Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Never better---and we just buried my preacher father-in-law, a good man who had a long life.
But my joy is over the truths found in Derek Flood's book, Disarming Scripture.
For all those who glorify the many OT majority position of a vengeful God, there are many excellent points about the views of Jesus followers:
Quote:
We now turn to explore in more detail just how Paul’s reading of Scripture radically changed after his conversion away from religious violence, with a particular focus on how Paul deals with violent passages in the Old Testament that call for killing Gentiles: In Romans 15, for example, Paul quotes several scriptural passages to illustrate how Gentiles “may glorify God for his mercy” because of the gospel (verse 9).
Highly significant is what Paul omits from these passages: "For I tell you that Christ has become a servant of the Jews on behalf of God’s truth, to confirm the promises made to the patriarchs so that the Gentiles may glorify God for his mercy, as it is written: “I destroyed my foes. They cried for help, but there was no one to save them—to the LORD, but he did not answer ... He is the God who avenges me, who puts the Gentiles under me… Therefore I will praise you among the Gentiles; I will sing hymns to your name.” [quoting Psalm 18: 41–49] Again, it says, “Rejoice, O Gentiles, with his people, for he will avenge the blood of his servants; he will take vengeance on his enemies and make atonement for his land and people.” [Deuteronomy 32: 43](verbiage in red is missing from Paul's OT quote)
Paul has removed the references to violence against Gentiles, and re-contextualized these passages to instead declare God’s mercy in Christ for Gentiles. This constitutes a major redefinition of how salvation is conceived: Instead of salvation meaning God “delivering” the ancient Israelites from the hands of their enemies through military victory (as described in Psalm 18, which Paul is quoting from), Paul now understands salvation to mean the restoration of all people in Christ, including those same “enemy” Gentiles.
Paul’s focus in Romans was on the inclusion of Gentiles into the promise of Israel. This is the polar opposite of what his focus had formerly been when he had instead embraced the narrative of violent zeal and purity. Surely Paul had formerly read these passages, which clearly speak of the slaughter of Gentiles, and used them to justify violence in God’s name. So it is no coincidence that he now picks these same passages to declare God’s love and grace towards Gentiles with his radical editing of these texts.
In other words Paul no longer embraced the original intent of the verses he quoted. He could have quoted Isaiah 49:6 which speaks of Israel being "a light to the Gentiles" but instead chose bloody anti-Gentile verses that he could doctor to mean something different.
Last edited by Wardendresden; 09-06-2017 at 07:54 PM..
If this were truly published, ouch.
And if you blasphemy the Holy Spirit, there is nothing I can do.
Bye
How about Jesus doing EXACTLY the same thing as Paul?
Again from Derek Flood's magnificent book, Disarming Scripture:
Quote:
We can get an idea of how provocative Paul’s editing and disarming of Scripture would have seemed to his audience at the time by comparing it to a similar instance where Jesus employed this same method when he read from Isaiah in the synagogue at the inauguration of his ministry, "The Spirit of the Lord is on me, because he has anointed me to preach good news to the poor. He has sent me to proclaim freedom for the prisoners and recovery of sight for the blind, to release the oppressed, to proclaim the year of the Lord’s favor" and the day of vengeance of our God (Lk 4: 18–19)
Jesus stops reading here mid-sentence, omitting the ending which announces “the day of vengeance of our God.” (Isa 61: 2). This would have been something that the people had been looking forward to, hoping for. The awaited time when the Roman oppressors would have finally gotten theirs!
Luke tells us that after cutting this sentence in half, Jesus “rolled up the scroll, gave it back to the attendant and sat down” (v. 20). Then, with everyone’s eyes fixed on him, Jesus announces, “Today this scripture is fulfilled in your hearing” (v. 20–21).
In other words, the part about preaching good news to the poor, sight for the blind, and release of the captives is fulfilled in Jesus, but not the part about God’s vengeance. That part isn’t going to happen. Luke then describes the reaction of the people, which sounds very positive, All spoke well of him and were amazed at the gracious words that came from his lips. “Isn’t this Joseph’s son?” they asked. (Lk 4: 22) Most translations render this as the New International Version (NIV) does above, “All spoke well of him (emartyroun autō) and were amazed (ethaumazon).”
