Proof Text for Eventual Restoration

User avatar
steve
Posts: 3392
Joined: Thu Aug 21, 2008 9:45 pm

Re: Proof Text for Eventual Restoration

Post by steve » Sat Apr 19, 2014 11:59 pm

Hi Perry,

I am very familiar with the contents of the passage. My response to Paidion about it answers his objection directly. A woman does not have to grab a man's genitals, regardless of the situation. She might be inclined to do so, in order to aid her husband, had God not forbidden it, but a woman, knowing that violation would cost her a hand, could easily refrain from the forbidden action.

The same is true about any acton forbidden in the Torah (or in the laws of any society, for that matter). So long as the law does not forbid actions that are involuntary or unavoidable (and so long as the courts are not corrupt), citizens can avoid the law's penalties. To complain about the law's sanctions and penalties is to argue for law-breaking. If people don't break laws, the penalties are irrelevant.

Severe penalties, however, give good incentives to keep the laws. We know of no cases in which Israelite women had their hands cut off. Perhaps it was never necessary. The law might have induced them to keep their hands where they belonged—namely, attached to their wrists, and away from men's groins.

I'm going to stand unashamedly with God on this matter. Others may stand wherever they wish.

steve7150
Posts: 2597
Joined: Mon Aug 25, 2008 7:44 am

Re: Proof Text for Eventual Restoration

Post by steve7150 » Sun Apr 20, 2014 1:08 pm

2 Sam 14:14b
But God does not take away life; instead, he devises ways so that a banished person may not remain estranged from him.







But considering the OT says so little about the afterlife wouldn't this likely refer to this life on earth. Yes God does take away life on occasion but He does so "with cause" so perhaps reading into this we may say it means "But God does not take away life without cause."

User avatar
Paidion
Posts: 5452
Joined: Mon Aug 18, 2008 10:22 pm
Location: Back Woods of North-Western Ontario

Re: Proof Text for Eventual Restoration

Post by Paidion » Sun Apr 20, 2014 7:21 pm

The Connecticut Laws of 1650 were based on the Mosaic laws. I wonder whether they would be acceptable anywhere in our day.

Image
Image

If you wish to view their entire code of laws, go to the link below:
https://archive.org/stream/codeof165000 ... 1/mode/2up
Paidion

Man judges a person by his past deeds, and administers penalties for his wrongdoing. God judges a person by his present character, and disciplines him that he may become righteous.

Avatar shows me at 75 years old. I am now 83.

User avatar
Paidion
Posts: 5452
Joined: Mon Aug 18, 2008 10:22 pm
Location: Back Woods of North-Western Ontario

Re: Proof Text for Eventual Restoration

Post by Paidion » Sun Apr 20, 2014 8:30 pm

Steve wrote:My response to Paidion about it answers his objection directly. A woman does not have to grab a man's genitals, regardless of the situation. She might be inclined to do so, in order to aid her husband, had God not forbidden it, but a woman, knowing that violation would cost her a hand, could easily refrain from the forbidden action.

The same is true about any acton forbidden in the Torah (or in the laws of any society, for that matter). So long as the law does not forbid actions that are involuntary or unavoidable (and so long as the courts are not corrupt), citizens can avoid the law's penalties. To complain about the law's sanctions and penalties is to argue for law-breaking. If people don't break laws, the penalties are irrelevant.

Severe penalties, however, give good incentives to keep the laws.
My objections to the Mosaic law were not to suggest that we should be lawbreakers, but to show that the Mosaic laws were unjust in imposing extreme penalties for relatively minor offences. Killing disobedient children, cutting off women's hands, etc. For this reason, it is apparent that our LOVING GOD did not institute such laws. Doubtless these laws were a strong deterrent to committing these offences, but did God institute them? Or were they Moses' ideas which he thought God had revealed to him.

If I'm not mistaken Sharia law of the Muslims advocates beating disobedient wives. This law too, is supposed to have come from God.

