The violence in the OT

[redleghunter]

The story of Jonah is disputed by christians to be historical or a moral. I don't think it is important where someone stands on it because it being literal or not has 0 effect on the Faith.

General question...Where do we 'draw the line' then when considering what is or is not factual? Most Christians I know who deny Jonah is literal is because they think it is quite silly a man can live in a sea beastie for three days and survive.

Yet Christ used that very account to show how literal His death and being in the ground three days and rise again. If one thinks a man in the belly of a sea beastie for three days is odd or silly what will they think if the dead rise?

No answer necessary, just something to ponder.

 

[SolomonVII]

No, it implies that All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work.

That doesn't actually necessitate being factually accurate. A parable, for instance, is not factually accurate.

In terms of God, we can make that presumption that God did not literally actually order the Israelites to fight ruthless, genocidal wars. So, let us ssume that these orders too are parables, even though the type of warfare that was historically being engaged in in that time period are fairly accurately described in their ruthlessness and genocidal intent-on all sides no doubt.

But for sake of argument, let us make the assumption that this is parable for a deeper truth about God.

If for example, we take the story of Judas having his entrails spilled out as a metaphor of OT Israel not being able to hold the new wine of the New Covenant, parable does have meaning for such an event, whether it is historically accurate or not.
It does not make sense however, that in an age filled with ruthless war, God ordering ruthless war is a form of parable.
What is the higher truth revealed by the Biblical narrative of his doing so?

 

[RDKirk]

In terms of God, we can make that presumption that God did not literally actually order the Israelites to fight ruthless, genocidal wars. So, let us ssume that these orders too are parables, even though the type of warfare that was historically being engaged in in that time period are fairly accurately described in their ruthlessness and genocidal intent-on all sides no doubt.

But for sake of argument, let us make the assumption that this is parable for a deeper truth about God.

If for example, we take the story of Judas having his entrails spilled out as a metaphor of OT Israel not being able to hold the new wine of the New Covenant, parable does have meaning for such an event, whether it is historically accurate or not.
It does not make sense however, that in an age filled with ruthless war, God ordering ruthless war is a form of parable.
What is the higher truth revealed by the Biblical narrative of his doing so?

As I also mentioned, it would make more sense that they fought those wars by their own volition, and since they won, they claimed God told them to do it.

And that happens a lot today as well. It was the justification used for slavery, for instance, as well as the attempted genocide of the native American population. People do it now, people did it then. "God told us to do it."

 

[Cis.jd]

General question...Where do we 'draw the line' then when considering what is or is not factual? Most Christians I know who deny Jonah is literal is because they think it is quite silly a man can live in a sea beastie for three days and survive.

Yet Christ used that very account to show how literal His death and being in the ground three days and rise again. If one thinks a man in the belly of a sea beastie for three days is odd or silly what will they think if the dead rise?

No answer necessary, just something to ponder.

The only thing necessary to acknowledge as factual is in regards to Jesus. I mean, if Jonah is proven to be fiction, would this effect what you know/believe Jesus to be? I know, it's a no for you.

In support of the historicity side, we've had historical records of people who have survived being swallowed by whales so it's not impossible. Contrary, I believe the Jonah story to be metaphorical and just something used as "life-advice" for believers. Even if it was historic, this is pretty much what this story can do for us either way.

 

[Cis.jd]

As I also mentioned, it would make more sense that they fought those wars by their own volition, and since they won, they claimed God told them to do it.

And that happens a lot today as well. It was the justification used for slavery, for instance, as well as the attempted genocide of the native American population. People do it now, people did it then. "God told us to do it."

while this is a good argument, it does give the un-believer the chance to say "so they lied in the Bible" or there is something "false" in the Bible.

I can imagine though that murders such as this was very common back then. Every single nation committed this stuff and mainly because of how low human understanding was towards this. This was still in the age of the Code of Hammurabi. Regardless, it is a very challenging form of theological content that I think christians should be prepared to answer, especially at this age.

 

[redleghunter]

The only thing necessary to acknowledge as factual is in regards to Jesus.

As in the dead do rise and Jesus did rise from the dead bodily?

 

[Cis.jd]

As in the dead do rise and Jesus did rise from the dead bodily?

You don't believe these things?

 

[redleghunter]

You don't believe these things?

