The Evangelical Universalist Forum

70 AD- calling you Davo

#181

It’s a fallen world, due to sin coming into the world. And we can neither blame the devil or God - for the consequences. I think I have given you my answer. God allows it (which is what most mainline churches and theologians teach). Causes of illness, is both a theological and scientific question. How many different ways, do I need to state it? :laughing:

But there are many ways - to treat illness. Conventional medicine. Alternative medicine (i.e. homeopathy, Ayurveda and Traditional Chinese Medicine). Spiritual healing. All should be used.

0 Likes

#182

enough said :laughing:

0 Likes

#183

I think I should talk a bit - about the flu shot. Conventional medicine recommends flu and other shots. And an annual check up, with the corresponding blood work. All I believe in. And it keeps all my friends and family happy. When I got the flu, the flu shoot probably kept it in check. But NOT caused the flu. And the right homeopathic remedies and Traditional Chinese Medicine tea, helped to farther reduce any symptoms. So avail yourself of traditional medicine, alternative or complementary medicine, spiritual healing and prayer. :slight_smile:

And maybe I can make the theological connection…Between the Huston Astros, winning the Worlds Series…and folks watching TV evangelist - Joel Osteen - on TV? I’m not sure what prompted, the Chicago Cubs win last year. But the billy goat curse (see en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curse_of_the_Billy_Goat) - has been lifted. Could the devil be responsible, for the billy goat curse? :laughing:

0 Likes

#184

And maybe I can make the theological connection…Between the Huston Astros, winning the Worlds Series…and folks watching TV evangelist - Joel Osteen - on TV? I’m not sure what prompted, the Chicago Cubs win last year. But the billy goat curse (see

Houston Astros never won a World Series in 55 years, Cubs never won one in 100 years, Red Sox in about 100 years. The fact that God is helping them get over the hump after all this time may mean that justice is coming to fruition and the end is near!! Check it out as it’s all in Revelation since those symbolic creatures are all Baseball teams! Isn’t it obvious!!

0 Likes

#185

Well, my wife and I will be getting our influenza immunization today.
People don’t get influenza from the the weakened form of the influenza viruses that are in the vaccine.

Flu vaccines cause antibodies to develop in the body about two weeks after vaccination. These antibodies provide protection against infection with the viruses that are in the vaccine. The seasonal flu vaccine protects against the influenza viruses that research indicates will be most common during the upcoming season.

0 Likes

#186

Nothing amazing about it. Your verisimilar comment that I claim to have an instant revelation is patently false. You know well enough my position concerning errors in the New Testament. You admit that such factual errors exist, and yet appear to tenaciously cling to inerrancy.

You imply that my suggestion that Jesus used the correct name, but that Mark got the names confused, is ad hoc. It’s not. It is totally consistent with my position that the Bible is basically correct in its historical affirmations. In this case, as I pointed out, John Mark was not one of the twelve apostles of Christ.

Where did Mark get his information in writing “the Gospel of Mark”? Probably from Peter—MANY YEARS LATER. The Orthodox Study Bible suggests that Mark wrote it probably shortly before A.D. 70. Peter himself may have made the error, or Mark may not have heard the name correctly, or Mark may not have remembered it correctly.

It is my strong belief that Jesus, the Son of God, ALWAYS related facts correctly and NEVER made a mistake. He is fully trustworthy, but it is not always clear what He actually said, and how much of what is recorded in the memoirs (or “gospels” if you will) are the precise words of Jesus, and how much of it is the way that Matthew and John remembered it, or as it was told to Mark by Peter or to Luke by Paul who got the information (as they remembered it) from the twelve.

I do not understand why you are attacking this very likely position. How do you yourself explain that Mark stated that Jesus used the name of the son rather than the father? Do you think that Jesus Himself made the mistake?

Who’s blaming God? No one would blame God unless He thought that God miraculously preserved the gospel writers from error. I don’t.

How do you know that? Moses may be “quoting” the thoughts that he believed God has planted within him.

How could Mark be directly quoting the Son? He wasn’t there to hear the Son speak. What he quoted was the words of the Son as Peter remembered them many years later.

How can YOU have any confidence in anything any historical writer says? Do all their words have to be infallibly true and without error before you can believe their accounts in general? As for me, I don’t have any such requirement.

