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.
I see a lot of Christians out there disregarding and dismissing the OT of our Bibles. There are those who say it is the primitive view of the ancients, who viewed God as angry and lavished destruction. Yet in the NT, everything is calm, peaceful, and its all about love. Now bear in mind most of us don't read the Bible like that. So in a way its like a double dose of disregard.
Anyway, people's view of God in the OT is completely wrong. God's most valued trait is love. That is who He is and it is clearly seen from the beginning. When Adam and Eve disobeyed, they weren't crushed and condemned. They were punished and exiled from the Garden, but Yahweh didn't throw them away. When Cain killed Abel, again, Yahweh didn't destroy him on the spot. Cain was imposed a severe punishment, but God also gave him grace in protecting him from others who would seek revenge. I actually wonder if Cain is in Heaven right now?
It wasn't until over a thousand+ years later (those who take a more literal view of Genesis) where man began to ultimately reject God and the world became full of violence (Hebrew word for violence in the Bible = hamas), did God decide to issue a final judgment. That was long after Adam and Eve's sin, loooooong after Cain's sin, and looooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooonnnnnn ng after the sins of the whole world, did God finally throw down His gavel. You don't hear none of this mentioned by those who condemn God as an angry Person killing people left and right. Or from those who condemn the people who wrote OT Scripture as being "primitive".
So the love of God is well established in the OT. Even with the ancient people of Canaan, God didn't judge them immediately. Yahweh told Abraham that his descendants would return and inherit the land of Canaan, but the time was not yet because the iniquity of the Amorites was not yet complete. (Genesis 15:16)
In the Book of Jonah, we see God's care for the people in the city of Nineveh. Now think about that folks! Nineveh and the Assyrian empire were an enemy to the people of Israel. If the authors of the OT were nothing but brutes and primitive minded ancients, why in the world would they have a book dedicated to God looking after and caring for their enemies???????? Jonah ran away from telling the people of Nineveh about God's coming judgement because he himself knew about Yahweh's abundant grace. Here it is in Jonah 4:2, read and weep.......
So he prayed to the LORD, saying, “O LORD, is this not what I said while I was still in my own country? This is why I was so quick to flee toward Tarshish. I knew that You are a gracious and compassionate God, slow to anger, abounding in loving devotion—One who relents from sending disaster.
Jonah indeed knew God's abundant grace. That is why he fled from the presence of Yahweh, because Jonah wanted to see Nineveh fall. I mean, Jonah didn't just flee. This man literally tried to blink himself out of existence to get out of following God's command of telling Nineveh what was coming. We're told he hitched a boat to go to Tarshish. Some believe Tarshish refers to the island of Crete, others believe Tarshish could have been as far away as Spain. In other words, if Jonah could have hitched a ride to the Andromeda Galaxy, he would have done it in order to get out of what God commanded him to do. That is how well he knew God wanted to give grace to the people, even the enemies of Israel. So is this the accused "wrathful" God of the OT, that couldn't wait to slap a fool upside his/her head I keep hearing about?
Finally let me say this, many Christians believe the NT is "nicer/gentler" etc, etc. One of the very first things Jesus states to us when He began preaching the arrival of the kingdom of God, was that He came to fulfill the Law. If we thought the commands of the OT were harsh, Jesus makes it harsher in saying the evil imaginations we binge on in our hearts makes us guilty for the Lake of Fire. Folks in the OT at least they could say if we kept the laws outwardly, they had a chance. Jesus blows that spot up and say if you break it inwardly, you're doomed! When Jesus comes back, the very first thing He will do is destroy all the armies of the nations that comes against Jerusalem. Its said the blood that flows from this incident will be as high as the bridle on a horse. We're talking about an absolute bloodbath. And none of that compares to the ultimate fate of those who reject Yahweh's salvation. No wrathful judgment in the OT or even those who will be slain at Jesus' coming, will compare to the eternal flames waiting in the second death.
So these are some things to think about. If we dismiss the OT because we don't like the judgments of God there, how can we like the NT which has an unimaginably heavier judgment? These Scriptures we have here are our inheritance. Many Christians struggle to hear God's voice in their lives. Yet if you struggle to hear, you have a written text showing God's ways. If we dismiss or disregard the plain text of God's words, ways, and statutes, we really can't expect too much in the supernatural way He speaks to us can we?
Last edited by Heavenese; 11-07-2023 at 08:16 AM..
When Paul said this (see quote below), he was talking about the Old Testament, not even the Gospel books as the Christian bible was not yet put together. Paul would've never thought that his letters would be part of the bible. If he sees the Christian bible, his jaw will drop to the floor, and he will exclaim, wait, how come my letters are part of the bible, and he will glorify God.
Quote:
Romans 15:4
For whatsoever things were written aforetime were written for our learning, that we through patience and comfort of the scriptures might have hope.
