Nice Jesus, happy life. Read more OT?

Tellyontellyon said:

Is there a tendency among SOME Christians to see God/Jesus as very loving, but play down the scary, wrathful side of God?
Might that also apply to a worldview? I.e. that the life of one who is saved is about joy and happiness, is emphasized , while downplaying the necessity of sacrifice and suffering?

Partly what I'm getting at is that the God described in the Old Testament is whitewashed? And that the OT is not given as much consideration as it might deserve?
(Again, I say for SOME Christians.)

Click to expand...

The bible is one continuous story (it is to be taken as a whole) ... one God throughout. God is just and God is loving. Mankind has a rebellious (sinful) nature and He has been addressing that throughout history. The OT focuses largely on His just side ... the NT focuses largely on His loving side.

His Word is clear ... we will have tribulations in this world ... because sin is in the world.

John 16:33
Berean Study Bible
I have told you these things so that in Me you may have peace. In the world you will have tribulation. But take courage; I have overcome the world!”

Tellyontellyon said:

Is there a tendency among SOME Christians to see God/Jesus as very loving, but play down the scary, wrathful side of God?
Might that also apply to a worldview? I.e. that the life of one who is saved is about joy and happiness, is emphasized , while downplaying the necessity of sacrifice and suffering?

Click to expand...

People have had issues like this going back to the early days of Christianity.

Marcion of Pontus, (flourished 2nd century CE), , Christian heretic. Although Marcion is known only through reports and quotations from his orthodox opponents, especially Tertullian’s Adversus Marcionem (“Against Marcion”), the principal outlines of his teaching seem clear. His teaching made a radical distinction between the God of the Old Testament (the Creator) and the Father of Jesus Christ (the God of Love).


Marcion of Pontus | Christian theologian

Tellyontellyon said:

Partly what I'm getting at is that the God described in the Old Testament is whitewashed? And that the OT is not given as much consideration as it might deserve?
(Again, I say for SOME Christians.)

Click to expand...

1) I actually like the Tale of 8 Blind Sufi-wise Men when it comes to this metaphysical stuff. It is difficult for finite beings to really comprehend a being of infinite scope.


2) The Old Testament books, prophecies, recorded events etc. were given or came from a society that is much different than out own. Besides Technological development we have had some moral and ethical development as well from Christianity and various Humanistic movements etc.


3) I do however believe that the OT and NT Testament give a view of comprehending God as Logos Truth. Their are lots of stuff behind those Old Testament commandments etc. from the stand point of allegory, foreshadowing, sometimes even giving practical advice on health for a society that lacked advanced Medical and Health knowledge.

If the question is "Do SOME Christians...." the answer has to be "yes," no matter what the question is.

Christians are a very diverse group and although there are correct and incorrect POVs as well as devout and nominal "Christians" it is almost impossible--as with most other faiths, too--to make much out of a question that asks if SOME but only SOME people believe almost anything.

There is a great book by Hans Boersma, Scripture as Real Presence, in which one of the arguments he makes is that the early church embraced allegorical interpretation in order to "make space" (so to speak) between God as represented in the OT and God as revealed in Jesus Christ. That's not to say that was the only reason they embraced allegorical interpretation. The primary reason was to show the typology of Christ throughout the OT. Nonetheless, they were acutely aware of critics and the perceived disjointed representations, e.g. Marcion.

public hermit said:

There is a great book by Hans Boersma, Scripture as Real Presence, in which one of the arguments he makes is that the early church embraced allegorical interpretation in order to "make space" (so to speak) between God as represented in the OT and God as revealed in Jesus Christ. That's not to say that was the only reason they embraced allegorical interpretation. The primary reason was to show the typology of Christ throughout the OT. Nonetheless, they were acutely aware of critics and the perceived disjointed representations, e.g. Marcion.

Click to expand...

I wonder if the Jews were already using allegorical interpretation of the OT? The God of the OT must have troubled the Jews as much as it troubled the early Christians. In other words, maybe this allegorical solution was something the early Christians brought with them from Judaism rather than inventing? If the early Christians were Jews then maybe the allegorical interpretation of the OT was taken for granted as the correct interpetation?

cloudyday2 said:

I wonder if the Jews were already using allegorical interpretation of the OT? The God of the OT must have troubled the Jews as much as it troubled the early Christians. In other words, maybe this allegorical solution was something the early Christians brought with them from Judaism rather than inventing?

Click to expand...