Laugh away! And continue mouthing your tendentious statements. It will get you nowhere.

0 Likes

#187

I can’t.

I will point out, however,that Peter is not considered to have been the author of 2 Peter and the writing was questioned by the early Church.

Irenæus (born A.D. 130) and Origen (born A.D. 185) either do not mention the book as one of those read in the churches, or expressed some doubt about the status of the book.

The Bible Researcher with regards to “The New Testament canon”:
bible-researcher.com/canon3.html

0 Likes

#188

How do I know?… I READ the text, and then oddly enough as it seems to you, I believe it.

So WHY won’t you be consistent and apply your dodgy doctrine to that opposes the words of Moses, to Jesus? Jesus himself said…

To use your own evasive rationale… Jesus may be “quoting” the thoughts that he believed God has planted within him.
You see how your theories continue to have knock-on consequences beyond their initial lunacies. :confused:

0 Likes

#189

Yes, Jesus spoke according to the working of the Father within Him. I fully accept that. Jesus was and is the Son of God.

But your “reasoning” seems to be that because Jesus spoke according to the working of the Father within Him, then it follows that Moses also spoke according to the working of the Father within him. Do you really believe that that logically follows? How far can you carry that reasoning?

Did Solomon write the words that God spoke to him. Was this God speaking through Solomon? Is everything that anyone ever does in this life vain and useless? Don’t bother giving food to starving children; it serves no purpose; it’s useless.

Thousands of people today claim that God speaks to them and through them. Do you accept the claims of each one of them just because they say it? If not, then on what basis do you accept the claims of Moses that God spoke to him? Is it because Moses’ writings make up part of a collection of writings called “the Bible” and you are obligated to accept everything within this collection as “the word of God”?

0 Likes

#190

Thousands of people today claim that God speaks to them and through them. Do you accept the claims of each one of them just because they say it? If not, then on what basis do you accept the claims of Moses that God spoke to him? Is it because Moses’ writings make up part of a collection of writings called “the Bible” and you are obligated to accept everything within this collection as “the word of God”?

This is not about Moses, it’s about Jesus , because Jesus endorsed Moses words several times therefore if Jesus was wrong about Moses can he be trusted about who he claimed to be?

0 Likes

#191

Did Jesus endorse Moses’ words that God commanded Israel to destroy the Canaanites completely including children and babies?
Moses claimed his laws came from God.
Did Jesus ever endorse stoning disobedient sons as the Mosaic Law stated?
Did Jesus ever endorse cutting off women’s hands for a particular offence, and to show them no mercy?

When the Pharisees tried to get Jesus to speak against the laws of Moses, Jesus didn’t fall for it:

On the other hand, the law of Christ, stated in Matt 5, 6, and 7 often is sometimes stricter than the Mosaic law, and sometimes opposite to it. Jesus doesn’t say that God gave them the Mosaic commandments. He doesn’t even say that these commandment came from Moses—just that “You have heard it said to those of old…”

Matthew 5:

Do you think it possible for Moses to have perceived God speaking to him sometimes, and have mistaken his own thoughts for those of God at other times?

0 Likes

#192

The OT civil law was a bit different from the USA today where half the people are in prison & the rest running around packing semi-automatic weapons. How many prisons do we read about in the OT? I imagine the crime rate was extremely low. Compare the harsh laws & low incidence of crime in modern day Singapore, for example, where one can walk about anywhere at any time of the day or night without fear. Would you recommend trying that in “America”, or even Canada?

As to destroying the Canaanites pagan children why would God command that? When the white man came to “America” he brought diseases that wiped out many of the natives. That might be one reason. (BTW, air travel today could lead to the extinction of the human race). Demon possession another reason. Moreover, what’s the harm done if killing these “children and babies” sends them to heaven?

Romans 13:1-7 states, “Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. Consequently, he who rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves. For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and he will commend you. For he is God’s servant to do you good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword for nothing. He is God’s servant, an agent of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer. Therefore, it is necessary to submit to the authorities, not only because of possible punishment but also because of conscience. This is also why you pay taxes, for the authorities are God’s servants, who give their full time to governing. Give everyone what you owe him: If you owe taxes, pay taxes; if revenue, then revenue; if respect, then respect; if honor, then honor.”

