Evidence for God from Science

Ivel,

I wanted to comment on some things you said in another thread.I didn't want to derail that one and I thought this would make a good community discussion on some of these issues, so I figured a new thread was most appropriate.

Ivellious wrote:

3. Old Testament law – don’t they promote evil (stoning of rape victims, Deut 22) and aren’t Christians hypocritical in not adhering to them today?

I'm no biblical scholar, but the take I've typically seen here is that modern day Christians don't have to adhere to these laws because the New Testament effectively replaces the old law with the new word of Jesus (unless I'm mistaken, which could happen). I have no idea how one could defend some of the hideous things mandated by the OT by modern standards, unless you simply say it was ok because "God said so." Obviously I cannot say I agree with that logic, but I've never heard it defended any other way personally.

There are some Christians who adhere to the underlined part, but that is a theology technically called supersessionism or more commonly replacement theology. It does not provide the best answer in large part because Jesus Himself seems to repudiate it in Matt. 5:17 and in John 10:35. The actual answer to that question is that Christians never were under the Law (claims of some today like Gman notwithstanding, but they are very much in the minority here--I'll let them defend themselves). Paul says as much very plainly in Gal. 5:18. You might also find this paper helpful.

Anyway, that easily answers the second part of the question, but the first is really the important part, I think. I'm not a deontologist, so "Because God said so" doesn't work for me, either. On the other hand, I just don't accept bald assertions that things mandated in the OT were "hideous." You mention "today's standards," but I have to wonder what that even means. Whose standards? And why should those be considered the right ones? Are you suggesting that morality has evolved to a point where it is purer or better today than it used to be? But, again, by what standard (and that, of course, introduces the argument from morality for God's existence into the discussion). If you are simply appealing to your own preferences, then we can all just shrug our shoulders. It doesn't really matter if you think something is hideous or not if that is nothing more than a personal opinion. If, however, you are making an objective claim that some things mandated by Scripture are evil, then you have to defend that claim. And to that point, I'm not going to do your work for you. I would ask you to present your own case.

5. If Jesus was really God, why did he die?

This seems like an odd question...I mean, sure, Jesus's human body died, but I'm pretty sure any Christian viewpoint has to accept the caveat that Jesus's immortal God-self did not actually die when he was crucified. Besides, God can do whatever he wants, right? If God wanted to physically die and be spiritually reborn the next day, why couldn't he?

You've misunderstood this, too. We can't say that "Jesus' human body died" but that His "immortal God-self did not actually die." Persons die, not natures. So your explanation suggests that Jesus was actually two persons, one human that died, and one divine that did not. That is an old heresy called Nestorianism and was rejected way back in the 5th century. Second, God can't just "do whatever He wants." It's been long recognized that God cannot do logically impossible things, i.e., make square circles. The reason is simply that such "things" are not things at all. They are non-things, and omnipotence is the ability to do any thing.

Anyway, the traditional (and I think correct) argument is that Jesus, the person died. He was God in virtue of His divine nature, which existed side by side with His human nature. He did not die in virtue of His divine nature but in virtue of His human nature. In a similar way, God does not grow older (on classical theism, anyway) in His divine nature, since the divine nature does not exist within time. Yet Jesus, though God, grew older, but that in virtue of His human nature. Or again, though the divine nature is not spatially located (being omnipresent), Jesus, as God, was spatially located in virtue of His human nature. And so on.

Anyone is free to comment or add their own answers or takes on Ivel's words, of course. This is a public discussion board, after all. And, as we all know, Christianity is not monolithic, and my answers are in no way intended to suggest that these are the only ones. They are, however, intended to show that your ideas are at least out of sync with traditional Christianity.

Ivellious wrote:3. Old Testament law – don’t they promote evil (stoning of rape victims, Deut 22) and aren’t Christians hypocritical in not adhering to them today?

I'm no biblical scholar, but the take I've typically seen here is that modern day Christians don't have to adhere to these laws because the New Testament effectively replaces the old law with the new word of Jesus (unless I'm mistaken, which could happen). I have no idea how one could defend some of the hideous things mandated by the OT by modern standards, unless you simply say it was ok because "God said so." Obviously I cannot say I agree with that logic, but I've never heard it defended any other way personally.

