NEW explanation for why God killed babies in the OT (Heresy?)

[Kei]

That’s odd. You’d think reading the Old Testament would give one an idea of what is in the old Testament.

 

[mkoopman]

You are still taking me out of context. I was stating that the form of the human person is immutable, owing to our ensoulment by God. Are you trying to reject this principal by remaining hell bent to distort the concept to which I was pointing?
The term incontrovertible is less appealing on this relationship of human souls and bodies in opposition to the souls of Angels. Both terms are synonymous with incorruptible. The common application and conjectural meanings associated with the different terms does not truly change the basic concept all of these terms identify. Reading the “You-cat” version of the Summa has advantages in some cases while the almost complete absence of the epistemology Thomas mastered leaves some gray areas where Aquinas paints in tints, including but not exclusively gray.

 

[mkoopman]

Jesus is a tweak in.God’s holiness?
Interesting but, well not stupid, as Art Carney once said. But clearly ignorant with respect to both God as related to the powers held in the ancients’ understanding and enumeration, and in unfolding an unhealthy Christology. The change of The Incarnation is to mankind not to God but from God. There is a chasm between these “tweaks” to God.

 

[AlNg]

Jesus is a tweak in.God’s holiness?

I didn’t say so. I said it was a change because 3000 years ago God was not man. But 2000 years ago, God came down from heaven and became man.

clearly ignorant

I don’t claim to know everything, but I do know the infallible nicene creed. And I quoted a part of one article from that creed. The full sentence reads:
For us men and for our salvation,
he came down from heaven:
by the power of the Holy Spirit
he was born of the Virgin Mary, and became man.

 

[mkoopman]

Interesting editing. Indicating I was refuting the very same idea with which you “correct” my reply.
You strike the left cheek, first, apparently. And do so entirely unabashedly. Nurture not nature, a product of the barbarian ethos.

 

[AlNg]

Interesting editing. Indicating I was refuting the very same idea with which you “correct” my reply.

You strike the left cheek, first, apparently. And do so entirely unabashedly. Nurture not nature, a product of the barbarian ethos.

I was pointing out the sections of interest to which i tried to respond. however, here is the complete quote:

Jesus is a tweak in.God’s holiness?

Interesting but, well not stupid, as Art Carney once said. But clearly ignorant with respect to both God as related to the powers held in the ancients’ understanding and enumeration, and in unfolding an unhealthy Christology. The change of The Incarnation is to mankind not to God but from God. There is a chasm between these “tweaks” to God.

My comment remains that I do know the infallible nicene creed. And as I read it does describe a change which occurred about 2000 years ago, which was my point.

 

[BlackFriar]

Both terms are synonymous with incorruptible

Please stop murdering the English language and basic logic .

Two realities having a single characteristic in common does not make them “synonomous” with that characteristic nor with each other.

There must be a less tortured way of saying whatever it is you are trying to say…

 

[BlackFriar]

Yes, the boy was never intended to be sacrificed.

???
According to the literal meaning of the text that appears exactly the intention of Abraham and also what Abraham understood to be the original intention of God who allegedly spoke to him.

However I do not believe the temple priest/editor who wrote this final material necessarily intended us to historically believe that God actually did speak to Abraham so. His purpose was theological and if that required a little exaggeration re the actual life and times of Abraham that is of no great consequence to get his theological message across.

God is not like a human being who might have a change of heart and deceive his followers on important moral matters. Nor is he a crafty lawgiver who goes around testing people by dubious means. This is more likely an anthropromorphism. A literary device. An acceptable way of writing to communicate a salvific truth using a “story”.

There really is no need for the “God was only testing” somersaults needed to be done by those who hold to the literally historically true … but then deny the clear literal meaning of what Abraham is said to have understood YHW to say to him in the story itself.

My God doesn’t ask for child sacrifice or even pretend to do so as a “test”.

 

[Gorgias]

Only from a time-based perspective. From an eternal perspective, God the Son’s human nature has always been present.

Umm… no.

Jesus’ human nature came into existence with the Incarnation.

God – in His divine nature – is unchanging.

 

[Gorgias]

I do not believe the temple priest/editor who wrote this final material necessarily intended us to historically believe that God actually did speak to Abraham so.

At some point in Genesis, we have to turn from ‘pre-history’ to ‘history’, though, no? Otherwise, you relegate the entire book to “happy pedagogical story”… and there be dragons there…

His purpose was theological

God’s purpose for all of the Bible is ‘theological’. Just sayin’…

and if that required a little exaggeration re the actual life and times of Abraham that is of no great consequence to get his theological message across.

In other words, inspired writers lied about historical figures in order to tell a message that wouldn’t be fully understood until millennia later? That’s quite a stretch…

God is not like a human being who might have a change of heart and deceive his followers on important moral matters. Nor is he a crafty lawgiver who goes around testing people by dubious means. This is more likely an anthropromorphism. A literary device. An acceptable way of writing to communicate a salvific truth using a “story”.

Or, perhaps, not an anthropormorphism but a condescension of a God to His people…

My God doesn’t ask for child sacrifice or even pretend to do so as a “test”.

He doesn’t? 'Cause, if you call yourself “Christian”, then you believe that He willed His child to be sacrificed for the sake of our salvation…

 

[mkoopman]

You said basic and unchanging is the basic idea of all the synonymous words. Admitting this is not murdering language it is identifying how the easy to read Summa depends on idioms. The version is well edited and holds tightly to the original work. For philosophy, even that of the angelic doctor, paraphrasing with idioms is useful.
Try doing the same to The Scriptures and even with a collection of Bible Scholars getting The Good News in conformity to truth is very difficult.