That's a good point. I intentionally used the term "embraced" because I think Philo and others had made some headway in that direction. But your point goes further and implies that the OT writers did, as well? Maybe I'm reading too much into your statement. I hadn't really thought of that, but it's an interesting thesis. I wonder if anyone has written on that.

public hermit said:

That's a good point. I intentionally used the term "embraced" because I think Philo and others had made some headway in that direction. But your point goes further and implies that the OT writers did, as well? Maybe I'm reading too much into your statement. I hadn't really thought of that, but it's an interesting thesis. I wonder if anyone has written on that.

Click to expand...

There are some OT books that are widely understood to be allegorical like Job, Esther, Ecclesiastes, Jonah, and Daniel (also Tobit in some versions of OT).

The troubling stuff in the OT is mostly the Pentateuch. The composition of the Pentateuch is pretty complicated. Assuming there was a redactor who put it all together during the Exile, I wonder what he believed? Did he believe that the sources were allegories or literal events?

cloudyday2 said:

There are some OT books that are widely understood to be allegorical like Job, Esther, Ecclesiastes, Jonah, and Daniel (also Tobit in some versions of OT).

The troubling stuff in the OT is mostly the Pentateuch. The composition of the Pentateuch is pretty complicated. Assuming there was a redactor who put it all together during the Exile, I wonder what he believed? Did he believe that the sources were allegories or literal events?

Click to expand...

Those are good questions to which I don't have answers.

I know Joshua, which is particularly violent, was a favorite target of allegorical interpretation partly because Joshua and Jesus have the same name.

Tellyontellyon said:

Is there a tendency among SOME Christians to see God/Jesus as very loving, but play down the scary, wrathful side of God?
Might that also apply to a worldview? I.e. that the life of one who is saved is about joy and happiness, is emphasized , while downplaying the necessity of sacrifice and suffering?

Partly what I'm getting at is that the God described in the Old Testament is whitewashed? And that the OT is not given as much consideration as it might deserve?
(Again, I say for SOME Christians.)

Click to expand...

There was a strain of evangelism that seemed to do that, but it was always controversial. So, I suppose you could say that is or was true for some Christians who either didn't know what they were talking about, or who decided to oversimplify God's character.

cloudyday2 said:

I wonder if the Jews were already using allegorical interpretation of the OT? The God of the OT must have troubled the Jews as much as it troubled the early Christians. In other words, maybe this allegorical solution was something the early Christians brought with them from Judaism rather than inventing? If the early Christians were Jews then maybe the allegorical interpretation of the OT was taken for granted as the correct interpetation?

Click to expand...

By definition of allegorical interpretation such is a myriad of conflicting and varying interpretations and MUCH of Scripture is clearly intended to be interpreted literally.
"The problem with the allegorical method of interpretation is that it seeks to find an allegorical interpretation for every passage of Scripture, regardless of whether or not it is intended to be understood in that way. Interpreters who allegorize can be very creative, with no control based in the text itself. It becomes easy to read one’s own beliefs into the allegory and then think that they have scriptural support." This is why "it was displaced during the Reformation. The Reformers sought the “plain meaning” of Scripture."
For allegorical interpreters of Scripture this should be remembered:
"There will always be some disagreement about whether certain texts are to be taken literally or figuratively and to what degree, as evidenced by disagreements over the book of Revelation, even among those who have high regard for Scripture. For a text to be interpreted allegorically or figuratively, there needs to be justification in the text itself or something in the cultural background of the original readers that would have led them to understand the text symbolically. The goal of every interpreter who has a high view of Scripture is to discover the intended meaning of the text. If the intended meaning is simply the literal communication of a historical fact or the straightforward explanation of a theological truth, then that is the inspired meaning. If the intended meaning is allegorical/typological/symbolic/figurative, then the interpreter should find some justification for it in the text and in the culture of the original hearers/readers." All above quotes pasted from: What is wrong with the allegorical interpretation method? | GotQuestions.org

That having been said, I agree w/Albion in that there will ALWAYS be some from any group with a deviant or differing perspective. But having said that also, I think that your perspective is void of a reality of God's judgement in the NT and new church/what some call the age of grace.
Turn to Acts 5:1-11 NIV:
"Now a man named Ananias, together with his wife Sapphira, also sold a piece of property. 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.

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? 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.”

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

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

“Yes,” she said, “that is the price.”

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.”

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. Great fear seized the whole church and all who heard about these events."

The above event occurred in the establishing early church of which you speak.

