Did God Actually Command OT Brutality

[headinhands]

More to the point how do you believe in an all loving God but have such passages in the bible?

Have your opinions changed over the course of your faith?

[Fyaral]

Where the jeff is the gospel of Q?

[fakenamefornow]

YHWH

What is this?

[JassyRadlett]

^Jassy, the old testament is based on Judaism as I am sure you know. So that is corroborated with the dead sea scrolls, which are incredibly accurately reflected in the modern day bible. SO it sounds like your issue is that of the NT?

IF you can find me a common version (perhaps from one I linked earlier?) that is vastly different from another one, to the point that it says extremely different things, then I'd of course be interested to hear it. But as far as I know no such thing exists

Try the Roman Catholic bible, which contains the deuterocanonical books of the OT as scripture, which were ditched by the Protestants during the Reformation? There are a fair few Catholics.

Or the Eastern Orthodox Bible, which adds more books again, or the Syrian or Ethiopian Orthodox Bibles (different again).

Or of course the fact that the Hebrew Bible canon itself wasn't fixed until around the time of Christ.

[Fyaral]

YHWH or Yahweh is God. Specifically OT God. The Hebrew word for The Name since the name of God is too holy to say. Hebrew has no vowels.

[HeHasRisen]

Fyaral,

But thats not what it says HeHas. Until heaven and earth have disappeared. That hasn't happened yet -looks around-.

"until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished."

In other words, until the end of the world, nothing at all will disappear from the Law UNTIL EVERYTHING IS ACCOMPLISHED. And that is your answer. Everything was accomplished when Jesus died and rose again. Everything.

The earliest Christians were Jews remember and would have mostly followed the Law.

Yes, until everything was accomplished.

Paul opened it up to gentiles which was something Jesus was unlikely to consider.

The reference to Jesus coming for the gentiles was revealed when he was presented to the temple as a child Luke 2:31-33, describing Jesus' life as "a light for revelation to the Gentiles". Jesus helped the Canaanite woman, even though His mission was to the Jews, because of her great faith. He travelled through Gentile regions as well as healing a Roman centurion's servant. He also not only spoke to, but also shared the truth about God to the woman at the well, a Gentile.

St Paul had to drop the Law as very few gentiles would agree to be circumcised.

The gentiles were so keen on becoming Jews that Paul had to beat them back, telling them that they are adding their "works" to the gospel of faith, if they add anything to the message of eternal life through faith alone (without works).

Paul said this in Galatians 2:12 " “We who are Jews by birth and not sinful Gentiles know that a person is not justified by the works of the law, but by faith in Jesus Christ. So we, too, have put our faith in Christ Jesus that we may be justified by faith in Christ and not by the works of the law"

[HeHasRisen]

Fray, Matthew and John were disciples, but Mark was a disciple of Peter (a disciple) and Luke was a companion of Paul who was an eyewitness to Christ's life. You will always dig out some one who will dispute this, but for the most part, it is widely believed. Either way, it is the inspired word of God, so is a moot point really.

With regard to the Apocryphal gospels, they are discounted because they were submitted much later and do not contain any new revelations, so aren't even necessary. They were dated at around AD 150, whereas Revelations, the last book of the bible, was dated between AD 68-96. Revelations carries a warning not to add to the words already written, which is a good idea!

[HeHasRisen]

Jassy, Jews treated the Deuterocanonical books with respect, but never accepted them as true books of the Hebrew Bible. It is well know some people claimed to be prophets or have biblical text after the event, but have fraudulently done so. That's pretty much what Mohammad did with Islam too, some 500 years after. You will always get new people popping up making claims that will deceive some people. The bible warns about this!

[DioneTheDiabolist]

Sorry if I missed your answer OP, but why didn't you put the main point of your OP in the title? Did you mean it to be a bait and switch?

