I agree that neither of us seems to grasp the argument of the other. But it would be incorrect to hear me as wanting to believe, or eve imagining, that Moses is “inerrant.” I do not see him as at all “inerrant” for the reasons I gave, that Jesus’ and Moses’ teaching greatly conflicts, and especially so on God’s people taking up violence to achieve God’s plan.
It’s not a case of me not grasping what your saying. It’s a case of you overlapping the specifics of paidions claim with your understanding of Moses many errors within the whole of his writings. Paidions specific claim is - that Moses writings have to be in error, concerning Gods character were violence and death are used as a means of Gods judgments / punishments, because
they conflict with his specifically chosen words of Christ, that he thinks proves otherwise. But the fact remains - that whilst Christ may have challenged areas of Moses writings concerning the conduct of his people. Gods character where judgment and punishment are concerned still remained the same [ie] AD 70.
Whether God uses his people to achieve
his judgments / punishments or a Roman army to achieve them, the fact remains, Gods character concerning his Use of violent judgment had not changed from Moses writings to Christ’s present era. Both Moses and Christ clearly understood their Gods character where his use of Judgment / punishment was concerned.
I can see my combination of using errant and inerrant in the context I’ve used them isn’t quite correct. I’ll try to rephrase :- Moses writings are not in error, until they conflict with Jesus teachings, Which would mean he was right and wrong within his writings. [ie] having it both ways.
As Bob so adequately explained, I was referring specifically concerning what Christ and Moses said about the character of God. Moses wrote that God ordered the slaying of the inhabitants of “the promised land”, including every woman, child, and baby. Jesus taught that God is kind to even evil people. Nowhere did I suggest that Moses was always wrong. So I do believe Jesus’ words that Moses wrote about Him.
My opinion is that Moses wanted to conquer the Canaanites, and so he ordered his warriors to slay them all and justified it by claiming that God told him to do it. If God had told him to do it, that would have been inconsistent with God’s character as revealed by Jesus whom He said was kind even to evil people! I also disbelieve that God would kill the man for steadying the ark when the oxen stumbled. God would have known the man’s motive.
So my main point was that we ought to believe Jesus when He described God as kind to ungrateful and evil people, and the apostle John who said “God is love”—not that love is one of God’s characteristics, but that it is His very essence! John also said, “In Him is no darkness at all.”
As I see it, there is plenty of darkness in wiping out a whole nation so that your followers can possess it. Jesus, on the other hand, instructed His disciples to love their enemies and to do good to those who hated them (Luke 6:27)
I know that reflects your belief, but not mine. I don’t have it “both ways.” I think Moses could err widely on anything, and my confidence only rests in Jesus’ ideas.
Your words Bob
My words Bob… Yet your saying my words reflect my beliefs but not yours 
your contradicting yourself Bob.
Sorry I can’t overlap posts like you do.
Well, I know that I am not grasping your logic. And I perceive you don’t grasp mine. As Paidion explained, we do not see that AD70 shows Jesus’ view of God is the same as Moses’, or need contradict his teaching and example that God is kind toward sinners and the wicked.
Calling God’s people to commit genocide in order to achieve the land God wants from an apparently despised people, is not necessarily equivalent to Jesus’ grief over what unbelievers will do in AD70 to Jerusalem. That God can work to bring good even through the freely chosen actions of evil perpetrators, is not the same as God endorsing the use of indiscriminate slaughter by those who follow Him (who Jesus says are actually called to love their enemies).
I.e. What Rome did in 70 AD is still evil (even though it is the natural and predicted consequence of Israel’s decision to reject Jesus’ call to love these enemies, and thus reflects God’s judgment upon Israel). But Moses’ claimed his slaughters were divinely righteous. I observe that in a real sense, Jesus and Moses’ affirm opposite ideas of God’s calling and character.
Perpective from W. E. Channing
– We find, too, that the different portions of this book, instead of being confined to general truths, refer perpetually to the times when they were written, to states of society, to modes of thinking, to controversies …, to feelings and usages which have passed away, and without the knowledge of which we are constantly in danger of extending to all times, and places, what was of temporary and local application. – We find, too, that some of these books are strongly marked by the genius and character of their respective writers, that the Holy Spirit did not so guide the writers as to suspend the peculiarities of their minds, and that a knowledge of their feelings, and of the influences under which they were placed, is one of the preparations for understanding their writings. With these views of the Bible, we feel it our bounden duty to exercise our reason upon it perpetually, to compare, to infer, to look beyond the letter to the spirit, to seek in the nature of the subject, and the aim of the writer, his true meaning; and, in general, to make use of what is known, for explaining what is difficult, and for discovering new truths.
-Unitarian Christianity
1 Like
So Moses wasn’t always wrong, He was just wrong when he was being a false prophet
Not necessarily just wrong then, but certainly wrong then…
So jesus view of God wasn’t the same as Moses view of God, Really ? Jesus taught his God would destroy those wicked people and burn up their city, resulting in mass killing, [including women and children] starvation and torture. Moses view of God was destroying those wicked people, resulting in the burning of the land, mass killing, including women and children. They seem pretty similar views to me.
