The God Who Stoops

2,204 Views | 42 Replies | Last: 6 yr ago by PacifistAg
PacifistAg
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
The God Who Stoops


Quote:

The way that one imagines God can be thought of along the lines of a Rorschach test. That is, I submit that the way a person imagines and experiences God says at least as much about that person as it does God. The more estranged people are from God, the more their knowledge of him is obstructed and distorted. And when people yield to the Spirit, they are empowered to discern the true glory of God "in the face of Jesus Christ."

Quote:

Hence, on the one hand, to the extent that any conception and experience of God conforms to the character of God revealed on the cross, we may conclude that the Spirit has managed to break through the limited and fallen hearts and minds of people. On the other hand, to the extent that any conception or experience fails to conform to this character, we must conclude that the limited and fallen hearts and minds of people have resisted the Spirit.

Quote:

Given Scripture's repeated teaching that the people God claimed for himself in the OT were a "stiff-necked" people who continually resisted the Spirit, we ought not be surprised to discover that their conceptions and experiences of God were sometimes distorted. To the contrary, I believe we ought to rather be impressed by how frequently the Spirit succeeded in breaking through to disclose beautiful portraits of God that reflect his true character.

Knowing what we now know about God through his self-revelation on Calvary, we ought to be able to discern the true character of God in the depths of even the most seriously distorted portraits of God in the OT. For when we view them through the lens of the cross, we can see that there is something going on beneath the surface. We can discern in their depth the same humble God of self-sacrificial love stooping to bear the sin of his people that we discern on the cross.

Solo Tetherball Champ
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Quote:

we ought to be able to discern the true character of God in the depths of even the most seriously distorted portraits of God in the OT
That is.... troubling.

You go to great lengths to justify your idol of God as a great teddy bear in the sky.
FlyFish95
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Solo Tetherball Champ said:

Quote:

we ought to be able to discern the true character of God in the depths of even the most seriously distorted portraits of God in the OT
That is.... troubling.

You go to great lengths to justify your idol of God as a great teddy bear in the sky.
Everyone knows government and far-left political ideology is god.
PacifistAg
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Solo Tetherball Champ said:

Quote:

we ought to be able to discern the true character of God in the depths of even the most seriously distorted portraits of God in the OT
That is.... troubling.

You go to great lengths to justify your idol of God as a great teddy bear in the sky.
Not going to great lengths at all. Reading the Scripture through a Christ-centered lens. God looks like Jesus Christ. If there appears to be a conflict w/ some other portrait of Him, then side with Christ and reevaluate the other. But all Scripture, before and after, point to Christ crucified. He is the exact representation of God's nature. All previous representations were mere shadows and not "exact".

I also don't see God as a "great teddy bear in the sky". That's not how I look at Him at all. He looks like Christ crucified.
PacifistAg
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
DryFly said:

Solo Tetherball Champ said:

Quote:

we ought to be able to discern the true character of God in the depths of even the most seriously distorted portraits of God in the OT
That is.... troubling.

You go to great lengths to justify your idol of God as a great teddy bear in the sky.
Everyone knows government and far-left political ideology is god.
Huh? Who here has a "far-left political ideology"? Where did this comment even come from?
BusterAg
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG

Quote:

we ought to be able to discern the true character of God in the depths of even the most seriously distorted portraits of God in the OT.

Interesting take. Dangerous ground.

1) Do parts of the OT text give a distorted portrait of God? The article talks about people of the time having a distorted view of him. Do we see that distorted viewpoint exist in the text?
2) Is that distortion because the writers of the OT misinterpreted the meanings of what God was doing and / or saying, or because we are misinterperating the meaning of the text?
3) Is the belief that parts of the OT give a distorted portrait of god compatible with the belief of biblical inerrancy?
Solo Tetherball Champ
How long do you want to ignore this user?
RetiredAg said:

Solo Tetherball Champ said:

Quote:

we ought to be able to discern the true character of God in the depths of even the most seriously distorted portraits of God in the OT
That is.... troubling.

You go to great lengths to justify your idol of God as a great teddy bear in the sky.
Not going to great lengths at all. Reading the Scripture through a Christ-centered lens. God looks like Jesus Christ. If there appears to be a conflict w/ some other portrait of Him, then side with Christ and reevaluate the other. But all Scripture, before and after, point to Christ crucified. He is the exact representation of God's nature. All previous representations were mere shadows and not "exact".
El Oh El.

