How do I respond to arguments like these?

[Chris]

I have a suggestion for your consideration, but do not have time to get into the details right now. I should warn you - probably few fellow Christians will think this idea is correct, but it is what it is.

In very short form: All these "intructions to kill" as issued by God were done in the specific context of His dealings with Israel. As such, they no longer apply, since the role of Israel as a "special people" came to its fulfillment on the cross. Even though this may seem strange, I think that God intentionally caused evil to flourish in Israel through the Law of Moses (the disturbing material you posted was from the Law of Moses). Why would God do such a thing? Answer: so that evil would be concentrated in that one people and then rendered vulnerable to being transferred into the body of the one true Israelite - Jesus of Nazareth - and then dealt with on the cross. In other words, God used the Law of Moses to get Israel to commit evil acts so that the power of evil would "take up residence" in Israel and then be made vulnerable to being dealt with by Israel's true representative - Jesus.

I suspect that you, and others, will not like this answer. However, I am prepared to defend it.

Exactly right drew, that text is a historical document and should be read that way. It is about a different time and place with a people that had different standards to us, probably much more barbaric. You must take that into account when you read their history which is what that text is. Like you said Jesus fixed it. Just like now god has it all under control no matter how odd it seems to us.

 

[Igotsoul4u]

I think its important to stress the significant divide between the old and new testament. Christianity owes it's heritage to the old testament but represents a completely different relationship between God and his people. Christ changes everything and makes debates like you describe not so relevant to Christianity. Before Christ, a relationship with God was exclusive to Israel so none of the rules and actions Israel experienced could have even applied to us had we lived back in those times. Your friend is arguing a moot point. The Hebrews religion is not the same as a Christians.

 

[Sparkey]

Do you ever get the feeling that your peddling and peddling but not getting anywhere fast? Effort is being expended but nothing is resolved? Like the tires on the bike are those of an exercise bike and you're remaining stationary? It could be because the tires don't reach the road. If there are emotional issues that your friend has between him and God, if he's angry and doesn't like being told what to do? If he's not willing to even try to stop throwing rocks and accusing God - let him go. Let HIM spin his wheels for a change.

God isn't hurt by this. And he doesn't need you to defend him. Consider doing what we learned when we were kids and just ignore it. Some of the best methods of negotiation could be taught by children. Remember the strategy of pretending you just don't understand the thing being said? The "Huh? Make sense, I don't understand you!" ploy? No sense bringing a knife to a gun fight. No sense bringing a rational argument to an emotional battle.

Cordially,
~Sparrow

 

[farouk]

I think its important to stress the significant divide between the old and new testament. Christianity owes it's heritage to the old testament but represents a completely different relationship between God and his people. Christ changes everything and makes debates like you describe not so relevant to Christianity. Before Christ, a relationship with God was exclusive to Israel so none of the rules and actions Israel experienced could have even applied to us had we lived back in those times. Your friend is arguing a moot point. The Hebrews religion is not the same as a Christians.

Mr Igot:

Although I must admit I haven't digested all the posts on this thread, yet a good interpretational principle is that there is an important title page between Malachi and Matthew.

Going further, the differences between what is either side of that title page are very well explained in the epistle to the Hebrews.

 

[Deavonreye]

Exactly right drew, that text is a historical document and should be read that way. It is about a different time and place with a people that had different standards to us, probably much more barbaric. You must take that into account when you read their history which is what that text is.

Yes, it WAS a barbaric time. Why not let this junk be BECAUSE men were barbaric then? Why should it BE concluded that "god had no choice but to respond this way"? This thought would seem to suggest that god had no power over the people [other than violence]. I can think of many ways that things could have been resolved without violence.

As for topics like this, . . . I know that it is often believed that such people who ask these type of questions [as the friend in the OP] do so because they are "mad at god" and "refuse to believe the truth" because of that. In my opinion, this is trying to make simple what is a completely complicated matter. Many are not "in rebellion". Many have legitimate concerns about how the bible REPORTS this god to have acted. Genocides, slavery, psuedo-science, etc. I understand that there can often be a congnative dissonance when these topics are brought up.