Matthew 23:1 Then Jesus spoke to the crowds and to His disciples: 2 “The scribes and Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat. 3 So practice and observe everything they tell you. But do not do what they do, for they do not practice what they preach.…

Matthew 22:17Tell us therefore, What thinkest thou? Is it lawful to give tribute unto Caesar, or not? 18But Jesus perceived their wickedness, and said, Why tempt ye me, ye hypocrites? 19Shew me the tribute money. And they brought unto him a penny. 20And he saith unto them, Whose is this image and superscription? 21They say unto him, Caesar’s. Then saith he unto them, Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s; and unto God the things that are God’s. 22When they had heard these words, they marvelled, and left him, and went their way.

0 Likes

#193

Steve 7150 wrote:
This is not about Moses, it’s about Jesus , because Jesus endorsed Moses words several times therefore if Jesus was wrong about Moses can he be trusted about who he claimed to be?

Did Jesus endorse Moses’ words that God commanded Israel to destroy the Canaanites completely including children and babies?
Moses claimed his laws came from God.
Did Jesus ever endorse stoning disobedient sons as the Mosaic Law stated?
Did Jesus ever endorse cutting off women’s hands for a particular offence, and to show them no mercy?

As you know Jesus said “not one jot or tittle shall pass from the law until all is fulfilled” meaning the Law of Moses is from God and delivered by Moses.
To me this is a comprehensive endorsement by Jesus of the truthfulness of Moses delivering everything that God said. Perhaps a better way to look at this reconciliation difficulty is to entertain the possibility that Satan was indeed the god of this age having received dominion from Adam and so he ordered his demons to possess the Cannanites. So perhaps the only was to accomplish God’s plan was to kill the Cananites because there was no alternative at that time.

0 Likes

#194

It’s worth reading Enns on this passage:
(with Rowan Williams quote)
The Bible is, you might say, God telling us a parable or a whole sequence of parables.
God is saying, ‘This is how people heard me, saw me, responded to me; this is the gift I gave them; this is the response they made . . . Where are you in this?’
If in that story we find accounts of the responses of Israel to God that are shocking or hard to accept, we do not have to work on the assumption that God likes those responses.
For example: many of the early Israelites in the Old Testament clearly thought it was God’s will that they should engage in ‘ethnic cleansing’—that they should slaughter without mercy the inhabitants of the Promised Land into which they had been led. And for centuries, millennia even, people have asked, ‘Does that mean that God orders or approves of genocide?’ If he did, that would be so hideously at odds with what the biblical story as a whole seems to say about God.
But if we understand that response as simply part of the story, we see that this is how people thought they were carrying out God’s will at that time. The point is to look at God, look at yourself, and to ask where you are in the story. Are you capable in the light of the Bible as a whole—of responding more lovingly or faithfully than ancient Israel.*
Rowan Williams, Being Christian: Baptism, Bible, Eucharist, Prayer, pp. 27-28

Williams’s brief book Being Christian is, like anything he writes, theologically deep, pastorally engaged, andbeing-christian commonsensical about a number of things, especially his chapter on the Bible.
For Williams, the Bible is not a book where all parts have equal validity for us today for what God is like and how we should live. Some portions, as we read in the quote above, tell us more about what the Israelites thought God was like, how they in their contextual moment responded to the voice of God as they understood it.
Concerning violence in the Old Testament, in The Bible Tells Me So I put it this way: “God never told the Israelites to kill Canaanites. The Israelites believed that God told them to kill the Canaanites” (p. 54) or “God Let’s His Children Tell the Story” (p. 61).
To approach matters the way Williams suggests here is not to pick and choose arbitrarily what parts of the Bible to keep or toss away based on our own preferences. I hear that rebuke a lot but it is shallow. By contrast, I find William’s approach to give careful and necessary attention to 3 related and unavoidable matters when we engage in biblical interpretation:
(1) all theology is contextual (including the theology we find in the Bible),
(2) the Bible is not a book of timeless propositions to accept at face-value but reflects an ongoing journey of spiritual discernment, and
(3) our own continued discernment of how the Bible informs our faith is the very stuff of careful, ongoing theological reflection.
Go, Rowan.

