6 ms·

This analysis, while novel and interesting to me, is not supported by the bulk of events in the early Old Testament. I will name some examples of God personally

This analysis, while novel and interesting to me, is not supported by the bulk of events in the early Old Testament. I will name some examples of God personally meting out the death sentence en masse as punishment for sin in various books of the Old Testament. 1. The Great Flood (Genesis), 2. Sodom (Genesis), 3. The Plagues of Egypt (Exodus), 4. The Exile of the Israelites from the Promised Land (Exodus). Redemption, mercy, and forgiveness are primary themes in the Gospels, and further continue as major themes in the rest of the New Testament. Aside from the Lake of Fire (Hell), which is worse than being killed for being a first-born Egyptian child, references to punishment are secondary. As for Paul's opinion of the Old Testament, that is fine, he wrote that opinion. There is no shortage of contradictory and conflicting opinions and facts in the Bible since it is a work compiled, edited, and written by humans. That said, the mainstream Christian opinion that the Old Testament is vengeful and the New Testament is merciful is prevalent for a reason. Paul cannot retcon, try as he might, the events of the Old Testament.

geowwy 9y ago
> ...the mainstream Christian opinion that the Old Testament is vengeful and the New Testament is merciful... That's not mainstream Christian opinion. It's called Marcionism and it's universally condemned by mainstream Christianity.
- linkregister 9y ago
  Your characterization of my viewpoint is highly distorted. No credible mainstream Christian rejects the Old Testament.
  - Godel_unicode 9y ago
    The "it" to which gp refers is not the old testament. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marcionism https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marcionism
    - nl 9y ago
      Yes, but saying that @linkregister's views are Marcionism does misrepresent their views completely. Marcionism is nothing like what linkregister is claiming.
- nl 9y ago
  That's not mainstream Christian opinion. It's fair to say it misses many subtleties of mainstream Christian view, but it is still more true than untrue. The theology of sanctifying grace[1] and the mercy of salvation[2] are both New Testament ideals which are the core of mainstream Christian theology. It's called Marcionism and it's universally condemned by mainstream Christianity. Marcionism is a whole other thing, involving two gods: Marcionists believed that the wrathful Hebrew God was a separate and lower entity than the all-forgiving God of the New Testament. The idea of there being two, separate gods is what made it heretical. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grace_in_Christianity https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grace_in_Christianity [2] https://theconversation.com/what-is-the-true-meaning-of-mercy-72461 https://theconversation.com/what-is-the-true-meaning-of-merc...
  - macawfish 9y ago
    Another example in evangelical Christianity is the "new covenant vs old covenant" theology.
    - jorangreef 9y ago
      The difference between New Covenant and Old Covenant is a matter of a change in place, not a matter of a change in God's character (which stays the same). The Old Covenant was the law written on tablets of stone, see Exodus 33-34. The New Covenant is the law written on tablets of human hearts, see Ezekiel 36. The place changes from "tablets of stone" to "tablets of human hearts". It's also critical to understand that both covenants were given to those who were ALREADY God's people, saved on the basis of grace, through faith. The Old Covenant was given to those who had already been saved out of Egypt by God's powerful grace. The New Covenant is written on the hearts of those who are saved through faith in Christ's suffering, death and resurrection on their behalf. The Exodus then, rightly understood, is a foreshadowing of the need to be saved from slavery to sin (Jesus' own commentary in John 8). Salvation in both OT and NT has always been on the basis of faith, see Abraham ("and his faith was counted to him as righteousness" - and this long before the Law was given). Salvation has never been on the basis of Law-keeping since the Law was given to fallen man after the events of Genesis 3 (Romans 5). We are not sinners because we break the Law. We break the Law because we are sinners. The Law makes people conscious of sin, and drives them to the grace of God. Once there, the Law shows people how to be godly, because the Law reflects God's own character. So the difference is where the Law is written, not the contents of the Law itself. As Jesus said, the Law is to "love the Lord with all your heart, soul, mind and strength and to love your neighbor as yourself". But knowing that, or trying to keep the Law externally will only lead to a knowledge of sin. It's faith in Christ alone which saves. We are not saved BY works, but FOR works and then again only once we are saved (Ephesians 2), and that by grace alone, through faith alone, in Jesus Christ alone, according to God's words alone, for God's glory alone.
paulddraper 9y ago