Another "over simplification" would be the "answer", . . . "That was the OLD covenant. We are under the NEW covenant". If god is the same "yesterday, today, and forever", any "covenant" is really beside the point. What was called for at one point in history can very well be reinstated in the future.

How I personally choose to see many of the OT texts is that they originated from the mind of the people at that time in history. . . . and it [then] makes sense when actions were taken, . . . even actions SAID to have been demanded by their god.

All of this to say, I understand where the friend from the OP is coming from.

 

[TRUTH over TRADITION]

Yes, it WAS a barbaric time. Why not let this junk be BECAUSE men were barbaric then? Why should it BE concluded that "god had no choice but to respond this way"? This thought would seem to suggest that god had no power over the people [other than violence]. I can think of many ways that things could have been resolved without violence.

As for topics like this, . . . I know that it is often believed that such people who ask these type of questions [as the friend in the OP] do so because they are "mad at god" and "refuse to believe the truth" because of that. In my opinion, this is trying to make simple what is a completely complicated matter. Many are not "in rebellion". Many have legitimate concerns about how the bible REPORTS this god to have acted. Genocides, slavery, psuedo-science, etc. I understand that there can often be a congnative dissonance when these topics are brought up.

Another "over simplification" would be the "answer", . . . "That was the OLD covenant. We are under the NEW covenant". If god is the same "yesterday, today, and forever", any "covenant" is really beside the point. What was called for at one point in history can very well be reinstated in the future.

How I personally choose to see many of the OT texts is that they originated from the mind of the people at that time in history. . . . and it [then] makes sense when actions were taken, . . . even actions SAID to have been demanded by their god.

All of this to say, I understand where the friend from the OP is coming from.

I'm a christian and believer in the scriptures, but honestly on this point you have made, I could not agree with you more. The times, norms, and society of the people are irrelavant when a perfect unchanging God who is not constrained to barbaric and uncivilized thinking is directing them. To use this as a reason in my opinion, is but a lame excuse that proves that the person making the point really has no solid basis and is just fishing.

The following quote reflects the thoughts of many christians, but may not be scripturally sound.

It's important to stress the significant divide between the old and new testament. Christianity owes it's heritage to the old testament but represents a completely different relationship between God and his people. Christ changes everything...

First off, what was the relationship like before jesus that is so different after Jesus? Look at God's relationships in the OT. There's God & Abraham, God & Moses, God & Adam, God & Enoch, God & Elijah, God & David, and of course, God & Israel and God & Judah; these are but example of the deep and committed relationships God had with His people prior to the advent of Jesus. God's role in these relationships is very much the same as it is in His relationship with the christian. God is the master, provider, sustainer, and promise maker who expects His people to honor Him and practice righteousness and vows to punish those who do not.

 

[Drew]

Yes, it WAS a barbaric time. Why not let this junk be BECAUSE men were barbaric then? Why should it BE concluded that "god had no choice but to respond this way"? This thought would seem to suggest that god had no power over the people [other than violence]. I can think of many ways that things could have been resolved without violence.

You are effectively begging the question. It is entirely plausible that God was "using the violence" for some deeper purpose than "keeping people in line". And, in fact, I suggest that Paul makes precisely this argument in Romans.

In Romans, Paul argues (albeit somewhat cryptically) that "evil" is a force in the world that God needed to deal with. And the way God did so was to "lure" evil into the nation of Israel and then into Jesus on the cross. Now the force of evil - remember on this model, evil is not just a "characteristic" is a "real force" - has been "cornered" in one place (the body of Jesus). Evil is now vulnerable to being dealt a decisive blow. And this is precisely what happens on the cross - evil is attacked by God and Jesus dies in the violence of that enounter.

So, if this view is correct, it is indeed plausible that God would need to "make Israel more evil", and much of the violent stuff in the Old Testament can be understood in those terms.

