Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   How do Christians deal with the violence in the Bible?
GDR
Member
Posts: 6202
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 136 of 221 (229403)
08-03-2005 6:20 PM
Reply to: Message 134 by Faith
08-03-2005 6:07 PM


Re: OT types of Christ
I think that there are a few possibilities. The most unlikely in my view is that Abraham just got it wrong or that he may have acted out a parable to emphasize the point.
In my view the most likely scenario is that it is being told as a parable. For instance in the NT where Jesus is relating the story of the Good Samaritan there is nothing to indicate that it wasn't literally true. Jesus just starts out, "A man was going down from Jerusalem to Jericho.....". Why not take that story literally? You'd probably say that it is obvious. In my view the OT story of Abraham being prepared to sacrifice his son to me is obviously a parable. I think he probably was inspired by God to tell the story, in an attempt to put an end to human sacrifice.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 134 by Faith, posted 08-03-2005 6:07 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 137 by jar, posted 08-03-2005 6:25 PM GDR has not replied
 Message 138 by Faith, posted 08-03-2005 6:26 PM GDR has replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 137 of 221 (229407)
08-03-2005 6:25 PM
Reply to: Message 136 by GDR
08-03-2005 6:20 PM


Re: OT types of Christ
And most likely long after Abraham lived, if he was one real individual and not a composite of several heros.

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 136 by GDR, posted 08-03-2005 6:20 PM GDR has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 138 of 221 (229409)
08-03-2005 6:26 PM
Reply to: Message 136 by GDR
08-03-2005 6:20 PM


Re: OT types of Christ
I get your criteria but your comparison with Jesus' parables doesn't fit. The way the narrative of Abraham is told is one continuous string of events, no change in tone or factual style etc. When Jesus tells a parable he doesn't tell it in the middle of a string of real events he's also telling, it's a one-time story, and we are told that he is telling it. No comparison. It just seems that you view the story of Isaac's sacrifice as a metaphor or fiction simply because you refuse to believe it is real, and not for any reason having to do with how it is related.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 136 by GDR, posted 08-03-2005 6:20 PM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 140 by GDR, posted 08-03-2005 6:34 PM Faith has replied

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 6202
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 139 of 221 (229414)
08-03-2005 6:29 PM
Reply to: Message 135 by ramoss
08-03-2005 6:14 PM


Re: OT types of Christ
OK. I see your point but wasn't the tradition of that sacrifice carried on with the Jewish Passover. Would you agree that the atonement started with human sacrifice, which became animal sacrifice, then the passover and culminating in Christ?
I'm not a Biblical expert by any means but I would have considered what you called sacrifices to be a part of their tithes.
ramoss writes:
So no, trying to equate a human sacrifice (very much forbidden) to the sacrifices for atonement of sins is very inappropriate.
Wasn't that the point of this story though? God telling his people to put an end to human sacrifice as it was wrong. I'm not suggesting that it had ever been part of his plan but had been instituted by man in trying to appease whatever God they were worshipping at the time, be it Baal or whoever.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 135 by ramoss, posted 08-03-2005 6:14 PM ramoss has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 144 by Faith, posted 08-04-2005 4:55 AM GDR has not replied
 Message 145 by ramoss, posted 08-04-2005 9:51 AM GDR has not replied

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 6202
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 140 of 221 (229417)
08-03-2005 6:34 PM
Reply to: Message 138 by Faith
08-03-2005 6:26 PM


Re: OT types of Christ
Faith writes:
It just seems that you view the story of Isaac's sacrifice as a metaphor or fiction simply because you refuse to believe it is real, and not for any reason having to do with how it is related.
It is more than that. It is totally inconsistent with the picture of God the Father painted by Christ as God incarnate. There is nothing in the testimony as given by Jesus, or any other NT author that suggest God would act in such a fashion.
The Bible must be read within the context of the entire Biblical message.
This message has been edited by GDR, 08-03-2005 03:35 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 138 by Faith, posted 08-03-2005 6:26 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 142 by Faith, posted 08-04-2005 4:12 AM GDR has not replied

  
deerbreh
Member (Idle past 2893 days)
Posts: 882
Joined: 06-22-2005


Message 141 of 221 (229510)
08-03-2005 10:49 PM
Reply to: Message 133 by Faith
08-03-2005 5:53 PM