 

[Gorgias]

You are still taking me out of context.

No… actually, I’m looking at what you actually said, in context:

I was stating that the form of the human person is immutable, owing to our ensoulment by God.

No… that’s not what you said, if we look back at your posts:

The immutability of a human person as body and soul

I agree that the soul is the substantial form of the body, and the soul is eternal. However, you’re claiming immutability of body and soul… which just isn’t true. At death, our body becomes a lifeless corpse and decays, while our soul continues to live (and to await a glorified body in the eschaton).

Are you trying to reject this principal by remaining hell bent to distort the concept to which I was pointing?

Nope. Just asking you to be honest in your assertions, and stop pretending only you have read the Summa.

 

[goout]

He doesn’t? 'Cause, if you call yourself “Christian”, then you believe that He willed His child to be sacrificed for the sake of our salvation…

I agree with a lot of your perspective on the rootedness of scripture in history. However, it must be noted that Christs sacrifice is not the act of a vengeful God. And it is not the same thing as asking one human to kill other humans, especially innocent humans.

O

 

[mkoopman]

There are many interpretations of this passage. Consider the response of the Israelites to this prophetic voice. So, is Samuel a cynic? This would be my first reaction to your literalism. Who did the tribes under Samuel spare? But, this is just my boorish understanding. I must sound like oxen braying. And, don’ t let that case go overboard on fear of death.
I have a severe dislike for child sacrifice despite the decree of abortion rights by the great omnipotent state machines. Balanced as it is by first born rights of those favored sons. Well, sons or daughters as we are freeto choose our sex. It is not determined by the process related to evolution called reproduction, although GMOs are bad for things with vegetative souls unless they also have human souls, of course. So, tell me something else not perverted by modern rationalism, better declared irrationalism.
Those more rational than I identify this with a strong emphasis not intended to be taken literally. There is no evidence this is to be understood as the words given directly to Samuel. Did Herod massacre the innocents according to the scribes?

 

[mkoopman]

The form of the human person as a composite is immutable. This does not deny that the human body dies, or suffers corruption after death. The truth of this is exemplified by the incorruptible state of some saints. Death does not change the composite nature but is a state before the resurrection. Apparently you never got all the way through the creed. You were supposed to have covered the whole prayer. Too many remedial points to go over on the way?
We are made by God as ensouled human persons and remain as He formed us for eternity. This includes such unpopular ideas as being made male and female. We are made in His image and made for eternity, this does not wash off.
This does mean the composite form of body and soul is immutable. Your misinterpretation of my meaning does not change this fact. Not even death separates us from the love of Christ. It does separate the soul and body, but only for a time. That time is until the end if time which may seem like a long time based on heat death. Heat death of the universe is not the right calculation for this. Rather stay alert and renew your mind.

 

[BlackFriar]

At some point in Genesis, we have to turn from ‘pre-history’ to ‘history’, though, no? Otherwise, you relegate the entire book

No we dont. We admit its a mixture throughout and use a variety of literary techniques, common sense, the deposit of faith etc to determine the most harmonious explanations for the conundrums we face. There may never be total certainty re the fine details of actual history. There will be certainty over the theological truth the author wished to convey.

Child sacrifice is no longer acceptable to the ancient Israelite God of Abraham. It matters not whether the small incident the author wrote of re the sacrificing of Isaac actually happened.

 

[mkoopman]

Pope Emeritus Benedict understands the church as the body of Christ and therefore the proper authority to interpret the Scriptures. I do not intend to imply you deny this, I desired to emphasize this point as the scholarly approach to Scriptural analysis does not change this criteria; as Dei Verbum makes clear to all but the most obstinate. Verbum Domini not dwelling on this point.
Popular appeal may make canonized saints, it does not reinterpret Scripture. God’s Word is eternal truth, dismissing this for scholarly avenues only bears good fruit if it returns to this in faithfulness. Introducing modern ideas unknown to earlier generations can never make the world better than what God created and called good.

 

[Kei]

I am speaking of God here, not Abraham. It was a test of trust. God had already assured Abraham that this son would be his heir.

And then at the end of the story this is essentially spelled out for you, that it was a test of trust, that YHWH desired not this sacrifice, but instead sent a sacrificial animal instead (this can also be seen as a type of Christ).

 

[Teek]

Otherwise, you relegate the entire book to “happy pedagogical story”… and there be dragons there…

…

 

[Gorgias]

The form of the human person as a composite is immutable. This does not deny that the human body dies, or suffers corruption after death. The truth of this is exemplified by the incorruptible state of some saints. Death does not change the composite nature but is a state before the resurrection.

Ahh… now I understand: you’re using “immutable” to mean “real”, not “never changing”. Yes, death does not change the fact that we’re meant to be a composite of body and soul – but it does change our state (until the eschaton). Ok – now I get “koop-speak”: if you want to use “immutable” to mean “changing… but eventually changing back”, I can smile indulgently at you and say, “umm… sure. Have a crayon.”

We are made in His image and made for eternity, this does not wash off.

Be careful with that assertion: our bodies are not “in His image”.

death separates … the soul and body, but only for a time.

In other words: “changing” and then “changing back again”. Not immutable, but as long as we understand that you’re using the term in non-standard ways, we can understand what you’re trying to express.