The character of God is at stake here. Is he truly a God of love who, like a loving human father, corrects the wrongdoing of his children through loving discipline? Or is He like a cruel human father, who severely beats his disobedient children with a whip or with his fist, or maybe locks them in their room for 5 days without food, or even kills them if he gets angry enough?

According to the writer of Hebrews, God is like the loving human father rather than the cruel one:
The writer to the Hebrews wrote:...have you forgotten the exhortation that addresses you as sons? “My son, do not regard lightly the discipline of the Lord, nor be weary when reproved by him. For the Lord disciplines the one he loves,and chastises every son whom he receives.” It is for discipline that you have to endure. God is treating you as sons. For what son is there whom his father does not discipline? If you are left without discipline, in which all have participated, then you are illegitimate children and not sons. Besides this, we have had earthly fathers who disciplined us and we respected them. Shall we not much more be subject to the Father of spirits and live? For they disciplined us for a short time as it seemed best to them, but he disciplines us for our good, that we may share his holiness. For the moment all discipline seems painful rather than pleasant, but later it yields the peaceful fruit of righteousness to those who have been trained by it. (Heb 12:5-11)
Paidion

Man judges a person by his past deeds, and administers penalties for his wrongdoing. God judges a person by his present character, and disciplines him that he may become righteous.

Avatar shows me at 75 years old. I am now 83.

User avatar
steve
Posts: 3392
Joined: Thu Aug 21, 2008 9:45 pm

Re: Proof Text for Eventual Restoration

Post by steve » Sun Apr 20, 2014 9:49 pm

The Connecticut Laws of 1650 were based on the Mosaic laws. I wonder whether they would be acceptable anywhere in our day.
I should hope not! No secular society has any business adopting, en toto, the law code given to the nation of the holy covenant. To enforce sabbath worship or laws against blasphemy would not be appropriate in a pluralistic, multicultural society. On the other hand, your suggestion that Moses imposed disproportionately severe penalties on minor infractions simply pits your intuitions against those of Moses, the man who wrote the laws as they were dictated to him in daily, face-to-face conference with God. You have given no good reason for believing that you know God better than did Moses.

When God's penalties for a given human action seem severe to humans, then there are two possibilities: God is unjust, or humans have a deficient moral sense. If the penalties for a sin seem more severe than I should have imagined them to be, then that informs me that I was greatly underestimating the magnitude of that sin in God's sight. Paul said that the Torah was holy and just and good (Romans 7:12). It would not be reasonable for me to trust your instincts above those of the writers of both the Old and the New Testament.

If the character of God was thought to be impugned by the laws inscribed by Moses, then Jesus was very negligent in failing to point this out—especially when He insisted that He had not come to destroy the law, but to fulfill it (Matt.5:17-18). Once Jesus was specifically asked whether He agreed with Moses' commands to stone adulteresses. His answer seemed to affirm that this was a just penalty, and He invited any qualified party to start the execution (John 8:7). He did not criticize the law or its prescribed penalty. He criticized His audience. The fact that He chose to forgive the woman, rather than stone her was no renunciation of the law any more than was God's choosing to forgive David, rather than giving him his just penalty (2 Sam.12:13)

If memory serves, in our past discussions on this point, you have mentioned Jesus' saying "You have heard that it was said... but I say unto you..." as if Jesus changed the law in some way. However, in all six of the cases wherein Jesus used this formula, He neglected to change any moral principle found in the law (Matt.5:21-48). He even said that those who teach against the law are the least in HIs kingdom (Matt.5:19).

