How to Respond to Old Testament Violence?

[Sky_River]

And the answer is that God is the same always.
Why is the author’s “lens” not a possible answer to your question?
In fact, what other answer can there be, if God is unchanging but different witnesses portray him differently? (I’m open to alternatives…)

What makes you think they portrayed God in a way that isnt true and accurate? 2 Timothy 3:16. “All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness”.

 

[tanachanswers]

Both of those instances are not human violence, but are God personally carrying out judgement on people, which he also does in the NT in Acts 5. What confuses me regarding Old Testament violence is mainly this.

Why did God use human violence as an instrument of judgement in the Old Testament, but not in the New Testament?

[/quote]

Yet, you have pointed out a major difference. So, what is your answer ?
[/quote]
[/QUOTE]

 

[Sky_River]

Sky River;12418096:

Both of those instances are not human violence, but are God personally carrying out judgement on people, which he also does in the NT in Acts 5. What confuses me regarding Old Testament violence is mainly this.

Why did God use human violence as an instrument of judgement in the Old Testament, but not in the New Testament?

Jesus taught his followers to be peaceful. He never told them to use violence against groups of people to punish them for their sins-that would be murder.

And yet, the followers of Jesus seem to know of no other way of dealing with non-Christians, interesting.

Yet, you have pointed out a major difference. So, what is your answer ?

Why dont you believe the New Testament is inspired? Why do you only believe in the OT?

 

[PRmerger]

What makes you think they portrayed God in a way that isnt true and accurate? 2 Timothy 3:16. “All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness”.

Amen! All Scripture* is* inspired by God and I don’t believe anyone has proposed that they portrayed God in a way that isn’t true and accurate.

It’s just how one interprets the way that God is portrayed that may be inaccurate.

For example, do you believe Psalm 91: 4 is “true and accurate”? Catholics do.

We just don’t believe that God has feathers and wings, literally. We interpret that verse through the lens of the Church.

 

[tanachanswers]

tanachanswers;12420210:

Sky River;12418096:

Both of those instances are not human violence, but are God personally carrying out judgement on people, which he also does in the NT in Acts 5. What confuses me regarding Old Testament violence is mainly this.

Why did God use human violence as an instrument of judgement in the Old Testament, but not in the New Testament?

Jesus taught his followers to be peaceful. He never told them to use violence against groups of people to punish them for their sins-that would be murder.

Why dont you believe the New Testament is inspired? Why do you only believe in the OT?

1. Because, it does not contradict itself.
2. Because, it has never been shown to me that it is inspired.

 

[clem456]

What makes you think they portrayed God in a way that isnt true and accurate? 2 Timothy 3:16. “All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness”.

What do you mean exactly by true and accurate?
What does the Church say about truth, inspiration, and inerrancy in scripture?
Do you believe that for scripture to be “true”, the events must be taken in a literalist way?
If you do, you are at odds with the Church. If this is how you interpret scripture, I would refer you to the documents referenced throughout this thread.

 

[tanachanswers]

What does the Church say about truth, inspiration, and inerrancy in scripture?/ quote]

That there are no errors in scripture.

Do you believe that for scripture to be “true”, the events must be taken in a literalist way?

 

[Zipply]

That there are no errors in scripture.

This is a statement so devoid of meaning, and so open to semantical manipulation, that it is without value. I could say “Mein Kampf contains no errors” and then, by carefully manipulating what I mean by ‘contains’ and ‘errors’, prove my point. You can do that with any text, so long as you are willing to be dishonest.

 

[Achilles6129]

The short answer is nobody knows.

The fact that God seems much more flawed and violent in the OT leads to only a few potential solutions. I have discussed them before in this thread. One of them, Marcionism, is a condemned heresy (but was condemned, it seems, mainly for the technical nature of the solution, polytheism).