[JassyRadlett]

With regard to the Apocryphal gospels, they are discounted because they were submitted much later and do not contain any new revelations, so aren't even necessary. They were dated at around AD 150, whereas Revelations, the last book of the bible, was dated between AD 68-96. Revelations carries a warning not to add to the words already written, which is a good idea!

But didn't stop Martin Luther et al excising a great deal that had previously been agreed (and many still think) is divinely inspired? Or St Jerome originally excluding the book of Judith but then deciding that it was inspired after all?

I'm not sure what you mean by Apocryphal gospels. The deuterocanonical books of the bible are Old Testament works. Tobit/Tobias, for example, is dated at no later than the 2nd century BCE.

[JassyRadlett]

Jassy, Jews treated the Deuterocanonical books with respect, but never accepted them as true books of the Hebrew Bible. It is well know some people claimed to be prophets or have biblical text after the event, but have fraudulently done so. That's pretty much what Mohammad did with Islam too, some 500 years after. You will always get new people popping up making claims that will deceive some people. The bible warns about this

I'm aware of the history of the deuterocanonicals and of the arguments deployed by the various sides on why they are/aren't inspired.

That doesn't alter the fact that there isn't one agreed Christian bible, or even one accepted by the vast majority.

[HeHasRisen]

Martin Luther et al may have had some good points but that doesn't mean they're right on everything. Best not to follow man but follow God!

I mentioned the Apocryphal in response to something Fyaral asked, so perhaps that's why it makes little sense if you thought it was in relation to what you said.

Why do you need one book when there are plenty of the bible to use? If you use only the agreed Jewish OT (so that means not the RC bible) and only the NT universally accepted, so in other words, the complete bible being 66 books of Genesis through to Revelation, THAT is the inspired word of God. Anything else is in danger of being man-made and fabricated, which we would do well to steer clear of.

Of those 66 books, any type of bible is fine to read because like I said earlier, if taken in context properly, matters not if the odd word is ever so slightly different. The meaning remains the same.

I suppose we could dispute the extra books added to the bible until blue in the face but the fact is, God inspired the 66 books written, so we can all rest assured that we can read those ones with wild abandon, for as long as we like, without coming to any harm.

[JassyRadlett]

Best not to follow man but follow God!

Which version?

That's my point. The word of your god is as interpreted and compiled by men. They have decided what is the word of god, and what is not - and they have not been terribly consistent about it.

You're happy with your version. That's grand, I have no interest in trying to change your belief in your god.

However, that doesn't change the broader historical context, or the inconsistencies or politics that surrounded the composition and agreement of the canonical texts, or make any version of the Christian bible incontrovertible fact based on the fact that it's internally consistent (your original argument). There's a decent amount of evidence that it was compiled with that end in mind.

[Fyaral]

Matthew and John were almost certainly not disciples. They were highly educated second or third generation Christians. Jesus disciples would not have been able to write in Greek.

Luke likely also write AotA which contradicts some of Paul making it unlikely he was a disciple.

Wrt the gentiles of course Luke includes them as he was writing with the inclusion of the gentiles in mind. Matthew was not and this accounts for some differences e.g. in the birth narrative. Matthew is trying to relate to Jews so sends Jesus to Bethlehem and has him visited by the Magi to fulfil OT prophecy. Luke has him born in a stable and visited by shepherds to demonstrate his coming for all including the poor and gentiles.

What the gospels ascribe to Jesus and what actually happened are two very different beasts.

[Fyaral]

I do think the gospels were probably written for the first time by AD 100 although were likely edited and redrafted after that.

[Fyaral]

It is telling that Mark does not even have a birth narrative and John's is more like a philosophical discourse.

[headinhands]

bait and switch

Genuinely wasn't trying to bait and switch. Just went into more detail about the nub of the issue in my first post. Can you explain how it's a bait and switch?

[headinhands]

except the only difference is that some things we normalise and accept are not normal or acceptable to God.

Can you give specific examples of something that has been normalised but that is unacceptable. Also, how do you explain God being okay with slavery but its now something that's becoming less acceptable as humanity develops?