Or just Enns:

God’s command to exterminate the Canaanites (along with everything else that breathes) remains one of the more gruesome stories in the Bible (see Deuteronomy 20:16-20).
This story presents readers with a real—not imagined—moral and theological dilemma, but my point isn’t to get into all that here. [You can read more here and also in The Bible Tells Me So, where I take a whole chapter laying out the issues.]
Here I just want to say that this command wasn’t an afterthought. As the Israelites tell the story, the Canaanites were doomed from the start for something that happened nearly at the beginning of human history—Noah and the great Flood.
This flood killed every living creature; only Noah and his family were saved in a big boat, along with enough animals (1) to repopulate the earth later and (2) to sacrifice to appease God.
After the waters subsided and everyone de-arked, Noah planted the first vineyard, made wine, and got drunk. Like a state college freshman, he collapsed naked inside his tent in a drunken coma.
His youngest son, Ham, went into the tent, saw him his father lying there naked, and went out to tell his brothers, Shem and Japheth. Rather than gawking, the two brothers walked backwards into the tent and covered their father with a garment.
It’s hard to know exactly what’s going on here, but, apparently, the two brothers handled the situation correctly whereas Ham didn’t. So, when Noah woke up, he did what any normal father would do with when faced with the same dilemma—he cursed Ham’s descendants forever.
Three guesses who Ham’s descendants are (and the first two don’t count): the Canaanites.
It strikes me that the very first words out of Noah’s mouth after he woke up weren’t, “What a night! What was I thinking!? I’ll never do that again!”
Not even, “Ham! Get in here! How dare you look upon my nakedness?!”
Instead he said,
“Cursed be Canaan; lowest of slaves shall he be to his brothers.”
Not, “Cursed be Ham,” or “Cursed be Ham and all his descendants,” but “Cursed be the line of one of Ham’s sons—Canaan.”
Ham has four sons, yet only Canaan and his entire bloodline are doomed—which seems a bit extreme, given the fact that he himself hadn’t done anything.
Plus, two of Noah’s other sons are Cush and Mizraim, the ancestors of the Egyptians who held the Israelites in slavery. So how about cursing their bloodlines?
But no. Only this one son of Ham has his descendants consigned to a perpetual subhuman legacy of enslavement to the descendants of his brothers—namely the descendants of Shem, from which come the Israelites.
It looks like whoever wrote this story has a bone to pick with the Canaanites.
If we read this in another ancient book, we’d call it propaganda—a story to justify, not explain, hatred of the Canaanites. At least that’s what it looks like.
Israel’s later sworn enemies, the Canaanites, are set up as failures from the beginning, and no treatment—not even extermination—is too harsh for these people whose ancestor’s father saw his father drunk and naked.
This isn’t going to end well for the Canaanites.

0 Likes

#195

Israel’s later sworn enemies, the Canaanites, are set up as failures from the beginning, and no treatment—not even extermination—is too harsh for these people whose ancestor’s father saw his father drunk and naked.
This isn’t going to end well for the Canaanites.
All things bright and beautiful,

But in Deut 7.1-6 God gave those Canaanites 440 years to repent so maybe they weren’t fated to be killed?

0 Likes

#196

Interesting point Steve!!

0 Likes

#197
0 Likes

#198

DaveB, thanks for the Enns quotes. I get the impression he doesn’t believe the biblical description of the Canaanites’ fate is factually accurate?

0 Likes

#199

qaz, to some degree or other yes, he disagrees. But his approach, as set forth in his books and articles, does not dishonor the scripture, as best I can tell, but does ask for thoughtfulness and consideration of the arguments. Nothing knee-jerk about Enns, at least to the extent I have read him.

0 Likes

#200

Why wouldn’t it logically follow?

IF you are going to be consistent… you must judge with the same criticalness those who recorded Jesus as you judge those who recorded Moses. IOW… whatever excuses you plead for Jesus’ error MUST, if you are consistent, be applicable to Moses’ supposed errors, as you would have them.

And you don’t have to worry about… “How far can you carry that reasoning?” — you simply leave this “reasoning” within and not beyond the walls of the biblical text and story.

0 Likes