Why did Jesus stop reading?

[steve7150]

"Today is the first day of the rest of your life." Having said that, nothing has been said, really. But Murray's statement is much worse than cute and vacuous; it is misleading. Murray clearly means that Scripture does a poor job of defining God's character. Heaven forbid that we "allow" the Scripture to define God's character! What kind of twisted reasoning is that? There is no conflict between God and His Word. God's Word perfectly defines God. Murray apparently thinks he can do a better job. The conflict is between Murray's word and God's.






Merry Christmas to everyone! Actually "today is the first day of the rest of your life" IMHO is good advice and biblical in that it means , make a clean break and ask God for forgiveness, learn from your mistakes, and end the pity party and move forward from this point on.

When Murray gives his opinion he is also using scripture, and the scripture he references are the words of Jesus describing God's character. Also many people interpret scripture differently, like how many views do we have on tithing,baptism,salvation,the trinity,Satan,eschatology,faith,Israel etc, etc.

[steve]

The answer given previously , in this thread, by those who reject the reliability off the scriptures is that it is Jesus who defines and reveals the character of God. Of course, what the affirmer means is "It is my personal view and interpretation of Jesus—which happens to disagree with all historical views of Jesus held by the Christian community through twenty centuries." The dissenter is taking a view of Jesus, not based upon the plainest testimonies Gospel histories, and certainly not based on the views of the apostles who lived with Him, but upon the speaker's own sentiments. Their Jesus is a novelty of their own making.

This has been pointed out previously, numerous times here, but the nonsense continues to flow on this and other threads. The simple facts, which have been abundantly documented earlier are:

1) Moses, the Psalmists and the prophets affirmed unashamedly that the God who is astonishingly merciful and and slow to wrath is also (like the best of all merciful judges) capable of carrying out the sentence of death on deserving rebels who will not repent—and has done so many times! "O fools and slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken!" (Luke 24:25).

2) Jesus plainly affirmed the veracity of stories from the Old Testament in which God is said to have brought such judgments, and Jesus did not let on to anyone that He doubted a word of what the Old Testament said about them (viz., that God brought them), thus allowing His readers to believe that He actually agreed with the Old Testament record about them.

3) Jesus repeatedly, in parable and oracle, declared that He Himself (or His Father through Him) would come in devastating judgment on His enemies—something that would be unthinkable, if even the temporal deaths attributed to His actions in scripture were inconsistent with His benign nature.

4) Those who lived with Jesus, and those who were selected by Him to spread His message and to speak on His behalf, all believed the same things that Jesus, Moses, David and the Prophets believed about God's temporal judgments in history—making frequent reference to them in their teachings and their exhortations. Luke, who knew Paul and the other apostles well enough to have imbibed from them an accurate picture of the nature of Christ and God, was certain that divine judgments came upon certain people, like Ananias and Sapphire (Acts 5), Elymas (Acts 13), and Herod (Acts 12).

5) The Book of Revelation unambiguously attributes the judgments it records as coming directly from "the wrath of Him who sits on the throne, and of the Lamb." This book pronounces a severe curse on anyone who would take away from or diminish the words of that book.

Those who would reshape God and Jesus after their own image say, "But we never see Jesus killing anyone!" Of course not! The Son of Man did not come to destroy men's lives, but to save! The exact same thing could be said about Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Daniel and the minor prophets. Not one of them were sent to kill anybody, but they certainly believed and taught that God was going to do some serious house-cleaning, at the expense of men's lives. "And the slain of the Lord will be many" (Isaiah 66:16). How absurd it is to say that, in the 39 recorded days of Jesus' earthly life, He never killed anybody—and that He therefore did not believe that God would ever do so! Why not say, "Jesus, in His lifetime, never took anybody to heaven—so of course (since Jesus is the image of God Himself) God would never take anyone to heaven either!"