 

[Drew]

I'm a christian and believer in the scriptures, but honestly on this point you have made, I could not agree with you more. The times, norms, and society of the people are irrelavant when a perfect unchanging God who is not constrained to barbaric and uncivilized thinking is directing them. To use this as a reason in my opinion, is but a lame excuse that proves that the person making the point really has no solid basis and is just fishing.

I disagree. I hope you are not ascribing to the following incorrect logic:

1. God is a loving God;
2. God never changes;
3. Barbarism cannot be reconciled with love;
4. Therefore (in view of 1,2,3), God cannot "order" violence and still be unchanging and loving.

The problem with this way of thinking is one could mount the following argument about a cancer specialist named "Dr. Jones":

1. Dr. Jones is a loving person who seeks to heal cancer patients;
2. Dr. Jones never changes;
3. Barbarism cannot be reconciled with love;
4. Therefore (in view of 1,2,3), it is inconceivable that a loving, unchanging Dr. Jones would order "barbaric" chemotherapy, which wreaks much suffering on the patient.

Do you see the problem? The cancer specialist uses chemotherapy, even though it brings suffering, because it is the only option available that will heal the patient.

Same with God. I suggest it is very reasonable to presume that, despite Sunday School lessons, God cannot really do anything He wants. I suggest that the violence in Israel in the Old Testament is a "necessary evil" - something that God had to orchestrate and endorse in order to ultimately heal the world.

 

[Deavonreye]

You are effectively begging the question. It is entirely plausible that God was "using the violence" for some deeper purpose than "keeping people in line". And, in fact, I suggest that Paul makes precisely this argument in Romans.

In Romans, Paul argues (albeit somewhat cryptically) that "evil" is a force in the world that God needed to deal with. And the way God did so was to "lure" evil into the nation of Israel and then into Jesus on the cross. Now the force of evil - remember on this model, evil is not just a "characteristic" is a "real force" - has been "cornered" in one place (the body of Jesus). Evil is now vulnerable to being dealt a decisive blow. And this is precisely what happens on the cross - evil is attacked by God and Jesus dies in the violence of that enounter.

So, if this view is correct, it is indeed plausible that God would need to "make Israel more evil", and much of the violent stuff in the Old Testament can be understood in those terms.

But this scenario is the conclusion of a god who lost control of his own creation, having to deal with it in the "harsh way" it had to be dealt with. There should have been no reason to "lure evil". . . . as it appears that even "evil" was created by god. I understand that your position is just a thought, and that's fine. Still, within the "how do I respond to arguements like these", the opponent may not find such a viewpoint as one that logically answers the questions raised.

THIS OP has to do with the friend not understanding these "violent episodes" in the Old Testament. I'm sure I am not the only one who thinks . . . "if such an advanced being has the knowledge and power, there are always better ways to resolve conflicts than just with more violence". Rather, interacting with humanity early on in such an undenyable way that the primative violence would have never taken place. Just my own opinion.

 

[Drew]

But this scenario is the conclusion of a god who lost control of his own creation, having to deal with it in the "harsh way" it had to be dealt with.

Indeed it is. And what is the problem with that? Are you certain you are not presuming that the correct "Christian" position involves a God who can do "whatever He wants". I suggest that such a view neither lines up with careful thinking or the Bible. In short, I suggest that any imaginable creator may, in the very act of creation, necessarily take a risk. To put it perhaps somewhat awkwardly, any creation that is "serious" cannot be so "unsubstantial" that God can simply tweak it here and there, however He wants when things go awry. Another analogy - the reason why love is so "substantial" is that there has to be freedom for the one to love the other. And where there is freedom, there is risk.

Although I may not have explained this well, I see no reason to presume that God can always "use magic" to solve problems in His creation. So there is no fundamental reason to presume that God cannot have been "forced" to solve a big problem using a painful route.