User avatar
Paidion
Posts: 5452
Joined: Mon Aug 18, 2008 10:22 pm
Location: Back Woods of North-Western Ontario

Re: Proof Text for Eventual Restoration

Post by Paidion » Mon Apr 21, 2014 11:29 am

I wrote:The Connecticut Laws of 1650 were based on the Mosaic laws. I wonder whether they would be acceptable anywhere in our day.
Steve, you wrote:I should hope not! No secular society has any business adopting, en toto, the law code given to the nation of the holy covenant.
Why do you hope not? If they were fair and just laws as you claim, then why shouldn't they be applied in a pluralistic society such as was done in 1650? If they were good for the Israelites, and were given by God, as you believe, why wouldn't they be good for society at large?
Steve, you wrote:You have given no good reason for believing that you know God better than did Moses.
Ahhh, but I have given a good reason and and more than one, several times. My first good reason is that Jesus did not so depict God's character. On the positive side, He said clearly that His Father was kind to ungrateful and evil people, and instructed His disciples to love their enemies and do good toward them, and that in so doing they would truly prove to be sons of the Most High (Luke 6:35).

A second good reason is that Jesus, who was the exact imprint of the Father's essence (Heb 1:3) Himself didn't attack or kill people or cut off anyone's hands. Even his severity toward the Pharisees was merely verbal and never violent. Jesus is the one who revealed the character of the Father as it was never revealed before. So Jesus' actions and attitudes while He lived among us tells us what the Father is like. It is only because of Jesus, that I know God better than Moses. Any revelation of Himself that God gave to Moses was only partial. Jesus revealed the Father in His fullness.

In this matter, I am not trusting my intuitions or emotions as you suspect; I am trusting the revelation of Jesus Christ.
Paidion

Man judges a person by his past deeds, and administers penalties for his wrongdoing. God judges a person by his present character, and disciplines him that he may become righteous.

Avatar shows me at 75 years old. I am now 83.

User avatar
steve
Posts: 3392
Joined: Thu Aug 21, 2008 9:45 pm

Re: Proof Text for Eventual Restoration

Post by steve » Mon Apr 21, 2014 12:12 pm

Why do you hope not? If they were fair and just laws as you claim, then why shouldn't they be applied in a pluralistic society such as was done in 1650? If they were good for the Israelites, and were given by God, as you believe, why wouldn't they be good for society at large?
Just laws are good for any society, but not all religions share the same views about justice. A society that gives equal freedom to all religious expressions (Israel was forbidden to do this, because of their national covenant with God, which no modern nation possesses) cannot impose laws that belong to the convictions of only one religion. Because of Israel's unique covenantal status, God could righteously regulate every aspect of their lives—their diet, their religious calendar, their worship practices, their private sex lives, the disposition of privately owned real estate, etc. Secular governments, by contrast, should only regulate actions that have an adverse affect on other citizens.

Ahhh, but I have given a good reason and and more than one, several times. My first good reason is that Jesus did not so depict God's character. On the positive side, He said clearly that His Father was kind to ungrateful and evil people, and instructed His disciples to love their enemies and do good toward them, and that in so doing they would truly prove to be sons of the Most High (Luke 6:35).
It will do no good to repeat arguments that I have already anticipated and debunked. If you want my rebuttal of these arguments, you need only read what is posted above. What you must do is show that Jesus believed that God did not kill people. I have answered your every point. You need either to come up with more valid points, or defend the ones I have critiqued, showing that they are valid after all. In order to make a case, especially with the immense weight of scripture against your position, you need to do more than make one or two observations with which no one would think of disagreeing. You will need to demonstrate that those observations, in some manner, establish your premise. They do not. Until you can honestly, and correctly, explain the thirteen cases I listed on Saturday, Apr. 19, 2014, at 12:58 pm, the mere repetition of undisputed observations remains unconvincing.
A second good reason is that Jesus, who was the exact imprint of the Father's essence (Heb 1:3) Himself didn't attack or kill people or cut off anyone's hands. Even his severity toward the Pharisees was merely verbal and never violent. Jesus is the one who revealed the character of the Father as it was never revealed before. So Jesus' actions and attitudes while He lived among us tells us what the Father is like. It is only because of Jesus, that I know God better than Moses. Any revelation of Himself that God gave to Moses was only partial. Jesus revealed the Father in His fullness.
Jesus made it clear that He had not come to judge in civil matters (Luke 12:13-14). This does not mean that He abolished the courts of law—whether Jewish or secular—or denied their divine institution (Rom.13:1-7; 1 Peter 2:13-14). You have dodged thoroughly the fact that Revelation depicts both Christ and God as being actively judgmental to the point of killing thousands, or millions, of people. Your two invalid arguments, no matter how often repeated, do not conceal the vacuousness of your position. Taken as a whole, you will find no difference between the character of God depicted in the Old Testament and that depicted in the New Testament. To reject one would require rejecting both. At this point, it seems to me you are rejecting both.

