«Home

Why Did Jesus Call For The Killing Of Children?

Anyone familiar with the barbarism of the Old Testament would not be surprised that the same barbaric injunctions are given unremitting succor in the New Testament by the so-called "gentle Jesus, meak and mild".

The OT calls for the killing of recalcitrant children,  as in;

Exodus 21: 17 Anyone who curses his father or mother must be put to death.

And cross-reference with Matthew 15, where Jesus is calling on his listeners to remember to observe Exodus 21: 17.

Matthew 15: 1-9 :

1 Then came to Jesus scribes and Pharisees, which were of Jerusalem, saying, 2 Why do thy disciples transgress the tradition of the elders? for they wash not their hands when they eat bread. 3 But he answered and said unto them, Why do ye also transgress the commandment of God by your tradition? 4 For God commanded, saying, Honour thy father and mother: and, He that curseth father or mother, let him die the death. 5 But ye say, Whosoever shall say to his father or his mother, It is a gift, by whatsoever thou mightest be profited by me; 6 And honour not his father or his mother, he shall be free. Thus have ye made the commandment of God of none effect by your tradition. 7 Ye hypocrites, well did Esaias prophesy of you, saying, 8 This people draweth nigh unto me with their mouth, and honoureth me with their lips; but their heart is far from me. 9 But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.

Now, what do Christians make of this?

Avatar
Newbie
23 answers

I had someone say this to me: "Jesus called for the killing of children, it's in the bible!" I'm glad I found this topic, as it shows how some unbelievers take out of context some of these phrases and seem to use it to justify their own ridiculous behavior. Jesus was the most peaceful human, in fact, the perfect example of a human. He did so to set the example for us. Jesus died on the cross to save us all. As God in the flesh, he did this knowingly and freely of his own will. Without this belief, reading the bible piecemeal no doubt would lead one to lots of confusion, especially with all the evil examples and detractions in this world.

0
Avatar
Newbie

I will like you to understand that the bottomline of Bible is to let us know How men fell from grace to grass. And how God in His infinite mercy execute His plan to bring man back to Himself.

The issue you are looking at here should be seen as God correcting men misinterpretation of His words. Jesus came to perfect the Law. The Law of God was giving to the Isrealites to show to man the gravity of any sin commited to God. While men capitalised on this to cover their evils, Jesus taught us Who God is and what exactly He want from us. God want a fellowship with us.

0
Avatar
Newbie

@Romeo4Real: #36 on: Yesterday at 04:26:36 PM » Thanks for your respnse without having toshout at each other.

The indu India could not copy for their constitution, the neither the OT nor the newer NT. The Indians wil tell you that they are a nation of civilized people long time before Ibrahim (AS), Abraham for you. It is not feasible that they copy the Bible, not when they have a rich and vibrant heritage, in the their mind, worthy of emulation!

[Quote]

I did not say this - especially the bolded part.

[/quote]

I must have misread you. I apologise if that was the case.

[Quote]

You haven't read my reply properly. I said exactly what u are saying, but making the distinction it was not a sacrifice demanded by God, , as Huxley falsely claimed. Here is the passage, and my reply again below, paying attention to the bolded part -

Passage

Lev 27:29 -“However, anything specially set apart for the Lord—whether a person, an animal, or family property—must never be sold or bought back. Anything devoted in this way has been set apart as holy, and it belongs to the Lord. 29 No person specially set apart for destruction may be bought back. Such a person must be put to death.

Reply

As you can see, There is no "sacrifice" here. This is about a devoted animal, that cannot be bought back or redeemed, or a person, due to a transgression, already set to die, that cannot be redeemed. It really is simple.

[/quote]

Tere is no sacrifice as well as forgiveness. But there is killing, since it is determined to be a sn/offense punishable under the law by death. Where does mercy and forgiveness come in, to at least in some special cases to stay the execution? Een hard nosed George Bush commuted some punishment to lesser ones. God in the Bible ust be erciful and needs tto show it.