Huh?? The New Testament most certainly does not erase or white wash the OT commandments. In fact it actually augments many of the OT commandments. I'll say it again.. Stoning and other capital punishments found in the OT laws cannot be applied today.. Why? Because stoning does not apply outside the land of Israel or without the Sanhedrin court systems. Deuteronomy 16:18-20, Deuteronomy 17:2, 8-13. Today we do not have a functioning Sanhedrin judicial system under G-d. But one day in the future, this system will come back, and with Jesus as it's functioning ruler.

Jac3510 wrote:IThere are some Christians who adhere to the underlined part, but that is a theology technically called supersessionism or more commonly replacement theology. It does not provide the best answer in large part because Jesus Himself seems to repudiate it in Matt. 5:17 and in John 10:35. The actual answer to that question is that Christians never were under the Law (claims of some today like Gman notwithstanding, but they are very much in the minority here--I'll let them defend themselves). Paul says as much very plainly in Gal. 5:18. You might also find this paper helpful.

Believers of replacement theology are those who wish to crush the Israeli Jewish state and replace it with themselves.. This is evil. Those who expound this doctrine say that G-d's commandments in the NT have superseded G-d's commandments found in the OT. And of course when you do this, it wipes Israel and it's people off the map and thus replaces them and it with their own doctrines..

Today we do not have a functioning Sanhedrin judicial system under G-d. But one day in the future, this system will come back, and with Jesus as it's functioning ruler.

Just to be clear, you are saying, the stonings will come back and will be carried out under christ?

neo-x wrote:

Today we do not have a functioning Sanhedrin judicial system under G-d. But one day in the future, this system will come back, and with Jesus as it's functioning ruler.

Just to be clear, you are saying, the stonings will come back and will be carried out under christ?

Who knows what form of capitol punishment will come back in the next millennium. Only that Jesus will be the head of the judgements.

Gman wrote:

neo-x wrote:

Today we do not have a functioning Sanhedrin judicial system under G-d. But one day in the future, this system will come back, and with Jesus as it's functioning ruler.

Just to be clear, you are saying, the stonings will come back and will be carried out under christ?

Who knows what form of capitol punishment will come back in the next millennium. Only that Jesus will be the head of the judgements.

If the law is eternal, as you say it is, then its really a no-brainer what kind of capital punishments are being talked about, isn't it?

neo-x wrote:

Gman wrote:

neo-x wrote:

Today we do not have a functioning Sanhedrin judicial system under G-d. But one day in the future, this system will come back, and with Jesus as it's functioning ruler.

Just to be clear, you are saying, the stonings will come back and will be carried out under christ?

Who knows what form of capitol punishment will come back in the next millennium. Only that Jesus will be the head of the judgements.

If the law is eternal, as you say it is, then its really a no-brainer what kind of capital punishments are being talked about, isn't it?

Absolutely.. But even if it doesn't come true in the future, to call the act of stoning barbaric would have to call G-d Himself barbaric since He inspired Moshe to command it.. Actually it would seem that the act of stoning would not only be a horrific to the person being stoned, but also to the people witnessing it. In some way it could be argued that the horrific act of stoning would actually prevent more people from sinning and thus preserve life instead of taking away life.

Many also argue that the asteroids as described in such places as Revelation 8:7-12 is the stoning of earth by G-d for it's injustice.. So in that case you could argue that it is coming back except on a bigger scale.. Regardless, I wouldn't condemn the G-d of the Bible for instituting it. We also serve a G-d of wrath Romans 1:18, Romans 12:17-21, Exodus 15:3.

I suppose that is a point (preventing of sin from horrible punishments). But I don't think its a valid point under the N.T. This is against God and how he comes across in the N.T, I understand it in the context of the levi law but I don't understand it in the new covenant.

In the same vein of reasoning the arabs, especially the saudis also justify why they cut hands of theives or stone or flog prostitutes - that such severe punishments prevent more sinning.

