Paradise Cafe Discussions - A Place For Bible Research And Christian Encouragement

As you know Johnny there is a heck of alot of stuff in the OT that I find hard to stomach.

If it were not for the words of the sermon on the mount, and the other winsome words of Jesus I might prefer atheism.

The OT in many parts does not attract me, it does the opposite. I do wonder how much is the fantasy of incompetent dirty old men much like the oppressive WT writings.

Judges 21

They found among the people living in Jabesh Gilead four hundred young women who had never slept with a man, and they took them to the camp at Shiloh in Canaan.
The others they slaughtered, and they gave the virgins to the Benjaminites.

And we laugh at the moslem martyrs who think they will get 14 virgins in heaven?

I know that many are dubious about Matthew, and consider Mark the earliest writing. I don't have too much issue with its doctrine.
Its not perfect but not like the OT, unless we put at the bottom of every page a rider that says 'this is what the Israelites did, boasted about it', but in no way had God's approval.

When I see how subtly but devastatingly for women, the WT changed the meaning of Gen. 3:6 by adding two words, yet without most witnesses, particularly women batting an eyelid, and this was less than 50 years ago, it really does make me wonder what has happened to the original inspired text over thousands of years.

Rape, murdering children, slaughtering the men, carrying off virgins: Sounds like Greek and Roman mythology. Or is this a genre of Israelite mythology?

Jesus sure had much to correct when he came.

Hi Johnny

Personally, I find the accounts to be very human. Why would we think that just because Mary had given birth to the Messiah she wouldn't also act like a mother?

We have to remember that nearly 30 years separated the birth of Jesus from the beginning of his ministry as the Messiah. In the meantime, Mary was not the mother of Jesus Christ, but of Jesus the boy and later the man.

So I don't find it altogether unreasonable that his collective family thought he might be out of his mind when he started his ministry.

As for Marcion's gospel, well... his agenda was to separate Yahweh from the Heavenly Father. He also rejected the Hebrew scriptures, and the other NT letters besides Paul. It's not entirely surprising that his teachings were rejected by the early church fathers.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marcion

As for Mathew, he seems to use some texts from the prophets in what is known as a typological way. In other words, the original prophecies are not referred to in a predictive sense, but are a type of something.

An example, would be: "Out of Egypt I called my son". The context is definitely not about the "Son" in the original prophecy (Hosea 11:1), but merely about Israel as the son, and this is obvious when reading that passage - but Mathew uses it in a typological sense, i.e. Jesus' going to Egypt and coming out of it was like Israel, God's son.

I think the same is true of the maiden giving birth (1:23), Rachel weeping for her children (2:18), and he being called a Nazarene (Sprout-town, derived from "sprout" - 2:23).

Isaiah 11:1 said that "there must go forth a twig out of the stump of Jesse; and out of his roots a sprout will be fruitful."

In Zechariah 6:12, God says: "Here is the man whose name is Sprout. And from his own place he will sprout, and he will certainly build the temple of Jehovah."

So while there is no scripture explicitly stating he will be called a Nazarene, it is clear Mathew is connecting the Sprout-town (Nazareth) to Jesus the sprout.

Peter does something similar in Acts, when he quotes from the book of Psalms in reference to Judas. Quite frankly, the original psalms had nothing to do with Judas, but he uses them in a typological sense.

I'm not saying your points don't have merit - I'm just very wary of questioning the authenticity of passages of the Bible just because what is said doesn't quite make sense from our point of view.

This is what Marcion did. He chopped out books and letters he didn't like, and put together his own gospel - i.e. the stuff that agreed with his theology.

This is what Sherri Shriner does, in our discussions on other threads about Paul. This time it's Paul that's chopped out.

Others want to throw out 2 Peter, because it's written in a different style to 1 Peter (which is because 1 Peter was written through Silvanus), or Jude because it happens to quote from Enoch...

... or Revelation, because it was disputed by some in the church...

... and so on.

Now, I'm not saying we shouldn't pay attention to arguments about authenticity or blindly accept that every single word is divinely sent from heaven... but neither should we go to the other extreme and question whole passages simply because we think we can't reconcile something.

Otherwise we'll end up like Marcion, who literally threw out half of the Bible!