Of course I do. I believe a man survived in the belly of a sea beastie because Jesus used that historical fact to predict His historical resurrection.

I was the one asking where to draw the line.

5000 fed miraculously...you believe Jesus made that happen or were there hidden sack lunches?

 

[Cis.jd]

Of course I do. I believe a man survived in the belly of a sea beastie because Jesus used that historical fact to predict His historical resurrection.

I was the one asking where to draw the line.

5000 fed miraculously...you believe Jesus made that happen or were there hidden sack lunches?

I did say everything about Jesus has to be taken as historical. It's all about who he is, what he did, and what he preached that we as christians have to defend as being historically true and accurate as written.

Jesus using the Jonah story as if it was a historical reference is disputable. We've seen people reference scenes in movies, legends, and other unreal stories to help give an understanding to a real life event, i don't understand why Jesus can't be understood the same way.

 

[redleghunter]

I did say everything about Jesus has to be taken true. Jesus using the Jonah story as if it was a historical reference is disputable. We've seen people reference scenes in movies, legends, and other unreal stories to help give an understanding to a real life event, i don't understand why Jesus can't be understood the same way.

So since you believe lepers were made clean instantly, Jesus fed thousands with a few pieces of bread and fish, that He raised up Lazarus, calmed a storm and walked on water, then why is a man under God's protection in the belly of a sea beastie so far fetched?

 

[SolomonVII]

As I also mentioned, it would make more sense that they fought those wars by their own volition, and since they won, they claimed God told them to do it.

And that happens a lot today as well. It was the justification used for slavery, for instance, as well as the attempted genocide of the native American population. People do it now, people did it then. "God told us to do it."

What would the point of having it in the Bible be then? What is the usefulness and profit in reading the Bible, if the lesson to be drawn is that God actually does not act as the Bible says that he acted, and the profit comes from not believing what the Bible tells us about God?
Sola Scriptura, until we know better than Scripture?

 

[Cis.jd]

So since you believe lepers were made clean instantly, Jesus fed thousands with a few pieces of bread and fish, that He raised up Lazarus, calmed a storm and walked on water, then why is a man under God's protection in the belly of a sea beastie so far fetched?

I'm not saying it's possible but there is just no evidence of it. There is also some details in the story of Jonah that don't make sense therefore I just don't see any compelling reason for it to be historic.

This is during the time where there was no TV, in where art was expressed through writing or visual media. Writers during that time did make epics such like this to express or even teach a moral lesson and that is what is important about Jonah and the other stories with in the OT. It being historical isn't important, it's the message in it that is.

 

[redleghunter]

I'm not saying it's possible but there is just no evidence of it. There is also some details in the story of Jonah that don't make sense therefore I just don't see any compelling reason for it to be historic.

This is during the time where there was no TV, in where art was expressed through writing or visual media. Writers during that time did make epics such like this to express or even teach a moral lesson and that is what is important about Jonah and the other stories with in the OT. It being historical isn't important, it's the message in it that is.

The OT does not read like an epic.

In fact the Hebrew history is not grandiose as other cultures made themselves out to be. The Hebrew history tells the good the bad and the ugly.

What do you consider inspired of God from the Old Testament?

And there was no TV in New Testament times. What compels you to believe the NT accounts over the OT accounts?

 

[RDKirk]

while this is a good argument, it does give the un-believer the chance to say "so they lied in the Bible" or there is something "false" in the Bible.

I can imagine though that murders such as this was very common back then. Every single nation committed this stuff and mainly because of how low human understanding was towards this. This was still in the age of the Code of Hammurabi. Regardless, it is a very challenging form of theological content that I think christians should be prepared to answer, especially at this age.

I don't actually think it's necessary to answer it. What happened in the OT does not matter.

"No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws them, and I will raise them up at the last day." -- John 6

He went on to say, "This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless the Father has enabled them." -- John 6

My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me -- John 10

When he [the Holy Spirit] comes, he will prove the world to be in the wrong about sin and righteousness and judgment-- John 16

What I have seen is this: The Holy Spirit does His job in convicting people of sin. However, what He sees as the "convicting sin" in their hearts is not necessarily the same thing we see with our eyes. They will have probably fully rationalized the sin we see with our eyes, thus our attempts to "convict the unbeliever of his sin" will probably harden his heart against hearing us. I have mentioned in another thread of a former prostitute telling me that very thing. That's why scripture says conviction is the job of the Holy Spirit.