The new covenant is very - unstoning. I really don't think Christ, could or ever would command people to stone a sinner, given that we all are sinners. To me, this poses are very sharp contrast between the old and new testament God...and almost makes God different.

Many also argue that the asteroids as described in such places as Revelation 8:7-12 is the stoning of earth by G-d for it's injustice

I find this view very wrong, given that we do know that asteroids also hit other planetary bodies, why are they being punished then, one must wonder?

Regardless, I wouldn't condemn the G-d of the Bible for instituting it. We also serve a G-d of wrath Romans 1:18, Romans 12:17-21, Exodus 15:3.

I don't think God is bothered with carrying out such punishments, nor do I think he will. Given that we are no longer under the flesh but under the spirit.

Since I do not believe in an earthly reign of Christ I suppose this issue is mute for me.

If there was a return to the Levitical Law then so much for Christ. His work means nothing. Forgiveness and grace isn't to be had. I simply cannot see Christ re-instituting OT Law, even if an Earthly reign were true. It will not be instituted in this world or the next.

Two ways to be saved from the outworking God's righteous judgement: keep the Law 100% or trust in Christ to have your back.

Those who reject Christ will be judged by the Law and I know I'd be condemned and deserve to suffer God's righteous wrath.

neo-x wrote:I suppose that is a point (preventing of sin from horrible punishments). But I don't think its a valid point under the N.T. This is against God and how he comes across in the N.T, I understand it in the context of the levi law but I don't understand it in the new covenant.

In the same vein of reasoning the arabs, especially the saudis also justify why they cut hands of theives or stone or flog prostitutes - that such severe punishments prevent more sinning.

The new covenant is very - unstoning. I really don't think Christ, could or ever would command people to stone a sinner, given that we all are sinners. To me, this poses are very sharp contrast between the old and new testament God...and almost makes God different.

That's fine if you don't want to believe in stoning. But it was commanded in the OT times and was even practiced in the NT times too John 8:1-11. While Jesus stopped a practice of stoning, he never condemned the practice either. What he was against in the stoning of the woman was that her accusers didn't have the proper number of witnesses to condemn her. According to the Torah, a matter shall stand according to two witnesses or according to three witnesses Deuteronomy 19:15.

neo-x wrote:I find this view very wrong, given that we do know that asteroids also hit other planetary bodies, why are they being punished then, one must wonder?

Revelation 8 however also appears to be in a form of judgement or the tribulation. And it's not just asteroids either but fire and many other plagues too Revelation 15:1.

neo-x wrote:I don't think God is bothered with carrying out such punishments, nor do I think he will. Given that we are no longer under the flesh but under the spirit.

That's fine if you don't believe in a G-d of wrath.. Many also can't comprehend how a loving G-d could condemn certain people to hell... Nonetheless, Jesus himself warns us of those consequences.

Matthew 5:22 But I tell you that anyone who is angry with a brother or sister will be subject to judgment. Again, anyone who says to a brother or sister, ‘Raca,’ is answerable to the court. And anyone who says, ‘You fool!’ will be in danger of the fire of hell.

Matthew 18:8-9 If your hand or your foot causes you to stumble, cut it off and throw it away. It is better for you to enter life maimed or crippled than to have two hands or two feet and be thrown into eternal fire. 9 And if your eye causes you to stumble, gouge it out and throw it away. It is better for you to enter life with one eye than to have two eyes and be thrown into the fire of hell.

Matthew 10:28 Do not be afraid of those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Rather, be afraid of the One who can destroy both soul and body in hell.

Kurieuo wrote:Since I do not believe in an earthly reign of Christ I suppose this issue is mute for me.

If there was a return to the Levitical Law then so much for Christ. His work means nothing. Forgiveness and grace isn't to be had. I simply cannot see Christ re-instituting OT Law, even if an Earthly reign were true. It will not be instituted in this world or the next.

Two ways to be saved from the outworking God's righteous judgement: keep the Law 100% or trust in Christ to have your back.

Those who reject Christ will be judged by the Law and I know I'd be condemned and deserve to suffer God's righteous wrath.

