|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Purgatory: This is the thread where we talk about Old Testament genocide.
|
Luigi
Shipmate
# 4031
|
Posted
Little Weed, JJ and Esmerelda sorry for the delay will answer your question soon - lost first post on computer ![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
Meanwhile this is what I wrote earlier in response to Freddy.
Freddy - don't know how long your trip but here’s my response anyway.
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
quote:
Originally posted by Luigi:
It seems to me that I owe Freddy a response and I was thinking of posting something on why Jesus' teaching and OT genocide are so difficult to harmonise.
Not sure how that relates to what I was saying. But thank you anyway.
Actually the two were unrelated I wanted to do both things. The second wasn’t really a response to you but others on this thread.
However, wanted to say something on the subject of the ancients hearing from God. quote:
If I understand you correctly, you are saying that there is no such thing as the kind of divine revelation described in the Bible.
"Superstitious stuff"? "Space head"?
But I'm not saying that they should have listened to the right God. I'm saying that God appeared to them in a way that they could accept and follow. You appear to be saying, not that the one who appeared to them was not God Himself, but that no one actually appeared to them - that divine revelation is actually a more subtle and universal thing.
First I don’t believe that God appeared to them in a way that they could 'accept and follow'. This whole idea that God told the Israelites that they were to annihilate an entire people group because they would accept it and follow it is unsustainable from my point of view. Surely you can see the problem with this POV.
I don’t particularly want to come across as cynical and I fully accept that God can speak to humans through their inner voices, dreams, prophecy etc. However, it seems to me, that humans have been hearing voices since the beginning of (human) time. Humans have believed they have heard from God and I think more often than not this has been an act of self-deception. I think this is true no matter what you believe – few Christians would say that every human being who claims they have heard from God actually did – many would be unconvinced by Joseph Smith’s, Muhammad’s, claims.
My point is, how do humans know when they have heard from God? Some Christians may ask: is it in line with the Bible? Or some others might ask: is it in line with Jesus? Or even: is it in line with my tradition? My point is that the ancients had no way of doing either. So the whole idea that revelation is discernable through someone claiming that they have heard from God is not that useful. My point is that even when you think you have heard from God, how do you know it isn’t just self-deception? My argument is that the most reliable voice throughout history has been the victim. If we are to avoid setting the two most important commands in violation of each other, we need to listen to the victim.
Is this clearer?
Luigi
Posts: 752 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Custard
Shipmate
# 5402
|
Posted
Back after some time off. Apologies to backtracking a few posts - I thought I sohuld try dealing with the whole mind-changing thing.
I think part of the problem is that we tend to treat God's statements in a very propositional way. I'll try and explain, but in my current jetlagged state will probably make very little sense.
There is a stanrdard distinction in evangelical throelogy between God's sovereign will and his revealed will.
A lot of God's statements, particularly those concerning destruction, are operating in a way parallel to the revealed will rather than the sovereign will. This can be seen in Jeremiah 18
quote:
5 Then the word of the LORD came to me: 6 "O house of Israel, can I not do with you as this potter does?" declares the LORD . "Like clay in the hand of the potter, so are you in my hand, O house of Israel. 7 If at any time I announce that a nation or kingdom is to be uprooted, torn down and destroyed, 8 and if that nation I warned repents of its evil, then I will relent and not inflict on it the disaster I had planned. 9 And if at another time I announce that a nation or kingdom is to be built up and planted, 10 and if it does evil in my sight and does not obey me, then I will reconsider the good I had intended to do for it.
--------------------
blog
Adam's likeness, Lord, efface;
Stamp thine image in its place.
Posts: 4523 | From: Snot's Place | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Psyduck
Ship's vacant look
# 2270
|
Posted
Custard123: Kudos for doing theology while jetlagged! quote:
I think part of the problem is that we tend to treat God's statements in a very propositional way.
Yes, but isn't that inevitable if you have taken the prior decision to understand these as God's statements, and also to understand revelaton as God making statements? quote:
There is a stanrdard distinction in evangelical throelogy between God's sovereign will and his revealed will... A lot of God's statements, particularly those concerning destruction, are operating in a way parallel to the revealed will rather than the sovereign will.
I really think you're going to have to unpack this a bit for us - when jetlag permits! I'm particularly worried by the suggestion that God's revealed will is somehow different from his sovereign will, as though God isn't levelling with us, or is thinking one thing and saying another.
--------------------
The opposite of faith is not doubt. The opposite of faith is certainty.
"Lle rhyfedd i falchedd fod/Yw teiau ar y tywod." (Ieuan Brydydd Hir)
Posts: 5433 | From: pOsTmOdErN dYsToPiA | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Psyduck
Ship's vacant look
# 2270
|
Posted
Sorry to double post - I should have added that I googled for "sovereign will" and "revealed will" - and got, among other stuff, this. But I must confess that I still couldn't quite follow your point here.
--------------------
The opposite of faith is not doubt. The opposite of faith is certainty.
"Lle rhyfedd i falchedd fod/Yw teiau ar y tywod." (Ieuan Brydydd Hir)
Posts: 5433 | From: pOsTmOdErN dYsToPiA | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Custard
Shipmate
# 5402
|
Posted
OK - as my body now thinks it is the afternoon, I can try to reply with slightly (but only slightly) more clarity (couldn't sleep).
God is being honest with us, if we understand his statements correctly.
Here's an example of revealed and sovereign will.
God's revealed will is that people should not betray the innocent. That is what he tells people to do.
However, his sovereign will was that Judas should do exactly that to Jesus. That does not mean that Judas' action was right, but nor does it mean that it was outside God's plan.
So what were the purposes of God's statements that betraying the innocent is wrong? To show his people how they should act for their own benefit and to convict the guilty.
What I was trying to say is that Jeremiah suggests that some of God's statements that don't look like moral commands actually fall into the same category.
So when God says he will judge a nation, that statement is essentially a threat, designed to provoke a response in the hearers.
Of course, as we see in Jeremiah 18 (and Jonah, etc), it is quite possible that the people will respond to the threat in repentance and the judgement will not come. That does not mean that God's initial statement is untrue, merely that it is a statement designed to provoke a response and so bring about God's sovereign will rather than a statement designed to reveal God's sovereign will for the future.
Alternatively, you could see Je 18 as adding an "unless you repent" clause to all God's threats of judgement.
--------------------
blog
Adam's likeness, Lord, efface;
Stamp thine image in its place.