The innovators also say, "Jesus preached love, forgiveness and goodwill to bad people, so severe judgments are contrary to His character." Does this mean that, if a Christian judge believes in sending criminals to jail, that he could not consistently preach "love, forgiveness and goodwill to bad people"? Didn't David believe in forgiving his enemies? Didn't Ezekiel say that God takes no pleasure in the death of the wicked? Isn't, in fact, every doctrine that Jesus ever taught (or exhibited by example) already taught and exhibited by Old Testament saints—who also unambiguously believed that God judges the wicked—even to death? If others can be granted such multi-dimensional personhood, how does one justify denying the same personhood to God and Jesus? They are not one-dimensional caricatures of personality.

The human creator of the New Jesus is the one with the one-dimensional temperament. He (or she) does not, apparently experience the full range of human personality traits, the full-throated championing of justice, or even the humility to acknowledge that his/her own personal (and heretical) opinions about Jesus are much more likely to be mistaken than are those of the inspired prophets, of Jesus Himself, and of those who actually lived with Him and were committed to spreading the knowledge of Him to the world.

Those who take this absurdly over-simplified view of God and Jesus nonetheless show themselves capable of great rhetorical and scholarly sophistication! They need it! It takes great verbosity to explain why such a large portion of the New Testament's teachings should not be taken seriously. The imagination and innovation which they display in trying to convince orthodox believers that every verse contrary to the New Jesus and the New God should be allowed to replace the real ones would be amusing, if it were not so dishonest and harmful. In reading the convoluted arguments presented as a basis for discarding the historical Jesus and His Father, one cannot but be amused at the sophistry and ingenuity employed to the task. Those who actually know God will wince at the liberties taken, and the disrespect shown to the pseudo-intellectual twisting of scriptural passages in the cause of their unbelief.

"I thank you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that you have hidden these things from the wise and prudent, and have revealed them to babes" (Matt.11:25).

The bottom line is this: Among professing Christians, there are those who know Jesus, the very one revealed in the Bible, and there are those who do not like the Jesus presented in scripture, and have, therefore, created a substitute, which they feel they can tolerate. Those who have done the latter certainly must be among those of whom Paul says they receive "another Jesus." Those who know the scriptures know that Paul, if he were here would speak with much greater severity against the innovators than I am speaking now.

[Paidion]

But the only knowledge we have of God's character is from what He has revealed to us through scripture.
Jesus revealed God's character. And through our personal experience, God's character is revealed. I don't mean only our direct experience with the Person of God, the God whose essence is LOVE as the apostle John affirmed in 1 John, but our experience in life.

According to Moses and some of the prophets, God killed people during the days of ancient Israel:

Sometimes for wickedness:
Genesis 38:7 But Er, Judah’s firstborn, was wicked in the sight of the LORD, and the LORD killed him.

Sometimes for minor offences:
2 Samuel 6: 6,7 And when they came to Nachon’s threshing floor, Uzzah put out his hand to the ark of God and took hold of it, for the oxen stumbled. And the anger of the LORD was kindled against Uzzah, and God struck him down there because of his error, and he died there beside the ark of God.

Sometimes for no offences at all:
Exodus 13:15 ‘And it came to pass, when Pharaoh was stubborn about letting us go, that the LORD killed all the firstborn in the land of Egypt, both the firstborn of man and the firstborn of beast.

So why doesn't God kill people today for wickedness? There is a huge amount of wickedness in the world today. Tortures, rapes, killings of innocent people—even children. But God seems to do nothing. God doesn't change does He? And Jesus doesn't change. “Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today and forever." ( Hebrews 13:8).

What evidence is there that God EVER exercises violence or kills people in our day? Or for the last millenium or more for that matter. Did God prevent anyone from killing the second-century Christians or take vengeance on those who did? The same with the Anabaptists in the middle ages.