In the end, the Bible records the affairs of humans, who don't always act completely rationally and consistently.

So Mary knew that Jesus was the Messiah? She was also human, and a mother.

I'd like to know of ANY mother who would be able to treat her son like the Messiah for an entire 30 years! :D

I'm with you a 1000percent Vicky regarding the OT.

The barbarism it contains horrifies me & repells me from ever feeling close to or worshipping the Israelite God.

I've tried to express to others how I feel about the OT accounts of the Israelites & you have summed it up so beautifully..

'this is what the Israelites did, boasted about it', but in no way had God's approval.'

As a teenager I recall having very turbulent weekly family bible studies from the 'Paradise Lost to Paradise Regained' book when dealing with the OT sections. My poor father tried his best but I was having none of it....trouble was I was the eldest child & was a 'bad example to the others'.

I just couldn't get to grips with the wondrous creator of the universe preparing a perfect paradise home here on Earth for the first of his human children then becoming this petulent, jealous, vindictive creature the ancient Israelites used to justify their existence & endeavours.

Thank GOD for JESUS!

floriferous

ps. My parents now admit they had some problems with my opinions back then when I was a stroppy teenager, however they had to tow the WTBTS line despite harbouring similar sentiments themselves.

Vicki wrote:

As you know Johnny there is a heck of alot of stuff in the OT that I find hard to stomach.

If it were not for the words of the sermon on the mount, and the other winsome words of Jesus I might prefer atheism.

The OT in many parts does not attract me, it does the opposite. I do wonder how much is the fantasy of incompetent dirty old men much like the oppressive WT writings.

Rape, murdering children, slaughtering the men, carrying off virgins: Sounds like Greek and Roman mythology. Or is this a genre of Israelite mythology?

Floriferous:

I'm with you a 1000percent Vicky regarding the OT.

The barbarism it contains horrifies me & repells me from ever feeling close to or worshipping the Israelite God.

I've tried to express to others how I feel about the OT accounts of the Israelites & you have summed it up so beautifully..

'this is what the Israelites did, boasted about it', but in no way had God's approval.'


Vicki
Do you know the background to what you described as rape, murdering children slaughtering men and carrying off virgins sounds like "Israelites’s mythology"

Floriferous you referred to Vicki’s words as:
"The barbarism the OT contains horrifies me"

My question to you Vicki is that why did you not read the last verse of chapter 21 verse 25?

Did you not know about it? (How could you not know you were a witness once)

Or was it because it would weaken your argument? To prove that the Israelites were barbarians and their God blood-thirsty?

And if later is the correct position are you not maligning the Word of God?

Do you know what that means for your everlasting future?

Respectfully

Farhat Zubair

Just a little tip, folks... when you want to quote someone, you can use [ QUOTE ] to start the quote, and [ /QUOTE ] to end it, but removing the spaces. This looks much nicer and sets your quote out, and makes your post easier to read :D

Judges 21:25:

"In those days Israel had no king, so the people did whatever seemed right in their own eyes." (NLT)

Thanks for pointing that out, Farhat. There are unpleasant things in the Bible because the Bible is partly a record of human affairs, and humans do many unpleasant things to each other. In the case of what Benjamin did to steal wives, it was not approved by God.

As for times when God's commands seem harsh, we should bear in mind that the Hebrews had come out of a land that worshipped bulls and other creatures as gods, and they had entered a land that practiced pedophilia and child sacrifice to Molech.

For the most part, the OT is a record of God's attempt to keep his people holy and clean, despite their inclinations to go the way of the land, as it were.

I think God teaches mankind by degrees. For example, since child sacrifice was probably quite common back in Abraham's day, it wouldn't have been too remarkable had Abraham gone ahead and sacrificed Isaac.

But at the last minute, the angel prevented him.

On the other hand, we have many examples of people acting rashly, such as Jephthah, who vowed to offer one of his household as a burnt offering.

In the end, it's his daughter that comes out to greet him, so he carries out his vow. Whether he actually offers her up is debated - but let's assume he did.

Quite frankly, it was a stupid vow. While we could argue that Jehovah could have told him as such, or even prevented him from offering her up, perhaps it is in there as a lesson for us not to make stupid vows - because they have consequences.