I find no difference whatsoever between the OT and the NT. I think what we have here is a false portrayal of the God of the NT being presented to the general public by modern Christian theology. A quick glance at the book of Revelation (or other passages of the NT) should be enough to show them that this portrayal is false.

 

[Zipply]

I find no difference whatsoever between the OT and the NT. I think what we have here is a false portrayal of the God of the NT being presented to the general public by modern Christian theology. A quick glance at the book of Revelation (or other passages of the NT) should be enough to show them that this portrayal is false.

Sed contra,

Exodus 21

23
e But if injury ensues, you shall give life for life,
24
eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot,
25
burn for burn, wound for wound, stripe for stripe.

Luke 6

29 To the person who strikes you on one cheek, offer the other one as well, and from the person who takes your cloak, do not withhold even your tunic.

 

[tanachanswers]

This is a statement so devoid of meaning, and so open to semantical manipulation, that it is without value. I could say “Mein Kampf contains no errors” and then, by carefully manipulating what I mean by ‘contains’ and ‘errors’, prove my point. You can do that with any text, so long as you are willing to be dishonest.

You are asking me to prove a “logical negative.” By definition this is impossible.

The only way to continue is for you to provide an error.

 

[Gorgias]

How does culpability connect to morality?

You were asking whether Moses acted against God’s will; that is, if his actions and those of the Israelites were sinful. The question of culpability – of whether one is held to sinful actions – is part and parcel of that question.

If you want to make the case that Moses should be held responsible, then you have to have an answer to the question of divorce and remarriage, which Moses set as law, and Jesus modified (but didn’t castigate Moses for setting); in other words, it was a matter of culpability, not morality. In a similar way, although we see the actions of Numbers 31 differently than Moses did, assuming that it’s a matter of morals (and therefore of God’s fault) rather than a matter of culpability is an error of judgment.

 

[tanachanswers]

You were asking whether Moses acted against God’s will; that is, if his actions and those of the Israelites were sinful. The question of culpability – of whether one is held to sinful actions – is part and parcel of that question.

If you want to make the case that Moses should be held responsible, then you have to have an answer to the question of divorce and remarriage, which Moses set as law, and Jesus modified (but didn’t castigate Moses for setting); in other words, it was a matter of culpability, not morality. In a similar way, although we see the actions of Numbers 31 differently than Moses did, assuming that it’s a matter of morals (and therefore of God’s fault) rather than a matter of culpability is an error of judgment.

Iesus did not modify divorce and remarriage. Rather, Iesus the opinion of the school of Shamay. Which was out of charater for him, as he normally held by the school of hillel, as we do today.

 

[PRmerger]

Iesus did not modify divorce and remarriage. Rather, Iesus the opinion of the school of Shamay. Which was out of charater for him, as he normally held by the school of hillel, as we do today.

Can you offer some documentation of what the school of Shamay taught re: divorce and remarriage?

 

[tanachanswers]

Can you offer some documentation of what the school of Shamay taught re: divorce and remarriage?

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hillel_and_Shammai
Divorce. The House of Shammai held that a man may only divorce his wife for a serious transgression, but the House of Hillel allowed divorce for even trivial offenses, such as burning a meal.[7]

White lies. Whether one should tell an ugly bride that she is beautiful. Shammai said it was wrong to lie, and Hillel said that all brides are beautiful on their wedding day.[6]

 

[PRmerger]

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hillel_and_Shammai
Divorce. The House of Shammai held that a man may only divorce his wife for a serious transgression, but the House of Hillel allowed divorce for even trivial offenses, such as burning a meal.[7]

White lies. Whether one should tell an ugly bride that she is beautiful. Shammai said it was wrong to lie, and Hillel said that all brides are beautiful on their wedding day.[6]

Where’s the part about divorce and remarriage being adultery?

That’s what Jesus taught.

 

[Gorgias]

Iesus did not modify divorce and remarriage. Rather, Iesus the opinion of the school of Shamay. Which was out of charater for him, as he normally held by the school of hillel, as we do today.