You run into so many conflicts with the idea of Jesus Christ: Teddy Bear that you have to actively avoid and sidestep so much to maintain that I'm surprised you don't just cut out most of the Bible. The entire OT and Most of Revelations, for starters.


PacifistAg
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
BusterAg said:


Quote:

we ought to be able to discern the true character of God in the depths of even the most seriously distorted portraits of God in the OT.

Interesting take. Dangerous ground.

1) Do parts of the OT text give a distorted portrait of God? The article talks about people of the time having a distorted view of him. Do we see that distorted viewpoint exist in the text?
2) Is that distortion because the writers of the OT misinterpreted the meanings of what God was doing and / or saying, or because we are misinterperating the meaning of the text?
3) Is the belief that parts of the OT give a distorted portrait of god compatible with the belief of biblical inerrancy?
1) Do parts of the OT text give a distorted portrait of God? The article talks about people of the time having a distorted view of him. Do we see that distorted viewpoint exist in the text? - Oh I do believe that the OT gives, at times, a distorted portrait of God. How could it not? Even the NT refers to those old portraits as a "shadow". We didn't have the exact portrait until Christ, so naturally those before wouldn't have been entirely accurate.
2) Is that distortion because the writers of the OT misinterpreted the meanings of what God was doing and / or saying, or because we are misinterperating the meaning of the text? - I believe all Scripture testifies to Christ. All before Christ and all after. Everything points to Christ crucified and the exact representation of God's nature as revealed through Christ.
3) Is the belief that parts of the OT give a distorted portrait of god compatible with the belief of biblical inerrancy? - I don't see it as incompatible, because I believe all Scripture inerrantly points to Christ. All the Law and Prophets...every single word points to Him. There are certainly images of God in the OT that look nothing like Christ. What the challenge becomes is to look at these "God-breathed" Scripture and read them through a Christocentric lens to see how God is at work and how it truly points to Christ.
BusterAg
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
I will be specific:


Quote:

15 Samuel said to Saul, "I am the one the Lord sent to anoint you king over his people Israel; so listen now to the message from the Lord. 2 This is what the Lord Almighty says: 'I will punish the Amalekites for what they did to Israel when they waylaid them as they came up from Egypt.3 Now go, attack the Amalekites and totally destroy[a] all that belongs to them. Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys.'"
1) Is this a distorted view of who God is? A being who punishes sin through violence and war?
2a) Is this a distortion because the text is incorrect, and that there is no way that God could order this, and the priests of the time who wrote it down wrote it down wrong because of their distorted view of God?
2b) Is this a distortion because we are misinterpreting the text some way, and that Samuel is not actually being the mouthpiece of God?
3) Is it possible that the text is simply incorrect, and that a man named Samuel never said this to a man named Saul? If that is true, and the text is incorrect, does that mean that Jesus was not really the Son of God?

I think that the concept of the article sounds great until you get down to the brass tacks.

The reality is that there is much about the OT that is troublesome and / or difficult. Squaring parts of the OT with your particular brand of non-violence is difficult. If you say that these viewpoints of God are distorted, then how and why is that? Where is the distortion coming from?
PacifistAg
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Solo Tetherball Champ said:

RetiredAg said:

Solo Tetherball Champ said:

Quote:

we ought to be able to discern the true character of God in the depths of even the most seriously distorted portraits of God in the OT
That is.... troubling.

You go to great lengths to justify your idol of God as a great teddy bear in the sky.
Not going to great lengths at all. Reading the Scripture through a Christ-centered lens. God looks like Jesus Christ. If there appears to be a conflict w/ some other portrait of Him, then side with Christ and reevaluate the other. But all Scripture, before and after, point to Christ crucified. He is the exact representation of God's nature. All previous representations were mere shadows and not "exact".
El Oh El.

You run into so many conflicts with the idea of Jesus Christ: Teddy Bear that you have to actively avoid and sidestep so much to maintain that I'm surprised you don't just cut out most of the Bible. The entire OT and Most of Revelations, for starters.
Are you incapable of engaging in a mature, and respectful way?
PacifistAg
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG

Quote:

Squaring parts of the OT with your particular brand of non-violence is difficult.
It's not about squaring part of the OT with my "particular brand of non-violence". It's about squaring parts of the OT with the exact representation of God's nature that is only revealed through His Son, Jesus Christ.
Solo Tetherball Champ
How long do you want to ignore this user?
RetiredAg said:

Solo Tetherball Champ said:

RetiredAg said:

Solo Tetherball Champ said:

Quote:

we ought to be able to discern the true character of God in the depths of even the most seriously distorted portraits of God in the OT
That is.... troubling.