I understand that your position is just a thought, and that's fine. Still, within the "how do I respond to arguements like these", the opponent may not find such a viewpoint as one that logically answers the questions raised.

I am sorry, but I see no error in logic in the position I have put forward. Do you see a real error in logic? Where? And besides, I would not say my position is "just a thought". I believe that the case can be made that Paul makes this very argument. Now this may not convince you, as a person who does not see the Bible as possessing any special authority, but many people do indeed ascribe a lot of credibility to Paul.

THIS OP has to do with the friend not understanding these "violent episodes" in the Old Testament. I'm sure I am not the only one who thinks . . . "if such an advanced being has the knowledge and power, there are always better ways to resolve conflicts than just with more violence". Rather, interacting with humanity early on in such an undenyable way that the primative violence would have never taken place. Just my own opinion.

Fair enough - but there is no actual substantial argument that closes the door on the possiblity that God had no choice but to promote all that violence in service of an ultimate good.

 

[Deavonreye]

The "had no choice but to promote violence" is the illogical part. If it was all "god's plan all along", then he is culpable for the "evil" that encompassed those primative people. In other words, his plan would have had to have been exactly what you see in the OT. Using a lot of violence, often against people who were just "in the way". What it seems more like [for me] is that men created this god to be who THEY were at the time. Barbaric men with an agenda. . . putting words in the mouth of their deity. It is the problem with believing "all the words of the bible being infallible and from god", . . . hence needing to "figure out" why things were in the OT.

For me, I can see the bible as a human text alone. No reason to add a god in where MEN are easily seen.

 

[TRUTH over TRADITION]

I disagree. I hope you are not ascribing to the following incorrect logic:

1. God is a loving God;
2. God never changes;
3. Barbarism cannot be reconciled with love;
4. Therefore (in view of 1,2,3), God cannot "order" violence and still be unchanging and loving.

The problem with this way of thinking is one could mount the following argument about a cancer specialist named "Dr. Jones":

1. Dr. Jones is a loving person who seeks to heal cancer patients;
2. Dr. Jones never changes;
3. Barbarism cannot be reconciled with love;
4. Therefore (in view of 1,2,3), it is inconceivable that a loving, unchanging Dr. Jones would order "barbaric" chemotherapy, which wreaks much suffering on the patient.

Do you see the problem? The cancer specialist uses chemotherapy, even though it brings suffering, because it is the only option available that will heal the patient.

Same with God. I suggest it is very reasonable to presume that, despite Sunday School lessons, God cannot really do anything He wants. I suggest that the violence in Israel in the Old Testament is a "necessary evil" - something that God had to orchestrate and endorse in order to ultimately heal the world.

First off, I do not suscribe to the "Dr. Jones" logic you illustrated, and secondly, the conclusion you suggest is AT BEST a major reach that doesn't fit well into the overall narrative of scripture.

 

[Sparkey]

Our Father in heaven does not change. He is what His people need him to be. Disciplinarian? Yep, but more than anything else, He is our loving Father. I don't see the disconnect.

We see that the generation that came after Joshua were not personally familiar with the wonderous works of their God: ""Now Joshua the son of Nun, the servant of the LORD, died when he was one hundred and ten years old. And they buried him within the border of his inheritance at Timnath Heres, in the mountains of Ephraim, on the north side of Mount Gaash. When all that generation had been gathered to their fathers, another generation arose after them who did not know the LORD nor the work which He had done for Israel." - Judges 2:8-10 NKJV

We hear of his intent when we read Jeremaih, "No more shall every man teach his neighbor, and every man his brother, saying, 'Know the LORD,' for they all shall know Me, from the least of them to the greatest of them, says the LORD. For I will forgive their iniquity, and their sin I will remember no more." " - Jeremiah 31:34 NKJV

He ordered things so that He would be able to impact the lives of His children. They who inhabited the Promised Land were involved in such acts (sacrificing children) so heinious that the land itself is said to have spewed them out. God cautioned His people to NEVER act in that fashion and worked to teach them His ways. When they went to war (there was no avoiding it) they were often instructed to slay every last one and not touch any of the spoils. Were the children of Jacob (who fought with God and prevailed being renamed "Israel" which could be translated as "God-Figher") stubborn and thick headed, yes, we know they were. Am I also stubborn and thick-headed today? Yes, indeed I am.