Both of these verbs however are ambiguous in the Greek. Martyreō with the dative can mean both “testify for” or “testify against,” and thaumazō can mean “to wonder” either in the sense of enthusiasm, or of shock. 28 So this verse can equally be translated as, All bore witness against him (emartyroun autō) and were shocked (ethaymazon) at the words of grace coming from his mouth. “Isn’t this Joseph’s son!?” they asked. (Lk 4: 22) A major indicator as to which of these possible readings we should adopt can be found in what happens next: Jesus’ response to their exclamation is to answer with an angry rebuke, declaring “no prophet is accepted in his hometown!” (v. 24). This indicates that their question “Isn’t this Joseph’s son?” was not a compliment, as if to say “Wow, that’s wonderful, Joseph must be so proud!” but rather something more akin to “Can anything good come out of Nazareth?” (Jn 1: 46).
Jesus’ rebuke continues, I assure you that there were many widows in Israel in Elijah’s time, when the sky was shut for three and a half years and there was a severe famine throughout the land. Yet Elijah was not sent to any of them, but to a widow in Zarephath in the region of Sidon. And there were many in Israel with leprosy in the time of Elisha the prophet, yet not one of them was cleansed—only Naaman the Syrian.” (Lk 4: 25–27) Both the widow in Zarephath and Naaman the Syrian in these two examples are Gentiles.
Jesus is stating that while there were many in Israel who were hungry and sick, Gentiles were the recipients of God’s providence and healing here. In other words, in case his audience had not gotten why he left out the part from Isaiah about vengeance towards Gentiles, now with these two passages Jesus spells it out for them. Luke tells us that the people “were furious” and “drove him out of the town … in order to throw him down the cliff” (Lk 4: 28–29). Based on this extreme reaction—one where they want to kill him—it’s hard to believe that they were complimenting him just moments before, and much more likely that the people’s initial reaction was one of shock and condemnation at Jesus’ message of grace without wrath. Everyone likes hearing a message of grace toward ourselves, but we don’t so much like hearing a message of grace for our enemies.
Just as Paul’s religious audience in Romans was longing for wrath, so too was the audience of Jesus here. They believed—like so many still do today—that the way justice is fulfilled is by the destruction of their enemies. Jesus and Paul are both confronting this common religious belief that God’s justice comes about through the violent destruction of the “bad people.” This violent view was at the heart of the common Jewish messianic expectation which hoped for God to come in vengeance, and thus understood the messiah as a warrior king who would vanquish the pagan oppressors and restore Israel to its glory.
As we can see in this passage, the people are thus pleased when they hear that Jesus will work to liberate the people from their oppression. However, when they understand that this will involve showing grace and not vengeance to Gentiles, they become furious with Jesus and try to kill him.
I think pinacled, that your "Holy Spirit" is one of vengeance. And since that doesn't measure up to either Jesus or Paul, I do reject it.
You may wish to ponder why the Son of God, and the first author of any NT work, Paul, both intentionally misquoted Scripture by leaving out the violent and prejudicial parts. Maybe you haven't yet met the God of Love.
Last edited by Wardendresden; 09-06-2017 at 08:34 PM..
Never better---and we just buried my preacher father-in-law, a good man who had a long life.
But my joy is over the truths found in Derek Flood's book, Disarming Scripture.
For all those who glorify the many OT majority position of a vengeful God, there are many excellent points about the views of Jesus followers:
In other words Paul no longer embraced the original intent of the verses he quoted. He could have quoted Isaiah 49:6 which speaks of Israel being "a light to the Gentiles" but instead chose bloody anti-Gentile verses that he could doctor to mean something different.
Which still doesn't mean in time's past, that G-d DIDN'T defeat Israel's foes in exactly the manner prescribed. Paul left them out, because it was TIME for the inclusion of the Gentiles into the covenant, NOT because it never happened. You really should read Daqq's disarming post about the living oracles of G-d instead. There's life in it because it's truth, not manmade fantasies and cherry picking. Peace
Rom 5:9 - Much more then, being now justified by his blood, we shall be SAVED FROM WRATH through him.
WHAT? Paul is talking about G-d having wrath we need/needed to be saved from, AND He did it through justification by His blood?
Rom 5:10 - For if, when we were enemies, we were RECONCILED TO G-D BY THE DEATH OF HIS SON, much more, being reconciled, we shall be saved by his life.
A question that is seldom asked, however, is what would have led a zealous Pharisee like Paul to reject the violent understanding of religion that he had formerly embraced? Further, how did he come to view the Scriptures that he had formerly marshaled to justify violence in God’s name? We can catch a glimpse of this in Paul’s later critique of the law.
The law itself, he says, is not the medium of salvation, but is “powerless” to save (Ro 8: 3). Paul provocatively tells his readers that they are “not under law, but under grace” (Ro 6: 14) and declares that while the Spirit gives life, the “letter kills” (2 Cor 3: 6). It would be hard to overstate how radical and shocking these declarations must have sounded to his fellow Jews.