User avatar
Paidion
Posts: 5452
Joined: Mon Aug 18, 2008 10:22 pm
Location: Back Woods of North-Western Ontario

Re: Proof Text for Eventual Restoration

Post by Paidion » Mon Apr 21, 2014 1:04 pm

Steve wrote:Paul said that the Torah was holy and just and good (Romans 7:12).
I think Paul was speaking of the law of God, and not the Mosaic law (which contained Mosaic additions). The way I see it right now is that God revealed some of His law to Moses for His people to observe, such as the ten commandments, and Moses added many other laws, thinking that they, too, were revealed by God. At the very beginning of Rom 7, Paul, addressing the brothers at Rome, stated that they had died to the law through Christ.
If the character of God was thought to be impugned by the laws inscribed by Moses, then Jesus was very negligent in failing to point this out—especially when He insisted that He had not come to destroy the law, but to fulfill it (Matt.5:17-18).
Interesting! I have noticed that you argue against this legalistic interpretation of these words of Jesus when those very words were used someone who had posted on this forum trying to justify his view that we should keep the law today.

It seems to me that Jesus, in verses 17 and 18 spoke of His fullfillment of the prophecies concerning Himself that were given by Moses and the Prophets. In another place, Jesus said that Moses spoke of Him. In verse 19, I think He is speaking of the true law of God, the law which He Himself gave to His disciples in Matt 5, 6, and 7.
17 “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.
18 For truly, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law until all is accomplished.
19 Therefore whoever relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever does them and teaches them will be called great in the kingdom of heaven.
Once Jesus was specifically asked whether He agreed with Moses' commands to stone adulteresses. His answer seemed to affirm that this was a just penalty, and He invited any qualified party to start the execution (John 8:7). He did not criticize the law or its prescribed penalty. He criticized His audience. The fact that He chose to forgive the woman, rather than stone her was no renunciation of the law any more than was God's choosing to forgive David, rather than giving him his just penalty (2 Sam.12:13)
I don't think He was affirming it as a just penalty at all. If Jesus HAD thought it to be a just penalty, do you think He might have “chosen” instead of forgiving the woman, to have urged them carry out the law of Moses? Do you think He may have said, “The law is clear,” and picked up the first stone Himself and cast it at her? Do you think that would have been in keeping with the character of Jesus?
If memory serves, in our past discussions on this point, you have mentioned Jesus' saying "You have heard that it was said... but I say unto you..." as if Jesus changed the law in some way. However, in all six of the cases wherein Jesus used this formula, He neglected to change any moral principle found in the law (Matt.5:21-48).

I do not say that Jesus changed the law, that is the law of God. Rather I say He gave them the pure law of God. It was Moses who changed it and/or added to it. If the Mosaic law were the law of God in its entirety, then why did Jesus say, “You have heard that it was said to those of old”? Why didn't He say instead, “God said to those of old”?

I do believe the commands not to murder, and not to commit adultery were given to Moses, and that Jesus showed that a person could have a heart for murder by hate, or a heart of adultery by desiring another mans' wife.

I am inclined to think the command which allowed divorce was not given by God, but that Moses worked out a way in which Israelite men could divorce their wives—simply by giving them a certificate of divorce. Jesus gave the true law of God—that divorce was forbidden (with a single exception).

It may very well have been that God told Moses that the Hebrews were not to swear falsely. But Jesus revealed that the Father didn't want people to take oaths at all.

