Why did God stop directly commiting acts violent judgement?

[DragonFox91]

I don't think it's terrible starting w/ Genesis & Exodus for those w/ a basic understanding of Christianity. W/out it, Christ doesn't mean anything. "Repent? Who cares!" "Jesus is all love!" Creation & the Fall is imperative especially. But may've been helpful for someone totally new starting w/ one of the Gospels and then move to Genesis thru about the 10 Commandments in Exodus.

Good answer on slavery tho. Indeed, we may have 'abolished' slavery but we find out there's no perfect manmade system. As I was saying, we're all slaves to something. It's a manmade idea it went away

Also, I like your Romans 1 answer. I've read many times God's greatest act of judgement is NOT to directly intervene.

 

[Fervent]

I don't think it's terrible starting w/ Genesis & Exodus for those w/ a basic understanding of Christianity. W/out it, Christ doesn't mean anything. "Repent? Who cares!" "Jesus is all love!" Creation & the Fall is imperative especially. But may've been helpful for someone totally new starting w/ one of the Gospels and then move to Genesis thru about the 10 Commandments in Exodus.

Good answer on slavery tho. Indeed, we may have 'abolished' slavery but we find out there's no perfect manmade system. As I was saying, we're all slaves to something. It's a manmade idea it went away

Also, I like your Romans 1 answer. I've read many times God's greatest act of judgement is NOT to directly intervene.

There are a number of reasons I think its terrible to start with the OT, partly because it is the least readable material(especially the pentateuch which was likely preserved orally before being committed to writing), partly because there is a lot of evil that occurs and doesn't get commented on that requires knowledge of the conventions of Hebrew literature, mostly because the image of God in the OT is a shadow that isn't fully revealed until the NT. What benefit there are to reading the OT requires deep roots in the faith to truly be able to grasp, and most of the NT is intelligible without much knowledge of the OT, though understanding the OT certainly can clear things up.

Personnally, I'd recommend someone not familiar with Christianity to start with Luke or John and then move to Galatians or Ephesians, and be ready to ask questions to clarify where context is needed. There's just far too much in the OT that is objectionable to modern sensibilities.

 

[DragonFox91]

There are a number of reasons I think its terrible to start with the OT, partly because it is the least readable material(especially the pentateuch which was likely preserved orally before being committed to writing), partly because there is a lot of evil that occurs and doesn't get commented on that requires knowledge of the conventions of Hebrew literature, mostly because the image of God in the OT is a shadow that isn't fully revealed until the NT. What benefit there are to reading the OT requires deep roots in the faith to truly be able to grasp, and most of the NT is intelligible without much knowledge of the OT, though understanding the OT certainly can clear things up.

Personnally, I'd recommend someone not familiar with Christianity to start with Luke or John and then move to Galatians or Ephesians, and be ready to ask questions to clarify where context is needed. There's just far too much in the OT that is objectionable to modern sensibilities.

ooooo, yikes. That's all very dangerous thinking & is really all the more reason to start w/ at least Genesis & most of Exodus.

 

[Fervent]

ooooo, that's where we'd disagree. That's all very dangerous thinking & is really all the more reason to start w/ the OT.

What, precisely, do you disagree with? And what do you believe is dangerous thinking?

In the OT, God was largely known indirectly. Through prophets and messengers. In the new, we have the fullest revelation of God in Jesus himself. The OT often speaks of qualities that belong to God like His mercy and lovingkindness, but it is easily lost because God was using His judgments to prepare the world for Christ's revelation through Israel. It's easy to lose the true image of God in the midst of accounts of Israel's sinfulness and the judgments that come, and it is only in light of the later revelation that such things are revealed to have been present all along.

 

[DragonFox91]

What, precisely, do you disagree with? And what do you believe is dangerous thinking?

In the OT, God was largely known indirectly. Through prophets and messengers. In the new, we have the fullest revelation of God in Jesus himself. The OT often speaks of qualities that belong to God like His mercy and lovingkindness, but it is easily lost because God was using His judgments to prepare the world for Christ's revelation through Israel. It's easy to lose the true image of God in the midst of accounts of Israel's sinfulness and the judgments that come, and it is only in light of the later revelation that such things are revealed to have been present all along.

That he's a shadow. That people didn't know his full character

He doesn't change. He's clear he's merciful & has lovingkindness in the OT, & he's clear he's a judge in the NT. Both themes are frequent. Both themes are consistent. That's the point of those prophets & messengers. That's the point of Jesus. That's the point of those NT letters. So I don't see a point in trying to hide he judges in Genesis & Exodus, when he's just as clear he's a judge & people will be judged, in the NT.

 

[Fervent]

That he's a shadow. He doesn't change. He's clear he's merciful & has lovingkindness in the OT, & he's clear he's a judge in the NT. Both themes are frequent. Both themes are consistent. So I don't see a point in trying to hide he's a judge in Genesis & Exodus, when he's just as clear he's a judge & people will be judged, in the NT.

I never said He changes, it's simply that the New Testament reveals what was concealed in the OT. He remains a judge, but His judgment is not purely punitive and the OT can at times appear that way without the proper understanding of God's judgements that comes from the NT(and to a lesser extent prophetic books). So it's not about trying to hide that He's a judge in Genesis and Exodus, but in giving the proper context so that His judgment can be understood for what it is rather than being misunderstood because of the things the reader is bringing to the text.

