The new testament versus the old testament

[Allahu Akbar]

I certainly see your point here, but I don't think you've grasped that God didn't make life fair and in essence, we reap what we sow. Now, you may disagree, as may others and that's ok by me, but when I read that passage, I see how Isreal begged and pleaded and demanded that God give them a King to rule over them. This is not what God had planned for them because God planned for them to be under God's rule, not the rule of a King.
When we take into consideration that Saul became corrupt and David was annointed, then we begin to see the responsibility that David had in not only the physical welfare of Isreal, but their spiritual welfare as well. Keep in mind here that although David was annointed by God, he was God's response to Isreal's pleads and desires which were not in direct alignment of what God was willing for them.
In closing, David was responisble for the welfare of Isreal, and he knew it. In addition, there would be many kings that followed David and you know what? God, through Samuel, told the Isrealites what to expect, and they agreed to the calamity. Yes, they made decisions that would impact generations to come.. now, is that fair? It's not about fairness, it's about what was cast. 70000 Isrealites yes, innocent? I'd question that but regardless, it sets a principle of accountability, an accountability none the less that David felt.

Wait ... you're saying all those people God killed deserved it? :o

... it was a census.

Isn't that kind of like saying that everyone who voted for Nixon should have been executed over Watergate?

 

[Solo]

I certainly see your point here, but I don't think you've grasped that God didn't make life fair and in essence, we reap what we sow. Now, you may disagree, as may others and that's ok by me, but when I read that passage, I see how Isreal begged and pleaded and demanded that God give them a King to rule over them. This is not what God had planned for them because God planned for them to be under God's rule, not the rule of a King.
When we take into consideration that Saul became corrupt and David was annointed, then we begin to see the responsibility that David had in not only the physical welfare of Isreal, but their spiritual welfare as well. Keep in mind here that although David was annointed by God, he was God's response to Isreal's pleads and desires which were not in direct alignment of what God was willing for them.
In closing, David was responisble for the welfare of Isreal, and he knew it. In addition, there would be many kings that followed David and you know what? God, through Samuel, told the Isrealites what to expect, and they agreed to the calamity. Yes, they made decisions that would impact generations to come.. now, is that fair? It's not about fairness, it's about what was cast. 70000 Isrealites yes, innocent? I'd question that but regardless, it sets a principle of accountability, an accountability none the less that David felt.

Wait ... you're saying all those people God killed deserved it? :o

... it was a census.

Isn't that kind of like saying that everyone who voted for Nixon should have been executed over Watergate?

All mankind deserves to be killed. God decided to provide a way to redeem those who he chooses by the salvation provided by Jesus Christ.

 

[Allahu Akbar]

Wait ... you're saying all those people God killed deserved it? :o

... it was a census.

Isn't that kind of like saying that everyone who voted for Nixon should have been executed over Watergate?

All mankind deserves to be killed. God decided to provide a way to redeem those who he chooses by the salvation provided by Jesus Christ.

ALL mankind? Even me? What did I do that warrants the death penalty? Even the unborn? Even children?

In any case, those 70000 victims were killed BEFORE the coming of Christ (thus the old testament).

 

[Solo]

[quote="Allahu Akbar":d27a2]
Wait ... you're saying all those people God killed deserved it? :o

... it was a census.

Isn't that kind of like saying that everyone who voted for Nixon should have been executed over Watergate?

All mankind deserves to be killed. God decided to provide a way to redeem those who he chooses by the salvation provided by Jesus Christ.

ALL mankind? Even me? What did I do that warrants the death penalty? Even the unborn? Even children?

In any case, those 70000 victims were killed BEFORE the coming of Christ (thus the old testament).[/quote:d27a2]
All mankind deserves to be killed, even you. Why? Because you are unrighteous and a sinner. The wages of sin is death. You are nothing until you are born of God through Jesus Christ. It is Jesus' righteousness that makes one worthy to escape the resurrection unto damnation.

 

[stovebolts]

I certainly see your point here, but I don't think you've grasped that God didn't make life fair and in essence, we reap what we sow. Now, you may disagree, as may others and that's ok by me, but when I read that passage, I see how Isreal begged and pleaded and demanded that God give them a King to rule over them. This is not what God had planned for them because God planned for them to be under God's rule, not the rule of a King.
When we take into consideration that Saul became corrupt and David was annointed, then we begin to see the responsibility that David had in not only the physical welfare of Isreal, but their spiritual welfare as well. Keep in mind here that although David was annointed by God, he was God's response to Isreal's pleads and desires which were not in direct alignment of what God was willing for them.
In closing, David was responisble for the welfare of Isreal, and he knew it. In addition, there would be many kings that followed David and you know what? God, through Samuel, told the Isrealites what to expect, and they agreed to the calamity. Yes, they made decisions that would impact generations to come.. now, is that fair? It's not about fairness, it's about what was cast. 70000 Isrealites yes, innocent? I'd question that but regardless, it sets a principle of accountability, an accountability none the less that David felt.