> Paul cannot retcon, try as he might, the events of the Old Testament IDK if he needed to. Jesus declared he brought not peace, but a sword. Ananias and Sapphira were killed outright for lying about their finances. Revelations details enormous amounts of suffering for a fallen world, perhaps more than every other book combined. The New Testament is replete with examples of God's justice.
Godel_unicode 9y ago
You'll notice how those examples are from two (and the first two) books and you're replying to a comment about how the Old Testament is about cycles. This is not a coincidence.
humanrebar 9y ago
> This analysis, while novel and interesting to me, is not supported by the bulk of events in the early Old Testament. Fair enough. But my point was that the analysis was the analysis of the New Testament authors. People are free to provide their own critical analysis, but they're disagreeing with Peter, Paul, and the Jesus of the Gospels even. I think people that hold this viewpoint and care to be rigorous about it would do well to review their arguments. Regarding your first three examples, in each case the story is about God saving an imperfect group who trusts God: 1. Noah and his family 2. Lot and his family 3. Moses and the Israelites ...to back up to Romans 1, the reward for people who want to run their own show is often... their own show to run. They'll just be doing it on their own. Earth before the flood, Sodom, and recalcitrant Egyptians are all examples of this pattern. But in each of these cases, God decides not to end the story in just desserts but give people another shot to redeem themselves. I'm refraining from commenting on example 4 mostly because I don't know exactly which even you're referring to (Israel ends up in the Promised Land). But the narrative of the Old Testament is generally Israel deciding to do its own thing over and over, asking for another chance, and getting one. So one thing people usually have a problem with is the idea that God judges people at all. This usually stems from a belief that loving people don't judge people. This is clearly contradictory to certain tenets of the Bible, including the text of the New Testament. But I think most people, if they stop and think about it, disagree with this sentiment as well. Consider: - A grown man kicks a toddler. The father of the toddler acts like nothing happened. Dad is a loving guy and wants peace more than judgement. No, a loving father is angry when his family is abused. He expects justice, even. - A teacher doesn't particularly like a student so he ignores the student. The mother thinks this is messed up but understands the teacher is his own person and makes his own decisions. No, a loving mother gets angry when her kids aren't nurtured and taught properly. She expects corrective action. In the interest of not writing a novella in an HN comment, I'll wrap it up here, so thanks for reading if you got this far. I appreciate the civil discussion.
- timsayshey 9y ago
  Wow. I've just got to say thank you for some of the most rational responses I've seen on hn in regards to the Bible. It's almost always misrepresented here by people with little knowledge of it or just bad personal experiences. You can almost feel their anger and bitterness. Which I get because I used to be the same way. Man, I really wish hn had a follow button so I could read more of your level headed and insightful responses :)
findoer 9y ago
Not really informed on the Bible or theology, but I've had the following reading: Life in the days of the Old Testament (and even afterward for a long time) was incredibly harsh. If your people collectively did the wrong things, you would weaken, and there was a very real chance that your neighbors would genocide or enslave you and take your land. Even today, engaging in many of what the Christians or even the Jews would consider sins can strongly increase the probability of really horrific things happening in your life. Generational childhood obesity from poor parental nutrition knowledge also provides an easy example of how the effects of sin can be felt across generations. Gluttony - many people today are obese, diabetic, and so on. If you fail to avoid gluttony, you can irreparably destroy your body, cripple yourself, and die young. Lust - You can waste hours and years of your life masturbating to internet pornography, and destroy your actual life through addiction. You can easily hook up with many girls from Tinder and contract some incurable STD or have an early pregnancy, or ruin your marriage and your life by cheating. Greed - Do you really not know of any workaholic who is convinced he is "winning" while his net worth is increasing, but has wrecked health, barely knows his children, and has a bad relationship with his wife? And so on It's not obvious to me that the God of the Old Testament is less cruel than empirical reality. Given that this holds, my question is then the following: -do you (not you individually, but the people in my argument) want this text to be compatible with reality? Or do you prefer a more simple and pious tale? -to what extent do people have an issue with the way the world works rather than the Bible?

