Is Jesus really the Sun god?

[BobRyan]

Did God command Israel to kill people, including women and children, as the Bible says He did?

Once we decide whether He did or not, then we can try to find an explanation for it.

Yes, I believe what the Bible teaches about this.

How about yourself? Do you reject what the Bible clearly states?

In Genesis 7 "men women and children" are killed in the flood.

in the book of Genesis "men women and children" are killed in the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah.

At the 2nd coming - men woman and children will die.

And yet little children - who die untanted by determined choice to reject God - go to heaven.

in Christ,

Bob

[BobRyan]

In the book "Story of Redemption" we are told that after the war in heaven was won by Christ - the fallen angels asked to be re-instated back into heaven - in their former positions - and they were told that they had gone too far - that the seed of rebellion was original in them and that they would forever harbor rebellion in their hearts even if allowed to return - so no deal.

In Hebrews 12 humans as warned against committing the sin of Esau who could find no room at all for repentance though he sought for it with tears.

in Luke 12 we are told that those who live in darkness and are excluded from heaven receive only a small amount of torment in the 2nd death lake of fire - while those who had great light and turned from it - receive much torment by comparison. They are in a similar situation as Satan who having great light - turned from it to darkness and self-destructive death.

In Romans 2 we are told of people living in darkness without the Bible who "do instinctively the things of the Law of God showing the Law of God written on their heart" who will enter into heaven -- while those who had great light and turned from it are excluded.

in Christ,

Bob

[fccool]

The God of the Old Testament was actually the One we know today as Jesus Christ.

[Igakusei]

You can't just claim that something is being taken out of context if you're not willing to try to put it in context.

[cardw]

Originally Posted By: John317

Did God command Israel to kill people, including women and children, as the Bible says He did?

Once we decide whether He did or not, then we can try to find an explanation for it.

Yes, I believe what the Bible teaches about this.

How about yourself? Do you reject what the Bible clearly states?

In Genesis 7 "men women and children" are killed in the flood.

in the book of Genesis "men women and children" are killed in the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah.

At the 2nd coming - men woman and children will die.

And yet little children - who die untanted by determined choice to reject God - go to heaven.

in Christ,

Bob

So kill everyone and let god sort it out. Huh?

You mean to say that an all powerful god can't figure out how to sort it out before killing everyone causing trauma and suffering on a national scale.

Have you treated post traumatic shock? There is a tremendous amount of recovery when someone even witnesses this scale of violence and killing.

This is not a satisfactory answer.

[Pockey]

Hmm... what context would you put "Kill them, cut their heads off, and take their heads and hang them up before me to pacify my wrath" ? That's coming from the benevolent being, who is merciful and understanding? It just does not reconcile. It's rather savage, blood-thirsty, and rather mentally unstable.

Great question fccool. Let's look at the verses leading up to and including this verse:

While Israel was staying in Shittim, the men began to indulge in sexual immorality with Moabite women, who invited them to the sacrifices to their gods. The people ate the sacrificial meal and bowed down before these gods. So Israel yoked themselves to the Baal of Peor. And the LORD’s anger burned against them.

The LORD said to Moses, “Take all the leaders of these people, kill them and expose them in broad daylight before the LORD, so that the LORD’s fierce anger may turn away from Israel.” Numbers 25:1-4 NIV

God's anger wouldn't subside because of the act of the killing itself, or because they were exposed in broad daylight, but rather because Israel would recognize the result of sin is death and they would turn away from sin. This act was necessary in order to wake them up, that they may turn from sin. It wasn't the act itself that turned God's anger away, but the result of it, which was a turning away from sin.

I can understand how you would say the God of the OT is different from Jesus of the NT. But please also remember examples such as Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego in the fiery furnace. How God was there with them, standing by them, not forsaking them, but protecting them and showing Himself strong to their enemies. My friend's father was converted by this passage. He struggled with God being our Father because his own dad was abusive towards him. Yet when he read this passage he realized how much God cares for us.