Wait ... you're saying all those people God killed deserved it? :o

... it was a census.

Isn't that kind of like saying that everyone who voted for Nixon should have been executed over Watergate?

What I said is what I said. I cannot be responsible for how you intrepreted it, but I can say that you've missed the point that I was trying to convey and now you twist things arouond.

But then you go on to say...

... it was a census...

Yes, it was a census, but more important, it was something that God told David NOT to do, yet he disobeyed and did it anyway in spite of knowing what God had to say about it.

So really, what you've said is this. If I tell you not to put your hand on a hot stove and you do anyway, then it's my fault?

wow.. de ja vu...

 

[Allahu Akbar]

All mankind deserves to be killed, even you. Why? Because you are unrighteous and a sinner. The wages of sin is death. You are nothing until you are born of God through Jesus Christ. It is Jesus' righteousness that makes one worthy to escape the resurrection unto damnation.

So babies and the unborn are unrighteous and have sinned, thus are deserving of death. If you (or humanity as a whole) can make those kinds of statements, what is to stop us from killing them? Or anyone? If everyone deserves death, why not kill them?

What I said is what I said. I cannot be responsible for how you intrepreted it, but I can say that you've missed the point that I was trying to convey and now you twist things arouond.

But then you go on to say...

... it was a census...

Yes, it was a census, but more important, it was something that God told David NOT to do, yet he disobeyed and did it anyway in spite of knowing what God had to say about it.

So really, what you've said is this. If I tell you not to put your hand on a hot stove and you do anyway, then it's my fault?

wow.. de ja vu...

I'm sorry if I misunderstood your explanation. But I truly believe that your analogy is incorrect. It's not the hot stove that burned (killed) those Israelites, it was God himself. My point there was that the punishment is way out of proportion to the crime.

What you seem to be assuming (and I apologize if I'm misconstruing your argument) is that God's response was solely a punishment of David. You say in the above quote, DAVID disobeyed and did the census anyway. The participation of the people was limited to simply wanting a King in the first place (which I equated to the action of the United States' population electing a president; if that analogy is flawed please tell me how) and they did not commit the crime themselves. But a huge part of that population is executed by God. That strikes me as an incredibly unjust portrayal of God.

 

[Solo]

All mankind deserves to be killed, even you. Why? Because you are unrighteous and a sinner. The wages of sin is death. You are nothing until you are born of God through Jesus Christ. It is Jesus' righteousness that makes one worthy to escape the resurrection unto damnation.

So babies and the unborn are unrighteous and have sinned, thus are deserving of death. If you (or humanity as a whole) can make those kinds of statements, what is to stop us from killing them? Or anyone? If everyone deserves death, why not kill them?

What I said is what I said. I cannot be responsible for how you intrepreted it, but I can say that you've missed the point that I was trying to convey and now you twist things arouond.

But then you go on to say...

... it was a census...

Yes, it was a census, but more important, it was something that God told David NOT to do, yet he disobeyed and did it anyway in spite of knowing what God had to say about it.

So really, what you've said is this. If I tell you not to put your hand on a hot stove and you do anyway, then it's my fault?

wow.. de ja vu...

I'm sorry if I misunderstood your explanation. But I truly believe that your analogy is incorrect. It's not the hot stove that burned (killed) those Israelites, it was God himself. My point there was that the punishment is way out of proportion to the crime.

What you seem to be assuming (and I apologize if I'm misconstruing your argument) is that God's response was solely a punishment of David. You say in the above quote, DAVID disobeyed and did the census anyway. The participation of the people was limited to simply wanting a King in the first place (which I equated to the action of the United States' population electing a president; if that analogy is flawed please tell me how) and they did not commit the crime themselves. But a huge part of that population is executed by God. That strikes me as an incredibly unjust portrayal of God.

God can kill whomever he desires to kill. All mankind fell into sin from Adam and the wages of sin is death. God could have obliterated the whole mess, but he decided instead to send his only begotten Son, Jesus Christ, to pay the penalty of sin so that all mankind would not die. Those who believe will be joint heirs with Jesus Christ for eternity. God did not have to provide that joy to sinners.

 

[Allahu Akbar]

God can kill whomever he desires to kill. All mankind fell into sin from Adam and the wages of sin is death. God could have obliterated the whole mess, but he decided instead to send his only begotten Son, Jesus Christ, to pay the penalty of sin so that all mankind would not die. Those who believe will be joint heirs with Jesus Christ for eternity. God did not have to provide that joy to sinners.