0
Avatar
Newbie

Most countries today are after material possessions no?You said that" All modern societies in the world have based their definitions of morality, broadly on the 10 Commandments and the teaching of Jesus" and I say that is a very false statement Because there is no teachings of Jesus or the 10 commandments  that appears in the constitution of any modern country or society, If there is then please go ahead and show me. Jesus told the rich to sell all what they have and give t the poor, he so much condemned the rich by saying it will be easier for a camel to enter through the nose of a needle than for the rich to enter into the kingdom of god. No country today adheres to this teaching or has any part of it in its constitution. Modern secular societies and countries do not get any part of their morality from the 10 commandment or the teachings of Jesus. Buddhism and Hinduism predate Christianity.

What part of the modern world adheres to this teaching? In which country's constitution is this written? Where does it say that people should turn the other cheek when slapped or give out their garments when they are taken to court for their coat? Which modern society encourages this teaching? Please tell me which part of the ten commandment is written in the Nigerian or Australian constitution.

All societies promote revenge in one way or the other that is why countries have what we call a defense system so that if they are attacked they will be able to defend their citizens by fighting back. If Iran attacks America today, the US government will HAVE to fight back. The US constitution encourages that and it is the constitutional duty of the US government to rally their troops and fight NOT to forgive the Iranians. The US constitution encourages revenge not forgiveness when attacked. If North Korea Attacks the south, it is the constitutional duty of the South to fight back. There are countries such as France and Brazil where Inbreeding is not a crime. Adultery is not a crime in most secular and modern societies. There is no constitutional injunction that issues out punishment for adultery. Pedophilia is wrong in all societies but Jesus never spoke out strongly against it. I don't think there is any where in the bible where Jesus condemned pedophilia.(I stand to be corrected though)

Morality is something that is constantly evolving, During the OT times people stoned their disobedient children to death, There were no war crimes 3000 years ago people killed their enemies and took away what belonged to them(women, wealth etc). Slavery and segregation was the other of the day and it was highly encouraged by the gods people worshiped. The god of the OT encouraged segregation and racism, The OT god was heavily involved in slavery because the people that created him were also heavily involved in slavery. When the people's morality evolved so did the morality of their god. I get my morality from the people around me.

Most of the jewish history was embellished and so many of the things they recorded were fiction and myth. Remember these people wrote down their history at a time when there is nothing like fiction writing, That class of writing had not been invented. They wrote their fictions and myths and people today are struggling very hard to accept it as real because when they wrote down their history with all the embellishment there was nothing like fiction writing then. So yes a lot of it was fiction and myths.

You have not shown that the assertion is false.

Your analogy keeps falling flat. My father will NOT kill me all in the name of punishing me. You have no evidence of any god telling people what to do, all you have are the writings of men who said that their god told them to do certain things. You have no evidence to show that any god to them to do anything. The law is the law as written by the people who ascribed it to their god. And they wrote down their laws in accordance with their world view and based on their understanding of the world and their level of morality at that time.

Of course they contain a message, the koran contains a message for muslims, no?

I say that there is no god because their is no evidence AT ALL for any god. All the things around me are evidence for vision and environment not evidence for jehova, yahweh, jesus, Allah, zues or visnhu. Extra ordinary claims require extra ordinary evidence and lack of evidence is evidence of absence.

We can all do this merry go round, it also begs the question who created god since you believe that everything created must have a creator. There is no reason to believe that the universe must act like a human society where everything needs to have a creator. If you say that god is uncreated then why can't the universe be uncreated too. God created the universe is only a claim. The universe as it is makes all the personal gods look too small and petty.

I don't think I am disingenuous at all.

Can't you make a point with out resulting to insult?

It does. Most medical text books usually have one interpretation, engineering text books usually have one interpretation. Why can't the bible? Every body is just self projecting himself as god when it comes to the bible. people pick and chose what to believe in when it comes to the bible. The problem is that christians do not agree on the bible and what it teaches. The basic nature of the god of the bible is not clearly defined in the bible it self. Every body uses the bible to create his own personal god that is why we have over 30,000 sect of christianity.

Which law, how do you know all these? Is it because you read the accounts based on what the ancient jews wrote? How do you know that they transgressed? They had their own gods too, no? What about the people living in china, india and europe at that time? The bible only makes a claim, the problem is how TRUE are its claim. According to the koran all humanity are the slaves of Allah. That is also a claim. The veracity of that claim is what matters.

Your apologetics has neither provided any evidence for the christian claims about their god as the creator of the universe or the giver of all moral injunction. All I am trying to show you is that people created all the gods and ascribed to them some qualities. You have no evidence of any god telling people anything all you have are people who wrote things down and said that their god inspired them or told them to write it down. Men wrote all these things and ascribed it to their god.

