/2002 6:08 AM (GMT -6)

Empiress and Don, I would really appreciate your insight on my thread about David,After God’s own heart. Electra

~·•·~·•·~·•·~·•·~
“Lift your eyes and look to the heavens: Who created all these? He who brings out the starry host one by one, and calls them each by name.” § Isa. 40:26

Forum Information

Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 1:15 PM (GMT -6)
There are a total of 97,718 posts in 6,040 threads.
In the last 3 days there were 0 new threads and 0 reply posts. View Active Threads

Need Support? | Forum Help Manual