The Phrase 'Word of God' and its usage in the New Testament. (zealous, prayers)
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.
Not speaking for Mystic, but there is NO way that an image of bashing babis heads against stone is "spiritual" or fosters what Jesus taught. The barbarity comes in with the attitude of violence.
I am amenable to trying to find the spiritual import of the words "written in ink" in the Bible, but I agree with nate about this. There is no conceivable spiritual import of orders to bash babies' heads on rocks or gut pregnant women with swords, etc.!
I am amenable to trying to find the spiritual import of the words "written in ink" in the Bible, but I agree with nate about this. There is no conceivable spiritual import of orders to bash babies' heads on rocks or gut pregnant women with swords, etc.!
As I proved in an earlier post, the Israelites were simply following the culture/traditions of pagan nations by "putting to the 'ban'" (ban = death) their enemies. That's what the Moabite king, Mesha, did with the Israelites in Nebo. And Mesha gave his god, Kemosh, the credit for the victory. Hebrew and Moabite languages are very similar and "ban" (cherem in Hebrew) means the same in both. And both Hebrew leaders and pagan leaders believed their 'gods' demanded the death of every man, woman, and child--uh--except unmarried women who could be enslaved as sex partners. Taking lands and defeating enemies with the blessing of the gods was as common in the ancient world as Dunkin' Donuts is in New England. Apparently Israel's "god" had the same hangups as the other gods, just with another name.
If we were reading these same biblical stories in any other religious text we'd call it genocide, ethnic cleansing, etc. Calling for the extermination of a group of people (defined by their culture and religion) to grab land and stuff, and justifying it by saying God told you to do it because those people are impure, dirty, and worthy of death has been prominent in the last one hundred years. Some of the best known ideologically driven genocides include Armenia, Cambodia, Rwanda, and Darfur, not to mention the Holocaust. The estimates of dead range from 10 million to 27 million.
Most know this sort of thing is wrong--even if it's in the Bible. But fundamentalists are at heart a violence loving group and like justification for their own thoughts about destroying their enemies.
And archaeology has PROVEN that all the cities claimed to be destroyed in the OT ---were not. Neither did Jericho have any great massive wall encircling it. Neither were many people living there according to the work of 100 years of archaeological digging there.
The takeover of Palestinian lands was relatively peaceful. But since the stories of Numbers, Joshua, and Judges were written centuries after the events, it is far more likely that the writers were speaking about the self-same "enemies" of their time who had haunted them in past generations.
The twelve towns mentioned in the Bible that were taken without a fight? Only seven were even occupied at that time--and of those twelve archaeological evidence shows three actually do show signs of destruction. Basically, archaeology and the biblical stories of conquest don't line up. The stories of massive battles grew from skirmishes into exaggerated wars against the Canaanites of old.
The ancient Israelites were an ancient tribal people like the ones living around them. But fundamentalists believe the ancient Israelites were simply an ancient version of themselves, perhaps not as well groomed, but nice, reading their Bibles daily, the kind you would invite to church, who you would want your daughter to marry and who would vote (R).
The question is, if we believe in the person and message of Jesus why would we see God as a majorly hacked off tribal deity? Instead fundamentalistd give the Richard Dawkins' of the world great arguments about a genocidal god.
These ancient writers had an adequate understanding of God for them in their time--but not for ALL TIME. If we understand that we can respect the ancient voices in a new way and see what they have to say rather than spend time whitewashing genocide.
The GOSPEL has always been the lens through which real Christians read Israel's stories because JESUS, not the Bible has the final word--and HE, not the Bible, is our salvation. The story of God's people has moved on and so should we.
No, they were obeying G-d, as the peoples they went up against were enemies of Israel, and left on their own they would have been destroyed, eradicating the promise to Abraham and to Eve, for that matter, of salvation coming through a descendent. G-d knows the motives of the heart, and their motive was hate of the Seed because they were of their father the devil, and that was going to manifest to murder Israel so He visited their sins upon them, ie. they reaped the motive of their own hearts. He has His own agenda, and as we are told, He is the same, YESTERDAY, today, and tomorrow. He was protecting His Seed, His son, as any man of the house would do, and you ascribe evil to Him, because there is no fear of the Lord in you, no beginning of wisdom. Whatever a man soweth, that shall he also reap. Peace
Speaking of Christ Paul states in Acts 26:22 that he teaches nothing other then those things that the prophets and Moses spoke of. And that he believed all things which were written in the law and the prophets. Acts.24:14
Paul also states in 1 Co. 2:2 that he was determined to know nothing save Jesus Christ and him crucified.
Thus Paul is telling us that the law and the prophets teach us nothing other then Jesus Christ crucified.
The problem people have understanding the law and the prophets is they take those things written in them literally and not in mythos. So if everything in the law and the prophets point to Jesus Christ and him crucified then they are obviously not to be taken literally; they are to be taken as a mythos that points to Jesus Christ. Those who take the law and the prophets literally have yet to have the vail that remaineth over the old testament taken away in Christ. 2Co. 3:14-16
Luke 24:27 states
And beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he expounded unto them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself.
And in Matthew 22:36-40 we are told concerning the law that all the law and the prophets hang on the two commandments love God and each other.
So as all the law and the prophets hang on those two commandments is it not obvious that that which is written in the law and the prophets should not be taken literally? Because if they are taken literally they do not point to Jesus Christ and do not and cannot be equated with what Jesus said they were equated with ie. the two great commandments love God and each other.
So let me ask all of you a few questions.
Is the garden story literal or a mythos pointing to Jesus Christ?
Is the flood story literal or a mythos pointing to Jesus Christ?
Did not Paul show us that these things are written in mythos when he said that which was spoken concerning Sarah and Hagar that it was an allegory of the two covenants?