Many who hold the view that God indeed violently punishes people for their sin in our day by means of sending earthquakes, floods, tsunamis, etc. upon the wicked. But realistically, were those who died in those disasters any worse people that the rest of us who haven't faced such disasters? Jesus clearly indicated that those who suffered violent deaths were no worse than others, the implication being that these deaths were not the result of penalty from God:

There were some present at that very time who told him about the Galileans whose blood Pilate had mingled with their sacrifices. And he answered them, “Do you think that these Galileans were worse sinners than all the other Galileans, because they suffered in this way? No, I tell you; but unless you repent, you will all likewise perish. Or those eighteen on whom the tower in Siloam fell and killed them: do you think that they were worse offenders than all the others who lived in Jerusalem? No, I tell you; but unless you repent, you will all likewise perish.” (Luke 13:1-5)

He seems to say that even if you don't die in these violent ways you will all die anyway, just as those people died. But then he puts in an exception—unless you repent. But don't repentant people die, too? Perhaps not, in the sense that Jesus said, “Whoever lives and believes in me shall never die.” (John 11:26)

Again, I ask, if God killed people in the days of ancient Israel, why doesn't He do so today? Is there any concrete evidence—any at all?—that God kills people in our day? There are billions of people on earth today, many, many times as many as there were in the days of ancient Israel. Surely there should be some evidence that the killer God has struck in our day! Or is He saving all of His wrath for post-mortem vengeance?

If we can't trust God's Word to define God's character, who can we trust?

God's word? What would that be? The Protestant Bible? The Catholic Bible? The Orthodox Bible? The Catholic Bible contains OT books that the Protestant Bible lacks. The Orthodox Bible does too, but differs from the Catholic OT. To me God's word is the words that God or His Son spoke—not necessarily what Moses and some of the prophets said that He spoke.

Who can you trust? You can trust Jesus. And you can trust your experience: your direct experience with the God of love, and your knowledge that there is zero evidence that the God who never changes, has killed anyone for the last millennium or more.

Those who would reshape God and Jesus after their own image say, "But we never see Jesus killing anyone!" Of course not! The Son of Man did not come to destroy men's lives, but to save!

Well—Jesus indicated that He was doing the works of His Father.

If I am not doing the works of my Father, then do not believe me; but if I do them, even though you do not believe me, believe the works, that you may know and understand that the Father is in me and I am in the Father.” (John 10: 37, 38)

So if Jesus was doing the works of His Father, while He was living on the earth as a human being, and part of His Father's works was killing people, then why wouldn't Jesus have been killing people also?

The Son of Man did not come to destroy men's lives, but to save!

Amen to that! And since the Son was the exact image of the Father's essence (Heb 1:3), since He was Another exactly like His Father, and since He was doing the works of the Father here on earth, one would expect Him to have been doing the Father's works of killing wouldn't one? However, the problem evaporates if we recognize that the Father does not kill—that in Him is no darkness at all.

To say on the authority of the Bible that God does a thing no honourable man would do, is to lie against God; to say that it is therefore right, is to lie against the very spirit of God.

— George MacDonald; Unspoken Sermons III, Justice

[Homer]

Paidion,

You wrote:

Sometimes for minor offences:
2 Samuel 6: 6,7 And when they came to Nachon’s threshing floor, Uzzah put out his hand to the ark of God and took hold of it, for the oxen stumbled. And the anger of the LORD was kindled against Uzzah, and God struck him down there because of his error, and he died there beside the ark of God.

Touching the ark was not a minor offense. It was a violation of a positive law, same kind of sin that got Saul into great trouble. I suppose we could class Adam's transgression as a minor one, and that God grossly over reacted. After all, it was just a piece of fruit.

Sometimes for no offences at all:
Exodus 13:15 ‘And it came to pass, when Pharaoh was stubborn about letting us go, that the LORD killed all the firstborn in the land of Egypt, both the firstborn of man and the firstborn of beast.

So why doesn't God kill people today for wickedness?

