wargograw said:
RetiredAg said:
Quote:
I did just prove that saying you disregard the Bible wasn't a mischaracterization at all though.
No, you didn't. I absolutely don't disregard the Bible. Again, this is a blatant mischaracterization. There's not a single verse that I "disregard". I may understand a verse differently based on reading it through a cruciform lens, but I don't "disregard".
Also, I'm not "lifting" the arguments of Marcionites. At no time have I ever said we are to reject a single verse of the OT. Recognizing that we have the hermeneutic key to understanding the OT, and reading it through that lens, is not anywhere close to rejecting any of the OT.
Dude. I just want answers to the questions I'm asking. You're majoring on all the minors I post while you leave massive mozza balls hanging. Focus here.
I just want a respectful dialogue where you don't misrepresent and distort my position. When you start with the claim that you've already "proven" that I disregard the Bible, then where do we go from there? I've explained already that I do not. There's not a single verse that I dismiss, because I believe every one points to Christ. That we differ on how it points to Christ does not mean I'm disregarding it. But you've already made up your mind on my position, as evidenced by the fact that you believe you've "proven" my position.
And claiming that I disregard Scripture is not a "minor".
But, here, I'll answer the last question you asked:
how do you know which parts of the Bible reveal Jesus' character and which don't? All scripture testifies to Christ. Those verses that look like Christ are direct revelations. Those verses that don't, are indirect revelations. The key to understanding the indirect revelations is by using a cruciform hermeneutic. I'll use the genocide/infanticide examples. When God supposedly ordered the genocide of the Amalekites, I believe that's an indirect revelation. Why? Because genocide is entirely incompatible with who Christ revealed God to be. Now, that doesn't mean we reject that section, as Marcion would have done. So, how does that actually testify to Christ then? Well, I like how Greg Boyd puts it. These are literary crucifixions. Just as we see with the cross, the surface is brutal and ugly. It's barbaric. Crucifixions were evil, and on the surface, Christ looked no different than any condemned criminal of the day. But, because we know Christ, because we know who He revealed God to be, we see that the cross is actually where God went to unimaginable lengths to reconcile His creation to Himself. He became God in the flesh, He allowed man to act on Him, to the point of nailing Him to a cross. He took on a hideous superficial appearance, but beneath the surface we see the immense, incomprehensible beauty of what He was doing. The same is true for the OT commands to commit genocide and infanticide. He allowed man, driven by cultural conditioning, to "act" on Him and portray Him as other ANE deities just so He could remain in relationship with His people. The word used in these genocidal accounts is
herem. In the ANE,
herem was an act of worship to a deity. It was essentially human sacrifice to their respective deity. God, knowing His people and what they could possibly comprehend of Him at that time in history, was willing to let them "act" on Him by portraying Him as a genocidal deity.
As we see through the OT though, He slowly but surely reveals more and more of Himself to His people. When sacrifices to deities were common, including human sacrifice, He limits them to animal sacrifice. But as we see in the Prophets, He never desired sacrifice. Early on, they talked of how much God took pleasure in their sacrifice, even painting the picture that He delighted in the aroma. But as we see later, it was never sacrifice that He desired, but a humble and contrite heart. He meets His people where they're at. A good modern example of this that Greg Boyd uses is a missionary going into an unreached tribe. Say this tribe practices female circumcision. That missionary won't reach them by demanding they stop the practice immediately (they'd destroy any chance at remaining in relationship with the tribe), so they work on them gradually to move them away from that. As God is revealed to them, more and more, they will see that the practice is wrong. We see the same general principle at play throughout the OT. The OT authors were dealing with a "shadow". God's nature is gradually revealed to them throughout the OT story, until we get to Christ and the full, exact revelation is given to them.
One analogy I like to use is shadow puppets. If you see a shadow that looks like a dog on the wall, you'll naturally assume it's a dog that's casting the shadow. Your entire opinion will be based on that "knowledge". It looks like a dog, therefore it must be a dog. But then one day you see that it's actually just someone's hands held at the right angles that is casting the shadow. You were completely justified in your initial belief, but once you see the exact revelation, it changes how you see that shadow. Once Christ revealed to us the "hands" behind the shadow, it changes how we see that shadow (OT). It doesn't mean we reject the shadow as if it's not there, but we understand it differently.
Now, you may reject this understanding or this method of interpretation. But, I think I've at least made it clear that it's not a rejection of the scriptures. Only Christ is the exact revelation of God's nature. If it doesn't look like Christ, then we have to assume it's the shadow and we need to go looking for the hands that cast the shadow. I don't believe God commands man to sin, and I don't believe God's nature is changing. If we agree that Christ is the
exact representation of God's nature, and His nature is immutable, then we have to agree that anything that doesn't look like Christ isn't God. Christ wasn't merely a partial revelation, but the exact revelation. So if Christ warns against those who would hinder a child from coming to Him, I find it incomprehensible that He'd command babies be dashed onto rocks.
So, hopefully that clears up my position. Like I said, you may disagree with it. Many do. But I would hope you could also see that I'm not dismissing Scripture (nor does the author in the OP, who is an Anabaptist). We don't hold a low view of scripture. Far from it. We hold that every single word points to Christ, and because of that, the bible is invaluable. The bible, though, is not Christ. It is not on the same level of Christ. Just as John the Baptist and the Bethlehem star were invaluable, they are not on the level of Christ. It doesn't diminish them, but simply points to how breathtakingly awesome the "Word made flesh" is. Again, the transfiguration is a great point here. Moses representing the Law...Elijah the Prophets...Peter wanted to build a tabernacle for all three. Yet God said "this is my Son....listen to Him!" Peter, James and John fell to the ground, then looked up. All they saw was Jesus.
You ask which parts reveal God's character? They all do, either directly or indirectly. We just may need to, with the Spirit's guidance, peel away layers of cultural conditioning that the authors bring to the text.
Edit: my apologies if I was defensive and, as a result, lacked graciousness in my responses to you.