Re: One last thought
Well, I can agree to disagree with you too.
I didn't say that Abraham didn't actually set out to sacrifice Isaac. I just don't think God told him to do that. As I said, if God is a true Father, he will not behave that way. This is not something I am just making up - Jesus himself reasons this way:
Luke 11:11-13 writes:
If a son shall ask bread of any of you that is a father, will he give him a stone? or if he ask a fish, will he for a fish give him a serpent? Or if he shall ask an egg, will he offer him a scorpion? If ye then, being evil, know how to give good gifts unto your children: how much more shall your heavenly Father give the Holy Spirit to them that ask him?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 133 by Faith, posted 08-03-2005 5:53 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 143 by Faith, posted 08-04-2005 4:21 AM deerbreh has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 142 of 221 (229561)
08-04-2005 4:12 AM
Reply to: Message 140 by GDR
08-03-2005 6:34 PM


Back to the metaphor idea
It just seems that you view the story of Isaac's sacrifice as a metaphor or fiction simply because you refuse to believe it is real, and not for any reason having to do with how it is related.
It is more than that. It is totally inconsistent with the picture of God the Father painted by Christ as God incarnate. There is nothing in the testimony as given by Jesus, or any other NT author that suggest God would act in such a fashion. The Bible must be read within the context of the entire Biblical message.
Yes, that's WHY you refuse to believe it is real. But actually the NT does treat the story as real, Hebrews 11:17 for instance, as well as treating all the OT as real, never referring to any of it as anything other than factual.
I have no problem reconciling all the facets of God's character as presented in the Bible and find them all necessary to the whole. (But of course this comes from attending many Bible studies, reading many commentaries and other books, and hearing much preaching. I don't think any of us can figure it out without a lot of help.) Anyway, certainly the Bible must be read in context of the entire message but that's exactly what you are not doing. We are required to integrate all of it together and not throw any of it out just because it doesn't suit our understanding of this or that part of it.
This message has been edited by Faith, 08-04-2005 04:13 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 140 by GDR, posted 08-03-2005 6:34 PM GDR has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 143 of 221 (229563)
08-04-2005 4:21 AM
Reply to: Message 141 by deerbreh
08-03-2005 10:49 PM


Re: One last thought
But then we do have to agree to disagree. You have basically the same view that GDR has, that it can't be real because it appears to you to conflict with the portrait of God as father. You deny it although it is written as a factual account and understood to have been factual by the traditional Church over the centuries, and never understood to conflict with anything Jesus said or any other description of God's character. What could be more fatherly than teaching His son Abraham to trust Him completely, and that He doesn't require human sacrifice, both in a dramatic life-or-death example, and affirming Abraham's own fatherly feeling for Isaac at the same time?
I see no conflict but if you do then we just disagree.
This message has been edited by Faith, 08-04-2005 04:32 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 141 by deerbreh, posted 08-03-2005 10:49 PM deerbreh has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 146 by deerbreh, posted 08-04-2005 10:12 AM Faith has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 144 of 221 (229570)
08-04-2005 4:55 AM
Reply to: Message 139 by GDR
08-03-2005 6:29 PM