Posts: 4523 | From: Snot's Place | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zeke
Ship's Inquirer
# 3271
|
Posted
It's a little hard for me to accept that God is always trying to manipulate us by making lots of possibly idle threats. That seems kind of petty(not to mention dishonest), and I would not respect a human being who did it. Perhaps I am not seeing it the right way?
Okay, it's late at night for me. I just looked at it again. Do you just assume an "unless you do this, I'll do that" every time?
[ 25. July 2004, 06:33: Message edited by: Zeke ]
--------------------
No longer the Bishop of Durham
-----------
If men are so wicked with religion, what would they be without it? --Benjamin Franklin
Posts: 5259 | From: Deep in the American desert | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
sanc
Shipmate
# 6355
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Zeke:
It's a little hard for me to accept that God is always trying to manipulate us by making lots of possibly idle threats. That seems kind of petty(not to mention dishonest), and I would not respect a human being who did it. Perhaps I am not seeing it the right way?
Okay, it's late at night for me. I just looked at it again. Do you just assume an "unless you do this, I'll do that" every time?
if left to our own devices humanity will have fend for himself against the result of sin and its consequences. one way of looking at the threat scenario is to understand that if GOD were to completely let loose of HIS control on nature or satan, we will be completely on the mercy of the dark power, which it has none. one example to that is in the experience of job. for us to have a brighter picture of the suffering and ruin present in this world is to view it from the vantage point of the great controversy between good and evil.
GOD's threat may come about as a direct effect of GOD letting go of HIS control. "for in HIM everything consist." the chaos we see are the manifestations of HIS doing so. then why, we ask is HE letting go? the answer is our sins made HIM to. we alienate ourselves making him powerless to save us. thats freewill, HE can't go around it. its our choice.
when we see passages that may sometimes point to GOD as the prime cause, it may also mean that GOD loose some of HIS control. so the threat will surely come to pass because you have spurned his authority over you. who wants to be the next job? spare me GOD, pls!
Posts: 358 | From: Philippines | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Custard
Shipmate
# 5402
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Zeke:
It's a little hard for me to accept that God is always trying to manipulate us by making lots of possibly idle threats. That seems kind of petty(not to mention dishonest), and I would not respect a human being who did it. Perhaps I am not seeing it the right way?
Okay, it's late at night for me. I just looked at it again. Do you just assume an "unless you do this, I'll do that" every time?
Um... (my brain now makes it very early morning..)
Lots - no.
Petty - no.
Idle - no. A threat is only idle if you wouldn't carry it out anyway.
Do I assume an "unless you repent" clause every time God threatens judgement? Yes.
--------------------
blog
Adam's likeness, Lord, efface;
Stamp thine image in its place.
Posts: 4523 | From: Snot's Place | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Matt Black
Shipmate
# 2210
|
Posted
Have been on holiday for 2 weeks so please forgive the jumping back in from several pages back.
I think that, yet again, we are witnessing (as we did on Sharkshooter's "What if I'm right?" thread) the apparent contradiction between OT and NT, and the apparent contradiction between "Jesus the Word/ supreme revelation of God" and "The Bible the Word/ supreme revelation of God" positions. I say 'apparent', because the difficulty for those who assert that there is such a contradiction is that Jesus Himself drew no such distinction. On the contrary, time and again in the Gospel narratives He refers to and quotes from the OT as being authoritative; the apostles do likewise in the later NT.
The question therefore for those who would seek to propound this dichotomy by putting forward Jesus as the supreme revelation of God and consequently requiring the OT to be interpreted against that revelation and, where necessary, be rejected or at least reduced to mere metaphor where it allegedly conflicts with their picture of Jesus is: why do you do this, when neither Jesus nor the later NT writers drew that distinction; if Jesus and the apostles were able to view the OT as authoritative, literal and revelatory, on what basis and authority do you seek to adopt a contrary position?
Yours in Christ
Matt
--------------------
"Protestant and Reformed, according to the Tradition of the ancient Catholic Church" - + John Cosin (1594-1672)
Posts: 14304 | From: Hampshire, UK | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Luigi
Shipmate
# 4031
|
Posted
Matt - I wanted to know. Do you practice your religion as an orthodox Jew?
Luigi
Posts: 752 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jolly Jape
Shipmate
# 3296
|
Posted
Matt, you wrote: quote:
The question therefore for those who would seek to propound this dichotomy by putting forward Jesus as the supreme revelation of God and consequently requiring the OT to be interpreted against that revelation and, where necessary, be rejected or at least reduced to mere metaphor where it allegedly conflicts with their picture of Jesus is: why do you do this
A) Because the doctrine of progressive revelation is indeed a scriptural one ("It is said...but I tell you", "In the past...but in these last days")
and quote:
if Jesus and the apostles were able to view the OT as authoritative, literal and revelatory, on what basis and authority do you seek to adopt a contrary position?
Well, "if"'s the word. This really has been done to death in the glue factory, but I don't think that anyone coming to the scriptures without a pre-existing interpretive framework that requires Scripture to be "literal, to use your word, however that might be interpreted, would conclude that it makes those claims for itself.
Oh, and by the way, I think that the phrase "their picture of Jesus" is somewhat perjoritive. It sounds as if you are accusing those who would take a different view than your own, as remaking Jesus in their own image. I recognise that this would not be your intention, but it could come across as being a wee bit non-purgatorial.
--------------------
To those who have never seen the flow and ebb of God's grace in their lives, it means nothing. To those who have seen it, even fleetingly, even only once - it is life itself. (Adeodatus)
Posts: 3011 | From: A village of gardens | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Matt Black
Shipmate
# 2210
|
Posted
Sorry if it sounded perjorative; I just meant 'their view of Jesus' as opposed to 'my view of Jesus'.