geowwy 9y ago

> ...the mainstream Christian opinion that the Old Testament is vengeful and the New Testament is merciful... That's not mainstream Christian opinion. It's called Marcionism and it's universally condemned by mainstream Christianity.

linkregister 9y ago
Your characterization of my viewpoint is highly distorted. No credible mainstream Christian rejects the Old Testament.
- Godel_unicode 9y ago
  The "it" to which gp refers is not the old testament. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marcionism https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marcionism
  - nl 9y ago
    Yes, but saying that @linkregister's views are Marcionism does misrepresent their views completely. Marcionism is nothing like what linkregister is claiming.
nl 9y ago
That's not mainstream Christian opinion. It's fair to say it misses many subtleties of mainstream Christian view, but it is still more true than untrue. The theology of sanctifying grace[1] and the mercy of salvation[2] are both New Testament ideals which are the core of mainstream Christian theology. It's called Marcionism and it's universally condemned by mainstream Christianity. Marcionism is a whole other thing, involving two gods: Marcionists believed that the wrathful Hebrew God was a separate and lower entity than the all-forgiving God of the New Testament. The idea of there being two, separate gods is what made it heretical. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grace_in_Christianity https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grace_in_Christianity [2] https://theconversation.com/what-is-the-true-meaning-of-mercy-72461 https://theconversation.com/what-is-the-true-meaning-of-merc...
- macawfish 9y ago
  Another example in evangelical Christianity is the "new covenant vs old covenant" theology.
  - jorangreef 9y ago
    The difference between New Covenant and Old Covenant is a matter of a change in place, not a matter of a change in God's character (which stays the same). The Old Covenant was the law written on tablets of stone, see Exodus 33-34. The New Covenant is the law written on tablets of human hearts, see Ezekiel 36. The place changes from "tablets of stone" to "tablets of human hearts". It's also critical to understand that both covenants were given to those who were ALREADY God's people, saved on the basis of grace, through faith. The Old Covenant was given to those who had already been saved out of Egypt by God's powerful grace. The New Covenant is written on the hearts of those who are saved through faith in Christ's suffering, death and resurrection on their behalf. The Exodus then, rightly understood, is a foreshadowing of the need to be saved from slavery to sin (Jesus' own commentary in John 8). Salvation in both OT and NT has always been on the basis of faith, see Abraham ("and his faith was counted to him as righteousness" - and this long before the Law was given). Salvation has never been on the basis of Law-keeping since the Law was given to fallen man after the events of Genesis 3 (Romans 5). We are not sinners because we break the Law. We break the Law because we are sinners. The Law makes people conscious of sin, and drives them to the grace of God. Once there, the Law shows people how to be godly, because the Law reflects God's own character. So the difference is where the Law is written, not the contents of the Law itself. As Jesus said, the Law is to "love the Lord with all your heart, soul, mind and strength and to love your neighbor as yourself". But knowing that, or trying to keep the Law externally will only lead to a knowledge of sin. It's faith in Christ alone which saves. We are not saved BY works, but FOR works and then again only once we are saved (Ephesians 2), and that by grace alone, through faith alone, in Jesus Christ alone, according to God's words alone, for God's glory alone.

paulddraper 9y ago

> Paul cannot retcon, try as he might, the events of the Old Testament IDK if he needed to. Jesus declared he brought not peace, but a sword. Ananias and Sapphira were killed outright for lying about their finances. Revelations details enormous amounts of suffering for a fallen world, perhaps more than every other book combined. The New Testament is replete with examples of God's justice.

