Why did Jesus stop reading?

[Homer]

The idea being implied regarding progressive revelation is entirely false.

Like you, I also believe in progressive revelation. But doesn't that imply that the earlier understanding could be in error?

Progressive revelation does not mean that further revelation shows that what was formerly revealed is false. That is absurd; look up the definition of "progressive revelation". Progressive revelation builds on and clarifies what has previously been revealed. We read in the scriptures that things in the OT are shadows of things to come. A shadow is a dim outline of a real thing. Progressive revelation provides a clearer picture than a shadow; it doesn't falsify what was revealed by the shadow.

It would be well to consider Paul's application to us of what God did to those wandering in the desert. Paul doesn't think Moses got it wrong:

1 Corinthians 10 (NASB)

10. For I do not want you to be unaware, brethren, that our fathers were all under the cloud and all passed through the sea; 2. and all were baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea; 3. and all ate the same spiritual food; 4. and all drank the same spiritual drink, for they were drinking from a spiritual rock which followed them; and the rock was Christ. 5. Nevertheless, with most of them God was not well-pleased; for they were laid low in the wilderness.
6. Now these things happened as examples for us, so that we would not crave evil things as they also craved. 7. Do not be idolaters, as some of them were; as it is written, “The people sat down to eat and drink, and stood up to play.” 8. Nor let us act immorally, as some of them did, and twenty-three thousand fell in one day. 9. Nor let us try the Lord, as some of them did, and were destroyed by the serpents. 10. Nor grumble, as some of them did, and were destroyed by the destroyer. 11. Now these things happened to them as an example, and they were written for our instruction, upon whom the ends of the ages have come. 12. Therefore let him who thinks he stands take heed that he does not fall. 13. No temptation has overtaken you but such as is common to man; and God is faithful, who will not allow you to be tempted beyond what you are able, but with the temptation will provide the way of escape also, so that you will be able to endure it.

Are we to think that those things that happened as an example to us just happened by chance, that God's had was not in it?

[Timeos]

I have previously shown that the apostles also believed that God strikes people dead (e.g., Herod in Acts 12, and the Book of Revelation—to mention only a few). Paidon has previous said that these writers were mistaken—meaning that those who kept company with Jesus and with His apostles knew less of the character of Christ (and what is, or is not consistent with Him) than Paidion himself knows. If this is, in any sense, an "honest" treatment of the New Testament writings, it is anything but humble.

Is that your humble opinion? Or your not-so-humble pronouncement?

[Paidion]

Well... I guess Steve's right. I'm not very humble when it comes to defending God's loving character. God is the very essence of LOVE (1 John 4:8,16). Every act of God is rooted in LOVE.

I just cannot see how the act of killing people and ordering others to kill people, often in a very painful way, can arise out of LOVE. (Jesus never did it, during his time as a human being). It seems to me, that if such acts do have their source in love, then we must redefine the very word "love" to accommodate such acts. In United States and Canada, any citizen who kills the people that he hates would be arrested as a criminal, and if convicted, be given a life sentence or be executed. I just cannot comprehend the rationalization that God can do things that would be immoral if people did them, simply because He is God.

To say that God's goodness may be different in kind from man's goodness, what is it but saying, with a slight change of phraseology, that God may possibly not be good?

[Paidion]

Are we to think that those things that happened as an example to us just happened by chance, that God's had was not in it?

"God's hand" may have been in it, not directly, but in the sense that doing evil often has "natural" consequences, and God is the author of nature. When we suffer such consequences, we should learn from our experience. We should also learn from others' experience. For example, both my wife's parents smoked. Her mother died early, from lung cancer, and shortly afterward, her father died from emphysema. Since this happens to many smokers, we should learn from these examples, not to smoke.

[john6809]

In United States and Canada, any citizen who kills the people that he hates would be arrested as a criminal, and if convicted, be given a life sentence or be executed.

What are you saying, Paidion? You seem to be giving approval for the state to arrest or execute murderers but saying God doesn't have that same right. In approximately 4000 years of old testament history, how often did God kill or command killing, in comparison to executing judgement that was non-lethal? Of course, this question assumes that you believe Moses always wrote God's thoughts, so you'll have to answer as though you do.