You go to great lengths to justify your idol of God as a great teddy bear in the sky.
Not going to great lengths at all. Reading the Scripture through a Christ-centered lens. God looks like Jesus Christ. If there appears to be a conflict w/ some other portrait of Him, then side with Christ and reevaluate the other. But all Scripture, before and after, point to Christ crucified. He is the exact representation of God's nature. All previous representations were mere shadows and not "exact".
El Oh El.

You run into so many conflicts with the idea of Jesus Christ: Teddy Bear that you have to actively avoid and sidestep so much to maintain that I'm surprised you don't just cut out most of the Bible. The entire OT and Most of Revelations, for starters.
Are you incapable of engaging in a mature, and respectful way?
I apologize, and I walk back the derisive "El Oh El". In the spirit of mutual respect and understanding, I'll even refrain from mocking you for wearing Pajamas in public for the next week.

However, I don't regret any of the language used in the remainder of my response to you. Buster has beat me to the punch by providing more substantive arguments that are backing up my perspective, so I'll chime in again when I see your response.
PacifistAg
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
BusterAg said:

I will be specific:


Quote:

15 Samuel said to Saul, "I am the one the Lord sent to anoint you king over his people Israel; so listen now to the message from the Lord. 2 This is what the Lord Almighty says: 'I will punish the Amalekites for what they did to Israel when they waylaid them as they came up from Egypt.3 Now go, attack the Amalekites and totally destroy[a] all that belongs to them. Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys.'"
1) Is this a distorted view of who God is? A being who punishes sin through violence and war?
2a) Is this a distortion because the text is incorrect, and that there is no way that God could order this, and the priests of the time who wrote it down wrote it down wrong because of their distorted view of God?
2b) Is this a distortion because we are misinterpreting the text some way, and that Samuel is not actually being the mouthpiece of God?
3) Is it possible that the text is simply incorrect, and that a man named Samuel never said this to a man named Saul? If that is true, and the text is incorrect, does that mean that Jesus was not really the Son of God?

I think that the concept of the article sounds great until you get down to the brass tacks.

The reality is that there is much about the OT that is troublesome and / or difficult. Squaring parts of the OT with your particular brand of non-violence is difficult. If you say that these viewpoints of God are distorted, then how and why is that? Where is the distortion coming from?
1) Yes, I would say that's a horribly distorted portrait of God, at least when compared to the exact representation we see revealed in Christ. Slaughtering infants would squarely go against the way Christ spoke of violence, children, etc.

2) I believe that God met the people where they were and can even use these distortions to the purpose that all Scripture serves, and that's to point to Christ crucified. I believe the ancient view of God was distorted, and I think the way we often interpret these texts is distorted. I believe strongly that all reading of Scripture needs to be done through the revelation of God through Christ. I think we often fail to do that, which also presents an obstacle in a Christocentric reading of the OT.

3) I believe all Scripture is "God-breathed", but can't really answer your question. All I know is that all Scripture points to Christ, and if something doesn't look like Christ, we shouldn't just "toss it out", but dig deeper to find out how it does point to Christ.
PacifistAg
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Solo Tetherball Champ said:

RetiredAg said:

Solo Tetherball Champ said:

RetiredAg said:

Solo Tetherball Champ said:

Quote:

we ought to be able to discern the true character of God in the depths of even the most seriously distorted portraits of God in the OT
That is.... troubling.

You go to great lengths to justify your idol of God as a great teddy bear in the sky.
Not going to great lengths at all. Reading the Scripture through a Christ-centered lens. God looks like Jesus Christ. If there appears to be a conflict w/ some other portrait of Him, then side with Christ and reevaluate the other. But all Scripture, before and after, point to Christ crucified. He is the exact representation of God's nature. All previous representations were mere shadows and not "exact".
El Oh El.

You run into so many conflicts with the idea of Jesus Christ: Teddy Bear that you have to actively avoid and sidestep so much to maintain that I'm surprised you don't just cut out most of the Bible. The entire OT and Most of Revelations, for starters.
Are you incapable of engaging in a mature, and respectful way?
I apologize, and I walk back the derisive "El Oh El". In the spirit of mutual respect and understanding, I'll even refrain from mocking you for wearing Pajamas in public for the next week.

However, I don't regret any of the language used in the remainder of my response to you. Buster has beat me to the punch by providing more substantive arguments that are backing up my perspective, so I'll chime in again when I see your response.