Much of what transpired between the leaders of the His people, the Priests, Kings, Judges, and Prophets was done by way of example. The men involved in those things noticed the disconnect and wondered and sought to understand and to them it was shown that it wasn't for them only that many things were done but they were being used as an example for us, so we could learn and gain from their experiences. God was cognizant of us, the Gentiles, for instance --when the children of Israel were lead out of Egypt. The bigger picture being painted into their very lives has become a lesson to you and me who wish to depart from sin and walk with our Maker to a city of His making: Heaven. Our heart battles were enacted on the earth for reason --to provide guide posts and lessons for age abidiing time to come.

What's the difference between an agreement written in stone that no man can live up to and one written in the fleshly tablets of our hearts? Jesus authored our heart change and the law that goverened (guided and directed) them brought all men to Him who is our salvation. Nothing was done by chance. Can it be said that the blood of a lamb would appease any except a blood-thirsty God? Yes, because the 1st sacrifices looked in anticipation of the later. Can those things done in the past be likened to our struggles also? Imagine, if you will, a man who came to us and explained like he was explaining to children, the mystery of creation. Now imagine a stubborn child who says, "I don't get it and you can't make me understand."

If one is devoid of understanding and can not grasp the idea, will not even try - begs to be convinced in order to find an audience as he vents? That's how I see it. The thread asks then "How do we respond to arguments like these?" Agree with them. They don't get it. There is nothing any can to do that can make them. They are not and never will be in danger of being convinced against their will, no man is. Let the one who wants to raise his/her head up and accuse God stand by themselves. Don't be part of it.

"Behold, the days are coming, says the LORD, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah "not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt, My covenant which they broke, though I was a husband to them, says the LORD. "But this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, says the LORD: I will put My law in their minds, and write it on their hearts; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people. "No more shall every man teach his neighbor, and every man his brother, saying, 'Know the LORD,' for they all shall know Me, from the least of them to the greatest of them, says the LORD. For I will forgive their iniquity, and their sin I will remember no more." - Jeremiah 31:31-34 NKJV

 

[Drew]

The "had no choice but to promote violence" is the illogical part. If it was all "god's plan all along", then he is culpable for the "evil" that encompassed those primative people.

With all due respect, I have said nothing illogical. And who said it was "God's plan all along"? Not moi. Perhaps I could have been clearly but I believe that God "reacted" to something that happened. In that sense it was not planned all along.

If, repeat if, you assume that God has created a world where God can "fix" problems in a way that does not involve pain and suffering, then it would indeed be illogical for God to promote violence. But you have made no case against the possibility that God had no choice. And, to be fair, I have really not "proven" that my position is correct, either.

What it seems more like [for me] is that men created this god to be who THEY were at the time. Barbaric men with an agenda. . . putting words in the mouth of their deity. It is the problem with believing "all the words of the bible being infallible and from god", . . . hence needing to "figure out" why things were in the OT.

For me, I can see the bible as a human text alone. No reason to add a god in where MEN are easily seen.

Well, obviously what you say is plausible, just as my "theory" is plausible. But lets' be clear - there have been no arguments of any substance going beyond establishing mere plausibility - for either your position or mine.

 

[Drew]

First off, I do not suscribe to the "Dr. Jones" logic you illustrated,

Well, that's good.

....and secondly, the conclusion you suggest is AT BEST a major reach that doesn't fit well into the overall narrative of scripture.

I suggest the position I hold fits exceedingly well into the narrative of Scripture.