Additionally, when Jesus sent out the Twelve in Matt 10 He gave them instructions to follow among others,
"As you enter the home, give it your greeting. If the home is deserving, let your peace rest on it; if it is not, let your peace return to you. If anyone will not welcome you or listen to your words, leave that home or town and shake the dust off your feet. Truly I tell you, it will be more bearable for Sodom and Gomorrah on the day of judgment than for that town. I am sending you out like sheep among wolves. Therefore be as shrewd as snakes and as innocent as doves. Be on your guard; you will be handed over to the local councils and be flogged in the synagogues."

Does that sound like the peace and love and grace you insist was the preeminent mind frame of the early church and not mindful of God's judgement and serious perplexity in a Christian's life? Shaking the dust of of one's feet as they left was to put a curse upon whoever was being departed in that culture and time. Even today it is a great offense to show the sole of your foot to another in the middle east.

What about this Jesus also said:

“Do not think that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I have not come to bring peace, but a sword." Matt 10:34 ESV

You mistake the REAL mind frame of the early Christians, most of whom were Jews. Jesus and His church ARE merely the progression of one story of Yahweh. The OT and NT are INTENTIONALLY included within a single book cover. The NT is the result and answer to what occurs in the OT under the SAME Yahweh. Yahweh's judgement and anger against evil and sin have not dissipated one iota, and we shall all see (and are seeing) that unmistakably. The only difference between the two is that God, Yahweh, sent us His only begotten Son to teach us and show us. For example, Jesus did NOT remove the 10 Commandments, He only made it simpler for us to understand them by giving two, which, if followed, would avoid more than just the 10 Commandments but ALL sin. And then Jesus came ultimately to become the prophesied Messiah, the Savior, the unblemished Lamb whose sacrificed, slaughtered blood would save any who chose to believe, not for just a moment any longer, but for all eternity.

I prefer the OT to the new. Mainly because I read it more as a child, possibly because of the story format of the prophets. I see no difference between the God of the OT & NT, which is in line with his never-changing nature. The attempt to make a distinction does make me tire of the problem-with-evil question, because when God stops evil, he's malevolent. When he doesn't, he's malevolent. Some will never like God simply because he is God.

They are like unto children sitting in the marketplace, and calling one to another, and saying, We have piped unto you, and ye have not danced; we have mourned to you, and ye have not wept.
For John came neither eating nor drinking, and they say, He hath a devil.
The Son of man came eating and drinking, and they say, Behold a man gluttonous, and a winebibber, a friend of publicans and sinners.

Rachel20 said:

I prefer the OT to the new. Mainly because I read it more as a child, possibly because of the story format of the prophets.

Click to expand...

I prefer the OT also. Paul has never inspired me very much, and the NT is mostly his letters. My favorite books are the historical books in the OT such as Kings.

Sorry, I did not realize this is in the Exploring Christianity sub-forum. Only Christians are supposed to reply to the OP.

Tellyontellyon said:

Is there a tendency among SOME Christians to see God/Jesus as very loving, but play down the scary, wrathful side of God?
Might that also apply to a worldview? I.e. that the life of one who is saved is about joy and happiness, is emphasized , while downplaying the necessity of sacrifice and suffering?

Partly what I'm getting at is that the God described in the Old Testament is whitewashed? And that the OT is not given as much consideration as it might deserve?
(Again, I say for SOME Christians.)

Click to expand...

God, naked and hidden behind the veil of the Law, is a God of wrath; not because God is a big meany pants who wants to smite us, but rather that as a sinner to look at God through the Law and the great gulf between His righteousness and our unrighteousness is to behold the terrifying, frightening fire and smoke of God's "hind parts".

But God, revealed and clothed in the lowly flesh of Jesus Christ, that's seeing God's face. And we behold here the friendly, fatherly heart of God. He who is bursting forth in love for all, whose disposition for us sinners to to rescue us and love us.

It's the difference of vantage point. Do we look at God through our own sinful works, or do we look at God through Jesus Christ in faith?

-CryptoLutheran

John 1: 17 For the law was given through Moses; grace and truth came through Jesus Christ .

God revealed Himself gradually to humanity, taking into account the intellectual, moral and spiritual maturity of the people to whom He was revealing Himself. In the Old Testament we find a not-yet-fulfilled understanding of God and the ways he imparts to us.

In Christ God revealed fully Himself and only in Christ we can fully know who God is and how we are called to serve him.