When you stop using, and standing by, immature characterizations of my faith (Teddy Bear in the sky), then we can talk further. Buster has shown that you don't have to agree in order to be respectful in how you disagree.
Solo Tetherball Champ
How long do you want to ignore this user?
RetiredAg said:


Quote:

Squaring parts of the OT with your particular brand of non-violence is difficult.
It's not about squaring part of the OT with my "particular brand of non-violence". It's about squaring parts of the OT with the exact representation of God's nature that is only revealed through His Son, Jesus Christ.


Then what about those parts of revelation that essentially describe Christ as a conqueror who destroys his enemies? Whether you take it literally or figuratively, it is a much more violent "portrait" than what you prefer.
PacifistAg
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Solo Tetherball Champ said:

RetiredAg said:


Quote:

Squaring parts of the OT with your particular brand of non-violence is difficult.
It's not about squaring part of the OT with my "particular brand of non-violence". It's about squaring parts of the OT with the exact representation of God's nature that is only revealed through His Son, Jesus Christ.


Then what about those parts of revelation that essentially describe Christ as a conqueror who destroys his enemies? Whether you take it literally or figuratively, it is a much more violent "portrait" than what you prefer.
Here's a good resource on reading of Revelation that I found helpful: Corrective Strategies and Themes for Understanding the Book of Revelation


Solo Tetherball Champ
How long do you want to ignore this user?
RetiredAg said:

Solo Tetherball Champ said:

RetiredAg said:

Solo Tetherball Champ said:

RetiredAg said:

Solo Tetherball Champ said:

Quote:

we ought to be able to discern the true character of God in the depths of even the most seriously distorted portraits of God in the OT
That is.... troubling.

You go to great lengths to justify your idol of God as a great teddy bear in the sky.
Not going to great lengths at all. Reading the Scripture through a Christ-centered lens. God looks like Jesus Christ. If there appears to be a conflict w/ some other portrait of Him, then side with Christ and reevaluate the other. But all Scripture, before and after, point to Christ crucified. He is the exact representation of God's nature. All previous representations were mere shadows and not "exact".
El Oh El.

You run into so many conflicts with the idea of Jesus Christ: Teddy Bear that you have to actively avoid and sidestep so much to maintain that I'm surprised you don't just cut out most of the Bible. The entire OT and Most of Revelations, for starters.
Are you incapable of engaging in a mature, and respectful way?
I apologize, and I walk back the derisive "El Oh El". In the spirit of mutual respect and understanding, I'll even refrain from mocking you for wearing Pajamas in public for the next week.

However, I don't regret any of the language used in the remainder of my response to you. Buster has beat me to the punch by providing more substantive arguments that are backing up my perspective, so I'll chime in again when I see your response.

When you stop using, and standing by, immature characterizations of my faith (Teddy Bear in the sky), then we can talk further. Buster has shown that you don't have to agree in order to be respectful in how you disagree.

You were far more disrespectful to me in that "prosperity gospel" thread, but you do you.
PacifistAg
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Solo Tetherball Champ said:

RetiredAg said:

Solo Tetherball Champ said:

RetiredAg said:

Solo Tetherball Champ said:

RetiredAg said:

Solo Tetherball Champ said:

Quote:

we ought to be able to discern the true character of God in the depths of even the most seriously distorted portraits of God in the OT
That is.... troubling.

You go to great lengths to justify your idol of God as a great teddy bear in the sky.
Not going to great lengths at all. Reading the Scripture through a Christ-centered lens. God looks like Jesus Christ. If there appears to be a conflict w/ some other portrait of Him, then side with Christ and reevaluate the other. But all Scripture, before and after, point to Christ crucified. He is the exact representation of God's nature. All previous representations were mere shadows and not "exact".
El Oh El.

You run into so many conflicts with the idea of Jesus Christ: Teddy Bear that you have to actively avoid and sidestep so much to maintain that I'm surprised you don't just cut out most of the Bible. The entire OT and Most of Revelations, for starters.
Are you incapable of engaging in a mature, and respectful way?
I apologize, and I walk back the derisive "El Oh El". In the spirit of mutual respect and understanding, I'll even refrain from mocking you for wearing Pajamas in public for the next week.

However, I don't regret any of the language used in the remainder of my response to you. Buster has beat me to the punch by providing more substantive arguments that are backing up my perspective, so I'll chime in again when I see your response.

When you stop using, and standing by, immature characterizations of my faith (Teddy Bear in the sky), then we can talk further. Buster has shown that you don't have to agree in order to be respectful in how you disagree.