That's fine. But according to the Bible a believer can still sin..

Romans 6:1 What shall we say, then? Shall we go on sinning so that grace may increase?

So while we can't keep the law 100% we still keep the law regardless so that we have law and order and have something to base G-d's grace on even though many of G-d's commandments can't be even practiced such as the temple practices and such..

Can we please not let this degenerate into an argument over the validity of the law today with Gman on one side and everyone else on the other? I'm pretty sure everyone knows everyone else's position on this. All I see happening is people getting heated again, G start bullying people as always, and then someone getting banned.

Please, let's stop it.

I phrased my original comments wrt the law very carefully. I admitted there are some who think the Law is still valid today. For them, they will have a different answer than I do on Ivel's argument that we would be hypocrites for not keeping it today. If G wants to respond to that (that he is or is not hypocrital, or if he wants to simply acknowledge that he thinks that everyone else here is hypocritical), then fine. For those of us who do not believe we are under the Law, then Ivel's point is no point at all. What is more important, as I said in my OP, is whether or not the OT commands (i.e., stoning) were "hideous" and whethe or not "today's standards" (whatever that means) proves that they are evil. That's not a question about whether or not we are under the Law. That's a question about whether or not Moses did something hideous and evil when he commanded certain people be stoned. THAT is the point I raised, and AGAIN, I would appreciate it if we would not hijack the thread and turn it into another pointless back and forth over the Law today.

Obviously, we don't have to talk about the points I raised. That's fine. But if anyone wants to get back into the validity of the Law, could we either take it up in a new thread or resurrect one of the old ones on it?

Thanks

Jac3510 wrote:Can we please not let this degenerate into an argument over the validity of the law today with Gman on one side and everyone else on the other? I'm pretty sure everyone knows everyone else's position on this. All I see happening is people getting heated again, G start bullying people as always, and then someone getting banned.

Please, let's stop it.

Very funny Jac.. If that's bullying the Pope isn't Catholic either..

What, the Pope isn't Catholic?? Yes, not sure about the bullying, but I do think we know where each other stands re: the Law.

This is more seriously an issue with eschatology I suppose than Law vs Grace. It is interesting how ones theological understanding of the Law and Grace, even thoroughly pervades into one's view of end times.

For the likes of me, to accept that Christ would come to Earth to set up a kingdom here rather than to simply come when all is set and done and roll the universe up like a scroll... the former just feels too anthropomorphic -- too much an invention of human minds. And, I just don't see it supported in Scripture except under specific eisegesis.

Gman wrote:

neo-x wrote:

Today we do not have a functioning Sanhedrin judicial system under G-d. But one day in the future, this system will come back, and with Jesus as it's functioning ruler.

Just to be clear, you are saying, the stonings will come back and will be carried out under christ?

Who knows what form of capitol punishment will come back in the next millennium. Only that Jesus will be the head of the judgements.

Actually this moves on into the realm of biblical eschatology regarding the millennium reign of Christ written about in the last chapters of the book of Revelation and Ezekiel, Isaiah, and in some of the minor prophets and Psalms such as Psalms 2:9.

However, no ones really knows. From what I have read from the biblical prophets - stoning and the literal OT laws accordingly became obsolete. Jesus will be reigning in bodily form from Israel. Lion and the lamb will lie down together and also during this time and there will be peace for the duration of time the Lord appointed, then the devil is loosed again one last time, then the new heaven and earth made after that, expunging all rebellion away forever.

If the Lion and the Lamb are at peace with each other and all the spears beat into plow blades - such time of peace WOULD NOT HAVE ANY NEED OF STONING ANYONE - think about it.

We who know Gman over the years know he like to with controversial statements but could this please stop as I hate to toss this thread Jac started with Illvelious into the Garbage bin as it was started with an intent and it is straying into hate territory real quick.

Forgive instead of cast stones - which is greater?

Mercy trumps what???
-
-
-

B. W. wrote:Jesus will be reigning in bodily form from Israel.

Well at least someone is starting to see how Israel is playing a role in this whole thing..