Luigi - the answer is no; on the progressive revelation point, the NT interprets the OT (which is why I am not an Orthodox Jew) (eg:"you have heard it said...but I say to you...") but it also fulfils and confirms it. I find it very hard to believe that when Jesus and the NT writers used words like "I have come to fulfil the Law", "not one jot or tittle...", "it is written", "God says..." (when quoting Scripture eg: the Letter to the Hebrews is full of that kind of example), etc they meant anything other than the OT was authoritatively and inerrantly the revelation and Word of God (Peter writes in similar vein of Paul's NT writings)
Yours in Christ
Matt
--------------------
"Protestant and Reformed, according to the Tradition of the ancient Catholic Church" - + John Cosin (1594-1672)
Posts: 14304 | From: Hampshire, UK | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
sanc
Shipmate
# 6355
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
Luigi - the answer is no; on the progressive revelation point, the NT interprets the OT (which is why I am not an Orthodox Jew) (eg:"you have heard it said...but I say to you...") but it also fulfils and confirms it. I find it very hard to believe that when Jesus and the NT writers used words like "I have come to fulfil the Law", "not one jot or tittle...", "it is written", "God says..." (when quoting Scripture eg: the Letter to the Hebrews is full of that kind of example), etc they meant anything other than the OT was authoritatively and inerrantly the revelation and Word of God (Peter writes in similar vein of Paul's NT writings)
i agree 100%. the ot talk is all talk, words. somehow for those who did not witness the red sea parting, the manna falling from heaven, the fire consuming elijah's offering, etc., all of the ranting of the patriarchs and prophets are verbal spaghittee, nothing more. the ot talks about GOD as being the rock, the bread, the way etc, but nobody can ever grasp that to the fullest. so here comes JESUS, the WORD, as john puts it. all those words written concerning HIM is now made manifest in flesh and blood. so, is GOD really loving, compassionate, etc.? see for yourself, "behold the lamb of GOD," the exact representation of who HE is now in your midst to experience in person. JESUS the awaited is the WORD who is the fulfilment of all the words written about HIM.
Posts: 358 | From: Philippines | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Weed
Shipmate
# 4402
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
The question therefore for those who would seek to propound this dichotomy by putting forward Jesus as the supreme revelation of God and consequently requiring the OT to be interpreted against that revelation and, where necessary, be rejected or at least reduced to mere metaphor where it allegedly conflicts with their picture of Jesus is: why do you do this, when neither Jesus nor the later NT writers drew that distinction; if Jesus and the apostles were able to view the OT as authoritative, literal and revelatory, on what basis and authority do you seek to adopt a contrary position?
I'm quite happy to debate this on the inerrancy thread if you wish but I have been trying very hard for thirteen pages not to get into DH territory.
--------------------
Weed
Posts: 519 | From: UK | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
leonato
Shipmate
# 5124
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
...the apparent contradiction between "Jesus the Word/ supreme revelation of God" and "The Bible the Word/ supreme revelation of God" positions. I say 'apparent', because the difficulty for those who assert that there is such a contradiction is that Jesus Himself drew no such distinction. ...
... neither Jesus nor the later NT writers drew that distinction; if Jesus and the apostles were able to view the OT as authoritative, literal and revelatory, on what basis and authority do you seek to adopt a contrary position?
First, you can't have both Jesus and the bible being the supreme revelation of God by the very definition of supreme. If anything is supreme it must be Christ, so the bible must be second to Christ.
Christianity, from the epistles on, HAS radically reinterpreted scripture and prophesy. We often describe Jesus as "Prince of Peace" from Isaiah, but Jesus was not a royal, conquering messiah, as Jews were expecting from that prophesy, he was not a prince at all. So is Isaiah literally true? To me, no, it is metaphorically true.
Nor should we elide Law, scripture and prophesy. Just because we have them in one book does not mean Jesus saw them as a single entity: the Torah is not the same as Isaiah. Jesus might not alter the law, but he did bring to it a new light, and a radical interpretation of the prophets.
As Christians we have to radically interpret the OT, and make it secondary to Christ: that is, to me, what the NT, and Jesus, commands.
--------------------
leonato... Much Ado
Posts: 892 | From: Stage left | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Matt Black
Shipmate
# 2210
|
Posted
But that is precisely what Jesus didn't do! ![[brick wall]](graemlins/brick_wall.gif)
Yours in Christ
Matt
--------------------
"Protestant and Reformed, according to the Tradition of the ancient Catholic Church" - + John Cosin (1594-1672)
Posts: 14304 | From: Hampshire, UK | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Psyduck
Ship's vacant look
# 2270
|
Posted
quote:
But that is precisely what Jesus didn't do!
Yes he did. "You have heard it said...but I say to you..." This can't mean anything else...
right back atcha! In Christian love, of course...
--------------------
The opposite of faith is not doubt. The opposite of faith is certainty.
"Lle rhyfedd i falchedd fod/Yw teiau ar y tywod." (Ieuan Brydydd Hir)
Posts: 5433 | From: pOsTmOdErN dYsToPiA | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
leonato
Shipmate
# 5124
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
But that is precisely what Jesus didn't do!
Yours in Christ
Matt
I'm not sure which bit of my post you are referring to, but did not Jesus say that the sabbath, and the law is made for man, not man for the sabbath/law. Is that not a fairly radical reinterpretation of 1st century understanding of the law?
What about Jesus describing God as his father, and talking about the Son of Man, both of which are ascribed to the messiah in prophesy I believe. Isn't that at least partly why he was crucified? Jews saw the messiah as a conqueror, so did Jesus not reinterpret prophecy by putting himself in that place?
To me, Christianity is all about reinterpreting the OT through Christ's revelation. This does not alter the fact that it is authoritative and truthful, but it does change how it is authoritative and truthful.
--------------------
leonato... Much Ado
Posts: 892 | From: Stage left | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Matt Black
Shipmate
# 2210
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Psyduck:
quote:
But that is precisely what Jesus didn't do!
Yes he did. "You have heard it said...but I say to you..." This can't mean anything else...
right back atcha! In Christian love, of course...
![[Killing me]](graemlins/killingme.gif) ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
Will try and "f.u.r.b" with some random proof-texting when I have a spare minute!
Yours in Christ
Matt
--------------------
"Protestant and Reformed, according to the Tradition of the ancient Catholic Church" - + John Cosin (1594-1672)
Posts: 14304 | From: Hampshire, UK | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Matt Black
Shipmate
# 2210
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by corpusdelicti:
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
But that is precisely what Jesus didn't do!
Yours in Christ
Matt
I'm not sure which bit of my post you are referring to, but did not Jesus say that the sabbath, and the law is made for man, not man for the sabbath/law. Is that not a fairly radical reinterpretation of 1st century understanding of the law?
What about Jesus describing God as his father, and talking about the Son of Man, both of which are ascribed to the messiah in prophesy I believe. Isn't that at least partly why he was crucified? Jews saw the messiah as a conqueror, so did Jesus not reinterpret prophecy by putting himself in that place?
To me, Christianity is all about reinterpreting the OT through Christ's revelation. This does not alter the fact that it is authoritative and truthful, but it does change how it is authoritative and truthful.
But...to return to the OP, what Jesus emphatically does not say is "You know those bits in the Scriptures where my Dad says people had to be wiped out? Well, it didn't really happen and even if it did, He didn't really mean it cos He's not like that at all, mankind's moved on from that kind of thing and it's all pretty much a metaphor for how we must all be purified from sin, and that's the spin and gloss that you're to put on it."