Furthermore, Jephthah could have apologized to God and excused himself. And the daughter could have said, "Get lost! Go sacrifice yourself...!" But both went along with it.

I don't know why Jehovah went along with it (or rather, said nothing), except perhaps to teach Israel a lesson on making rash vows. Sure, it was an expensive lesson - the death of Jephthah's daughter. But the lesson was not lost on Israel, whose daughters would go up four days of the year in commemoration of her. Maybe it was a lesson they learned, because it didn't happen again. And she would no doubt be resurrected, since death is only temporary.

Meanwhile, the record is there because (a) it happened, and (b) to remind Israel not to make rash vows.

(Incidentally, the fact that there is some doubt about whether he actually sacrificed her, is probably because Israel became embarrased by this incident and perhaps attempted to water down this account! So I'd suggest the sacrifice did take place, and Israel learned their lesson and became ashamed of it.)

The fact is, the Bible is full of unpleasant things because it's a record of humans. Of humans who came out of a pagan land and into another pagan land of child sacrifice and disgusting things.

At times they failed - miserably. At times they did things right.

But the Old Testament is, I believe, an honest account of both their failings and successes.

Hi Interpretum :)
Thanks for your input. :love:

How do we know this?
None of Maricon's works survive, all we know about him & what he supposedly believed comes from the church fathers.

"And, as we said before, the devils put forward Marcion of Pontus, who is even now teaching men to deny that God is the maker of all things in heaven and on earth, and that the Christ predicted by the prophets is His Son, and preaches another god besides the Creator of all, and likewise another son. And this man many have believed, as if he alone knew the truth, and laugh at us, though they have no proof of what they say, but are carried away irrationally as lambs by a wolf, and become the prey of atheistical doctrines, and of devils."

Justin. First Apology, Chapter 58

"And Polycarp himself replied to Marcion, who met him on one occasion, and said, “Dost thou know me?” “I do know thee, the first-born of Satan.”

Against Heresies, Book 3

Do the above references to Marcion sound objective?

As I pointed out in my first post; Marcion's Gospel of the Lord (a version of Luke) wasn't the only Gospel manuscript that didn't include a Nativity, the Gospel According to the Hebrews (a version of Matthew) didn't feature one either.

agape Johnny :heartbeat:

The results of not having a virgin birth for mankind are HORRIBLE!!!

It would leave a Saviour born with the same sin nature as you and I ( Good News? HARDLY:( )

We also end up with Joseph and Mary as the most famous adulterers of all time.

A SAD road to travel on.:(

We would also have one less prophecy that Jesus fulfilled.

Gen 3:15 And I will put enmity
Between you and the woman,
And between your seed and her Seed;
He shall bruise your head,
And you shall bruise His heel.”


BB:(:(:(

Almah vs Bethulah

Researcher Glenn Miller confirms that the lastest and most detailed linguistics studies show that Bethulah refers to a widow or divorced woman who was not a virgin. However Almah is never used of a non-virgin.

While in modern Hebrew usage bethulah is used to mean a virgin, in Biblical Hebrew it is found in Genesis 24:16 followed by the statement "and no man had known her", which, it is claimed, would be unnecessary if the word bethulah itself conveyed this information.

Another argument is based on Joel 1:8, where bethulah is used of a widow; but it is not certain that here it referred to a woman who had had sexual relations, since marriage was considered to begin with betrothal, some time before cohabitation began. As for the word `almah, this same minority view holds that the young women to whom it was applied in the Old Testament were all in fact virgins.

The Aramaic counterpart of bethûlah was used of married women. The same holds for other cognate languages, "there is in fact no word for 'virgin' in Sumerian or Akkadian."


BB

You know, BB, that's a lovely comment :thumbup: It shows how well the older scriptures provide real context for the gospels.

Acts5v29

That verse says exactly what I said, but in different words.

'Unless we put at the bottom of every page a rider that says 'this is what the Israelites did, boasted about it', but in no way had God's approval'.