I'm anticipating that you will argue that God's discipline is always remedial. That would be a fair argument except that it doesn't deal with the issue of justice for the ones who were wronged. When a murderer is imprisoned, three things are accomplished. Society at large is kept safe. The offender is (hopefully) reformed. And last but not least, the offended party has justice.

[Paidion]

What are you saying, Paidion? You seem to be giving approval for the state to arrest or execute murderers but saying God doesn't have that same right.

No, that is not my point. My point is that killing other people out of anger or hate is wrong, whether the killing is done by man or by a deity.

As for "justice", there are two basic kinds: retributive justice and restorative justice. Man's justice if the former, and God's is the latter. Please see my signature statement.

Yes God, according to the writers of the Old Testament, is depicted as executing retributive justice. Jesus didn't depict God that way. And Jesus Himself never executed retributive justice. Instead He showed mercy to the woman caught in adultery, where as the law of Moses, with its retributive justice required that such a person be stoned.

In the legal system of both the U.S.A. and Canada, there is a move toward restorative justice, where the criminal faces his victim (or his victim's family if he had killed his victim) and demonstrates repentance by offering restitution. This procedure offers the possibility of healing both to the offender and his victim (or family).

[john6809]

I find that when a society is actively moving away from God, their ideas regarding right and wrong, just and unjust, are not often in agreement with the thoughts of God. What our nations are moving towards may not be as good as it looks on the outside.

This thread is moving away from its original direction. Questions are not being answered. Answers are being given in the form of questions. And out of respect for your time, I will bow out of this thread again. There are others here, particularly Homer and Steve, who write much more proficiently than I, but think in much the same way. I'll let you communicate with them.

Thanks for your respectful engagement.

[Paidion]

Okay, John. I just want to say this. The move toward restorative justice is not about a different idea regarding right and wrong. Proponents of both views of justice equally regard crimes as wrong. The difference between restorative justice and retributive or punitive justice is the way in which crime is dealt with. When restorative justice is applied, both the criminal and the victim are helped. The criminal becomes more aware of the degree of hurt he/she has caused, and the victim's loathing of the criminal becomes mitigated when he/she becomes aware of the criminal's remorse and even repentance concerning his/her crime. Also the criminal's offer of restitution is an indicator of his/her sincerity. Sometimes, when the victim sees that the criminal has truly repented, there is even forgiveness.

With punitive justice, the criminal is simply punished. Once the sentence is given, the victim is ignored. Punishment alone rarely deters a criminal from repeating his crime. That is why, under punitive justice, the majority of criminals are in and out of jail, multiple times.

Howard Zehr, a Mennonite and son of a Mennonite pastor is considered to be a pioneer in the field of restorative justice. His book is available at Amazon, and if you go to this link, you can read parts of the book. I have purchased and read the book; I highly recommend it:

http://www.amazon.com/Changing-Lenses-F ... 0836135121

[Homer]

Hi Paidion,

You wrote:

"God's hand" may have been in it, not directly, but in the sense that doing evil often has "natural" consequences, and God is the author of nature. When we suffer such consequences, we should learn from our experience. We should also learn from others' experience. For example, both my wife's parents smoked. Her mother died early, from lung cancer, and shortly afterward, her father died from emphysema. Since this happens to many smokers, we should learn from these examples, not to smoke.

Not sure the point you are making is applicable to what Paul wrote of the fate of Israel in the desert, Numbers 21 & 25, etc. Your argument seems to be that although God was angry at their unfaithfulness, he did nothing, knowing that those crafty disease organisms and serpents would see His anger and attack and kill the Israelites by the thousands.

[john6809]

Thank you Paidion, but again, off-topic. The question centers on whether or not Jesus agreed that the words of Moses and the prophets were equivalent to the words of God. No conversation regarding the attributes of love, justice (restorative or retributive) nor, indeed, any other argument can be had if that question is not settled. Without this, each one simply selects their own method of interpreting the words of Jesus, and forms their opinion about which portions of scripture to ignore. Even with the acceptance of all that is widely held to be scripture, there are still questions of interpretation. How much more difficult this is when a person can say, "Oh I think that statement was merely the writer's own opinion."