The question we need to be asking here is: Why does Paul make such scandalous statements about the law? Paul becomes absolutely livid when he finds the Galatians are returning to “the works of the law,” declaring that way was anathema or “damned to hell” (Gal 1: 9), and emphatically states that “if righteousness could be gained through the law, Christ died for nothing!” (Gal 2: 21). What is going on here that has Paul so worked up? What made Paul come to consider his former religious education and Bible training, as well as his status and credentials as a “Hebrew of Hebrews,” all to be “garbage” (Phil 3: 8)? What led him to the conviction that anyone who follows that way was “under a curse” (Gal 3: 10)?
-------
----Paul’s critique of the law is not about opposing so-called “good works” (i.e., acts of love and mercy) as the typical Lutheran interpretation of Paul had said. Rather, like Jesus, Paul saw fulfillment of the law as embodied in compassion, rather than in legal ritualistic observance. In other words, Paul’s problem was not with the law itself, which he understood as having the ultimate goal of leading to love, but with a particular hurtful way of interpreting and applying the law (and thus Scripture) that prioritized rituals and rules over love (cf. Rom 13: 8–10).
-----
Remember, Paul’s conversion to Christ was not one of a “sinner” who finds religion. Paul already had religion, and describes himself in fact as a religious zealot who could boast that his observance of the Torah was “faultless” (Phil 3: 6). So while Luther might say “no one can keep the law,” Paul here declares that he had in fact kept it flawlessly. Yet despite this, Paul came to regard himself as “the worst of all sinners” and “a violent man” (1 Tim 1: 13, 15).
He confesses painfully, “I do not even deserve to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God” (1 Cor 15: 9). Paul’s own self-described sin was one that was committed in the name of religion. It was not a sin that came from a failure to keep the law, but one committed in the practice of carrying it out and defending it by means of violence. Paul’s conversion was one away from religious fanaticism. In other words, Paul did not see himself as rejecting his Jewish faith or Israel’s scriptures, but rather as rejecting his former violent interpretation of them. Paul’s great sin—as he came to understand it—had been participation in what he understood as religiously justified acts of violence, motivated by religious zeal.
Paul’s sin was the sin of religious violence, and this is the reason Paul was so adamantly opposed to forms of religion, as well as interpretations of Scripture, that he recognized as promoting this violence in God’s name. This is the motivation at the heart of Paul’s critique of the law.
Paul was adamantly opposed to forms of religion??? LOL, what book are you reading from? Better read Acts again. He was busy taking vows and going to one of the 3 main feasts of Judaism after being ritually cleansed, to offer up sacrifices and offerings. Then later, he's telling the Pharisees that he still worships and believes (means to hear and obey) all things written in the law and the prophets. Then later, the disciples he assisted, are busy taking from the LAW, which things were going to be applicable for the gentiles (meats offered to idols, avoiding blood, ect.) who were GRAFTED IN, under the direction of the HG. And on and on and on.....Peace
Luke 9:28-36
About eight days after Jesus said this, he took Peter, John and James with him and went up onto a mountain to pray. As he was praying, the appearance of his face changed, and his clothes became as bright as a flash of lightning. Two men, Moses and Elijah, appeared in glorious splendor, talking with Jesus. They spoke about his departure, which he was about to bring to fulfillment at Jerusalem. Peter and his companions were very sleepy, but when they became fully awake, they saw his glory and the two men standing with him. As the men were leaving Jesus, Peter said to him, "Master, it is good for us to be here. Let us put up three shelters—one for you, one for Moses and one for Elijah."
While he was speaking, a cloud appeared and covered them, and they were afraid as they entered the cloud.
A voice came from the cloud, saying, "This is my Son, whom I have chosen, listen to him."
What is also noteworthy is: When the voice had spoken, they found that Jesus wa s alone.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rbbi1
What's noteworthy is, the disciples recognized the Feast of Tabernacles and you don't. Peace
The statement "listen to him", identifies him as the messenger; and mouth piece of God.
If you believe I do not understand things, great. I was delivered from Egypt a long time ago.
Paul was adamantly opposed to forms of religion??? LOL, what book are you reading from? Better read Acts again. He was busy taking vows and going to one of the 3 main feasts of Judaism after being ritually cleansed, to offer up sacrifices and offerings. Then later, he's telling the Pharisees that he still worships and believes (means to hear and obey) all things written in the law and the prophets. Then later, the disciples he assisted, are busy taking from the LAW, which things were going to be applicable for the gentiles (meats offered to idols, avoiding blood, ect.) who were GRAFTED IN, under the direction of the HG. And on and on and on.....Peace
That was
"Obey and hear."...
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