Apologies for tongue-in-cheek tone of the above and if I've misrepresented the position but is that not the basic thrust of interpretation by some to the 'genocidal' passages?
Yours in Christ
Matt
--------------------
"Protestant and Reformed, according to the Tradition of the ancient Catholic Church" - + John Cosin (1594-1672)
Posts: 14304 | From: Hampshire, UK | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
leonato
Shipmate
# 5124
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
But...to return to the OP, what Jesus emphatically does not say is "You know those bits in the Scriptures where my Dad says people had to be wiped out? Well, it didn't really happen and even if it did, He didn't really mean it cos He's not like that at all, mankind's moved on from that kind of thing and it's all pretty much a metaphor for how we must all be purified from sin, and that's the spin and gloss that you're to put on it."
Apologies for tongue-in-cheek tone of the above and if I've misrepresented the position but is that not the basic thrust of interpretation by some to the 'genocidal' passages?
Yours in Christ
Matt
Has anyone on this thread said that he did say that? Of course not! I was replying to your rather unorthodox claim that Jesus and the OT could be equal revelations of God, and that Jesus treated the OT as literal.
Does Jesus say: You know when my Dad ordered the slaughter of the Canaanites/Amakelites/whoeverites? Well he did it and he could again, so if I order you to slaughter Romans just do it.
Of course he didn't. We can't know exactly what Jesus thought about much of the historical parts of the OT; the NT simply doesn't tell us.
So what did Jesus actually say? What about "If your enemy strikes you turn the other cheek?" Jesus really did say that. Is that compatible with genocide?
Most Christians would, I guess, see loving God and loving your neighbour as laid out in the NT as being incompatible with committing genocide, yet some passages in the OT claim that God ordered Jews to commit genocide. It is how we resolve that contradiction that is the issue.
--------------------
leonato... Much Ado
Posts: 892 | From: Stage left | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Weed
Shipmate
# 4402
|
Posted
What do you make of this passage from Luke 13, Matt?
quote:
Now there were some present at that time who told Jesus about the Galileans whose blood Pilate had mixed with their sacrifices. Jesus answered, "Do you think that these Galileans were worse sinners than all the other Galileans because they suffered this way? I tell you, no! But unless you repent, you too will all perish. Or those eighteen who died when the tower in Siloam fell on them -- do you think they were more guilty than all the others living in Jerusalem? I tell you, no! But unless you repent, you too will all perish."
--------------------
Weed
Posts: 519 | From: UK | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Matt Black
Shipmate
# 2210
|
Posted
Er...Jesus being 'not very nice' like the OT perhaps?
Yours in Christ
Matt
--------------------
"Protestant and Reformed, according to the Tradition of the ancient Catholic Church" - + John Cosin (1594-1672)
Posts: 14304 | From: Hampshire, UK | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Matt Black
Shipmate
# 2210
|
Posted
Not sure whether this will take us into Inerrant Dead Horses territory; happy to discuss it there too but I think this is also germane as to how we take the 'genocide Scriptures' in the light of the NT, and in particular Jesus' teaching.
I promised some examples of how Jesus affirms the OT a few posts ago, so brace yourselves for some unashamed proof-texting... :-
First, the quote from Matt 5:17-18: "not one jot or tittle..." referred to above. This comes before the "you have heard it said....but I say to you" passages in the Sermon and IMO therefore those subsequent passages (Matt 5:21ff) should be interpreted in the light of this 'intro'.
In Matt 19:4, He quotes from Gen 2:24, attributing those words to God.
On other occasions, He speaks of His actions, particularly His death, being in fulfilment of the Scriptures eg: Matt 26:24, 53-56, Mark 8:31, Luke 18:31, Luke 22:37 (quoting Is 53:12)
In similar vein, the apostles refer to the OT as binding, authoritative and the words of God: Acts4:25, Rom 1:2, 9:17, Gal 3:8. (The apostles claimed a similar authority for their own NT writings: I Cor 2:13; 11:2; 14:37-38, Gal 1:1,8; 2:7ff)
Now, what some seem to have been arguing here (and, again forgive and correct me if I have misunderstood the stance here) is that the final moral authority is not Scripture but Jesus and that we must judge Scripture 'through the lens' , as it were, of the revelation of God in Christ, because that revelation effectively 'judges' Scripture; thus we are free to accept those parts of the OT which are in harmony with Jesus and reject or minimalise those which are apparently not. Only one, absolutely fundamental problem with that: Jesus does not do that . Far from being the 'judge' of Scripture in this way,He obeys, fulfils and endorses it, as I hope I have demonstrated with the above small selection of quotes. Those who state that Jesus is the final authority on matters must, like Him, equally acknowledge the authority of Scripture. Otherwise, as I said on Sharkshooter's "What if I'm right?" thread, we 'create' a Jesus outside of Scripture, a Christ that is a product of our human imaginations and wishful thinking; this amounts of we are not careful to idolatry. It's ironic that there are those who would accuse fundamentalists and others of idolatry because they regard the Bible as inerrant; this accusation would hold water if Jesus had been similarly idolatrous.
Matt
--------------------
"Protestant and Reformed, according to the Tradition of the ancient Catholic Church" - + John Cosin (1594-1672)
Posts: 14304 | From: Hampshire, UK | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sean D
Cheery barman
# 2271
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Custard123:
God's revealed will is that people should not betray the innocent. That is what he tells people to do.
However, his sovereign will was that Judas should do exactly that to Jesus. That does not mean that Judas' action was right, but nor does it mean that it was outside God's plan.
I don't think this is a good example. The distinction here is more between God's active will ("I want something to happen so it will") and his permissive will ("I am prepared to let this happen for various reasons even though I don't want it to").
I would need considerably more examples of a biblical distinction between revealed and sovereign wills to believe they are different. This is because if revelation is to be revelation, it must actually and truly reveal what God is like and what he wants. Otherwise it's not revelation at all.
So this kind of thinking undermines precisely what it seeks to uphold: the truthfulness and trustworthiness of God's self-revelation.
--------------------
postpostevangelical
http://www.stmellitus.org/
Posts: 2126 | From: North and South Kensington | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sean D
Cheery barman
# 2271
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
First, the quote from Matt 5:17-18: "not one jot or tittle..." referred to above. This comes before the "you have heard it said....but I say to you" passages in the Sermon and IMO therefore those subsequent passages (Matt 5:21ff) should be interpreted in the light of this 'intro'.