 

[DragonFox91]

I never said He changes, it's simply that the New Testament reveals what was concealed in the OT. He remains a judge, but His judgment is not purely punitive and the OT can at times appear that way without the proper understanding of God's judgements that comes from the NT(and to a lesser extent prophetic books). So it's not about trying to hide that He's a judge in Genesis and Exodus, but in giving the proper context so that His judgment can be understood for what it is rather than being misunderstood because of the things the reader is bringing to the text.

I kind of understand what you're saying. I disagree w/ the phrasing 'concealed' & see it a lot. I believe it comes from the 'God changes between the OT & the NT' heresies & can produce those heresies. I've seen it produce those heresies. I've seen churches destroyed b/c of that line of thinking. They used the word 'concealed' too. Remember: Jesus didn't just pop out of nowhere: the Jews knew he was coming. They knew he was coming b/c the OT confirmed it. Who God is was already known. & Romans 1 & 2 says who he is wasn't even exclusive knowledge to the Jews. Nothing was concealed

It is truth people can bring a lot of their own misunderstandings to the OT & that can do more harm than good. They read 'rape' & 'slave' & think 'God must be saying those are good!' I'm glad OP is asking questions. Indeed, the OT really needs to be studied. It can't just be read like a novel or for entertainment. Context really needs to be known, even from just a Jewish understanding & not Christian one. It's not supposed to be just read, & really the NT isn't either.

 

[Fervent]

I kind of understand what you're saying. I disagree w/ the phrasing 'concealed' & see it a lot. I believe it comes from the 'God changes between the OT & the NT' heresies & can produce those heresies. I've seen it produce those heresies. I've seen churches destroyed b/c of that line of thinking. They used the word 'concealed' too. Remember: Jesus didn't just pop out of nowhere: the Jews knew he was coming. They knew he was coming b/c the OT confirmed it. Who God is was already known. & Romans 1 & 2 says who he is wasn't even exclusive knowledge to the Jews.

I understand your concern, but I think you may not understand what heresies are and why they are powerful. Heresies that have no basis in what is true simply don't take purchase, instead they are distortions of something true by placing an undue emphasis while excluding other things that are true. In this case, emphasizing the paradigms that exist in the OT vs NT to such an extreme extent that they are said to be different gods in operation. There is a difference in how God is presented in the OT, vs the NT as a part of His plans. In the OT the alien holiness of God takes center stage so their is an intolerance of sin and seeing His merciful side requires careful attention. In the NT, God's compassion is emphasized so seeing that He remains the holy judge can at times get lost. That some over-emphasize the distinction doesn't mean we shouldn't recognize that there is a real distinction, and recognizing the distinction doesn't mean proposing that God has somehow changed.

It is truth people can bring a lot of their own misunderstandings to the OT & that can do more harm than good. They read 'rape' & 'slave' & think 'God must be saying those are good!' I'm glad OP is asking questions. Indeed, the OT really needs to be studied. It can't just be read like a novel or for entertainment. Context really needs to be known, even from just a Jewish understanding & not Christian one. It's not supposed to be just read, & really the NT isn't either.

Yes, that is another of the issues. A lot of people seem to think that if it's in the Bible it must have God's stamp of approval, when the function of the OT is largely to draw out the desperate sinfulness of humanity including God's chosen people. Study is definitely required for both, and there are problematic things in the NT(problematic in the sense that modern readers may take offense based on misunderstandings, rather than being genuine problems). Realistically, I'm not sure how much benefit someone may get from the Bible without the Holy Spirit guiding them. It can cut both ways in giving people reasons to view Christianity negatively, or recognizing the truth and beauty of the God it presents.

 

[Peacemaker1]

In the OT the alien holiness of God takes center stage so their is an intolerance of sin and seeing His merciful side requires careful attention. In the NT, God's compassion is emphasized so seeing that He remains the holy judge can at times get lost. That some over-emphasize the distinction doesn't mean we shouldn't recognize that there is a real distinction, and recognizing the distinction doesn't mean proposing that God has somehow changed.

in the old testament, this begins with cursed man, all men under the same curse, all men sinning, and the entire purpose of the testimony of the old, is that it is always failure, no matter how much good ways god gives, everyone turns to their own evil ways.

there is no hope in death, all die by disobeying those right ways of the lord, and he brought salvation to us as there was no man, so by the time Jesus appears, in the fulness of time as we are witnessed, Jesus is made of a woman, and fulfils the promise made to abraham, of faith, of the seed given, Jesus coming as the king, meek and lowly, sitting on the throne of david.

 

[Peacemaker1]

the function of the OT is largely to draw out the desperate sinfulness of humanity including God's chosen people.

the purpose of the old is showing the way forward, sin is because of unbelief, the faith of Christ destroys sin and death, because darkness and the power of satan all were under, was enlightened and forever disappeared through gods light, now whosoever does not believe in the son of god is in darkness and dies in their sins.[unbelief]

Realistically, I'm not sure how much benefit someone may get from the Bible without the Holy Spirit guiding them.

the people in the time of the old test had no benefit, as the holy ghost is given after Christ is risen, recognising that we thirst for righteousness, he gives us water to drink out of his pierced belly, we hunger for what we live by, every word of god, the son of god Jesus Christ gives us his body to eat, being the word of god, and we even live by him.

 

[Peacemaker1]

so god never committed violent acts, god created salvation for all, and the violent act of man is to choose death for all who follow their faithlessness, against the faith of our lord and saviour, who had to give his body for us, to redeem us from the death we received from unfaithful man, and which all other men pass to us in their words and selfish lives, that are not the words of life that save us all, from our one lord and saviour, who alone died for us, to also deliver us from our enemy the subtle liar the antichrist devil.