Thus if people keep reading the law and the prophets literally they simply are not understanding that which is written and still have need of the vail to be taken away in Christ.
And archaeology has PROVEN that all the cities claimed to be destroyed in the OT ---were not. Neither did Jericho have any great massive wall encircling it. Neither were many people living there according to the work of 100 years of archaeological digging there.
Which helps to support my view that the OT is written in mythos.
Pneuma. I absolutely agree with your premise but there are some elements of the Old Testament that are simply barbaric and NOT conducive to ANY spiritual xplanation. You can not separate the actual words and image from ANY interpretation. Methodology of commentary on Torah.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD
I am amenable to trying to find the spiritual import of the words "written in ink" in the Bible, but I agree with nate about this. There is no conceivable spiritual import of orders to bash babies' heads on rocks or gut pregnant women with swords, etc.!
I get where you guys are coming from, but cannot help what I see, and I think you are missing much by your literal understanding of the OT. As I already showed Paul said the story of Sarah and Hagar was an allegory of the two covenants (and that allegory has elements that look terrible if taken literally) and if that is to be taken in mythos why not the rest? Just because you cannot see a spiritual application does not mean it is not there.
But again guys it is just the way I see thing, you have to follow what you see. And as long as it points to a Loving God for all humankind we will always have much in common.
Speaking of Christ Paul states in Acts 26:22 that he teaches nothing other then those things that the prophets and Moses spoke of. And that he believed all things which were written in the law and the prophets. Acts.24:14
Paul also states in 1 Co. 2:2 that he was determined to know nothing save Jesus Christ and him crucified.
Thus Paul is telling us that the law and the prophets teach us nothing other then Jesus Christ crucified.
The problem people have understanding the law and the prophets is they take those things written in them literally and not in mythos. So if everything in the law and the prophets point to Jesus Christ and him crucified then they are obviously not to be taken literally; they are to be taken as a mythos that points to Jesus Christ. Those who take the law and the prophets literally have yet to have the vail that remaineth over the old testament taken away in Christ. 2Co. 3:14-16
Luke 24:27 states
And beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he expounded unto them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself.
And in Matthew 22:36-40 we are told concerning the law that all the law and the prophets hang on the two commandments love God and each other.
So as all the law and the prophets hang on those two commandments is it not obvious that that which is written in the law and the prophets should not be taken literally? Because if they are taken literally they do not point to Jesus Christ and do not and cannot be equated with what Jesus said they were equated with ie. the two great commandments love God and each other.
So let me ask all of you a few questions.
Is the garden story literal or a mythos pointing to Jesus Christ?
Is the flood story literal or a mythos pointing to Jesus Christ?
Did not Paul show us that these things are written in mythos when he said that which was spoken concerning Sarah and Hagar that it was an allegory of the two covenants?
Thus if people keep reading the law and the prophets literally they simply are not understanding that which is written and still have need of the vail to be taken away in Christ.
No, it's both literal and spiritual. The veil that is taken away is the same as being circumcised, the same as being a male Jew, as opposed to being a female gentile who doesn't get circumcised. obviously. The veil of fleshly understanding of the word, gets removed so we can perceive that it is ALL spiritual. So conversely, for it to BE all spiritual, it must first BE all literal, ie. there MUST BE FLESH TO REMOVE. All those people LITERALLY walked all that out for our example, the heirs of salvation; we are told that.
Which is why He said His words are life = seed = spiritual, and He was not just talking about what He had said standing there in shoe leather, but also what He had spoken through the Holy Ghost through the people of old. It tells you that right in there, that it was the Holy Ghost that was speaking.
Do you not understand that the Holy Ghost IS the One with the veil of flesh removed that plants the seed? This is why the men on the road to Emmaus's hearts burned within them. The Holy Ghost comes as fire; this is how He destroys the "world" again, the world of iniquity in our "world", our flesh.
We're both gentile and Jew, if so be it we have had our heart's circumcised, in other words. That's why He said there was neither, because there is BOTH. Same reason He said there was neither MALE NOR FEMALE, because there is (now) BOTH (in Christ Jesus, with the veil removed, heart circumcised). See? Peace
No, it's both literal and spiritual. The veil that is taken away is the same as being circumcised, the same as being a male Jew, as opposed to being a female gentile who doesn't get circumcised. obviously. The veil of fleshly understanding of the word, gets removed so we can perceive that it is ALL spiritual. So conversely, for it to BE all spiritual, it must first BE all literal, ie. there MUST BE FLESH TO REMOVE. All those people LITERALLY walked all that out for our example, the heirs of salvation; we are told that.
Which is why He said His words are life = seed = spiritual, and He was not just talking about what He had said standing there in shoe leather, but also what He had spoken through the Holy Ghost through the people of old. It tells you that right in there, that it was the Holy Ghost that was speaking.
Do you not understand that the Holy Ghost IS the One with the veil of flesh removed that plants the seed? This is why the men on the road to Emmaus's hearts burned within them. The Holy Ghost comes as fire; this is how He destroys the "world" again, the world of iniquity in our "world", our flesh.
We're both gentile and Jew, if so be it we have had our heart's circumcised, in other words. That's why He said there was neither, because there is BOTH. Same reason He said there was neither MALE NOR FEMALE, because there is (now) BOTH (in Christ Jesus, with the veil removed, heart circumcised). See? Peace
Well we will have to disagree, as I do not believe God goes around telling people to literally kill other people. That is simply an awful view of God.
The belief that God did all those terrible things to Hagar just so we could have an example imo is just ludicrous
Well we will have to disagree, as I do not believe God goes around telling people to literally kill other people. That is simply an awful view of God.
The belief that God did all those terrible things to Hagar just so we could have an example imo is just ludicrous
Amen!!! Too soon, but
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.
The OT is written in mythos
