Soldiers of Jah (page 11)

believingxjw

PSacramento,

I think we may be speaking passed one another, it's hard in this medium sometimes to get a clear point across. Here's my thoughts for what their worth.

Jesus confirmed the religious historicity of Noah's day and Sodom and that what occurred there was of divine origin. He was not, imo, "clearing up what He viewed as a incorrect view of what God wants," when he taught us to love our enemies. God did what he wanted in the OT and does the same in the NT. God has not changed (something you agree with) God in the OT is the same in the NT. Death and destruction are not a memory of the OT only, they are also found in the NT.

Also, the fact that Jesus uses Noah's day and Sodom as examples of what is to come gives at least tacit support to the truth of those events as recorded in the OT. He did not change the events, correct them or disagree with their results. If Jesus by saying we should love our enemies was in fact correcting an incorrect view of God found in the OT then he took it all away by using events in which God directly kills people. And of course, like with Sodom and Noah's day, Jesus never says that Moses' actions in battle were not from God.

We must love our enemies, this is a fact. But God does not change and what was, was. Jesus corrected men who went beyond what God said, and he instituted a better way, but he never implied that the OT was not inspired or accurate.

notverylikely

Jesus is the WORD of God, as such, when he speaks, God speaks, whe we see Jesus and hear him, we hear God.

OK, I can respect that, but here is my issue with it.

Imagine you have a box sitting on the floor. The box is black and red, covered in razor sharp electrfied spike coated in poison that. The word LOVE is crafted on the side of the box from the men, women and children it has killed.

One day the box open and out pops a fuzzy white bunny that is the sweetest thing ever and loves to snuggle and play.

Does it seem reasonable to say that because the bunny came from the box that it perfectly describes the box?

That's what I see, Jesus if he is the word of God, reflects an entirely different god from the OT, the qualities that Jesus displayed and preached were literally the exact opposite of what YHWH displayed. Jesus preached love and faith and not ritual and personal deliverance, YHWH preached inheritance, destruction, death and ritualized worship.

It seems that to lay claim to Jesus revealing the word of God that God's word totally changed.

notverylikely

Jesus confirmed the religious historicity of Noah's day and Sodom and that what occurred there was of divine origin.

The historicity of Jesus has not been confirmed.

tec

NVL - there are things written in the OT that corroborate the view Jesus gave us of his father. For example, the kind of 'fasting' God wanted was to feed the poor and the widows, to loosen the chains of oppression, etc. Not mark your face or whatever 'ritual' the religion instituted. "I desire mercy, not sacrifice (or religion in the NWT, I think)", is a scripture from Hosea 6:6, which Jesus repeated in the NT.

These things were always important - the people just chose to focus on the law rather than the love or mercy that were the more important matters of the law.

Tammy

believingxjw

NVL,

Jesus preached destruction of the wicked, he taught a ritual, in his lifetime he concentrated on saving mostly the Jews not gentiles. True, he did not teach his disciples to form an army and go kill, he left that to himself and his Father.

PSacramento

We must love our enemies, this is a fact. But God does not change and what was, was. Jesus corrected men who went beyond what God said, and he instituted a better way, but he never implied that the OT was not inspired or accurate.

Not ALL of the OT is inspired or accurate nor is it all to be taken as literal.

There are warning in the the OT about the scribes tampering with the "word of God" and those warnings must be heeded.

Jesus did not deny that Sodom was destroyed by God and as the story goes, I doubt anyone could say it wasn't deserving.

Jesus did not deny that the flood killed MANY, but I don't recall him saying that God SENT the flood to kill INNOCENTS.

Jesus was correcting the view that God wanted the enemies to be killed and showed NO mercy, Jesus correct that view even in regards to oursevles ( God wants mercy not sacrifice) and Paul correct the view that God is jealous in Corinthians.

To say that no correcting was going is not correct.

notverylikely

These things were always important - the people just chose to focus on the law rather than the love or mercy that were the more important matters of the law.

They didn't have much choice. Jesus message can be summed up in a few paragraphs at most. The law had truckloads of rules and regulations. Every facet of their life was governed by the law, including the sacrifices they were required to make.

Jesus preached destruction of the wicked, he taught a ritual, in his lifetime he concentrated on saving mostly the Jews not gentiles. True, he did not teach his disciples to form an army and go kill, he left that to himself and his Father.

Jesus preached destruction, not from God as it was issued in the OT, but from failure to listen and take action. That's a far cry from OT where people were killed for the same things the Israelites were doing. He didn't leave it to his father, after Job, the father never speaks again in the Bible and the NT is entirely focused on a completely different message.

Not ALL of the OT is inspired or accurate nor is it all to be taken as literal.

There is no reason to think all or any of the NT is inspired either, my friend.

Jesus was correcting the view that God wanted the enemies to be killed and showed NO mercy, Jesus correct that view even in regards to oursevles ( God wants mercy not sacrifice) and Paul correct the view that God is jealous in Corinthians.

How do you know that Jesus wasn't misrepresenting the correct view?

believingxjw

PSacramento,

"Jesus did not deny that the flood killed MANY, but I don't recall him saying that God SENT the flood to kill INNOCENTS."

Neither does Genesis.

"Jesus was correcting the view that God wanted the enemies to be killed and showed NO mercy, Jesus correct that view even in regards to oursevles ( God wants mercy not sacrifice) and Paul correct the view that God is jealous in Corinthians."

Jesus corrected the Jewish religious leaders for their lack of mercy. But where in the NT did he correct Moses and his actions in battle? I'm not saying Christians should join armies and go kill one another that is a whole other topic. But what I am saying is that Jesus did not correct the actions that Moses and Joshua took in battle. In order to believe so we must put words in his mouth something I'm not prepared to do otherwise all manner of thought can be inserted into the NT!

PSacramento

That's what I see, Jesus if he is the word of God, reflects an entirely different god from the OT, the qualities that Jesus displayed and preached were literally the exact opposite of what YHWH displayed. Jesus preached love and faith and not ritual and personal deliverance, YHWH preached inheritance, destruction, death and ritualized worship.

It seems that to lay claim to Jesus revealing the word of God that God's word totally changed

No changed, correctly revealed.

What was written in the bible was written by man, God may have spken to them, but they still wrote what they wanted, sometimes they were right and soemtimes they were wrong, after all, they were still simply man.

Paul was, at times, more honest, he woudl say that HE beleived this and that or that God revealed this and that and never spoke beyond his authority and typically told people to follow Christ and hsi teachings and NOT to follow him ( Paul).

In Jesus we have a progression in the understanding of God and what God wants and "needs" of us because only in Jesus is God TRULT revealed.

God didn't change, man's perception of God was changed because "God walked amongst them" and told them directly.

One can argue that Man was finally ready for God to be revealed but I don't think that was the case.

I think that things happened to only way they could happen.

Soldiers of Jah

Share this