Did God reject the sacrifices?
The idea that God rejected the sacrifices at some point is simply false. He merely rejected the ritual, the outward show of them, in absence of the heart meaning of them, and is affirming in all the supposedly contrary passages the need for heart repentance and obedience for the sacrifices to fulfill their true purpose.
Historically the sacrifices continued right through the time of Jesus. His own parents offered the sacrifice of two turtledoves or pigeons for him as their firstborn (Luke 2:24, Lev. 12:8). The moneychangers were selling animals for sacrifice in the temple. The sacrifices stopped only in 70AD with the destruction of the temple, and since that was the only authorized place they could be done the system ended forever at that point.
Isaiah 1:11-20 is one passage that is misinterpreted to be God's rejection of the sacrifices as such. "To what purpose is the multitude of your sacrifices to Me?" says the Lord. "I have had enough of burnt offerings of rams and the fat of fed cattle. I do not delight in the blood of bulls or of lambs or goats. ... "Bring no more futile sacrifices" ... "Wash yourselves, make yourselves clean...Cease to do evil, learn to do good. Seek justice. Reprove the oppressor, defend the fatherless, plead for the widow." (Isaiah 1:11, 12, 16).
The word "futile" in the above gets across the meaning. "Vain" is the word in other translations. Meaning "empty" or meaningless. This is about doing such things in a rote way without understanding the meaning of them and while committing sins that are not repented of, not about rejecting sacrifice as such.
Matthew Henry describes the sacrifices and other observances God is condemning here as done strictly according to God's own specifications in the Law of Moses, and makes clear that the problem was the obedience to the letter only and not the spirit of the Law:
Now we should have thought these, and, no doubt, they thought themselves, a pious religious people; and yet they were far from being so, for (1.) Their hearts were empty of true devotion. They came to appear before God (v. 12), to be seen before him (so the margin reads it); they rested in the outside of the duties; they looked no further than to be seen of men, and went no further than that which men see.
And the outline commentary of Jamieson, Fausset and Brown says the same thing:
11. God does not here absolutely disparage sacrifice, which is as old and universal as sin ( Gen 3:21 4:4 ), and sin is almost as old as the world; but sacrifice, unaccompanied with obedience of heart and life ( 1Sa 15:22 Psa 50:9-13 51:16-19 Hsa 6:6 ). Positive precepts are only means; moral obedience is the end. A foreshadowing of the gospel, when the One real sacrifice was to supersede all the shadowy ones, and "bring in everlasting righteousness" ( Psa 40:6, 7 Dan 9:24-27 Hbr 10:1-14 ).
full--to satiety; weary of
burnt offerings--burnt whole, except the blood, which was sprinkled about the altar.
fat--not to be eaten by man, but burnt on the altar ( Lev 3:4, 5, 11, 17 ).
12. appear before me--in the temple where the Shekinah, resting on the ark, was the symbol of God's presence ( Exd 23:15 Psa 42:2 ).
who hath required this--as if you were doing God a service by such hypocritical offerings ( Job 35:7 ). God did require it ( Exd 23:17 ), but not in this spirit ( Mic 6:6, 7 ).
courts--areas, which the worshippers were. None but priests entered the temple itself.
13. oblations--unbloody; "meat (old English sense, not flesh) offerings," that is, of flour, fruits, oil, &c. ( Lev 2:1-13 ). Hebrew, mincha.
incense--put upon the sacrifices, and burnt on the altar of incense. Type of prayer ( Psa 141:2 Rev 8:3 ).
new moons--observed as festivals ( Num 10:10 28:11, 14 ) with sacrifices and blowing of silver trumpets.
sabbaths--both the seventh day and the beginning and closing days of the great feasts ( Lev 23:24-39 ).
away with--bear, MAURER translates, "I cannot bear iniquity and the solemn meeting," that is, the meeting associated with iniquity--literally, the closing days of the feasts; so the great days ( Lev 23:36 Jhn 7:37 ).
14. appointed--the sabbath, passover, pentecost, day of atonement, and feast of tabernacles [HENGSTENBERG]; they alone were fixed to certain times of the year.
weary-- ( Isa 43:24 ).
15. ( Psa 66:18 Pro 28:9 Lam 3:43, 44 ).
spread ... hands--in prayer ( 1Ki 8:22 ). Hebrew, "bloods," for all heinous sins, persecution of God's servants especially ( Mat 23:35 ). It was the vocation of the prophets to dispel the delusion, so contrary to the law itself ( Deu 10:16 ), that outward ritualism would satisfy God.
This message has been edited by Faith, 08-04-2005 05:11 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 139 by GDR, posted 08-03-2005 6:29 PM GDR has not replied

  
ramoss
Member (Idle past 612 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 08-11-2004


Message 145 of 221 (229640)
08-04-2005 9:51 AM
Reply to: Message 139 by GDR
08-03-2005 6:29 PM


Re: OT types of Christ
No, I don't. The 'sacrifice' culminating in Christ is totally against the previous 1600 years of tradition in the Jewish faith. THat sacrifice is very paganistic in nature. To try to corrolate the sacrifices of attonement in the Jewish faith and the sacrifice of Jesus is trying to compare apples and screwdrivers. The comparison does not match.
From a historical point of view, that is why Paul had such a hard time convincing the jews, but rather went to the fertile field of the Hellenistic Gentiles for his evanagalism. The sacrifice of someone else for your mistakes did not make sense to the Jews, particularly a human sacrifice.
The 'passover sacrifice' was only (from a traditional point of view) odon on the first passover, in Egypt. The passover ceremoney, even during the time that the temple existed, did not demand an animal sacrifice.
This message has been edited by ramoss, 08-04-2005 09:55 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 139 by GDR, posted 08-03-2005 6:29 PM GDR has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 147 by Faith, posted 08-04-2005 10:52 AM ramoss has replied

  
deerbreh
Member (Idle past 2893 days)
Posts: 882
Joined: 06-22-2005


Message 146 of 221 (229655)
08-04-2005 10:12 AM
Reply to: Message 143 by Faith
08-04-2005 4:21 AM