What principle do you think was in the saying to those of old time, “An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth” ? The principle of vengeance? Jesus' words indicated the true heart of God, “"But I tell you not to resist an evil person. But whoever slaps you on your right cheek, turn the other to him also. If anyone wants to sue you and take away your tunic, let him have your cloak also. And whoever compels you to go one mile, go with him two.” This is the EXACT OPPOSITE to what was said to those of old time.

You have pointed out in the past that the saying to those of old time, “You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy” is not found in the Mosaic law. So who said these words to those of old time? I suspect it was Moses himself. He just didn't record it in his writings.
He even said that those who teach against the law are the least in His kingdom (Matt.5:19).
And in the same verse, it is recorded that Jesus also said, “but whoever does them (commandments) and teaches them will be called great in the kingdom of heaven.”

Do you carry out the commandments of the Mosaic law in your own life? Do you teach them? If not, then do you believe that for that reason you are not among those who will be called “great” in the kingdom of heaven?

Rather the commandments of which Jesus was speaking was the true unadulterated commandments of God which Jesus gave (in part) in Matt 5, 6, and 7.
Paidion

Man judges a person by his past deeds, and administers penalties for his wrongdoing. God judges a person by his present character, and disciplines him that he may become righteous.

Avatar shows me at 75 years old. I am now 83.

User avatar
Paidion
Posts: 5452
Joined: Mon Aug 18, 2008 10:22 pm
Location: Back Woods of North-Western Ontario

Re: Proof Text for Eventual Restoration

Post by Paidion » Mon Apr 21, 2014 1:58 pm

Steve, you wrote:It will do no good to repeat arguments that I have already anticipated and debunked. If you want my rebuttal of these arguments, you need only read what is posted above. What you must do is show that Jesus believed that God did not kill people. I have answered your every point. You need either to come up with more valid points, or defend the ones I have critiqued, showing that they are valid after all. In order to make a case, especially with the immense weight of scripture against your position, you need to do more than make one or two observations with which no one would think of disagreeing. You will need to demonstrate that those observations, in some manner, establish your premise. They do not. Until you can honestly, and correctly, explain the thirteen cases I listed on Saturday, Apr. 19, 2014, at 12:58 pm, the mere repetition of undisputed observations remains unconvincing.
I have reread this thread in its entirety, and I cannot see that you have debunked anything.

I don't think it necessary for me to show that Jesus believed that God didn't kill people. I make the argument from silence (a type of argument which you yourself once made in another thread). There is absolutely no indication in the NT that Jesus DID believe that God killed people (though a few passages can be INTERPRETED that way). Since He never behaved in a violent way, and was Another exactly like His Father, there is no reason to believe that violence was either in His heart or in His practice.

You ask me to explain your 13 cases. If I were to do that, I WOULD be repeating my arguments. I repeated this particular argument because you stated that I have given no good reason for believing that i know God better than did Moses, whereas I HAD given two very good reasons.

Also, you ask me why I "dodge" the book of Revelation. That book is mostly a record of a vision which its writer John had, and you are well aware of the many interpretations of the book or parts of the book. It cannot be used to determine points of theology.

Also, I have asked to to explain a few simple facts about Jesus, and I have not yet seen that you have given such an explanation... Well, I guess you did answer #5 in that you have affirmed that it wasn't Jesus' ministry to interfere with civil matters. Perhaps you feel that you have already answered the others. However, if your thesis that God kills people is correct, then there should be SOME indication from Jesus' life that He was of the same mindset.
Given your view, I ask you to explain a few simple facts about Jesus.