0
Avatar
Newbie

@Huxley - It is now clear that u simply argue, for the sake of arguing, as u shun any effective  reasoning.

I am sure that even you, do not believe that all you have written above effectively sums up the teachings of Jesus. furthermore, the above text really shows ur ignorance.

Take for example, this text - he told the rich to sell what they had and give to the poor and follow him - It is clear, even to a simpleton, that this is about being selfless, and considerate, and not to put value in material possessions. This teaching exists in the Sanskrit of Hinduism, Buddhism and also Islam.

Or this one - [b][color=#990000]it was written that he told people people to turn their other cheek when slapped, offer their coats when some one takes them to court for their garment - This teaches one to be forgiving, and not to exact vengeance, for vengeance is for the Lord. This teaching is very prevalent in ancient Chinese philosophies and teachings, such as Daoism, Taoism and Confucianism.

My point, if you read my reply, which im sure you did, was that ALL modern societies broadly agree with the teachings of Jesus and the 10 Commandments, as reflected in their Laws and Constitution. I don't know any society that promotes revenge, or vengeance, that condones and encourages murder and killing, Inbreeding, adultery, bestiality or paedophilia. I don't know of any society that does not promote love of your neighbour, doing good, selflessness, kindness or forgiveness. If you do, PLEASE show it here.

- And you still have elucidated us on where you get your moral compass from.

This is silly. The love is everybody, but the punishment is for people who disobey his Laws. The Law is the Law. We can argue about its harshness, but not about its veracity. It was clear, the people knew it, and understood the consequences of breaking it. If ur Father punishes you harshly,for something which he had already made clear the consequences, and shows you no mercy in the punishment, by ur reasoning,we can then conclude that he does not love you!

The Bible is, like any other thing, subject to interpretation - Interpretation ois a human choice. I choose it take the Bible as it is written, rather than interpret it my own way. This ensure me that i get it, as it is written. All this, does not change the Bible, or its message, one jot.

I don't mind debating with reasonable people, but you have shown, throughout ur arguments that you are not.

No one is forcing you to accept Christianity, or a God u don't believe in.

All ur arguments do not nullify the fact that there is a God. U are simply calling his motives and actions into question, and we can do that for most people throughout history. That does not determine if they existed or not

0
Avatar
Newbie

What really are the teachings of jesus that ALL modern societies base their morality on? Jesus's MAIN teaching was about the coming kingdom of god that was at hand. He also talked about things like people hating their families and following him, he told the rich to sell what they had and give to the poor and follow him, it was written that he told people people to turn their other cheek when slapped, offer their coats when some one takes them to court for their garment. He thought people to make disciples of all nation. He said he did not come to bring peace but a sword. SO WHICH OF THE TEACHINGS OF JESUS IS FOUND IN THE US OR BRITISH CONSTITUTION? The bible god is not the giver of morals. The chinese, greeks, romans, etc have been living for thousands of years with out ever hearing about the bible god and they had their morals and standard of measuring what was morally right and what was morally wrong. The bible or the bible god is not the source of morality, the bible god has violated all basic objective moral values that is known to man.

The bible(OT) is the history of the Jews based on what they saw and thought was right for them. The wrote their history to make them look good and to make their god look stronger than all the other gods around them. Even their god acknowledges the existence of other gods but says they are all false gods. They embellished their history to make them look good. By the way most of the writers of the bible are unknown scribes and they wrote down what they believed to be their history long after the events happened most of the stories were passed through oral tradition from one generation to another.

The bible contains A LOT of historical narratives that are inaccurate.  What is the unconditional love in telling a group of people to kill of others and sacrifice them as burnt offering unto you? Where is the love in that? What love is there in telling people to kill another man for picking sticks on a sabbath? What about the case of molest, plunder and all the other atrocities written in the bible that god or the men of god commanded against other simply because they worshiped other gods? Why not preach to them and let them know about the jewish god why kill them off and sometimes burn them as burnt sacrifice? They bible(OT) is just a jewish history book that was mostly embellished with contains part history and part fiction and myth.