You were far more disrespectful to me in that "prosperity gospel" thread, but you do you.
1) I believe I had apologized for my behavior on that thread, if not, I do apologize.
2) My poor behavior on another thread is not a justification for yours now. Something about treating others the way you wish to be treated, not the way you are treated. We are human and make mistakes. All I've asked is that you engage respectfully here. If not, that's fine. I will just move on.
Solo Tetherball Champ
How long do you want to ignore this user?
I skimmed through that - and I believe you have shared this before.

The trouble I have is that it starts with a central premise and then actively seeks out to support that premise while ignoring that which disagrees with it, the same thing we're accusing you of doing.



Solo Tetherball Champ
How long do you want to ignore this user?
RetiredAg said:

Solo Tetherball Champ said:

RetiredAg said:

Solo Tetherball Champ said:

RetiredAg said:

Solo Tetherball Champ said:

RetiredAg said:

Solo Tetherball Champ said:

Quote:

we ought to be able to discern the true character of God in the depths of even the most seriously distorted portraits of God in the OT
That is.... troubling.

You go to great lengths to justify your idol of God as a great teddy bear in the sky.
Not going to great lengths at all. Reading the Scripture through a Christ-centered lens. God looks like Jesus Christ. If there appears to be a conflict w/ some other portrait of Him, then side with Christ and reevaluate the other. But all Scripture, before and after, point to Christ crucified. He is the exact representation of God's nature. All previous representations were mere shadows and not "exact".
El Oh El.

You run into so many conflicts with the idea of Jesus Christ: Teddy Bear that you have to actively avoid and sidestep so much to maintain that I'm surprised you don't just cut out most of the Bible. The entire OT and Most of Revelations, for starters.
Are you incapable of engaging in a mature, and respectful way?
I apologize, and I walk back the derisive "El Oh El". In the spirit of mutual respect and understanding, I'll even refrain from mocking you for wearing Pajamas in public for the next week.

However, I don't regret any of the language used in the remainder of my response to you. Buster has beat me to the punch by providing more substantive arguments that are backing up my perspective, so I'll chime in again when I see your response.

When you stop using, and standing by, immature characterizations of my faith (Teddy Bear in the sky), then we can talk further. Buster has shown that you don't have to agree in order to be respectful in how you disagree.

You were far more disrespectful to me in that "prosperity gospel" thread, but you do you.
1) I believe I had apologized for my behavior on that thread, if not, I do apologize.
2) My poor behavior on another thread is not a justification for yours now. Something about treating others the way you wish to be treated, not the way you are treated. We are human and make mistakes. All I've asked is that you engage respectfully here. If not, that's fine. I will just move on.
1 - Water under the bridge. You did apologize, and I accepted that.
2 - I will engage respectfully. I haven't repeated that language since.
PacifistAg
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Solo Tetherball Champ said:

I skimmed through that - and I believe you have shared this before.

The trouble I have is that it starts with a central premise and then actively seeks out to support that premise while ignoring that which disagrees with it, the same thing we're accusing you of doing.
My premise is that God looks like Christ, and any picture of God that doesn't look like Christ is a distorted picture. I don't see what's so radical about that.

I'm not saying the OT needs to be thrown out, but if there appears to be a conflict between the portrait of God in the OT vs the exact representation that we see in Christ, then we go with Christ (because He trumps all) and reevaluate the distorted picture to found how it does, in fact, point to Christ.
Solo Tetherball Champ
How long do you want to ignore this user?
RetiredAg said:

Solo Tetherball Champ said:

I skimmed through that - and I believe you have shared this before.

The trouble I have is that it starts with a central premise and then actively seeks out to support that premise while ignoring that which disagrees with it, the same thing we're accusing you of doing.
My premise is that God looks like Christ, and any picture of God that doesn't look like Christ is a distorted picture. I don't see what's so radical about that.


Because you then have to sidestep all the times that God either directly killed people, ordered people to be killed, or simply allowed them to be killed or suffer by claiming that somehow what really happened is really lost, or mistranslated, or otherwise recorded incorrectly.






PacifistAg
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Solo Tetherball Champ said:

RetiredAg said:

Solo Tetherball Champ said:

I skimmed through that - and I believe you have shared this before.

The trouble I have is that it starts with a central premise and then actively seeks out to support that premise while ignoring that which disagrees with it, the same thing we're accusing you of doing.
My premise is that God looks like Christ, and any picture of God that doesn't look like Christ is a distorted picture. I don't see what's so radical about that.