1. There is no record of Jesus having killed anyone while He walked this earth, nor even a record of Him having physically struck another human being.
2. Jesus always described His Father as loving. He never quoted a Hebrew Scripture which records that His Father killed anyone.
3. Jesus never asked His disciples to injure or kill anyone, but instructed them to love their enemies and do good to them. In that way, they would be "sons of the Most High, for he is kind to the ungrateful and the evil." With your view, they would be sons of the Most High, if they drew out their swords and cut off the heads of their enemies—kill them just as you believe the Heavenly Father does.
4. If Jesus is the exact imprint of the Father's essence (Heb 1:3), then why are His heart and actions so different from that of the Father with regard to injuring and killing people. (I know you refer to Revelation to try to show that Jesus did it too or will do it in the future—Revelation, the writing of somebody named "John" who had a vision filled with metaphorical language which supposedly represents something in the past, or maybe the future—no one knows which, or what these visions represent. (And why did so many early Christians reject the book?)
5. Why did Jesus ask His disciples to love and do good to their enemies? Why didn't He instruct them to go out and get revenge on them, and kill them as God supposedly did according the the OT records?
Paidion

Man judges a person by his past deeds, and administers penalties for his wrongdoing. God judges a person by his present character, and disciplines him that he may become righteous.

Avatar shows me at 75 years old. I am now 83.

User avatar
steve
Posts: 3392
Joined: Thu Aug 21, 2008 9:45 pm

Re: Proof Text for Eventual Restoration

Post by steve » Mon Apr 21, 2014 6:17 pm

Steve wrote:
Paul said that the Torah was holy and just and good (Romans 7:12).
I think Paul was speaking of the law of God, and not the Mosaic law (which contained Mosaic additions). The way I see it right now is that God revealed some of His law to Moses for His people to observe, such as the ten commandments, and Moses added many other laws, thinking that they, too, were revealed by God.


Which passage in the New Testament indicates this? As I said, this would be a very important correction for Jesus to make of the Jews’ false beliefs in the Old Testament. Why did no one in the New Testament correct it?
At the very beginning of Rom 7, Paul, addressing the brothers at Rome, stated that they had died to the law through Christ.
Yes. This is true, but it is irrelevant to the question under discussion, which is not “Must we, post-Pentecost, keep the Laws given by God to Israel?” but, “Was the Law of Moses given by God or not?”
Interesting! I have noticed that you argue against this legalistic interpretation of these words of Jesus when those very words were used someone who had posted on this forum trying to justify his view that we should keep the law today.
Same as my point above. Of course I have used Matthew 5:17-18 this way. It is a valid understanding of Christ’s words. However, that is not the question under discussion here, and my reason for citing this verse is related to our discussion. In saying that this verse does not place us under the Law, I am not saying, “Therefore ignore the verse!” Regardless of the Law’s relevance to the present covenant, Jesus affirms that He did not come as an opponent but as the anticipated fulfillment of the Law. To say that “the Law” means anything other than the Torah (the body of Mosaic legislation) is to be disingenuous, since Jesus’ hearers would clearly have no other way of understanding that term.
I don't think He [in John 8:7] was affirming it as a just penalty at all. If Jesus HAD thought it to be a just penalty, do you think He might have “chosen” instead of forgiving the woman, to have urged them carry out the law of Moses? Do you think He may have said, “The law is clear,” and picked up the first stone Himself and cast it at her? Do you think that would have been in keeping with the character of Jesus?
“The Son of Man did not come to destroy men’s lives but to save them” (Luke 9:56). Jesus had a mission, and some things were consistent with that mission, while others were not. Killing people—at that moment, just like through most of history—was not God’s mission. But the flood, and certain other times in history were times when judging sinners was, in fact, God’s mission. Jesus was going about His Father’s business. In the visions of Revelation, Christ is certainly dispatched by His Father on a more bloody mission.
I do not say that Jesus changed the law, that is the law of God. Rather I say He gave them the pure law of God. It was Moses who changed it and/or added to it.
So you say—though no biblical voice can be found that agrees with you. Where did you get this information?
If the Mosaic law were the law of God in its entirety, then why did Jesus say, “You have heard that it was said to those of old”? Why didn't He say instead, “God said to those of old”? … I do believe the commands not to murder, and not to commit adultery were given to Moses…
While Jesus saying “God said to those of old” would certainly make my point, His saying the same thing differently did not prevent His listeners believing that He was saying that very thing. To His listeners, “Moses said,” was the equivalent of “God said” (compare Matt.15:4 with Mark 7:10).