Most of the murders and atrocities in history have been based on nationalism, economics, racism, and other motivators, and the perpetrators wrap themselves in religion just as in the bible. A lot of the stories in the bible have no historical or archeological evidence at all. The lack of evidence for the exodus is the most troubling of all to me.  The gift of the promised land to the chosen people is the basis of all the conflict in the middle east.  It caused the establishment of the jewish homeland where it is today, because of the promise and the copycat religion of islam to establish part of Jerusalem as it's holy place. I have said it over and over again. You guys don't have any evidence to show that god inspired or wrote anything in the bible you ONLY accept the words of the ancient jews as the word of god because they said it is the word of their god. All you have are words of men writing their mostly embellished  history  and moral codes and ascribing everything to their god. You have no evidence of anything to support your god hypothesis all you have are words of men who chose to ascribe it to their god. A god which they created in their own image to serves as a source of inspiration and to help them cope with the problems of the world and also help them to better understand the world by ascribing everything unto him.

No parent will kill his child in the name of correcting that child of wrong doing. No parent will do that, your analogy falls flat and makes no sense at all.

If the bible is consistent there wouldn't be over 30,000 sects of christianity each finding it hard to define the basic nature of the bible god or who jesus really is. is jesus the same as god or is he the son of god and part of the trinity. That is still a problem amongst bible believing christians. Christians do not agree on the basic nature of the christian god or the bible, some accept some of the teachings as metaphor and some part as literal. How do you decide which parts are true and which parts are fables or metaphor? There is NO general consensus on the bible and the basic nature of the bible god even amongst christians.

There are so many parts in the bible that talks about the bible god accepting human sacrifice.

There is also the part about the 32 virgin girls that were to be offered as sacrifice unto god.

0
Avatar
Newbie

1) According to Lev 27: 29, what things can be devoted to the Lord?

2) Are these things that are devoted to the Lord HOLY?

3) Why would things devoted to the Lord be "HOLY", if they are HOLY?

4) And Do they belong to the Lord?

0
Avatar
Newbie

There is only one exception to this case - A ceremonially unclean animal. This can be bought back, via the priests, and the process is explained in Lev 27:27

Also, any one who has been set apart for destruction - due to the laws of the time, cannot be redeemed. He will have to die according to the law of the land.

This is not too difficult to understand. Its like saying, In Texas, anyone who commits a crime, for which the punishment is a death sentence, cannot have his sentence repealed, or pardoned, and must therefore die.

0
Avatar
Newbie

Passage

Lev 27:29 -“However, anything specially set apart for the Lord—whether a person, an animal, or family property—must never be sold or bought back. Anything devoted in this way has been set apart as holy, and it belongs to the Lord. 29 No person specially set apart for destruction may be bought back. Such a person must be put to death.

Reply

As you can see, There is no "sacrifice" here. This is about a devoted animal, that cannot be bought back or redeemed, or a person, due to a transgression, already set to die, that cannot be redeemed. It really is simple.

0
Avatar
Newbie

Hebrews

8:7 For if that first covenant had been faultless, then should no place have been sought for the second.

8:8 For finding fault with them, he saith, Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah:

8:9 Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt; because they continued not in my covenant, and I regarded them not, saith the Lord.

8:10 For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, saith the Lord; I will put my laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts: and I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people:

8:11 And they shall not teach every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord: for all shall know me, from the least to the greatest.

8:12 For I will be merciful to their unrighteousness, and their sins and their iniquities will I remember no more.

8:13 In that he saith, A new covenant, he hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away.

0
Avatar
Newbie

What does this statement "However, anything specially set apart for the Lord—whether a person, an animal, or family property—must never be sold or bought back" mean?

What deos "set apart for the Lord" mean?

0
Avatar
Newbie

@Gigantor: Am not an atheist, but I can't help but to remind you that the Japanese, the Chinese, the South Korean, the Taiwanese, the Indian laws and consititutions are not based in Biblical underpinnings. These people are not Christians and they are not Jews. I also believe that Russia and Israel can't be said to have the laws and constitutions enriched in Jesus teachings! It will be hard to convince anyone that Israel's constitution reflects this thing about Jesus, who they unfairly do not belief in his prophetic office.

And how could the last verse, #29 be said that it does not give the allowance for killing a person, when the phrase "must be put to death", is what we read about a person specifically set apart for destructions?" I personally believe that some people deserves to die for their evil deeds. I also believe that God has ordained death to catch up to everyone, in time; some in youth, or matured, or aged. Yet some before they have the opportunity to get to any of these stages.