At the end of the day I just think Matthew (the gospel not you sir) is self-contradictory. It is not simultaneously possible for not one jot nor tittle to pass away from the Law and yet for Jesus to set aside important chunks of it in the antitheses.
This drove me batshit in my NT studies. I looked into so many angles and no matter which approach to the text you take you end up with severe problems.
The answer I ended up with which satisfied me most was that when Jesus speaks of fulfilling the Law (and don't forget the Prophets! which most commentators do) in that verse he means it in exactly the same way "fulfil" is meant everywhere else in Matthew - the Law points to Jesus and predicts him. It is not to do with Jesus perfectly performing the Law etc. Therefore none of the Law can pass away because it all points to Jesus. Doesn't mean we have to obey it all though.
The problem this causes is what to do with Jesus' warnings about not breaking the least of "these commands". The only sense I can make of this (given that clearly Christians are not expected to obey EVERY OT command) is that he is talking about his own commands that follow in the antitheses and not Torah. The only other option is to believe that Matthew believed Christian males needed to be circumcised etc.
At the end of the day you get left with the following question:
Should the OT laws be something which Christians automatically obey unless there is good NT reason to believe they are superseded/replaced/increased/whatever or are they laws which Christians should automatically assume are superseded unless there is good NT reason to believe they are still in force?
I believe the Pauline, (mostly) Matthean, Hebrews and at the end of the day dominical answer is that there is no reason to obey them unless there is good reason to believe they are still binding on Christians.
Goodbye Ten Commandments. Ain't gonna miss ya.
ETA: This doesn't mean that the OT provides no moral guidance or revelation of the moral will and heart of God - but simply that we do not follow it as Law whilst trying to hold silly distinctions about sacrifical and ceremonial (as if the two were easily distinct to your average Israelite).
[ 29. July 2004, 10:56: Message edited by: Sean D ]
--------------------
postpostevangelical
http://www.stmellitus.org/
Posts: 2126 | From: North and South Kensington | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Matt Black
Shipmate
# 2210
|
Posted
Sean, I would tend to go along with the answers put forward by the likes of Packer ( 'Fundamentalism' and the Word of God ), Stonehouse ( The Witness of Mark and Matthew to Christ )and Tasker ( The Old Testament in the New Testament ), namely that whilst Jesus challenged Jewish ideas, there was no clash of 'authorities' between His teaching and the OT; what He did take a pop at was not so much the written word of the Law, to which both He and His Pharaseeical opponents appealed, but the legalistic additions and interpretations of it which formed a barrier between the Pharisees and God eg: Corban, 'loving one's neighbours'='hating one's enemies', murder and adultery only being wrong as actions rather than intentions/ thoughts, oaths only being binding if sworn under God's name, the extension of permitted grounds for divorce to virtually any reason as long as you're a bloke, etc
Matt
--------------------
"Protestant and Reformed, according to the Tradition of the ancient Catholic Church" - + John Cosin (1594-1672)
Posts: 14304 | From: Hampshire, UK | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
GreyFace
Shipmate
# 4682
|
Posted
Then you follow the Law, Matt?
Posts: 5748 | From: North East England | Registered: Jul 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Matt Black
Shipmate
# 2210
|
Posted
Since I am 'in Christ', I fulfil it! ![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
But, as I warned above, we are getting tangential; we are talking about the authority and authenticity of the historical passages in the OT, particularly those pertaining to genocide. If you want to discuss the relationship between Law and Grace etc, perhaps we'd better start a new thread...
Matt
--------------------
"Protestant and Reformed, according to the Tradition of the ancient Catholic Church" - + John Cosin (1594-1672)
Posts: 14304 | From: Hampshire, UK | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
leonato
Shipmate
# 5124
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
In similar vein, the apostles refer to the OT as binding, authoritative and the words of God: Acts4:25, Rom 1:2, 9:17, Gal 3:8. ...
...Only one, absolutely fundamental problem with that: Jesus does not do that . Far from being the 'judge' of Scripture in this way,He obeys, fulfils and endorses it, as I hope I have demonstrated with the above small selection of quotes.
As Sean D has given an excellent answer to some of your post I will reply to what I have quoted above.
Not one of the verses you cite state that the OT has absolute authority, or is binding on us.
Acts 4 states that the Holy Spirit inspired the psalmist, true but so what?
Romans 1 says that Jesus fulfils the prophets. If you read my post you will see that I agree with this.
Romans 9 says that God spoke through Pharoh to show his power and mercy.
Galatians 3 supports my position (so thank you Matt!). It says that when God spoke to Abraham he meant that all people (including Gentiles) would be blessed, not just the Jews. That sounds like radical reinterpretation of Jewish scripture by the apostles to me!
Yet again you say: Jesus does not do that, and yet I can't see how you justify that. Yes, Jesus does fulfill the prophets and the law, but he does not do it in the way Jews were expecting. To see how he does we must reinterpret the OT.
We have to interpret the OT through Christ, I'm hardly being radical here, we as Christians have been doing just that for 2000 years. If we didn't reinterpret we would all be Jewish. So why can't we question whether or not God ordered genocide given that it appears to contradict the teachings of Christ?
--------------------
leonato... Much Ado
Posts: 892 | From: Stage left | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Matt Black
Shipmate
# 2210
|
Posted
The question for me is "Did God say that in the OT or not?" ie:is the OT a reliable, trustworthy, authentic and authoritative account (in this particular thread, with regard to its historical account)? My answer, as set out above is this: Jesus thought so, so did the apostles, and so do I
Matt
--------------------
"Protestant and Reformed, according to the Tradition of the ancient Catholic Church" - + John Cosin (1594-1672)
Posts: 14304 | From: Hampshire, UK | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Weed
Shipmate
# 4402
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
Er...Jesus being 'not very nice' like the OT perhaps?
I’ll assume that’s a response to my question about what you made of Jesus giving two examples of victims, one by murder, one by natural causes, and saying that in neither case was it to be assumed that they were any more guilty than those who didn’t die. In other words, these sorts of things are not caused by God.
Do you have a different interpretation?
I see that elsewhere you smilingly claim that you fulfil the Law. I think not. As to the question of what Jesus confirmed in relation to the Law and the Prophets, Luke 24 seems to explain very clearly what he meant. From the post-resurrection appearances:
quote:
He said to them, "This is what I told you while I was still with you: Everything must be fulfilled that is written about me in the Law of Moses, the Prophets and the Psalms." Then he opened their minds so they could understand the Scriptures. He told them, "This is what is written: The Christ will suffer and rise from the dead on the third day, and repentance and forgiveness of sins will be preached in his name to all nations, beginning at Jerusalem. You are witnesses of these things.