Quote:
2 Timothy 3:16,17
All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: 17That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.
It's the same with Isaiah, Jeremiah, etc, as well. They never thought their letters would be part of the bible.
Moses is the only one who knew that the Bible is Torah, which was written by his hand. So yes, according to quote above, everything that is from Gen 1 to Rev 22 is for us to learn and must not be avoided for learning who God is and what power he holds to those who love him back!
Simone Weil was a Jewish philosopher and had mystic encounters. She was a complex person. Before WWII, she brought her Jewish parents to safety in NYC. She attended Mass at Corpus Christi Church - the Catholic Church of Columbia University. She went back to France minutes before the start of WWII where she died. There is rebate on whether she converted to Catholicism. Either way, IMHO is an unimportant fact.
She called the OT a fabric woven from horrors. Pretty sums it up for me.
I’m probably older than most people here so I remember pre-Vatican II. The OT was not read weekly as it is now during Mass. Back then, the OT was very rarely quoted as our emphasis was to be based on Christ. I think adding the OT more frequently to Mass was a huge Vatican II misstep. It should have remained a footnote.
When Joshua took Jericho the walls came and the ancient Israelis slaughtered every man, women, child - Joshua 6:21. Is this who we want to be? A people who commits genocide of babies? Do we want a God who rewards the genocide of babies?
Simone Weil was a Jewish philosopher and had mystic encounters. She was a complex person. Before WWII, she brought her Jewish parents to safety in NYC. She attended Mass at Corpus Christi Church - the Catholic Church of Columbia University. She went back to France minutes before the start of WWII where she died. There is rebate on whether she converted to Catholicism. Either way, IMHO is an unimportant fact.
She called the OT a fabric woven from horrors. Pretty sums it up for me.
I’m probably older than most people here so I remember pre-Vatican II. The OT was not read weekly as it is now during Mass. Back then, the OT was very rarely quoted as our emphasis was to be based on Christ. I think adding the OT more frequently to Mass was a huge Vatican II misstep. It should have remained a footnote.
When Joshua took Jericho the walls came and the ancient Israelis slaughtered every man, women, child - Joshua 6:21. Is this who we want to be? A people who commits genocide of babies? Do we want a God who rewards the genocide of babies?
That's the problem. You took one verse but left out why God wanted this to happen. You need to ask questions and need to seek answers. If God is this, then why this incident. Only those who seek will find.
Now I will ask you this. If you think that the OT God is such a person, why is Jesus saying this - see quote below? Does not Jesus have the same attitude and must not be followed according to your understanding of the Scriptures?
Quote:
John 10:30
I and the Father are one.
John 14:8-9
Philip said to him, “Lord, show us the Father, and it is enough for us.” Jesus said to him, “Have I been with you so long, and you still do not know me, Philip? Whoever has seen me has seen the Father.
The OT is for the Jews, and God's specific covenant with them. God is the focus, and Jesus is not in the picture. Sin was mediated by animal sacrifice.
The NT is for Christians, and God's covenant with all (Gentiles, etc.) Jesus is the focus. Jesus was/is the sacrificial lamb.
If they are both related and equally valid for people, why don't the Jews embrace the NT? Because it makes as little sense as Christians following the OT.
Obviously the Jews had no desire for the new ways of Jesus. They wouldn't have demanded his death. Two completely different ways / covenants and "worlds" that are incompatible.
Last edited by Thoreau424; 11-07-2023 at 11:24 AM..
Also, remember, the prayer that we pray is to the Father- God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, not to Jesus but in Jesus name. See the Lord's Prayer. So if you say the OT God is genocidal then you are still praying to the same God in Jesus' name.
Please don't judge God without understanding what and why based on one verse. If he was cruel, he wouldn't have sent Jesus - John 3:16 core verse. At least start thinking from this angle.
The OT is for the Jews, and God's specific covenant with them. Jesus is not in the picture.
The NT is for Christians, and God's covenant with all (Gentiles, etc.)
I love your reasoning about the NT.
Except for one point. Jesus came for the Jews. The old Jewish temple was to be destroyed and Jesus would rise up the new temple in three days. The Jews rejected Jesus and His message.
Two say there are two paths of salvation is bordering on Hinduism. On one hand, Jews by their birth will be saved like the Brahmin caste of Hindu’s. As long as their mother was a Brahmin or a Jew, they are saved. In the case of Jews, they have over and over again rejected Jesus. On the other hand, lower castes and the Gentiles must do something for salvation. In the case of Christians, they must belief in Jesus and show their love for others is their path to salvation.
Why two paths or two castes - one for those who reject Jesus and one who accept Jesus? Especially, when Jesus came for the Jews?
Why not one road to salvation for everyone? It does not make logical sense.
Last edited by YorktownGal; 11-07-2023 at 12:18 PM..