Ironically, you yourself accept that it was God who said things like “Do not murder” and “Do not commit adultery”—yet Jesus used the same formula in citing these laws (Matt.5:21, 27). Does the absence of your suggested alternative formula, in these cases, suggest that Jesus did not consider these to be God’s commandments?

More ironically still, Jesus said that it was God (not Moses) who said, “He who curses father or mother, let him be put to death” (Matt.15:4). This is one of the laws that you are sure Moses “made up.” Unfortunately for your position, Jesus introduced this law with “God said.”

I'd call that a "Checkmate," Pardner.
It may very well have been that God told Moses that the Hebrews were not to swear falsely. But Jesus revealed that the Father didn't want people to take oaths at all.
Jesus taught that His disciples, as honest men, ought not to rely on oaths to keep them true to their word. This is nothing like saying that God did not forbid false oaths in the law.
What principle do you think was in the saying to those of old time, “An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth” ? The principle of vengeance? Jesus' words indicated the true heart of God, “"But I tell you not to resist an evil person. But whoever slaps you on your right cheek, turn the other to him also. If anyone wants to sue you and take away your tunic, let him have your cloak also. And whoever compels you to go one mile, go with him two.” This is the EXACT OPPOSITE to what was said to those of old time.
No it is not. The idea of turning the other cheek and loving your enemy is found in the law (Ex.23:4-5), in the prophets (2 Kings 6:21-23), and in the Writings (Prov.25:21). The law “an eye for an eye,” was never given to individuals as a rule of neighborly conduct. It was the guide for the magistrates in the courts, who were obliged to assign proper penalties for criminals. Far from being an expression of vengeance, it was intended as a deterrent to unbridled vengeance, and a safeguard on exact justice.

Jesus never went to any magistrates and told them there is a new code for criminal penalties (which alternatives, based upon Christ’s teaching, would you suggest to the courts?). He told His disciples that, although the law permitted them to seek just retribution for crimes done against them, they need not avail themselves of that right, but should settle out of court more peaceably (cf. Matt.5:25; 1 Cor.6:1-7).
You have pointed out in the past that the saying to those of old time, “You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy” is not found in the Mosaic law. So who said these words to those of old time? I suspect it was Moses himself. He just didn't record it in his writings.
If Moses didn’t record it, how did it come to be known in Jesus day?
Do you carry out the commandments of the Mosaic law in your own life? Do you teach them? If not, then do you believe that for that reason you are not among those who will be called “great” in the kingdom of heaven?
The ceremonial laws that Christ fulfilled do not need to be followed anymore. The civil laws, the ones to which you object, are not relevant in a non-Israelite nation. As for the moral laws, yes, “the righteous requirement of the law [is] fulfilled in us who do not walk according to the flesh, but according to the Spirit” (Rom.8:4). Don’t you?
I don't think it necessary for me to show that Jesus believed that God didn't kill people. I make the argument from silence.
You do need to do so, since Jesus, in endorsing the flood story and destruction of Sodom, gave His hearers the distinct impression that He did believe what the Bible declared about God killing people on these occasions. As near as anyone can tell, Jesus believed the Bible to be the Word of God..
There is absolutely no indication in the NT that Jesus DID believe that God killed people (though a few passages can be INTERPRETED that way).
Yeah, some can be. Jesus never did clarify who it was that really sent all that water and fire and brimstone. You have dodged my question of who you think did that.