Note the words “about me”.
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
The question for me is "Did God say that in the OT or not?" ie:is the OT a reliable, trustworthy, authentic and authoritative account (in this particular thread, with regard to its historical account)? My answer, as set out above is this: Jesus thought so, so did the apostles, and so do I.
You are putting words into Jesus’ mouth. Since no-one appears to know who wrote the book of Joshua it would be very strange for Jesus to confirm that God really did speak to him in the middle of the battle. Or are you claiming that Jesus used the same methods of interpretation as you? His willingness to interpret the OT would appear to say something quite different about his approach. Don't forget, this is the man (Luke 4) who stood up in the synagogue at the beginning of his ministry, read a prophetic passage from Isaiah and said, "It's about ME." That's a bit more than a gloss.
--------------------
Weed
Posts: 519 | From: UK | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sean D
Cheery barman
# 2271
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
My answer, as set out above is this: Jesus thought so, so did the apostles, and so do I
Please tell me where Jesus said "Truly truly I say to you, those accounts of genocide in the Scriptures really did happen in my opinion". He may have thought that some or even many of the events of what we know as the Old Testament did happen, but we have no evidence of his thoughts on these particular accounts, as far as I know.
I think you will find you are making an argument from silence.
Furthermore, can you tell me why Christians must think something just because "Jesus thought so" or "Jesus said so"? For Jesus to be fully human (truly incarnate) then he was surely a man of his time, a first century peasant from a backwater of a minor Roman province. There was stuff he didn't know.
--------------------
postpostevangelical
http://www.stmellitus.org/
Posts: 2126 | From: North and South Kensington | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Matt Black
Shipmate
# 2210
|
Posted
You are equally, I submit, arguing from silence. Further,I have given examples where Jesus affirms the authority and integrity of the OT. There is no evidence that He regarded it as anything other than God's words.
Weed - although Jesus did fulfil the Law, by extension you, me, any Christian fulfils the Law as we are in Christ.
Matt
--------------------
"Protestant and Reformed, according to the Tradition of the ancient Catholic Church" - + John Cosin (1594-1672)
Posts: 14304 | From: Hampshire, UK | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Matt Black
Shipmate
# 2210
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Sean D:
Furthermore, can you tell me why Christians must think something just because "Jesus thought so" or "Jesus said so"? For Jesus to be fully human (truly incarnate) then he was surely a man of his time, a first century peasant from a backwater of a minor Roman province. There was stuff he didn't know.
Er...because we are being transformed into His image (Rom 12:1-2)? Good enough reason for me...
Matt
[Deleted extra code.]
[ 30. July 2004, 01:06: Message edited by: Tortuf ]
--------------------
"Protestant and Reformed, according to the Tradition of the ancient Catholic Church" - + John Cosin (1594-1672)
Posts: 14304 | From: Hampshire, UK | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Weed
Shipmate
# 4402
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
Weed - although Jesus did fulfil the Law, by extension you, me, any Christian fulfils the Law as we are in Christ.
I wasted my time posting, didn't I?
--------------------
Weed
Posts: 519 | From: UK | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sean D
Cheery barman
# 2271
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
You are equally, I submit, arguing from silence. Further,I have given examples where Jesus affirms the authority and integrity of the OT. There is no evidence that He regarded it as anything other than God's words.
I am not arguing from silence because I deem it irrelevant whether Jesus believed that the OT genocides were willed by God or not. You however deem it relevant and true and I am pointing out that your argument for it being true is a bad one because it is based on a very big assumption, namely that Jesus was an inerrantist.
Jesus got stuff wrong. He thought his second coming was going to come during the lifetime of his disciples, for example. He also admitted ignorance on at least one thing, i.e. he was not omniscient. I really don't see why we must believe everything Jesus believed.
That we are being transformed into the likeness of Jesus (Romans 8 is a better text than 12 for that ![[Biased]](wink.gif) ) and we have the mind of Christ does not seem to me to be adequate reason; these verses make no reference to "believing everything Jesus believed even though he was a man of his time, as we are people of our time".
[de-ballsed up quote]
[ 30. July 2004, 10:32: Message edited by: Sean D ]
--------------------
postpostevangelical
http://www.stmellitus.org/
Posts: 2126 | From: North and South Kensington | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Matt Black
Shipmate
# 2210
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Sean D:
I am not arguing from silence because I deem it irrelevant whether Jesus believed that the OT genocides were willed by God or not. You however deem it relevant and true and I am pointing out that your argument for it being true is a bad one because it is based on a very big assumption, namely that Jesus was an inerrantist.
I don't regard that as a complete assumption by a long chalk. It is, if you like, a faith position, but it is not a mere assumption as it is based on Jesus' own references to the OT, some of which I have already quoted; as I have already stated, there is no evidence to the contrary. I therefore conclude that this is a reasonable hypothesis which, whilst not proven, has evidence in its favour and none against.
Matt
[ 30. July 2004, 11:02: Message edited by: Matt Black ]
--------------------
"Protestant and Reformed, according to the Tradition of the ancient Catholic Church" - + John Cosin (1594-1672)
Posts: 14304 | From: Hampshire, UK | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sean D
Cheery barman
# 2271
|
Posted
I can see your point, although even so it still rests on the assumption that we should think about everything the same way that Jesus did.
Jesus never condemned slavery.
Jesus was rude about Gentiles (referring to them as dogs at one point and "ethnikoi" at another, a highly insulting and possibly racist term).
It seems to me that on these two points at least he was fully a person of his time. Presumably he also believed that the earth was flat and perhaps also in a six-day creation. We can infer this even though he never explicitly endorses this view. But that hardly makes it binding on all Christians, especially if we subsequently discover new information which was not available to the human Jesus who was clearly fallible and ignorant about at least some matters.
At the end of the day one must balance the possibility that Jesus may have believed that God commanded these genocides with the fact that Jesus revealed a God of infinite compassion and love towards all that he has made. Maybe Jesus didn't fully work out the implications of this idea for interpreting the genocide passages, as for example neither Jesus nor Paul worked out the implications of the gospel towards the practice of slavery.
[ 30. July 2004, 12:23: Message edited by: Sean D ]
--------------------
postpostevangelical
http://www.stmellitus.org/
Posts: 2126 | From: North and South Kensington | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Matt Black
Shipmate
# 2210
|
Posted
ISTM therefore that Jesus didn't know Who the heck He was! This to my mind conflicts with His Divinity and swings the Chalcedonian pendulum too far towards His humanity. I don't think you can have it both ways - on the one hand saying that He was 'clearly fallible' etc whilst at the same time claiming that He 'revealed a God of infinite compassion'.