Your grammar has me confused: are you asserting that Jesus’ answer on marriage was that he held to the Shammai interpretation (that a serious reason (for instance, adultery) was sufficient to justify divorce)? If so, then you’ve misunderstood Jesus’ answer. There are those who translate ‘pornei’ here as ‘adultery’, but that doesn’t make sense in the context of His answer. Now, if that interpretation were true, Jesus’ answer could be characterized like a poor imitation of the Monty Python ‘Spanish Inquisition’ sketch: “There are no reasons that are sufficient for divorce! Moses allowed it, because you couldn’t handle it, but there are no reasons! Oh… except for one reason: adultery. ** There is only one reason that justifies divorce!**”

The Church sees Jesus’ answer as not being self-contradictory. Rather, it simply means that, except in cases where there was never a valid marriage (and therefore, ‘divorce’ in this case doesn’t mean ‘sundering a valid marriage’), there is no reason sufficient to justify divorce (and subsequent remarriage): it makes adulterers out of the spouses. Therefore, the attempt of Jesus’ adversaries to make Him alienate half his followers (depending on whether they agreed with Hillel or Shammai) failed miserably: Jesus chose a path that held to a higher standard than either of those two interpretations! Jesus appealed neither to Hillel nor to Shammai, but instead, to God and His plan for humans in the Creation of the world!

 

[clem456]

…
Jesus chose a path that held to a higher standard than either of those two interpretations! Jesus appealed neither to Hillel nor to Shammai, but instead, to God and His plan for humans in the Creation of the world!

And in the context of this thread and the subject of OT violence, that is a great answer.

God is the same yesterday, today, and forever. Christ is the fullest revelation and the final word of God. All scripture must be read in that light. Inconsistencies in the representation of God’s will must be read consistently with the person of Christ, no matter how challenging it becomes for our concept of God, no matter how much we want the certainty of literalism. We must allow Christ to breathe (inspire) life into the Scriptures.

Inspiration. To breathe life into.

 

[Zipply]

clem wrote:

God is the same yesterday, today, and forever. Christ is the fullest revelation and the final word of God. All scripture must be read in that light. Inconsistencies in the representation of God’s will must be read consistently with the person of Christ, no matter how challenging it becomes for our concept of God, no matter how much we want the certainty of literalism. We must allow Christ to breathe (inspire) life into the Scriptures.

Excellent. Does this also go for the deaths of Ananias and Sapphira?

Ananias and Sapphira
5 Now a man named Ananias, together with his wife Sapphira, also sold a piece of property. 2 With his wife’s full knowledge he kept back part of the money for himself, but brought the rest and put it at the apostles’ feet.

3 Then Peter said, “Ananias, how is it that Satan has so filled your heart that you have lied to the Holy Spirit and have kept for yourself some of the money you received for the land? 4 Didn’t it belong to you before it was sold? And after it was sold, wasn’t the money at your disposal? What made you think of doing such a thing? You have not lied just to human beings but to God.”

5 When Ananias heard this, he fell down and died. And great fear seized all who heard what had happened. 6 Then some young men came forward, wrapped up his body, and carried him out and buried him.

7 About three hours later his wife came in, not knowing what had happened. 8 Peter asked her, “Tell me, is this the price you and Ananias got for the land?”

“Yes,” she said, “that is the price.”

9 Peter said to her, “How could you conspire to test the Spirit of the Lord? Listen! The feet of the men who buried your husband are at the door, and they will carry you out also.”

10 At that moment she fell down at his feet and died. Then the young men came in and, finding her dead, carried her out and buried her beside her husband. 11 Great fear seized the whole church and all who heard about these events.

I’m dying to know your answer, so that I can finally know whether God is bloodthirsty or whether the NT contains fiction. Thanks.

 

[PRmerger]

Excellent. Does this also go for the deaths of Ananias and Sapphira?

Could you be more specific about your question?