But this is the truth: The Father has enabled people around us to be drawn to Christ. There are people around us who are enabled, and they are our "target market." Not everyone--just those people. Again, this is not something we can see, but because scripture says it, we can depend on it. It gives us confidence that our witness and evangelism (two different things, btw) are not in vain.

But only if we are actually speaking in the voice of Jesus, speaking His words of salvation, not condemnation:

“Come to me, all you who are weary and burdened, and I will give you rest. Take my yoke upon you and learn from me, for I am gentle and humble in heart, and you will find rest for your souls. For my yoke is easy and my burden is light.” --Matthew 11

That's not the way most Christians in the US approach people, particularly those who look like grave sinners. Most Christians want to make sure those sinners are fully convicted first, make sure they know they're condemned and going to hell.

That's not the gospel. Condemnation is the voice of Satan, not the voice of Jesus. Those people who have been enabled by the Father need only hear the words of Jesus, and they will respond.

Nobody needs to be walked through the OT to get to Jesus. The OT does not need to be reconciled to unbelievers to get to Jesus.

What this means, to get to my point, is that debates about the Old Testament are distractions away from actually getting to the gospel. It's never necessary to get involved with them. Every minute tied up in those debates keeps us from speaking the words of Jesus, that Jesus is where those who have been enabled by the Father will find rest from the discomfiture that the Holy Spirit has laid upon them.

In the military, we have a concept called "preparing the battlefield." That means setting the stage beforehand so that your own side will have the advantage in a coming battle: Planting land mines, setting booby traps, stringing concertina wire, et cetera.

Rest assure, Satan has prepared the battlefield to prevent those who have been enabled from hearing the voice of Jesus from us, to distract us, to delay us, to reroute us, to point us into dead ends and endless debates, because he knows that if the enabled hear Jesus, they will respond.

 

[Cis.jd]

The OT does not read like an epic.

In fact the Hebrew history is not grandiose as other cultures made themselves out to be. The Hebrew history tells the good the bad and the ugly.

What do you consider inspired of God from the Old Testament?

And there was no TV in New Testament times. What compels you to believe the NT accounts over the OT accounts?

They are all inspired, but just because they are inspired doesn't mean they are documenting history. You don't need to have actual historical events to give a message. Jesus gave parables and none of his parables where historic, they were all made to give a lesson.

What I consider actually historic in the Bible is everything that connects to Jesus. David and his Psalms, the Messianic Prophesies. Anything that is connected and sums up what is written in the Apostles Creed is all that I need to know as factual.

The NT accounts are the reason for our faith. That is one aspect why I consider the NT accounts as historical. How can Christianity be real if the events about Jesus weren't true? The OT events don't need to be historic for us, it's what is about Jesus that is needed to be historic.

 

[Cis.jd]

I don't actually think it's necessary to answer it. What happened in the OT does not matter.

"No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws them, and I will raise them up at the last day." -- John 6

He went on to say, "This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless the Father has enabled them." -- John 6

My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me -- John 10

When he [the Holy Spirit] comes, he will prove the world to be in the wrong about sin and righteousness and judgment-- John 16

What I have seen is this: The Holy Spirit does His job in convicting people of sin. However, what He sees as the "convicting sin" in their hearts is not necessarily the same thing we see with our eyes. They will have probably fully rationalized the sin we see with our eyes, thus our attempts to "convict the unbeliever of his sin" will probably harden his heart against hearing us. I have mentioned in another thread of a former prostitute telling me that very thing. That's why scripture says conviction is the job of the Holy Spirit.

But this is the truth: The Father has enabled people around us to be drawn to Christ. There are people around us who are enabled, and they are our "target market." Not everyone--just those people. Again, this is not something we can see, but because scripture says it, we can depend on it. It gives us confidence that our witness and evangelism (two different things, btw) are not in vain.