Some things in the OT have no easy answers to me. But I can't forget that As the heavens are higher than the earth, so are My ways higher than your ways and My thoughts than your thoughts. Isaiah 55:9

[John317]

Originally Posted By: John317

Do you agree, then, with cardw's posts on this thread, and particularly post#479360 in regard to what he said about the Bible?

You don't need to know what Bravus thinks about anything to answer the questions.

I won't tell you what you need to know if you won't tell other people on the Forum what they need to know.

In any case, the question is not for you but for Bravus.

[John317]

Originally Posted By: John317

The God of the Old Testament was actually the One we know today as Jesus Christ.

I understand why you think so, and that's the reason I'm not going to dispute it.

Do you believe it?

Who is the God of the Old Testament, in your view?

Who inspired the Old Testament? Or was it merely men's imaginations?

[John317]

I don't believe god of OT is the Devil. I believe that in his name quite a bit of the terrible things were done. In many cases, I don't believe that these things were done at all, or these are grossly exaggerated, since there's much evidence that these records were pieced together to unify a theology of a nation that had very scattered ideas on who their gods were.

OK, I take, then, that you don't believe God inspired the Old Testament.

That being the case, why did Jesus quote from it and talk about its having been inspired?

Notice what Christ said:

Luke 24:25

And he said to them, "O foolish ones, and slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken!

Luke 24:44

Then he said to them, "These are my words that I spoke to you while I was still with you, that everything written about me in the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms must be fulfilled."

Jesus had no doubt about the reliability and truthfulness of the Old Testament.

In fact, the New Testament teaches that it was Christ who inspired the prophets of the Old Testament:

1 Peter 1:10-11

Concerning this salvation, the prophets who prophesied about the grace that was to be yours searched and inquired carefully, [11] inquiring what person or time the Spirit of Christ in them was indicating when he predicted the sufferings of Christ and the subsequent glories.

[John317]

Exactly. They're simple questions and they're important questions.

Mine's an even simpler question, Bravus. All it requires is a simple yes or no.

[John317]

I'm happy to wait.

Do you agree, then, with cardw's posts on this thread, and particularly post#479360 in regard to what he said about the Bible?

[John317]

I don't believe Jesus is the sun god.

Who do you believe Jesus Christ to be, and why?

What evidence do you base your belief on?

[John317]

...If it is true that God ordered that a rape victim must marry her rapist for life, then that says something about God. ...

Did God command it?

Is it right?

If not, what makes it right if God commanded it?

Or did God command something that is wrong?

These are real, heart-felt questions. They need real answers, not accusations and tap-dancing.

Why are you concerned about what "rape" says about God but then completely dance around your belief that God used the evolutionary processes to bring about all of life?

If you don't like what rape says about God, do you like any better what evolution says about a God who supposedly designed all of life through the very brutal forces of evolution over millions and millions of years?

[John317]

If it is true that God ordered that a rape victim must marry her rapist for life, then that says something about God.

If you're talking about Deut. 22: 28, the woman didn't have to marry the rapist. She could have refused.

All it is saying is that the man who raped the virgin has the responsility of marrying her-- he couldn't just walk off and leave her. In that time, a woman who had been raped wouldn't find a another man who would be willing to marry her. That would be far better than man's raping a virgin and then abandoning her. It was a way to provide for the victim.

Quote:

Deut. 22: 28-- If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered, 29 he shall pay her father fifty shekels of silver. He must marry the young woman, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives.

But are you saying that you are more concerned about this question than you are about God's causing evolutionary processes to bring about all the life-forms that we see in the world today?

In my judgment, what occurred in evolution throughout millions and millions of years was much more questionable of God than His making a law which required a man to marry the virgin he raped.

[Bravus]

I'm a very, very patient man.

No fair requiring me to answer your questions before you'll answer mine.

Answer the specific questions about the passage in Deuteronomy 22 about a rape victim being required to marry her rapist, and I'll answer some of your many other questions.