Re: One last thought
You deny it although it is written as a factual account and understood to have been factual by the traditional Church over the centuries
Oh please. The traditional Church? The same traditional Church that questioned Galileo under threat of torture to get him to recant what he had observed through his telescope because it conflicted with the "factual account" of the Bible?
The same traditional Church that tortured and killed Anabaptists for having the temerity to believe that baptism is properly administered to adult believers rather than infants?
The same traditional Church whose representative (the Papal Legate) told the Crusaders beseiging Beziers, France in 1209 to "Neca eos omnes. Deus suos agnoscet." (Kill them all. God will know his own.)
This is only part of the record of the traditional Church that gave us the Bible. So am I sceptical of what the 'traditional Church" considers to be a factual account?. You bet I am.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 143 by Faith, posted 08-04-2005 4:21 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 148 by Faith, posted 08-04-2005 10:54 AM deerbreh has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 147 of 221 (229677)
08-04-2005 10:52 AM
Reply to: Message 145 by ramoss
08-04-2005 9:51 AM


Re: OT types of Christ
From a historical point of view, that is why Paul had such a hard time convincing the jews, but rather went to the fertile field of the Hellenistic Gentiles for his evanagalism. The sacrifice of someone else for your mistakes did not make sense to the Jews, particularly a human sacrifice.
Paul was converted late, long after thousands of Jews were believers in Christ. He was in fact threatening the Jewish believers and having them stoned. And a couple of decades or so after his conversion he was not trying to convince the Jews of the fact of Jesus' sacrifice expressing the sacrifices of the Old Testament, these were already Jewish believers in Christ who understood. The argument with Paul was about their wanting the Law obeyed by the Gentiles too, and Paul didn't try to talk THEM out of obeying the Law, simply showed them that it wasn't required of the Gentiles. IN any case, it had nothing whatever to do with the sacrifices. The Book of Hebrews, author unknown, WAS addressed to the Jewish believers to educate them in that theology however, showing it all from their own scriptures. Meanwhile, Paul was called by God to the Gentiles and the other apostles continued the work of evangelism among the Judean Jews and other parts of the world.
The Jews were wrong about their theology and that's what Jesus kept rebuking them for. And yet at the same time it was Jews, tens to hundreds of thousands of them who were the first Christians.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 145 by ramoss, posted 08-04-2005 9:51 AM ramoss has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 149 by ramoss, posted 08-04-2005 11:06 AM Faith has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 148 of 221 (229680)
08-04-2005 10:54 AM
Reply to: Message 146 by deerbreh
08-04-2005 10:12 AM


Re: One last thought
No the traditional church of the THEOLOGIANS from the church fathers down to the present. There is an unbroken line of commentary despite the errors of the Roman apostacy.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 146 by deerbreh, posted 08-04-2005 10:12 AM deerbreh has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 153 by deerbreh, posted 08-04-2005 11:35 AM Faith has replied

  
ramoss
Member (Idle past 612 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 08-11-2004


Message 149 of 221 (229691)
08-04-2005 11:06 AM
Reply to: Message 147 by Faith
08-04-2005 10:52 AM


Re: OT types of Christ
Actually, the books where Jesus 'rebuked' the Jews for not knowing their own scriptures came from Paul, and the Pauline movement. The appostles that knew jesus directly stayed Jews. Paul only 'met' Jesus in a vision
on a road to damascus..
Let's see.. Paul hears voices on the road to damascus, and totally turns things upside down on the basis of those voices in his head. He has to go to the Gentiles to get his ideas accepted.
the people who knew Jesus first hand stayed Jews.
Gosh, it sounds like Paul and his followers put words into Jesus's mouth to me.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 147 by Faith, posted 08-04-2005 10:52 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 150 by Faith, posted 08-04-2005 11:09 AM ramoss has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 150 of 221 (229697)
08-04-2005 11:09 AM
Reply to: Message 149 by ramoss
08-04-2005 11:06 AM


Re: OT types of Christ
Jeepers that must mean Paul wrote the entire New Testament. That's simply a complete fabrication.
This message has been edited by Faith, 08-04-2005 11:10 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 149 by ramoss, posted 08-04-2005 11:06 AM ramoss has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 151 by ramoss, posted 08-04-2005 11:15 AM Faith has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024