1. God's covenant with Abraham promised that I<?xml:namespace prefix = st1 ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com

srael</st1:country-region> would be "blessing for the nations";

2. In Romans, Paul is deeply concerned with arguing that God has indeed been faithful to this promise - that God has indeed used Israel to bless the nations;

3. However, as per Romans 3, Paul recognizes that the way <st1:country-region w:st="on">Israel</st1:country-region> will bless the nations cannot be through "showing them how wonderful the Law of Moses is". In Romans 3, he is pretty clear – the Law of Moses cannot be a blessing to the world in this way.

4. To put a finer point on this, Paul sees that the Jew, like the Gentile, is in Adam. So while the Law of Moses is good, it is operating on a Jew who is as fallen as the Gentile.

5. How then can God use the Jew to bless the world and be faithful to his promise?

6. Answer: God uses Law of Moses to make <st1:country-region w:st="on">Israel</st1:country-region> draw the sin of the world onto itself. As per a line of reasoning you get in Romans 5, 7, ,9, and 11, Paul argues, cryptically perhaps, that God is using the Law of Moses as a kind of "sponge" to soak of the sins of the world into the nation of <st1:country-region w:st="on">Israel.</st1:country-region>

7. Why would God do this? Answer: to collect sin together into "one place" (national I<st1:country-region w:st="on">srael</ST1:p</st1:country-region>) so that this sin can then be focussed down into one person - Jesus. And then, sin is condemned on the cross (Romans 8:3)

8. By using <st1:country-region w:st="on">Israel</st1:country-region> as this "sponge for sin", God has indeed been faithful to the Abrahamic promise. Law of Moses has, strangely, been used in this "dark" manner - making <st1:country-region w:st="on">Israel</st1:country-region> more sinful, not less - for the ultimate benefit of us all.

9. Since the purpose of Law of Moses was to "lure" sin into I<st1:country-region w:st="on">srael</st1:country-region> and then into Jesus, the condemnation of sin on the cross brings the task of Law of Moses to a close.

10. Since its task has been completed, the Law of Moses is then retired with honour.<O:p</O:p

Please tell us - where does argument not cohere with the narrative of Scripture?

 

[Deavonreye]

With all due respect, . . .
Well, obviously what you say is plausible, just as my "theory" is plausible. But lets' be clear - there have been no arguments of any substance going beyond establishing mere plausibility - for either your position or mine.

And with all due respect to you as well, . . . I agree.

 

[Elijah674]

The Lord Christ of the O.T. is what???

God Christ was His own theocracy in the O.T. while Christ was there. N.T. finds Caesar in Rom. 13 doing this work on condition of keeping out of God's worship side of the ten. Don't get that? Whatever. The Church were to be involved in all ten. Matt. 28:20.

But God/Christ of the OT WAS CHRIST on earth! And you want to pick flaws??? Even in the case of Achan (Josh. 7) if you are spiritually alert, you would find several opportunities where Achan could have came forward. Or his family who sure knew that the center of their tent had something buried there! ALL KNEW WHAT THE RESULTS WOULD BE! And 36 men died because of this sin.

And Cain in Gen. 4:7, had Christ even talked with him & tell him that the only thing that was required was to do what is right!
And us??? We have seen the Holy Spirit STRIVING FOR WELL PAST ANY 120 YEARS as did the pre/flood ones of Gen. 6:3 & still we see documented the Rev. 17:1-5 TRUTH! What is new?? Eccl. 3:15.
What more could be done to awaken these ones up?? See Isa. 5:4??

All that is required of the Lords servants, is Matt. 24:14's Testimony Witness going into all of the world for an opportunity of having Salvation.

And in the N.T. side of Christ, He tells of the same process in Matt. 18:17-18 that just prolongs their fate of Obad. 1:16. That is what Baptism & removal or the name from the church books is all about! The Obedient Church membership are to require OBEDIENCE & removal from these books which represent one to be eternally lost in the Second Death! Even see the problem in Rev. 2:5 for the whole of these Rev. 17:1-5 ones!

--Elijah

 

[TRUTH over TRADITION]

Well, that's good.