The incident With Dinah is very similar. Two of her brothers murdered and looted a whole city and carried off all the animals the women and children. The problem is trying to turn these events into a religious teaching.
The WT continually quotes this to prove that bad associations can be harmful.
What they don't point out is that Jacob had camped at the foot of the city of Shechem; the city folk gave them no harm, rather protection the people of Shechem thought they were peace loving; Jacob purchased a field from them; He was eventually buried in that field. They never mention that her brothers let her go and stay in the home of the rapist, and when it comes to bad associations, well her brothers were worse. These are the guys who sell their younger brother into slavery. Eventually we don't find out whether poor Dinah probably ever married.
If we take these things at face value and say well they were all a nasty bunch and not much to choose between them, well that's fine, but trying to read some cockeyed morals into these events is daft, when the people were generally amoral.
Judah and Tamar and David and Bathsheba are another instance, except they repented of their violent ways.
Judah was ready to have Tamar burned, for the very sin he regularly committed.
The Israelites were under the law covenant, so whatever was going on in Judges I find it hard to assume it had God's approval. The people were not ignorant, the reason given twice for all this weird stuff was there was no king, though they should have been under the judges and going to one of them. I am sorry but I find the whole account very bizarre, maybe something is missing or I am missing something.

Hi BethelBoy. :)

Why assume that "the woman" referred to in the prophecy is Eve? After all; "the woman" (God's covenant) described at Jeremiah 3:20, Galatians 4:24-27 & Revelation 12:1 is figurative so why wouldn't "the woman" at Genesis 3:15 be figurative also?

Why did Yeshua say the following?

"He replied, 'I tell you that to everyone who has, more will be given, but as for the one who has nothing, even what he has will be taken away.

Luke 19:26 (NIV)

Blessed is the man who does not fall away on account of me.

Luke 7:23 (NIV)

agape Johnny :heartbeat:

Tell me, why does it upset you when God brings a person's own evil upon them?

Those ideas of murdering children, slaughtering men, and carrying off the virgins were things that those people did to others. God simply was bringing their own evil upon them. So if a nation had virgins taken it is because that nation had taken virgins from others.

Keep also in mind that Jesus never disagreed with this idea of evil for evil as Paul shows that God said vengence was his and that he would repay.

As Paul noted it works this way...

2 Thess 1:6 God is just: He will pay back trouble to those who trouble you

In essence Eye for an Eye is NOT and I repeat NOT dead, rather it is God who will do the repaying to the person rather than you. So Christ was not saying do not return evil for evil simply becuase you were to just let it go but becuase of what Paul said in Romans

If it be possible, as much as lieth in you, live peaceably with all men. Dearly beloved, avenge not yourselves, but rather give peace unto wrath: for it is written, Vengence is mine; I will repay, saith the Lord. Therefore if thine enemy hunger, feed him; if he thirst, give him drink: for in so doing thou shalt heap coals of fire on his head. Be not overcome of evil, but overcome with good." Romans 12:17-21 (KJV)


In essence people are their own judge and whatever they do to others will be done to them as Christ said.

So if those accounts in the Bible bother you then blame the people that came up with the ideas in the first place.

Hi Elemental :)

I find it supremely disturbing that anyone would equate mans bloodthirsty nature with that of my loving & merciful father YHWH. :cry:

But love your enemies, do good to them, and lend to them without expecting to get anything back. Then your reward will be great, and you will be sons of the Most High, because he is kind to the ungrateful and wicked.

Luke 6:35 (NIV)

And he passed in front of Moses, proclaiming, "The LORD, the LORD, the compassionate and gracious God, slow to anger, abounding in love and faithfulness

Exodus 34:6 (NIV)

agape Johnny :heartbeat:

There's probably a measure of large truth in that. The Hebrews already had "eye for eye" in their own law - why would they practise anything kinder to the pagan nations around them?

Mmm... and ditto to Man Hu too. :thumbup: We're used to something better than the Law. Plenty of nations practise their own version of justice and Law, but since our Lord we're privileged to have something better - not practised by any nation on earth - a uniquely Divine form of justice:). I too like the notion, Knight, that the days of "weighing blood" are over - where a single weak or angry act can bring an otherwise fine life to an end - and that instead our spirits, through forgiveness, have extended opportunity to show themselves in their finest colours. Much better to be evaluated on our potential for good than denounced for a single weak moment.

Acts5v29