If all of mankind deserved death after Adam, why did God send his son? Why did he NOT kill all of mankind? Could it be that God thought that all mankind was NOT deserving of death? How are you defining "deserving of death" anyway? I'm assuming you mean that we deserve death in the eyes of God ... which is contradictory to God's actions in sending us a means of salvation.

Now, let's back up. You didn't answer the questions in my last post. I will paraphrase here: if unborn children are deserving of death, are you and I permitted to kill them ourselves?

 

[Solo]

God can kill whomever he desires to kill. All mankind fell into sin from Adam and the wages of sin is death. God could have obliterated the whole mess, but he decided instead to send his only begotten Son, Jesus Christ, to pay the penalty of sin so that all mankind would not die. Those who believe will be joint heirs with Jesus Christ for eternity. God did not have to provide that joy to sinners.

If all of mankind deserved death after Adam, why did God send his son? Why did he NOT kill all of mankind? Could it be that God thought that all mankind was NOT deserving of death? How are you defining "deserving of death" anyway? I'm assuming you mean that we deserve death in the eyes of God ... which is contradictory to God's actions in sending us a means of salvation.

Now, let's back up. You didn't answer the questions in my last post. I will paraphrase here: if unborn children are deserving of death, are you and I permitted to kill them ourselves?

God's Word says it best:

16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. 17 For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved. 18 He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God. 19 And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil. 20 For every one that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved. 21 But he that doeth truth cometh to the light, that his deeds may be made manifest, that they are wrought in God. John 3:16-21

 

[Allahu Akbar]

God's Word says it best:

16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. 17 For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved. 18 He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God. 19 And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil. 20 For every one that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved. 21 But he that doeth truth cometh to the light, that his deeds may be made manifest, that they are wrought in God. John 3:16-21

Thank you, I know what the Bible says. I am not conducting a debate with the Bible. The Bible is not posting. You are. I'm sorry, but I don't see how any of the questions that I asked you in my last post were answered by John 3:16-21. I need you to explain it to me, please.

 

[JM]

If all of mankind deserved death after Adam, why did God send his son? Why did he NOT kill all of mankind? Could it be that God thought that all mankind was NOT deserving of death? How are you defining "deserving of death" anyway? I'm assuming you mean that we deserve death in the eyes of God ... which is contradictory to God's actions in sending us a means of salvation.

God showed mercy via Christ Jesus. Christ died in our place.

Now, let's back up. You didn't answer the questions in my last post. I will paraphrase here: if unborn children are deserving of death, are you and I permitted to kill them ourselves?

Quote: Elect infants dying in infancy are regenerated and saved by Christ through the Spirit; who worketh when, and where, and how he pleases; so also are all elect persons, who are incapable of being outwardly called by the ministry of the Word. John 3:3, 5, 6; John 3:8

 

[Solo]

God's Word says it best:

16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. 17 For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved. 18 He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God. 19 And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil. 20 For every one that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved. 21 But he that doeth truth cometh to the light, that his deeds may be made manifest, that they are wrought in God. John 3:16-21

Thank you, I know what the Bible says. I am not conducting a debate with the Bible. The Bible is not posting. You are. I'm sorry, but I don't see how any of the questions that I asked you in my last post were answered by John 3:16-21. I need you to explain it to me, please.

God knew before Adam sinned that he would become flesh and die in mankind's place so that those that believe could have fellowship with the father for eternity. The place that Lucifer wanted, God created out of a pile of clay. A new creature would be resurrected to the place of being a joint heir with Jesus Christ, judging the angels. Lucifer and 1/3 of the angels fell because of their pride, and God showed the principalities in the heavenlies his righteousness, justice, mercy, grace, and love to mention some of his many characteristics. Man was created by God for God's pleasure, not for man's rebelliousness in corrupting the creation. God is in control and knows the final outcome. God dwells outside of time as He created time. God created time and space and all matter for his revelation to the spirtual realm of his total being.

 

[JM]

By being a Christian, one must obviously accept the New Testament. But is this true of the Old Testament? There are many things in the Old Testament that a modern Christian might find repulsive or illogical, 1 Chronicles 21 for example. The type of morality displayed in that and similar stories, as I'm sure many of you will agree, has no bearing on how we should live our lives today. Isn't that what religion is about? Why then is the Old Testament included in the Christian bible? Does accepting the New Testament mean that you must accept the Old?

The difference between the Old and the NT is one of type or picture and fulfillment. The other day I made a post in the book forum of my notes taken from Abraham's Four Seeds. It offers an answer as to the type/picture of the OT and the fulfillment in the New.

Peace,

j

 

[stovebolts]

All mankind deserves to be killed, even you. Why? Because you are unrighteous and a sinner. The wages of sin is death. You are nothing until you are born of God through Jesus Christ. It is Jesus' righteousness that makes one worthy to escape the resurrection unto damnation.