In the light of the above views already mentioned, I look forward to you
enlightening me further how killing people and burning their land/city in Moses day is not same equivalent to killing people and burning their land/city In Christ’s day/ Generation. Is killing not equivalent to killing and burning not equivalent to burning ? What’s the difference Bob ?
Ahhh I see, it’s a natural consequence to kill innocent children of parents who reject Gods call to love their enemies. Really ?
Very interesting. As we move through a world stymied by a pandemic, we are debating old verses seemingly suggesting that God condones atrocities, and yet a microorganism is ravaging the old and weak as we write. The folks who think God is at fault are saying it is a natural occurrence, the others are saying man made the virus, and somehow let the thing out. No matter which way you believe, one would have to admit God at least allowed it to happen, or you could say evil forces are at work and God has no control.
It appears we see Jesus differently: I see "Jesus wept over Jerusalem, and said, “If only you had recognized the things that lead to peace. But now days will come when your enemies will build an embankment and encircle you, They will dash you to the ground within your walls.” (Luke19:41-44).
So I perceive the stark difference is that Moses proclaimed a God who celebrated and urged the godly to murder babies that God despises. But Jesus displays God urging his beloved to avoid hating and slaughtering enemies, and to avoid the grievous slaughter that Rome (not God) would indulge in and celebrate if Israel continued to see God as One who hates the wicked world, and thus keep rejecting the turn the other cheek ways of peace that Jesus taught were God’s ways.
My account of Jesus’ radical view of God is in my paper on God as “Abba.”
Channing again:
We do not, however, attach equal importance to all the books in this collection. Our religion, we believe, lies chiefly in the New Testament. The dispensation of Moses, compared with that of Jesus, we consider as adapted to the childhood of the human race, a preparation for a nobler system, and chiefly useful now as serving to confirm and illustrate the Christian Scriptures. Jesus Christ is the only master of Christians, and whatever he taught, either during his personal ministry, or by his inspired Apostles, we regard as of divine authority, and profess to make the rule of our lives.
-from Unitarian Christianity
Luke ch. 9 - As Moses and Elijah were leaving, Peter said to Jesus, “Master, it is good for us to be here. Let us put up three shelters—one for You, one for Moses, and one for Elijah.” (He did not know what he was saying.) 34While Peter was speaking, a cloud appeared and enveloped them, and they were afraid as they entered the cloud. 35And a voice came from the cloud, saying, “This is My Son, whom I have chosen. Listen to Him!”…
Do you deny this fact? Or maybe ‘celebrated’ is a far reaching conclusion?
If in 2000 years some people came upon the preaching of certain ‘Men Of God’ in our time and the way they position themselves, as total authorities, wouldn’t it be at least plausible that some folks would consider the televangelists of this age to be the Moses of this time?
Interesting thought.
I don’t deny that the Pentateuch appears to see God as quite affirming of such orders. I do doubt that this fits well with a cruciform interpretation of God’s way of dealing with sinners.
You are muddying the waters. God is God. We have to believe in him from the scriptures or form our own understanding of what we perceive He is.
The “scriptures”. I presume you refer to the writings of the Old and New Testaments. In the early years of Christianity, there was much dispute as to which writings were qualified to be read in the assemblies.
For example, 2nd Peter, and Revelation were highly questioned.
As Christians, we believe in God as Jesus taught Him to be. That has nothing to do with “our own understanding.” Jesus’ teachings take precedence over any “scriptures” to the contrary.
1 Like
Hmm, Thanks Don
I would say it appears your cherry
picking. Jesus also said that he would act
out his fathers judgments. It would be like as in the days of Noah, something’s Peter firmly understood.
Matt 24:51
“And will cut him in pieces and assign him a place with the hypocrites; in that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth”
2 peter 3:6-7
6 by which the world that then existed perished, being flooded with water.
7 But the heavens and the earth which are now preserved by the same word, are reserved for fire until the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men.
Which Paul also understood :—
2 Thessalonians 1:7-8
7 and to give you who are troubled rest with us when the Lord Jesus is revealed from heaven with His mighty angels, 8 in flaming fire taking vengeance on those who do not know God, and on those who do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ.
Jesus emotions do not altar the fact that he viewed his God as a God who punishes by way of killing. Neither do Moses emotions altar the fact that he viewed his God as a God who punishes by way of killing.
The bottom line is, God used the Armies
of Rome to inflict his judgments upon his forsaking people. It was God who gave Rome the opportunity to indulge in the grievous slaughter of his people. Rome’s emotions do not altar the fact that God judges by way of killing.
What do you mean by that term ‘used’? Do you mean ‘allowed’ or are you going the whole enchilada and accusing him of mass murder?
There is a big difference.