Because you then have to sidestep all the times that God either directly killed people, ordered people to be killed, or simply allowed them to be killed or suffer by claiming that somehow what really happened is really lost, or mistranslated, or otherwise recorded incorrectly.
If it doesn't look like the exact representation of God given through Christ, then as I said, it needs to be reevaluated and how we understand it. The OT portraits of God are not equal to the portrait of Him through Christ. There's only one way to know exactly what God looks like, and that's by looking to Jesus. If it doesn't look like Jesus, then it doesn't look like God.
Solo Tetherball Champ
How long do you want to ignore this user?
RetiredAg said:

Solo Tetherball Champ said:

RetiredAg said:

Solo Tetherball Champ said:

I skimmed through that - and I believe you have shared this before.

The trouble I have is that it starts with a central premise and then actively seeks out to support that premise while ignoring that which disagrees with it, the same thing we're accusing you of doing.
My premise is that God looks like Christ, and any picture of God that doesn't look like Christ is a distorted picture. I don't see what's so radical about that.


Because you then have to sidestep all the times that God either directly killed people, ordered people to be killed, or simply allowed them to be killed or suffer by claiming that somehow what really happened is really lost, or mistranslated, or otherwise recorded incorrectly.
If it doesn't look like the exact representation of God given through Christ, then as I said, it needs to be reevaluated and how we understand it. The OT portraits of God are not equal to the portrait of Him through Christ. There's only one way to know exactly what God looks like, and that's by looking to Jesus. If it doesn't look like Jesus, then it doesn't look like God.
So, the stern (even angry) god of the OT is not God? At face value he seems to have little in common with Jesus.


PacifistAg
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Solo Tetherball Champ said:

RetiredAg said:

Solo Tetherball Champ said:

RetiredAg said:

Solo Tetherball Champ said:

I skimmed through that - and I believe you have shared this before.

The trouble I have is that it starts with a central premise and then actively seeks out to support that premise while ignoring that which disagrees with it, the same thing we're accusing you of doing.
My premise is that God looks like Christ, and any picture of God that doesn't look like Christ is a distorted picture. I don't see what's so radical about that.


Because you then have to sidestep all the times that God either directly killed people, ordered people to be killed, or simply allowed them to be killed or suffer by claiming that somehow what really happened is really lost, or mistranslated, or otherwise recorded incorrectly.
If it doesn't look like the exact representation of God given through Christ, then as I said, it needs to be reevaluated and how we understand it. The OT portraits of God are not equal to the portrait of Him through Christ. There's only one way to know exactly what God looks like, and that's by looking to Jesus. If it doesn't look like Jesus, then it doesn't look like God.
So, the stern (even angry) god of the OT is not God? At face value he seems to have little in common with Jesus.
I'm not saying He's not God. I'm saying the portrait of Him, when it doesn't look like Christ, is distorted. The challenge is not simply ignoring those distortions, but instead digging to see how God is at work in them to point to the purpose of the entire text....Jesus Christ.
Solo Tetherball Champ
How long do you want to ignore this user?
If an image is distorted, you would think that there is an undistorted version of the image out there.

In the case of this passage:
Quote:

Samuel said to Saul, "I am the one the Lord sent to anoint you king over his people Israel; so listen now to the message from the Lord. 2 This is what the Lord Almighty says: 'I will punish the Amalekites for what they did to Israel when they waylaid them as they came up from Egypt.3 Now go, attack the Amalekites and totally destroy[a] all that belongs to them. Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys.'"
You never provided an "undistorted" image of what really happened here. You simply sidestep the issue.


PacifistAg
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Solo Tetherball Champ said:

If an image is distorted, you would think that there is an undistorted version of the image out there.

In the case of this passage:
Quote:

Samuel said to Saul, "I am the one the Lord sent to anoint you king over his people Israel; so listen now to the message from the Lord. 2 This is what the Lord Almighty says: 'I will punish the Amalekites for what they did to Israel when they waylaid them as they came up from Egypt.3 Now go, attack the Amalekites and totally destroy[a] all that belongs to them. Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys.'"
You never provided an "undistorted" image of what really happened here. You simply sidestep the issue.
There is an undistorted image. It's Christ. He's the undistorted image. The key is reading those sections through a Christ-centered lens to find how it points to Christ. I am still working on reading the Scripture through that lens. I'm sorry that I don't have an answer to every case of OT violent/genocidal portrait of God. I haven't read that section thoroughly enough, attempting to use a christocentric reading, in order to offer up an answer. It's not a sidestep. What I do know is that all Scripture points to Christ, and if it doesn't look like Christ, then it doesn't look like God. So, the challenge is to find Christ in that text. To find how it points to Him.