Attempts to deflect attention onto the Flood, origins, my beliefs or any of about half a dozen other things strongly suggest that you don't have good answers to give.

If you do, then please go ahead and give them. If not, just say so.

[John317]

Answer the specific questions about the passage in Deuteronomy 22 about a rape victim being required to marry her rapist, and I'll answer some of your many other questions.

I did answer, Bravus.

But you need to go back and reread the passage. It doesn't require a woman who's been raped to marry her rapist. It requires the man to marry her, but obviously she doesn't have to consent to the marriage. It simply gives him the responsibility of marrying her after he's raped her. But nothing is said about her being required to marry him. She obviously is free to reject him if she doesn't want to be his wife.

The law was clearly made in order to protect an unmarried woman. It certainly was not made to protect the man or to hurt the woman.

When you consider the times and the situation in which unmarried and unmarriagable women found themselves, you will see that it was a humane law.

[John317]

I'm a very, very patient man.

That's great. Me too. Only more so. :-)

[John317]

Attempts to deflect attention onto the Flood, origins, my beliefs or any of about half a dozen other things strongly suggest that you don't have good answers to give.

I can't answer these things for you, Bravus. But I have found answers that are very satisfactory to me. I can explain my views and tell you what the prophet of God for the last days has said about it, but you must decide yourself whether you want to accept what God has revealed.

I'm surprised that you evidently have never found any answers that you believe are valid ones with respect to Deut. 22: 28, yet you find all kinds of good answers about evolution.

Don't you think the moral problems regarding the death of almost the world world and the moral problem in regard to evolutionary processes are of greater significance than Deut. 22: 28?

[Bravus]

I accept that, within the patriarchal society that existed, in which women couldn't earn their own money, the notion of paying a fine to the father for the loss of his investment in the daughter's upbringing and a potential dowry makes sense. And that, given that no good Isrealite man would want to marry a non-virgin, marrying her off to the rapist seems like a way to solve that problem and provide for her material needs. Her psychological needs appear nowhere in the picture.

Thing is, the whole book of Deuteronomy is about reforming and improving society. It's what these laws are *for*. So why not take the opportuntiy to *fix* a society in which women are property, rather than simply create a satisfactory (for men) and horrifying (for women) workaround?

[Bravus]

What I believe on all these other issues, including cardw's comments, is really quite peripheral, though I'm always happy to clarify that, and will do so.

The focus of this discussion, though, is on what *you* (John317 and Overaged) believe. What I am trying to understand is how *you* reconcile your moral beliefs with your own framework of belief in the Bible.

For me to do that, it doesn't really matter whether *I* believe God killed almost everyone on earth with a Flood, only that you do.

You have a particular way of understanding the Bible as the revelation of God that ties you to a particular understanding of the nature of God.

This discussion, at least as it has developed, is about whether that particular view of God describes a God who is consistent with his own standards of morality.

[John317]

...Thing is, the whole book of Deuteronomy is about reforming and improving society. It's what these laws are *for*. So why not take the opportuntiy to *fix* a society in which women are property, rather than simply create a satisfactory (for men) and horrifying (for women) workaround?

God works with us where we are. He doesn't take us out of our social and moral environment.

What if God were to come to you and tell you that you must stop thinking as you do and start thinking entirely differently RIGHT NOW?

What God does is give us principles which, if put into practice, will help us to learn how to live better.

[John317]

What I believe on all these other issues, including cardw's comments, is really quite peripheral, though I'm always happy to clarify that, and will do so.

If what you believe on these issues is peripheral, then my beliefs are also.

I thought you were a part of this discussion. If so, then it is fair for me to ask what you think of what cardw says he believes about the Bible and about God.

And it is certainly fair for me to ask you what you believe about the Bible and about God.

I'm not sure why you appear to be so unwilling to speak openly and frankly about your beliefs on these matters.

[John317]

...Attempts to deflect attention onto the Flood, origins, my beliefs or any of about half a dozen other things strongly suggest that you don't have good answers to give.