Your question is a non sequitur. What does killing people today for wickedness have to do with setting Israel free from bondage? But God does kill some people for wickedness through human government, his designated agent - unless Paul was as deluded as Moses.

Again, I ask, if God killed people in the days of ancient Israel, why doesn't He do so today? Is there any concrete evidence—any at all?—that God kills people in our day? There are billions of people on earth today, many, many times as many as there were in the days of ancient Israel. Surely there should be some evidence that the killer God has struck in our day! Or is He saving all of His wrath for post-mortem vengeance?

I do not think we have any prophets today to inform us of this. If we did should we believe him or put him in the category of Moses?

God's word? What would that be? The Protestant Bible? The Catholic Bible? The Orthodox Bible? The Catholic Bible contains OT books that the Protestant Bible lacks. The Orthodox Bible does too, but differs from the Catholic OT. To me God's word is the words that God or His Son spoke—not necessarily what Moses and some of the prophets said that He spoke.

I think any of the bibles mentioned would be miles ahead of human imaginations and speculations, including those of George MacDonald. Why do you keep quoting him as though his ideas prove anything? We know nothing of what Jesus said other than what some people tell us He said. What makes you think they are any more reliable than Moses and the prophets?

Amen to that! And since the Son was the exact image of the Father's essence (Heb 1:3), since He was Another exactly like His Father, and since He was doing the works of the Father here on earth, one would expect Him to have been doing the Father's works of killing wouldn't one? However, the problem evaporates if we recognize that the Father does not kill—that in Him is no darkness at all.

So when the Lord returns in judgement, He will not hurt anyone?

[Paidion]

So when the Lord returns in judgement, He will not hurt anyone?

As Charles Schmitt so wisely said, "All of God's judgments are remedial." Sometimes correction and remediation are hurtful. Even a loving earthly father sometimes "hurts" in order to correct his children. God will administer no more hurt than is absolutely necessary for correction.

[Homer]

Hi Paidion,

You wrote:

God will administer no more hurt than is absolutely necessary for correction.

And your scripture that informs you of this is....or did your imagination come up with it? Universalism, Moses' false statements, etc., etc., all based on the same thought process. God must behave as we think he ought.

[steve]

George MacDonald wrote:
To say on the authority of the Bible that God does a thing no honourable man would do, is to lie against God; to say that it is therefore right, is to lie against the very spirit of God.

As Charles Schmitt so wisely said, "All of God's judgments are remedial."

Paidion,

You are great at quoting non-authorities in an attempt to overrule the biblical authorities, but, as Homer said, why should anyone trust your modern authorities, if all of the biblical authorities disagree with them? To cite Bishop Spong, Richard Dawkins, the Buddha, the Koran, Rabbi Tovia Singer, or Joe Smith, would make as much sense.

We have the testimony of scripture, which presents the true Jesus, and there are a multitude of sub-Christian or anti-Christian "authorities" that contradict scripture, in varying degrees and directions. I have no more reason to believe the heterodox authorities you might wish to cite, when they speak contrary to the truth, than to believe Dan Brown or Muhammed, when they speak contrary to the truth. What's the difference between them, after all? They all deny or modify the scriptures that Jesus sanctioned.

To say that no honorable man would do what God did in scripture is to forget that many honorable judges have sentenced incorrigible criminals to death, and many honorable surgeons have performed radical surgeries removing and killing malignant masses from a patient's body. That God's actions in scripture are compared with these actions places an entirely different slant on the criticism.

You say that Jesus' statement, "The Son of Man did not come to destroy men's lives, but to save them," proves that God does not destroy men's lives—as if Jesus came to do every act that God has ever done or will ever do!

Jesus also did not come to create new planets—nor new reptilian species—but His Father can, and has done such things.