[anotherbusymum14]

The question by the OP here is something like, do you believe in a loving God (despite what is seen in the OT), and how have your opinions changed over the course of your faith? Why then are certain posters just rambling biblical and unbiblical knowledge which is completely irrelevant to the question? Is it an opportunity just to post all ones "knowledge" on history and/or vent arguments against the Christian faith?
It sure sounds like it from certain poster/s (singular).
OP I don't think you will get genuine replies when the feed gets jammed with continuous arguments designed to turn other posters away. Sorry it's gone that way and sorry to the posters who genuinely have something important to say as it makes it really interesting. Unfortunately that's just the way of mumsnet.

[headinhands]

He is my judge, I am not his!

But the way God has set it up, he expects/needs us to judge him to decide he is God. You weren't born a Christian. You've done what Muslims in Afghanistan do, you followed the cultural religion. If you were in Afghanistan you'd be a Muslim.

What I find it difficult to understand is that a Christian will say 'it's not for me to judge God' but you did when you decided to be a Christian. Unless you're suggesting you didn't make a moral evaluation about God? In which case it has nothing to do with morality on anyone's part and is about obedience overriding morality, which is amoral.

[Fyaral]

Not sure how knowledge of the Bibles historical context is irrelevent. The question is whether faith in God could be damaged by some of the OT stories. Offering context for the views of the writers of those stories is therefore helpful to the discussion.

If you believe the Bible is the inspired word of God then you will be seeing Gods words through the culteral lens of the person with the pen in hand. Therefore stories of mass slaughter in a time when ritual purity was paramount become more understandable.

I'm offering the viewpoint of someone who sees the Bible as a historical document and HeHasRisen is doing an excellent job of showing another view. The discussion has bern polite and respectful (mostly). Not sure what the beef is.

[HeHasRisen]

Can you give specific examples of something that has been normalised but that is unacceptable.

I think probably one would be the fact that divorce is more prevalent than in bible times. It's too easy to fall out of love and move on, rather than stay and work it out. Of course I do not count DV in this, I am speaking merely of that romantic, tingly feet, giddy happiness of new love, and the boredom and discontent that often comes with everyday life in a long term relationship. I am guilty of it myself as a divorcee, so I speak with understanding on the subject, rather than self-righteousness. With hindsight, could I have stayed and worked it out? probably. Now I am remarried to another imperfect human it is sometimes tempting to want to move on again. Some days I love him and some days he absolutely drives me mad. But I stay because I am not being abused, just sometimes get discontent or fed up with him, like I did last time. Only this time I have made the decision to stay and work it out. It goes in peaks and troughs and isn't perfection, but it's a marriage and without a really good reason to leave, I intend to stay this time.

While I'm on the subject, sexual immorality (adultery, homosexuality, fornication) in the bible is an unpopular topic more than ever before because these sins are much more acceptable in today's modern world. Again, I am guilty of committing these sins and so don't sit in self righteous condemnation. However, I cannot deny that they remain unacceptable to God, who created sexuality in the first place, and in some ways I can see why this could be so. For example, the prevalence of STI's and people using and abusing each other in sexting and one-night-stands is not God's way, and I believe long term is not as much edifying as destructive; mentally, emotionally, spiritually and physically. I think if it were not so easy to jump into bed with someone then people would choose their partners more carefully because they would not be ensnared by the bond of a sexual relationship before actually getting to know the person in the skin first. I suppose you could see this as one way I view things morally differently now I have been exposed to God's view on it.

You asked yesterday how my moral views have changed and I gave it some thought this morning. Apart from my views on sexual morality discussed above, I think it's more evident in the little things in everyday life. For example, when my friend offered me a pirate CD, the old me would have appreciated saving a few bob, but I now see it as theft and politely declined, making a joke about it, and then I ordered the full copy myself, paying the right price for it. You could of course say that many atheists have morals that mean they wouldn't dream of accepting a pirate CD, but your question, headinhands, was to do with how I am now aligning my morals with God's rather than what feels right to me on the day.