So babies and the unborn are unrighteous and have sinned, thus are deserving of death. If you (or humanity as a whole) can make those kinds of statements, what is to stop us from killing them? Or anyone? If everyone deserves death, why not kill them?

A disturbing view... Deserving death and receiving death (in a biblical sense) are two different things. To make this extreemly short and to the point, we are all born into sin and hence we all deserve death. But, we have a merciful God full of grace.
Christ was the fullfillment of the law in that he was made perfect. This can be seen by viewing the contents of the ark of the covenant and the mercy seat which sat upon it. (Start reading around Ex 25 I think and go right up to around 2 Kings) Once a year, the high priest would enter the holy of holies and face the cheribum... do you know why?
I dont' ask this as a riddle, but I ask so that you may find the answer to the question that you have asked.

What I said is what I said. I cannot be responsible for how you intrepreted it, but I can say that you've missed the point that I was trying to convey and now you twist things arouond.

But then you go on to say...

... it was a census...

Yes, it was a census, but more important, it was something that God told David NOT to do, yet he disobeyed and did it anyway in spite of knowing what God had to say about it.

So really, what you've said is this. If I tell you not to put your hand on a hot stove and you do anyway, then it's my fault?

wow.. de ja vu...

I'm sorry if I misunderstood your explanation. But I truly believe that your analogy is incorrect. It's not the hot stove that burned (killed) those Israelites, it was God himself. My point there was that the punishment is way out of proportion to the crime.

No worries, if you believe that my analogy is incorrect, then so be it. After all, it's all realative to how you wish to defend your belief. For example, this is the second time you have narrowed out the topic and have not looked at the broader meaning and then you further distort. Let me show you what I mean.

It's not the hot stove that burned (killed) those Israelites, it was God himself.

Touch a hot stove, and it's a fact that you'll get burned. But since you are equating getting burned with being killed, then we could also expand in the direction that normally, we are talking about getting your hand burned, because that is normally what is associated with touching a hot stove right? Good. Now, if you touch a hot stove and you are burned, then yes, you have killed a part of your body. But here's the great part, it's not the whole body! Likewise, all of Isreal was not destroyed, but only a portion of it. Ohh, and guess what? The part of the body that was burned? Well, it's called re-generation :-D

But now, you throw into the mix that it was God himself that killed a portion of the Isrealites. Absolutly, I have no problem submitting to that.

1 Samuel 2:6-8 The LORD killeth, and maketh alive: he bringeth down to the grave, and bringeth up. The LORD maketh poor, and maketh rich: he bringeth low, and lifteth up. He raiseth up the poor out of the dust, and lifteth up the beggar from the dunghill, to set them among princes, and to make them inherit the throne of glory: for the pillars of the earth are the LORD'S, and he hath set the world upon them.

That was fun :-D :-D

it was God himself.

Yes, All glory be to God

My point there was that the punishment is way out of proportion to the crime

Job 40:1-4 Moreover the LORD answered Job, and said, Shall he that contendeth with the Almighty instruct him? he that reproveth God, let him answer it. Then Job answered the LORD, and said, Behold, I am vile; what shall I answer thee? I will lay mine hand upon my mouth.

Forgive me, but it seems that you have missed how selfish and self seeking our human nature is. Do not become so self centered that you miss God's grace.

What you seem to be assuming (and I apologize if I'm misconstruing your argument) is that God's response was solely a punishment of David. You say in the above quote, DAVID disobeyed and did the census anyway. The participation of the people was limited to simply wanting a King in the first place (which I equated to the action of the United States' population electing a president; if that analogy is flawed please tell me how) and they did not commit the crime themselves. But a huge part of that population is executed by God. That strikes me as an incredibly unjust portrayal of God.

I'm sorry, for I am guilty of assuming that you actually read and understood your OT instead of pulling a chapter out of a book and then blaming God.
Let me clarify, I believe that the David was responsible for the people. God put him in charge of the people. A principal starts to emerge here that how David ruled, would mold the direction of the people subject to his rule. (This principal is seen today as well across the globe in different governments). You see, God was to be and is to be the ruler of our lives, not a king, not a president. We are to put our faith in God, and God alone.

But the Isrealites insisted on having a ruler over them. They stopped putting their full trust and obedience in God. As a result, they pleaded with God for a king, and God answered their petitions and gave them Saul, and then David. You see, David was a voice of the People. They (The isrealites) had David as THEIR voice. You see, they stopped putting their whole trust in God, and started trusting David. This my friend is the Body of God.

You see, where this links together, is the people put their trust in David to lead them. David went against God's word against God's people. As a represenative of God's people, the people were as guilty as David because they gave their authority as a people, to David.

You say this is an unjust portrayal of God. I say that it sets a standard on how we choose the people we have making decisions in our country.