I assume you believe that Christ is the exact revelation of God. He is the ultimate, and only authoritative portrait of what God looks like. All others are shadows. Do you agree that there's a conflict between "put to death infants" portrait and the exact portrait we see in Christ?
Solo Tetherball Champ
How long do you want to ignore this user?
RetiredAg said:

Solo Tetherball Champ said:

If an image is distorted, you would think that there is an undistorted version of the image out there.

In the case of this passage:
Quote:

Samuel said to Saul, "I am the one the Lord sent to anoint you king over his people Israel; so listen now to the message from the Lord. 2 This is what the Lord Almighty says: 'I will punish the Amalekites for what they did to Israel when they waylaid them as they came up from Egypt.3 Now go, attack the Amalekites and totally destroy[a] all that belongs to them. Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys.'"
You never provided an "undistorted" image of what really happened here. You simply sidestep the issue.
There is an undistorted image. It's Christ. He's the undistorted image. The key is reading those sections through a Christ-centered lens to find how it points to Christ. I am still working on reading the Scripture through that lens. I'm sorry that I don't have an answer to every case of OT violent/genocidal portrait of God. I haven't read that section thoroughly enough, attempting to use a christocentric reading, in order to offer up an answer. It's not a sidestep. What I do know is that all Scripture points to Christ, and if it doesn't look like Christ, then it doesn't look like God. So, the challenge is to find Christ in that text. To find how it points to Him.
Ok, since you're a good sport when I tease you for pajamas I'll stop picking at that point if you don't have an answer ready, but it doesn't help your argument.

Quote:

I assume you believe that Christ is the exact revelation of God. He is the ultimate, and only authoritative portrait of what God looks like. All others are shadows. Do you agree that there's a conflict between "put to death infants" portrait and the exact portrait we see in Christ?
I disagree with the bolded parts... but I don't have the time to go into all of it, what with a work day and a baby at home. Suffice to say, we have an incomplete portion of his life so we can't really say that what record remains is all of him. You are still ignoring the portrait given of God in all of the OT.

As I read the OT more and more, I see Christ as less of a friendly, peaceful hippie type and more of a stern, and reserved Prophet/Teacher.

Quote:

Do you agree that there's a conflict between "put to death infants" portrait and the exact portrait we see in Christ?
Not really. Because while I do not take Revelations literally, it still paints an awfully violent portrait of Christ in my mind. Ultimately, if God is what he (and the bible) says he is, then who am I to argue if he says "kill 'em all"?

Christ was nonviolent because he was prophesied to be: In essence, he had to be nonviolent.
PacifistAg
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG

Quote:

Ok, since you're a good sport when I tease you for pajamas I'll stop picking at that point if you don't have an answer ready, but it doesn't help your argument.
These aren't superficial issues and I feel they warrant more than just a superficial reading of the text. That's why I don't have an "answer ready".

Quote:

Quote:

I assume you believe that Christ is the exact revelation of God. He is the ultimate, and only authoritative portrait of what God looks like. All others are shadows. Do you agree that there's a conflict between "put to death infants" portrait and the exact portrait we see in Christ?
I disagree with the bolded parts... but I don't have the time to go into all of it, what with a work day and a baby at home. Suffice to say, we have an incomplete portion of his life so we can't really say that what record remains is all of him. You are still ignoring the portrait given of God in all of the OT.

Then you disagree with the author of Hebrews who said:
Quote:

God, after He spoke long ago to the fathers in the prophets in many portions and in many ways, in these last days has spoken to us in His Son, whom He appointed heir of all things, through whom also He made the world. And He is the radiance of His glory and the exact representation of His nature
How Christ looks is how God looks. I'm not ignoring the portrait given of God in the OT. I'm saying those images, when they do not look like the exact representation as revealed through Christ, are distorted. The author of Hebrews also refers to the Law (OT) as a shadow. The shadow isn't the exact image. I'll use the analogy of shadow puppets on a wall. Your position seems to be looking at the shadow and saying "aha! That's a dog!". When you see the exact thing though, you see it's merely two hands held together at the right angle. The shadow led to a distorted image of what the actual object was. That's the same as Christ and the OT. Christ is the exact representation of God's very nature. As Christ looks, so does the Father. To see Christ is to see the Father (John 14:9).

Quote:

As I read the OT more and more, I see Christ as less of a friendly, peaceful hippie type and more of a stern, and reserved Prophet/Teacher.