Why do you not think that Jesus’ statement that God ordered the death of children who cursed their parents (Matt.15:4) give some “indication” of what He believed about this? Are you making up your own Jesus from just the selection of verses and statements of His that suit your sentiments?
Since He never behaved in a violent way, and was Another exactly like His Father, there is no reason to believe that violence was either in His heart or in His practice. You ask me to explain your 13 cases. If I were to do that, I WOULD be repeating my arguments.
God did not act in a violent way most of the time either. We have record of three years of Jesus’ life. If there was no occasion for Him to act in judgment during those three years, what does that tell us? The Old Testament covers hundreds of years running during which God brought no judgment (other than normal death) on people. However, it also record many instances where he did—and no, you have not even begun to answer my thirteen points. If you think you have, please point out the place where you did so.
Also, you ask me why I "dodge" the book of Revelation. That book is mostly a record of a vision which its writer John had, and you are well aware of the many interpretations of the book or parts of the book. It cannot be used to determine points of theology.
There are many views of Revelation—but not one that fails to see God and the Lamb judging (i.e., killing) the rebels in it. Why don’t you share your view of Revelation with us?
Also, I have asked you to explain a few simple facts about Jesus, and I have not yet seen that you have given such an explanation... Well, I guess you did answer #5 in that you have affirmed that it wasn't Jesus' ministry to interfere with civil matters. Perhaps you feel that you have already answered the others. However, if your thesis that God kills people is correct, then there should be SOME indication from Jesus' life that He was of the same mindset.
Jesus was very much of the same mindset as the God of the Old Testament—“Merciful and gracious, Slow to wrath and plenteous in mercy” (Ps.103:8). This is why God gave the Antediluvians 120 years, and Canaanites 400 years, to repent before annihilating them. Jesus gave Israel only 40 years (Matt.23:36). If there is any difference between Him and His Father seen in this respect, it would seem to be that His Father, in the Old Testament, was ten times more patient with sinners.
Given your view, I ask you to explain a few simple facts about Jesus.

1. There is no record of Jesus having killed anyone while He walked this earth, nor even a record of Him having physically struck another human being.
Answered above.
2. Jesus always described His Father as loving. He never quoted a Hebrew Scripture which records that His Father killed anyone.
Except for His references to the flood and to Sodom. Are you forgetting who sent those calamities, according to the scriptures Jesus was referring to?
3. Jesus never asked His disciples to injure or kill anyone, but instructed them to love their enemies and do good to them. In that way, they would be "sons of the Most High, for he is kind to the ungrateful and the evil." With your view, they would be sons of the Most High, if they drew out their swords and cut off the heads of their enemies—kill them just as you believe the Heavenly Father does.
Disciples show themselves sons of the Most High by obeying their Father and their Lord. Jesus forbids us to avenge ourselves. Interestingly, this is not because taking vengeance is unlike God, but because it is God’s prerogative, not ours. Both the Old and the New Testament tell us that God will take vengeance on our enemies (Deut.32:35; Rom.12:19), and Paul uses this fact as the reason we should not avenge ourselves. He also teaches that the state (hence, Israel's civil laws) is God's agent "an avenger to execute wrath on him who practices evil" (Rom.13:4).
4. If Jesus is the exact imprint of the Father's essence (Heb 1:3), then why are His heart and actions so different from that of the Father with regard to injuring and killing people. (I know you refer to Revelation to try to show that Jesus did it too or will do it in the future—Revelation, the writing of somebody named "John" who had a vision filled with metaphorical language which supposedly represents something in the past, or maybe the future—no one knows which, or what these visions represent. (And why did so many early Christians reject the book?)
So that is the only way you can dodge Revelation—by denying its canonicity? Fair enough. The rest of #4 is no different from your last paragraph prior to #1 (answered above).
5. Why did Jesus ask His disciples to love and do good to their enemies? Why didn't He instruct them to go out and get revenge on them, and kill them as God supposedly did according the the OT records?
This is directly answered above.

I must say, in most biblical debates with other Christians, I am accustomed to disagreeing with my correspondent on the meaning or interpretation of biblical statements. With you, it is different, because you and I seem to agree about the plain meanings of the relevant passages about judgment. It is not possible to disagree on their meaning, and you don't dispute them. You, on the other hand, are the only Christian correspondent with whom our whole argument is over whether or not the scriptures are actually true! I have never previously debated a Christian who believed the scriptures must take a back seat to his feelings.

Now, I took all of your challenges point-by-point. Please attend to mine.

Post Reply

Return to “Views of Hell”