Godel_unicode 9y ago

You'll notice how those examples are from two (and the first two) books and you're replying to a comment about how the Old Testament is about cycles. This is not a coincidence.

humanrebar 9y ago

> This analysis, while novel and interesting to me, is not supported by the bulk of events in the early Old Testament. Fair enough. But my point was that the analysis was the analysis of the New Testament authors. People are free to provide their own critical analysis, but they're disagreeing with Peter, Paul, and the Jesus of the Gospels even. I think people that hold this viewpoint and care to be rigorous about it would do well to review their arguments. Regarding your first three examples, in each case the story is about God saving an imperfect group who trusts God: 1. Noah and his family 2. Lot and his family 3. Moses and the Israelites ...to back up to Romans 1, the reward for people who want to run their own show is often... their own show to run. They'll just be doing it on their own. Earth before the flood, Sodom, and recalcitrant Egyptians are all examples of this pattern. But in each of these cases, God decides not to end the story in just desserts but give people another shot to redeem themselves. I'm refraining from commenting on example 4 mostly because I don't know exactly which even you're referring to (Israel ends up in the Promised Land). But the narrative of the Old Testament is generally Israel deciding to do its own thing over and over, asking for another chance, and getting one. So one thing people usually have a problem with is the idea that God judges people at all. This usually stems from a belief that loving people don't judge people. This is clearly contradictory to certain tenets of the Bible, including the text of the New Testament. But I think most people, if they stop and think about it, disagree with this sentiment as well. Consider: - A grown man kicks a toddler. The father of the toddler acts like nothing happened. Dad is a loving guy and wants peace more than judgement. No, a loving father is angry when his family is abused. He expects justice, even. - A teacher doesn't particularly like a student so he ignores the student. The mother thinks this is messed up but understands the teacher is his own person and makes his own decisions. No, a loving mother gets angry when her kids aren't nurtured and taught properly. She expects corrective action. In the interest of not writing a novella in an HN comment, I'll wrap it up here, so thanks for reading if you got this far. I appreciate the civil discussion.

timsayshey 9y ago
Wow. I've just got to say thank you for some of the most rational responses I've seen on hn in regards to the Bible. It's almost always misrepresented here by people with little knowledge of it or just bad personal experiences. You can almost feel their anger and bitterness. Which I get because I used to be the same way. Man, I really wish hn had a follow button so I could read more of your level headed and insightful responses :)

findoer 9y ago

Not really informed on the Bible or theology, but I've had the following reading: Life in the days of the Old Testament (and even afterward for a long time) was incredibly harsh. If your people collectively did the wrong things, you would weaken, and there was a very real chance that your neighbors would genocide or enslave you and take your land. Even today, engaging in many of what the Christians or even the Jews would consider sins can strongly increase the probability of really horrific things happening in your life. Generational childhood obesity from poor parental nutrition knowledge also provides an easy example of how the effects of sin can be felt across generations. Gluttony - many people today are obese, diabetic, and so on. If you fail to avoid gluttony, you can irreparably destroy your body, cripple yourself, and die young. Lust - You can waste hours and years of your life masturbating to internet pornography, and destroy your actual life through addiction. You can easily hook up with many girls from Tinder and contract some incurable STD or have an early pregnancy, or ruin your marriage and your life by cheating. Greed - Do you really not know of any workaholic who is convinced he is "winning" while his net worth is increasing, but has wrecked health, barely knows his children, and has a bad relationship with his wife? And so on It's not obvious to me that the God of the Old Testament is less cruel than empirical reality. Given that this holds, my question is then the following: -do you (not you individually, but the people in my argument) want this text to be compatible with reality? Or do you prefer a more simple and pious tale? -to what extent do people have an issue with the way the world works rather than the Bible?