[headinhands]

am guilty of committing these sins and so don't sit in self righteous condemnation.

risen said that we have normalised bad things to explain why the OT seems so brutal to us. So you think people deserve to be brutally murdered for divorce or having sex outside marriage? The OT God did, do you agree with that or do you feel it's barbaric.

Any Christian here who feels it is barbaric to put to death an unmarried woman for having sex is in the difficult dilemma of disagreeing with God. I would say being more moral than God.

[HeHasRisen]

Also, how do you explain God being okay with slavery but its now something that's becoming less acceptable as humanity develops?

A few things here. One is that slavery in the OT was different to slavery in the modern world. There was no income support supplied by the government, and no way to house and feed people who could not do this for themselves. As a result, many people opted to be a slave voluntarily so they could have a better life. They were not kidnapped, and received food and shelter in exchange for labour. God did not condone it, but made some rules about it, rules in favour of the slave.

You can't kidnap a person to make them your slave
"He who kidnaps a man, whether he sells him or he is found in his possession, shall surely be put to death." (Exodus 21:16)

You must preserve their life
"If a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod and he dies at his hand, he shall be punished." (Exodus 21:20)

If you injure your slave you must set them free
"If a man strikes the eye of his male or female slave, and destroys it, he shall let him go free on account of his eye. "And if he knocks out a tooth of his male or female slave, he shall let him go free on account of his tooth." (Exodus 21:26-27)

They must have a day of complete rest, every week
"Six days you are to do your work, but on the seventh day you shall cease from labor so that your ox and your donkey may rest, and the son of your female slave, as well as your stranger, may refresh themselves. (Exodus 23:12)

You must not speak evil of a slave
Do not slander a slave to his master, Or he will curse you and you will be found guilty. (Proverbs 30:10)

"You shall not hand over to his master a slave who has escaped from his master to you. (Deuteronomy 23:15)

You must be kind towards your slave
'If a countryman of yours becomes so poor with regard to you that he sells himself to you, you shall not subject him to a slave's service. 'He shall be with you as a hired man, as if he were a sojourner; he shall serve with you until the year of jubilee. 'He shall then go out from you, he and his sons with him, and shall go back to his family, that he may return to the property of his forefathers. 'For they are My servants whom I brought out from the land of Egypt; they are not to be sold in a slave sale. 'You shall not rule over him with severity, but are to revere your God. (Leviticus 25:39-43)

You must provide a way out of slavery, should they choose it
"If you buy a Hebrew slave, he shall serve for six years; but on the seventh he shall go out as a free man without payment." (Exodus 21:2)

Treat your slaves like your family
He who pampers his slave from childhood Will in the end find him to be a son. (Proverbs 29:21)

Always be fair to your slave
Masters, grant to your slaves justice and fairness, knowing that you too have a Master in heaven. (Colossians 4:1)

The thing about the Christian life is that, the more you learn and align yourself with God, the more your old man will be removed and the new man will be put on. So over time, the fruits of the spirit, peace, love, joy, gentleness, meekness, kindness, will be reflected in the person so as to mirror God more. This then impacts on human relationships, such as work colleagues, family, or in this case, slavery.

God makes it clear, Whether slave or free, he views them the same. Completely equal.

There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free man, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus. (Galatians 3:28)

knowing that whatever good thing each one does, this he will receive back from the Lord, whether slave or free. (Ephesians 6:8)

And masters, do the same things to them, and give up threatening, knowing that both their Master and yours is in heaven, and there is no partiality with Him. (Ephesians 6:9)

a renewal in which there is no distinction between Greek and Jew, circumcised and uncircumcised, barbarian, Scythian, slave and freeman, but Christ is all, and in all. (Colossians 3:11)

[HeHasRisen]

risen said that we have normalised bad things to explain why the OT seems so brutal to us

Now, wait a minute! Can you please cut and paste where exactly I said that? I belevie you've twisted something along the way here.