Matt
--------------------
"Protestant and Reformed, according to the Tradition of the ancient Catholic Church" - + John Cosin (1594-1672)
Posts: 14304 | From: Hampshire, UK | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leprechaun
Ship's Poison Elf
# 5408
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Sean D:
neither Jesus nor Paul worked out the implications of the gospel towards the practice of slavery.
Here I am on this thread again. *sigh*
But I just wanted to say:
1) There's some pretty odd exegesis going on on this thread. (not least the "radical interpretation" Paul apparently put on Genesis 12 by insisting that all nations would be blessed through the Gospel. I don't call that a particularly radical interpretation of "all nations will be blessed through you"!)
2) Paul does seem to extrapolate some of the implications of the Gospel for slavery in Philemon - with the implication that if the legal system says the slave must obey he must, but a Christian master should treat the slave like a brother.
The fact that Jesus never mentions it, I've just taken as him thinking other things were more important, rather than him not "having considered" some of the implications of the Gospel.
In fact, the more I think about that the stranger it seems. Did the Trinity not work out the implications of the Gospel in the eons before Jesus was incarnated?
Posts: 3097 | From: England - far from home... | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
GreyFace
Shipmate
# 4682
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Leprechaun:
In fact, the more I think about that the stranger it seems. Did the Trinity not work out the implications of the Gospel in the eons before Jesus was incarnated?
Did Jesus know everything then?
Posts: 5748 | From: North East England | Registered: Jul 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
leonato
Shipmate
# 5124
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Leprechaun:
But I just wanted to say:
1) There's some pretty odd exegesis going on on this thread. (not least the "radical interpretation" Paul apparently put on Genesis 12 by insisting that all nations would be blessed through the Gospel. I don't call that a particularly radical interpretation of "all nations will be blessed through you"!)
*equally heavy sigh!*
Of course that interpretation isn't radical to us as Christians. My point is that it would be radical to 1st century Jews who saw themselves as Gods special chosen people.
Take some more of Galatians 3:
quote:
10 All who rely on observing the law are under a curse, for it is written: "Cursed is everyone who does not continue to do everything written in the Book of the Law." 11Clearly no one is justified before God by the law, because, "The righteous will live by faith."
So it is written that all who do not do everything in the law are cursed, yet Paul interprets this as those who rely on the law are cursed! How radical must that have sounded to Jews used to following the law?
If the apostles can drop much of the law quoting justification by faith through Christ crucified, why shouldn't we be a little radical in our reading of just a few verses about genocide?
--------------------
leonato... Much Ado
Posts: 892 | From: Stage left | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sean D
Cheery barman
# 2271
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Leprechaun:
In fact, the more I think about that the stranger it seems. Did the Trinity not work out the implications of the Gospel in the eons before Jesus was incarnated?
Of course. But why on earth should we suppose that Jesus should know all of them in his human, incarnate form? Clearly there was at least one thing to which he admitted not knowing.
--------------------
postpostevangelical
http://www.stmellitus.org/
Posts: 2126 | From: North and South Kensington | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
sharkshooter
Not your average shark
# 1589
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Sean D:
...
Jesus never condemned slavery.
...
How do you know that?
I just love it when people are convinced that since something is not recorded, He did not say it. The gospels are not transcripts of every word He spoke and every thing He did.
--------------------
Let the words of my mouth, and the meditation of my heart, be acceptable in thy sight, O LORD, my strength, and my redeemer. [Psalm 19:14]
Posts: 7772 | From: Canada; Washington DC; Phoenix; it's complicated | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leprechaun
Ship's Poison Elf
# 5408
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Sean D:
But why on earth should we suppose that Jesus should know all of them in his human, incarnate form? Clearly there was at least one thing to which he admitted not knowing.
Absolutely not disagreeing on the point of discussion - the whole issue of kenosis is an interesting one, and I must confess to be far from thought through about it.
But to have an assumption (which I think you had Sean) that Jesus knew no more than someone average in his day about important spiritual issues (such as the reliability of Israel's history!), I think veers perilously close to Arianism.
Do you not think so?
Posts: 3097 | From: England - far from home... | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Luigi
Shipmate
# 4031
|
Posted
Sean - referring back to Jesus' comments that 'not one jot or tittle of the law will pass away' and when he later says 'you have heard it said but I say to you .....'
First, I think you are taking the question more seriously than others on this thread. The whole view that says the first comment means that whatever Jesus meant by the second wasn't undermining the law is untenable. Of course it was - he was openly contradicting it. The clue is in the use of the word 'but'.
Perhaps a better way of thinking of it is that Jesus recognised that he was moving on from the law in the pentateuch and that like the pre-exilic prophets he was part of that journey in the scriptures.
In other words he was affirming scriptures in which a journey that had already been started and was visible. So when he says 'not one jot..' he really does mean not one jot should pass away. For him it was important that we remember the whole journey or we don't see the forward momentuum. And that forward momentuum is of critical importance. If we forget where we started then we fail to notice how far we have travelled.
Luigi
Posts: 752 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sean D
Cheery barman
# 2271
|
Posted
Luigi - I broadly agree, though I wouldn't phrase it quite like that.
Sharkshooter - yes, sorry. That was a very foolish error. I should of course have said "to our knowledge" or "as far as we know". But the point certainly stands regarding Paul, who does not make the step between "Christians should treat slaves well" to "slavery is outright wrong according to the gospel, which proclaims all people created in the image of God and so equal in dignity".
Lep - I really don't think it's Arian. The problem is that Jesus must have possessed all the attributes of God to be fully God and all the attributes of a human to be fully human. Being fully human includes being ignorant, weak, afraid, weary and so on - all of which Jesus indeed was. But of course Jesus must also have been all-powerful, transcendent and all-knowing at the same time. The question then becomes how he could be mutually exclusive things at the same time, and part of the answer is in the doctrine of the two natures - he is all-knowing in his divine nature but not in his human nature. The divine nature and the human nature are not mixed, they meet in one person.
I am going on holiday for a fortnight so sorry if I don't get back to any responses to these ramblings. I'm sure an Orthodox person will be able to explain the Incarnation/two natures stuff better than I. Failing that, read any book by Tom Weinandy, who is probably the best thinker I have read on the subject.
--------------------
postpostevangelical
http://www.stmellitus.org/
Posts: 2126 | From: North and South Kensington | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365
|
Posted
It is good to see that this thread is still on page 1 even though I've been gone the past 10 days. Please forgive me if I skip back a page to answer Luigi - who I see has begun a thread on Girard's point of view on this.
quote:
Originally posted by Luigi:
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
If I understand you correctly, you are saying that there is no such thing as the kind of divine revelation described in the Bible.