Simone Weil was a Jewish philosopher and had mystic encounters. She was a complex person. Before WWII, she brought her Jewish parents to safety in NYC. She attended Mass at Corpus Christi Church - the Catholic Church of Columbia University. She went back to France minutes before the start of WWII where she died. There is rebate on whether she converted to Catholicism. Either way, IMHO is an unimportant fact.
She called the OT a fabric woven from horrors. Pretty sums it up for me.
I’m probably older than most people here so I remember pre-Vatican II. The OT was not read weekly as it is now during Mass. Back then, the OT was very rarely quoted as our emphasis was to be based on Christ. I think adding the OT more frequently to Mass was a huge Vatican II misstep. It should have remained a footnote.
When Joshua took Jericho the walls came and the ancient Israelis slaughtered every man, women, child - Joshua 6:21. Is this who we want to be? A people who commits genocide of babies? Do we want a God who rewards the genocide of babies?
Should we ignore God's longsuffering for the people to seek and call on Him? We mention God's final judgment on nations, Him telling Joshua to slay everyone in those cities, but we never say nothing about God's love for them and patience for them to seek righteousness. In the whole time He was blessing the Canaanites with His goodness (rain for their harvesting, wealth, giving them children), they were doing detestable things in His sight. They were sacrificing their kids. They were murdering each other through violence. All the while giving credit of all the good and blessings that happened to them, to non-existent gods and demons. So God gave them over to their gods and passions, and pronounced their finals judgments.
None of the nations that met their end were repentant. Even as they saw all Yahweh did through Israel, and how Israel was coming. Instead, they geared up for war, being disobedient to God to the very end. Only one group in Canaan decided not to fight Joshua and the Israelites. Instead, the people of Gibeon made an alliance with Israel through deceit. Scripture tells us Israel didn't consult with Yahweh concerning the Gibeonites, and were duped. Yet I wonder if they did consult with Him, what Yahweh would have done concerning the Gibeonites? All of that would have been dependent on the repentance of Gibeon. I don't know.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thoreau424
The OT is for the Jews, and God's specific covenant with them. God is the focus, and Jesus is not in the picture. Sin was mediated by animal sacrifice.
The NT is for Christians, and God's covenant with all (Gentiles, etc.) Jesus is the focus. Jesus was/is the sacrificial lamb.
If they are both related and equally valid for people, why don't the Jews embrace the NT? Because it makes as little sense as Christians following the OT.
Obviously the Jews had no desire for the new ways of Jesus. They wouldn't have demanded his death. Two completely different ways / covenants and "worlds" that are incompatible.
The OT doesn't start off with the Ten Commandments. It starts off with the two people God created from which we all descend. Whether we take that literally or figuratively, Adam and Eve applies to all of us, thus so does the OT. Even when you get to Abraham, there's still no mention of the Law. Abraham was the father of Ishmael. He was also the father of a few others (direct sons) other than Isaac. Then Isaac was the father of both Esau and Jacob (who is the father of the Israelites) Ultimately God said through Abraham, all the families of the earth would be blessed. All that speaks to the OT importance to us.
It's through Jesus, Abraham's descendant, we have the blessing of Abraham come on us. In fact even for the Jewish people and Israel, only through faith in Yahweh are we declared Abraham's seed. Abraham was accounted as righteous because he believed God. If we believe on Jesus, that He was sent by the Father, we are children of Abraham. Jesus is seen in the OT. (As Jesus showed two of His disciples as they walked the Emmaus road)
Except for one point. Jesus came for the Jews. The old Jewish temple was to be destroyed and Jesus would rise up the new temple in three days. The Jews rejected Jesus and His message.
Two say there are two paths of salvation is bordering on Hinduism. On one hand, Jews by their birth will be saved like the Brahmin caste of Hindu’s. As long as their mother was a Brahmin or a Jew, they are saved. In the case of Jews, they have over and over again rejected Jesus. On the other hand, lower castes and the Gentiles must do something for salvation. In the case of Christians, they must belief in Jesus and show their love for others is their path to salvation.
Why two paths or two castes - one for those who reject Jesus and one who accept Jesus? Especially, when Jesus came for the Jews?
Why not one road to salvation for everyone? It does not make logical sense.
Jesus did not come for lower caste, Jesus came and died for sinners. People who were righteous rejected him.
Hindus don't even have the saved or heaven and hell concept. Their concept is rebirth after each death (cycle). If someone lived a good life, they would be reborn into something that is a higher form of lifein flesh; someone who was bad would be reborn as lower life form in flesh. This is why the gospel doesn't make sense to them because they live forever in some form of flesh already.
Edit: not all Jews rejected Jesus. All his followers for a long time were mainly Jews. Jesus came for sinners, doesn't matter if they were Jews or Gentiles.
Last edited by rjack567; 11-07-2023 at 02:39 PM..
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.
too soon....