But only if we are actually speaking in the voice of Jesus, speaking His words of salvation, not condemnation:

“Come to me, all you who are weary and burdened, and I will give you rest. Take my yoke upon you and learn from me, for I am gentle and humble in heart, and you will find rest for your souls. For my yoke is easy and my burden is light.” --Matthew 11

That's not the way most Christians in the US approach people, particularly those who look like grave sinners. Most Christians want to make sure those sinners are fully convicted first, make sure they know they're condemned and going to hell.

That's not the gospel. Condemnation is the voice of Satan, not the voice of Jesus. Those people who have been enabled by the Father need only hear the words of Jesus, and they will respond.

Nobody needs to be walked through the OT to get to Jesus. The OT does not need to be reconciled to unbelievers to get to Jesus.

What this means, to get to my point, is that debates about the Old Testament are distractions away from actually getting to the gospel. It's never necessary to get involved with them. Every minute tied up in those debates keeps us from speaking the words of Jesus, that Jesus is where those who have been enabled by the Father will find rest from the discomfiture that the Holy Spirit has laid upon them.

In the military, we have a concept called "preparing the battlefield." That means setting the stage beforehand so that your own side will have the advantage in a coming battle: Planting land mines, setting booby traps, stringing concertina wire, et cetera.

Rest assure, Satan has prepared the battlefield to prevent those who have been enabled from hearing the voice of Jesus from us, to distract us, to delay us, to reroute us, to point us into dead ends and endless debates, because he knows that if the enabled hear Jesus, they will respond.

I can't disagree with what you posted.

 

[redleghunter]

The NT accounts are the reason for our faith. That is one aspect why I consider the NT accounts as historical. How can Christianity be real if the events about Jesus weren't true? The OT events don't need to be historic for us, it's what is about Jesus that is needed to be historic.

Jesus told His disciples they can find Him in the OT Scriptures. Luke 24:44-50

All of the Messianic prophecies are in the OT.

 

[Tayla]

I'm just interested to see how believers here can explain it intelligently and in ways that (if possible) is understandable for secular people.

The problem for Christians is, these can't be explained in a satisfying manner except by referring to a dry (and lifeless) philosophical argument. Or with explanations that Christians can't agree on.

 

[SolomonVII]

The problem for Christians is, these can't be explained in a satisfying manner except by referring to a dry (and lifeless) philosophical argument. Or with explanations that Christians can't agree on.

The problem for Christians is that secular attitudes are dominant for everyone in our society, and these attitudes do not allow for believing in the hard messages in the Bible about God.
It is not as if secular modern attitudes have not always been with us. Even from the beginning of Christianity there were those who wanted to expunge God of the Old Testament from Christianity.
Christians and Jews by and large historically have never had problems believing that the Bible gives a true depiction of who God must be. That is before God was reduced to an icon in the likeness of the Easter Bunny and Santa Claus, all sweetness and sugar and giving, and none of the harshness associated with a Creator capable of creating a universe with infinite suffering, where death itself can be life's greatest mercy.

Israel’s conscripted citizens are more at peace with God of the Bible being a true vision of God. Soldiers there go on from military service to become competent citizens very capable of integrating the violence inherent in the cruelty in military action into successful careers. They understand that cruelty is a necessary part of life in a world where hell and evil exist.
I don't think that the same can be said for many of the soldiers coming back from war in most other Western countries. Historians say that it is WWI that most broke the spirit of doing what it takes to win a war. Nagging guilt certainly has been the experience of many soldiers returning from war to America, particularly since Vietnam.
Moslems for their part still understand that cruelty is necessary for survival. It has not become as corrupted by these modern attitudes.
It is likely that American may never win a significant war again, as long as modern attitudes of shame about God as he is depicted in the OT persist, and play themselves out in wave after wave of guilt-ridden soldiers returning from doing their jobs in wars.
It is not coincidence that a society that rejects the masculine traits of God rejects masculinity itself. The war against the patriarchy, and mansplaining and manspreading and the like is a war against God.
Man is capable of great cruelty, because we are made in the image of God. The Jewish attitude does not try to deny this, but understands that the evil inclination is the energy that fuels us. Torah on the other hand is the spice that directs the flavor. The evil inclination is the meat, and Torah is the spice that makes the dish fine cuisine fit for a beast that lives in the world of spirit.
People who have lost their capacity for being cruel, in the right measure, have also lost their capacity to survive in a world that seeks to destroy those too unfit to carry their lives forward, doing what it takes to reach the goal.