Jesus came for a particular purpose, which did not include doing everything that God has ever done or ever will do. He did nothing contrary to His Father's will, and did only what His Father assigned to Him as His earthly mission. However, Jesus, in HIs lifetime, did not deliver Israel through the Red Sea, nor raise up Cyrus to deliver them from Babylon. Nor did He send a great flood, nor set up a great white throne for judgment. Such things were not a part of Christ's three-year, earthly ministry assignment.

One of your authors said that God would not do what He commands us not to do. This is disingenuous. There are many actions that fall within God's prerogatives, but which He has not permitted us to do. God, for example, receives worship, which we are forbidden to do. The acts of vengeance that He forbids us to perform are not forbidden because they are wrong or unworthy actions, but because He reserves the right to do them Himself: "Beloved, do not avenge yourselves, but rather give place to [God's] wrath; for it is written, 'Vengeance is Mine; I will repay,' says the Lord." To fail to distinguish between man's prerogatives and God's is a very grave error—and appears to be the error that underlies your own theological drift.

Charles Schmidt said all of God's judgments are remedial. You agree with this. It may be true, though there is not a word in Jesus' teachings that affirms this. It is a guess. However, it does mean that you believe God may judge (presumably unpleasantly or painfully—why not mortally?), so long as it is remedial.

Since you believe that there is still hope of repentance after death, what argument could you possibly make to guarantee that God's killing Noah's generation, the people of Sodom, Nadab and Abihu, Onan, Uzzah, Ananias and Sapphira, or Herod, might not, after all, prove to be remedial? Can you rule this out? If not, then there is absolutely no validity or basis for your anti-biblical assertions that God did not do these acts.

"The wise men are ashamed, They are dismayed and taken. Behold, they have rejected the word of the Lord; So what wisdom do they have?" Jeremiah 8:9

[Paidion]

You are great at quoting non-authorities in an attempt to overrule the biblical authorities, but, as Homer said, why should anyone trust your modern authorities, if all of the biblical authorities disagree with them? To cite Bishop Spong, Richard Dawkins, the Buddha, the Koran, Rabbi Tovia Singer, or Joe Smith, would make as much sense.

I don't think that would make any sense at all. All the writers I quoted are fervent Christians. I quoted them not "in an attempt to overrule the biblical authorities" but to show that there are many other Christians besides myself who believe God is entirely good—that in Him is no darkness at all, and that He doesn't kill people. I don't see why you think His killing people might provide remediation.

In any case, I know that George MacDonald was a firm disciple of Christ, who believed that God through Christ delivers us from wrongdoing and makes us good people. He not only believed that, but he demonstrated it in his own exemplary life of service to Christ and his fellow man. He was a Godly man whose words are worth considering.

[Candlepower]

...the Father does not kill

That's an absurd statement. It is the product of a humanistic thinker who sets himself above God and Scripture, who endorses novel doctrine about God's character by discarding or ignoring clearly contradictory Scripture, who points to other fantasizers for validation of his own fantasies, and who thinks that the dirt-bag Karl Marx was just a kindly but misunderstood economist whose theories, unfortunately, have been misapplied. Paidion, your imaginations have gotten the best of you. With every post you make it is becoming clearer that you have run off the rails, and you're not even aware that you're embarrassing yourself.

[Paidion]

That's an absurd statement.

You find it absurd? Absurd to state that God is not a killer—God, whose essence is LOVE, and in whom is no darkness at all? Or is your belief that a totally good, loving, and righteous person can be a killer as remain just as good, loving, and righteous as ever? How about yourself? Can you go ahead and kill people, and still be a good, loving, and righteous member of your community?

It is the product of a humanistic thinker who sets himself above God and Scripture, who endorses novel doctrine about God's character.

That God is LOVE in whom is no darkness at all, is the teaching of the apostles. That is indeed a novel view when compared to some of the statements of Moses which affirm that God kills. Jesus, the very Son of God who is exactly like the Father, indicates that He was doing the works of His Father while on earth (John 10:37,38). So if the Father killed people why didn't Jesus do similar works of killing?