I suggest the position I hold fits exceedingly well into the narrative of Scripture.

1. God's covenant with Abraham promised that I<?xml:namespace prefix = st1 ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com

</st1:country-region>srael would be "blessing for the nations";

Fulfilled in Jesus

2. In Romans, Paul is deeply concerned with arguing that God has indeed been faithful to this promise - that God has indeed used Israel to bless the nations;

huh?

3. However, as per Romans 3, Paul recognizes that the way <st1:country-region w:st="on">Israel</st1:country-region> will bless the nations cannot be through "showing them how wonderful the Law of Moses is". In Romans 3, he is pretty clear – the Law of Moses cannot be a blessing to the world in this way.

huh again?

4. To put a finer point on this, Paul sees that the Jew, like the Gentile, is in Adam. So while the Law of Moses is good, it is operating on a Jew who is as fallen as the Gentile.

Didn't Paul in discussing the Torah simply tell what its purpose was (to point out sin, not to justify)?

5. How then can God use the Jew to bless the world and be faithful to his promise?
Answer: God uses Law of Moses to make <st1:country-region w:st="on">Israel</st1:country-region> draw the sin of the world onto itself. As per a line of reasoning you get in Romans 5, 7, ,9, and 11, Paul argues, cryptically perhaps, that God is using the Law of Moses as a kind of "sponge" to soak of the sins of the world into the nation of <st1:country-region w:st="on">Israel.</st1:country-region>

Not so much, God allowed the Jews to be the ones through whom the redeemer came that would bless the world and along the way kept all of His promises to them.

7. Why would God do this? Answer: to collect sin together into "one place" (national I<st1:country-region w:st="on">srael</ST1:p</st1:country-region>) so that this sin can then be focussed down into one person - Jesus. And then, sin is condemned on the cross (Romans 8:3)

8. By using <st1:country-region w:st="on">Israel</st1:country-region> as this "sponge for sin", God has indeed been faithful to the Abrahamic promise. Law of Moses has, strangely, been used in this "dark" manner - making <st1:country-region w:st="on">Israel</st1:country-region> more sinful, not less - for the ultimate benefit of us all.

9. Since the purpose of Law of Moses was to "lure" sin into I<st1:country-region w:st="on">srael</st1:country-region> and then into Jesus, the condemnation of sin on the cross brings the task of Law of Moses to a close.

7, 8, & 9 are simply off base my friend. The overall theme of the Torah was righteousness (loving the LORD with all one's heart, mind, and soul while loving one's neighbor as himself). The statues in addition to the Torah marked the terms of a covenant between God and national Israel. God's Torah remains and has been even before the covenant with Israel while the covenant itself as met its completion.

10. Since its task has been completed, the Law of Moses is then retired with honour.<O:p</O:p

see above

Please tell us - where does argument not cohere with the narrative of Scripture?

This theory is a bit out there, but strangly enough I follow it, I do not agree with it very much, but I see the line of thinking that would allow for such a conclusion to be drawn.

God cannot really do anything He wants. I suggest that the violence in Israel in the Old Testament is a "necessary evil" - something that God had to orchestrate and endorse in order to ultimately heal the world.

What makes you draw this conclusion? Scripture describes God as sovereign, not impotent. The narrative of scripture actually suggests that God had a plan (an ultimate end) from before the beginning that He ensured would come to pass in the fullness of time. Within tme He has allowed and directly caused various things to occur. The things He intervened to cause were done mainly for 2 reasons. 1) To ensure that His ultimate will would be accomplished and 2.) Because of His love for the people He created.

 

[Sparkey]

The things He intervened to cause were done mainly for 2 reasons. 1) To ensure that His ultimate will would be accomplished and 2.) Because of His love for the people He created.

Worth repeating:

• To ensure that His ultimate will would be accomplished.
• Because of His love for the people He created.

 

[Drew]

And with all due respect to you as well, . . . I agree.

But there is nothing to fight over if we agree....