But I'm not saying that they should have listened to the right God. I'm saying that God appeared to them in a way that they could accept and follow.
First I don’t believe that God appeared to them in a way that they could 'accept and follow'. This whole idea that God told the Israelites that they were to annihilate an entire people group because they would accept it and follow it is unsustainable from my point of view. Surely you can see the problem with this POV.
Yes, there is certainly a problem with this point of view. I should not have said that "God appeared to them" but that God allowed them to view Him in this way. He allowed this, even though it was wrong, in accommodation to their character. Their character demanded a god who would act this way, that is, who would destroy their enemies. This is clearly not good. At the same time it is a universal human misconception that God is on their side and is opposed to their enemies.
I'm actually just saying what you say here:
quote:
Originally posted by Luigi:
I don’t particularly want to come across as cynical and I fully accept that God can speak to humans through their inner voices, dreams, prophecy etc. However, it seems to me, that humans have been hearing voices since the beginning of (human) time. Humans have believed they have heard from God and I think more often than not this has been an act of self-deception. I think this is true no matter what you believe – few Christians would say that every human being who claims they have heard from God actually did – many would be unconvinced by Joseph Smith’s, Muhammad’s, claims.
This is what I am saying as well. This is exactly the point. Those who claimed to to have been commanded by God to kill the innocent were mistaken.
Moses and Joshua claimed to have heard from God, but how do we know that they really did? The answer seems to be that their revelations appear to be authenticated by those who came later (i.e. the Gospels) who affirmed that they were genuine. Our confidence in the authenticity of Jesus' claims then works backwards to affirm the Law of Moses, which He accepted as the Word of God - even though He did not hesitate to change it.
quote:
Originally posted by Luigi:
My point is, how do humans know when they have heard from God? Some Christians may ask: is it in line with the Bible? Or some others might ask: is it in line with Jesus? Or even: is it in line with my tradition? My point is that the ancients had no way of doing either. So the whole idea that revelation is discernable through someone claiming that they have heard from God is not that useful. My point is that even when you think you have heard from God, how do you know it isn’t just self-deception? My argument is that the most reliable voice throughout history has been the victim. If we are to avoid setting the two most important commands in violation of each other, we need to listen to the victim.
I agree that someone's claims to have spoken to God is not a reliable measure, just as Jesus' claims to be God's Son may be equally true or false. A person adopts a religion when he or she accepts that religion's claims as genuine. Christ Himself warned that many people's claims would not be authentic.
I confess to not really seeing how "hearing the voice of the victim" is helpful. As a Swedenborgian I rely on Swedenborg's revelation to make rational sense of the problems we are articulating here. This revelation points out what is literal and what is symbolic, and why it all happened the way that it did. I accept this explanation as genuine because it makes sense to me. But it may just as easily be mistaken, just as I believe that others who have claimed revelation were misled, or deluded themselves.
If I understand you correctly, you are saying that the voice of the victim in such stories as Jephthah's daughter and the Levite's concubine show the real truth of the situation. That is, that the portrayal of the victim's plight allows us to see evil for what it is, in line with Jesus' teachings. I'll look on the Girard thread to understand this better.
In any case, I think I'm agreeing with you at this point as to what was really going on in the accounts of Old Testament genocide. God did not command it or justify it. They were mistaken.
I think we disagree, however, as to why these accounts were nevertheless included, through God's inspiration, in the canon. I would say that it was because these events actually symbolized good things (that is, good triumphing over evil) even though they were not actually good. I'm not quite clear as to why you think that they were rightly included in the canon. Or is it because they contain the voice of the victim?
--------------------
"Consequently nothing is of greater importance to a person than knowing what the truth is." Swedenborg
Posts: 12845 | From: Bryn Athyn | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Luigi said: If you are still out there Martin. Are you still saying that you still have no problem with God demanding that they annihilate the Amalakites?
Martin responds: I’m always out there Luigi! And Esmerelda – you’re my big sister by 1 year. Luigi – of COURSE I do. God is problematic to say the least. But I have no basis whatsoever for not believing that that is exactly, explicitly what He did.
Luigi said: Do you believe that it is unproblematic to assert that we should love our neighbour as ourself and we should be willing to slit their 2 year old daughter's throat?
Martin responds: It doesn’t arise for Christians. Ever. Never will. It did for Israel.
Luigi said: You keep saying that you no longer believe that God asks us to do this - though you have never explained why? Was genocide off God's agenda when Jesus was born? Was it suddenly wrong to wipe out entire people groups on Good Friday? Or was it Easter Sunday when all genocidal adts should suddenly stop?
Martin responds: The Ten Commandment theocratic Old Covenant with Israel died with Christ. All of it. All of the law and prophets were fulfilled in Christ. Every jot and tittle of the law passed with Christ. Christ – God - is the law - love. Christianity is the Sabbath fulfilled. Life in Christ. Genocide is off all Christians’ agendas. It remains God’s prerogative.
Luigi said: To my mind this is just an attempt to ignore the moral problems by removing it far away from us in time, so that it rather conveniently becomes something that you believe could no longer apply?
Martin responds: Excellent point. Christianity is a vast blessing, incomparable with the ergon nomou – works of the law. I KNOW it doesn’t apply. I’m not a pre-crucifixion Israelite.
Luigi said: All your posts about how God can commit genocidal acts is irrelevant. After all it wasn't about those passages where God, or the angel of death, appears to have lashed out unfairly and indiscriminately, that we were talking about. It was those times when God supposedly told people to do the act. Perhaps he was so tired he couldn't do it himself. Or perhaps I should say that he couldn't arrange to do what happened in Kings 19 himself!
Martin responds: They may be to you, but not to me. A God who kills has the right to delegate killing – in a true theocracy - for whatever pragmatic, perfect, purposes. That is perfectly consistent. Christianity makes Him responsible for His killings and us for ours.
Luigi said: It is the problem that God was telling humans to take so many 'innocent' lives for no consistent reason that there is a problem. Expecially in the light of how in other places he seems to insist that taking other humans lives is wrong in many, many circumstances.
Luigi
Martin responds: AGREED! Absolutely. God is most problematic. Ineffably, terrifyingly holy. We will remain confronted with His strange, terrifying love, even with the beautiful mask of Christ, until we embrace the Amelekites in the resurrection, all tears wiped away, transcendent, glorified.
Martin
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