That makes sense if you read the Christ through an OT lens. If you try to judge the object based on the shadow. I think that's a flawed way of reading it. I think it's backwards. We start with Christ, and go from there. All Scripture speaks to Christ and He is the only authoritative picture of God because He is the exact representation of God.
Quote:

Christ was nonviolent because he was prophesied to be: In essence, he had to be nonviolent.
What we see in Christ is what God is. That comes from Christ Himself. If He is the exact representation, then He was nonviolent because that's part of that exact representation. If you have seen Christ, you've seen the Father. Christ was nonviolent, and was prophesied to be (and we're called to imitate), therefore the Father is nonviolent and any portrait contrary to that is a distortion because it doesn't look like Christ.

Off to church now though, pajama pants and all.
BusterAg
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
RetiredAg said:


3) I believe all Scripture is "God-breathed", but can't really answer your question. All I know is that all Scripture points to Christ, and if something doesn't look like Christ, we shouldn't just "toss it out", but dig deeper to find out how it does point to Christ.
How does this story point to a Christ as someone who would advocate for non-violence in any situation?

I just can't get there.

I often think that we sometimes have the desire to ignore that God is about love and mercy, but also justice.

Even a reading through the parables of Jesus reveals a God who will meet out justice when it is warranted.
opk
How long do you want to ignore this user?
RetiredAg:wrote:

Quote:

Is it possible that the text is simply incorrect, and that a man named Samuel never said this to a man named Saul? If that is true, and the text is incorrect, does that mean that Jesus was not really the Son of God?
Hey, hey! I think you're on to something here.
good nuggets
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
BusterAg said:



I often think that we sometimes have the desire to ignore that God is about love and mercy, but also justice.

Even a reading through the parables of Jesus reveals a God who will meet out justice when it is warranted.

Job 36:
5 "God is mighty, but despises no one;
he is mighty, and firm in his purpose.
6 He does not keep the wicked alive
but gives the afflicted their rights.
7 He does not take his eyes off the righteous;
he enthrones them with kings
and exalts them forever.
8 But if people are bound in chains,
held fast by cords of affliction,
9 he tells them what they have done
that they have sinned arrogantly.
10 He makes them listen to correction
and commands them to repent of their evil.
11 If they obey and serve him,
they will spend the rest of their days in prosperity
and their years in contentment.
12 But if they do not listen,
they will perish by the sword
and die without knowledge.
PacifistAg
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
BusterAg said:

RetiredAg said:


3) I believe all Scripture is "God-breathed", but can't really answer your question. All I know is that all Scripture points to Christ, and if something doesn't look like Christ, we shouldn't just "toss it out", but dig deeper to find out how it does point to Christ.
How does this story point to a Christ as someone who would advocate for non-violence in any situation?

I just can't get there.

I often think that we sometimes have the desire to ignore that God is about love and mercy, but also justice.

Even a reading through the parables of Jesus reveals a God who will meet out justice when it is warranted.
As I mentioned above, I will need to study more w/ regards to that particular story. The article in the OP is taken from his new book about interpreting OT texts using a christocentric hermeneutic. I'm still working my way through the book, but do know that he covers that as he's already alluded to it multiple times.

What I am convinced of is that Christ is the exact representation of God's very nature. That Christ crucified is the center around which all Scripture revolves, and all Scripture testifies to Christ. That Christ's revelation of God is the ultimate and sole authority, and all other portraits aren't "competing" with, but rather pointing to Christ. That if it doesn't look like Christ, then it doesn't look like God. That's my starting point, and what I'm currently studying and working through in order to read the OT, and all Scripture for that matter, through a christocentric lens.

Now, I do absolutely agree that God is a just God. But, can killing infants as a result of the sins of their fathers logically be viewed as "justice"? I know some will say that "God's way is higher and who are we to question", but I don't agree with dismissing it like that. I think that's why reading using a christocentric hermeneutic will open up these issues.

But, like I said, I'm just now working through this massive work. It's an amazing read and really is hammering home just how amazing Christ is. TBH, I've had a smile on my face non-stop since I started it. It's so centered on Christ, how can you not just smile while reading about Him? I don't profess to be an expert on this, and I'm not posting this here to win some internet battle. I do thank you for the very valid and challenging questions, and for discussing this respectfully.
BusterAg
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Thanks for this response.

I generally like the idea of interpreting the OT through the lens of Christ. Just, in doing this, I struggle to find the character of God to be a bit different than your pacifist views, especially in light of teachings about justice in both the OT and Jesus' ministry.

Best of luck in your studies.
Post removed:
by user
Page 1 of 2
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.