If you do, then please go ahead and give them. If not, just say so.

As I said before, there are good answers to the questions you have asked, but whether these appear to you to be "good" or "satisfactory" is for you to decide.

I can't decide for you whether they are good answers. All I know is that they are good in my viewpoint and they are good in the viewpoint of many other Christians.

The question of the Flood or origins is certainly not a deflection. These are the very same issues-- the question of whether God is just and right.

If you think God is right to design the world and all of life through the processes of evolution, I don't see how you can pick an argument with God over Deut. 22: 28. It seems clear to me that the law requiring men to marry their rape victim is not nearly as important in relation to God's character as the way God chose to create the world and human beings. Nor is it as important as the issue of the Flood, in which God destroyed all humanity except for the few people in the ark.

[Bravus]

I'm not at all reluctant. My resistance on the last couple of pages has been because you seemed to be trying to deflect the discussion onto me and my views instead of just addressing the current issue.

Now that you have done so, here:

Do you agree, then, with cardw's posts on this thread, and particularly post#479360 in regard to what he said about the Bible?

Here is all of what cardw wrote in post #479360:

Originally Posted By: cardw

I don't need anti-christian websites when I have the Bible.

Exactly what context would fix this?

And exactly what meaning have I given this that is not obvious in the text already?

Given that the questions are not statements, the only statement is 'I don't need anti-christian websites when I have the Bible.'

I certainly agree that I don't need anti-Christian web sites. I also agree that the Bible itself contains these morally problematic things... that's what the whole discussion is about.

Not sure what me saying so clarifies, but hope it helps.

Onward to a few other questions:

Originally Posted By: John317

Did God command Israel to kill people, including women and children, as the Bible says He did?

Once we decide whether He did or not, then we can try to find an explanation for it.

Originally Posted By: Bravus

You've stipulated that he did (top of the previous page). Is that still your position?

Originally Posted By: John317

Yes, I believe what the Bible teaches about this.

How about yourself? Do you reject what the Bible clearly states?

I believe that the Bible says God both kills people - men, women and children - directly himself, in the Flood and in Sodom and Gomorrah and the cases of Korah, Dathan and Abiram and the golden calf and so on, and that he also orders human beings to kill on his behalf.

Believing that the Bible says it is not, to me, the same as believing that God actually did it... and that's a bigger discussion that no doubt we will have.

Originally Posted By: John317

How about what the Bible says concerning Noah's Flood? Do you believe God destroyed the world in a Flood?

I think that's a more important question to answer than the one about rape.

Again, there are two separate issues. I believe that the Bible says he did. It would be pretty silly to claim otherwise. But I also note that there is no strong evidence that such a worldwide flood happened in the past few thousand years.

Originally Posted By: John317

Why are you concerned about what "rape" says about God but then completely dance around your belief that God used the evolutionary processes to bring about all of life?

If you don't like what rape says about God, do you like any better what evolution says about a God who supposedly designed all of life through the very brutal forces of evolution over millions and millions of years?

This is a whole separate set of questions and issues and should probably be addressed in a separate thread to avoid swamping this one.

I'm not at all shy about clarifying what I believe.

[John317]

This discussion, at least as it has developed, is about whether that particular view of God describes a God who is consistent with his own standards of morality.

You may misunderstand this aspect.

God is not under law; God is above all law. He made the law. The law is not above God.

God is consistent but that doesn't mean he is consistent with the laws that He has given to humans. God is not a human. The laws were written to meet human beings where we are.

When God commands humans not to murder, He's under no obligation to obey the law according to our understanding of it. God cannot murder. Murder is unlawful taking of human life, and God can't take human life unlawfully.

God made all life, and therefore He is able to do what He chooses with the objects of His creation. For us to think we have a right to tell God what He should do with the things He's created would be like telling a maker of pottery that he can't do what he likes with those things he's made. The New Testament makes this very comparison, and it is true.