0
Avatar
Newbie

So, if you did not get your moral compass from the Bible, you need to show us the book, writing, publication,or person you got it from, and I'll prove it was based on the Bible. Even the teaching of Buddha were based on the Bible.

The Bible is a record of events, written by a collection of people, some who were just ordinary men recording history, Others wrote as it happened, and as part of history,like Moses, some were Disciples, others Apostles, some wrote their dreams and visions like John the Baptist, others wrote letters, and opinions, such as Paul, but ALL were Men of God, and influenced by God in their writings.

Does the Bible contain inaccuracies? Of course it does - just like any historical book. Does it show God as sometimes harsh? Yes. Can he be seen as terrible? Yes, even the Bible confirms this. Can this harshness be sometimes interpreted as wickedness? Of course. But what is not in doubt, as the Bible makes clear, that even in all the harshness, and perceived wickedness, is unrequited and unconditional love.

Remember, just because your father punishes you harshly,and you sometimes think he is unjust and wicked, just because you do not understand his actions, does not mean he does not love you. In fact, most of us would agree, looking back at our youth, that it was all unquestionably for our own good. That is the way God is.

There is no point in trying to drag up inconsistencies in the Bible for cheap point scoring tricks. Yes,there are inaccuracies and inconsistencies in the Bible, but these cannot nullify the general message, and if you check properly, the main message is very much consistent.

Huxley, you can.t submit something that you are clearly making up. That smacks of downright stubbornness. Here is the NLT version posted below. Maybe that will help shed some light on it for you.

“However, anything specially set apart for the Lord—whether a person, an animal, or family property—must never be sold or bought back. Anything devoted in this way has been set apart as holy, and it belongs to the Lord. 29 No person specially set apart for destruction may be bought back. Such a person must be put to death.

As you can see, There is no "sacrifice" here. This is about a devoted animal, that cannot be bought back or redeemed, or a person, due to a transgression, already set to die, that cannot be redeemed. It really is simple.

0
Avatar
Newbie

Hello. It is the poster former known as Huxley, Huxley2, Tpaine and therationa. Ok, here we go.

Why do you think I was questioning the killing of anyone, child, adult, man or woman, especially for something as trivial as disobeying their parents? What issue do you think I was questioning?

Of course, I was questioning the act of killing. What else could I have been question? And killing is a moral issue. So it was and has also been a moral issue?

I get my parameters to judge morality from the same place you get yours, which is certainly NOT the bible. If you got your morality from the bible then you would be practicing some of the most reprehensible injunctions from the bible. I assume you are a relatively decent human being, so you do not practice these. I have many threads here that discuss the many immoralities in the bible - if you want I could bring a couple of them up again.

Show me where it say that those to whom these commandments were binding are adults with parents? You have not done this.

I am not arguing both side. I an trying to see how consistent your arguments are. If this commandments was meant for adults with parents, then we should see how it fits in with all the other commandments. And if there were any special commands for people not considered adults.

Take for instance, a 12 years old child who infringed any of the commandments like disobeying their parents, violating the sabbath laws, killing another person, or worshiping another god. Do you think they would have been spared the sanctions of the law?

Can you explain Lev 27: 29. Here is it below, can you attempt it again.

27And if it be of an unclean beast, then he shall redeem it according to thine estimation, and shall add a fifth part of it thereto: or if it be not redeemed, then it shall be sold according to thy estimation. 28Notwithstanding no devoted thing, that a man shall devote unto the LORD of all that he hath, both of man and beast, and of the field of his possession, shall be sold or redeemed: every devoted thing is most holy unto the LORD. 29 None devoted, which shall be devoted of men, shall be redeemed; but shall surely be put to death. 30And all the tithe of the land, whether of the seed of the land, or of the fruit of the tree, is the LORD's: it is holy unto the LORD. 31And if a man will at all redeem ought of his tithes, he shall add thereto the fifth part thereof.

I submit that this is clearly human sacrifice.

0
Avatar
Newbie

All my (Huxley, Tpaine) "disappeared" post have re-appeared again. How nice

0
Avatar
Newbie

Yes, its me Romeo4real. I will keep creating new id’s to combat the delusion and fallacies Hux and Tpaine are spouting on these posts. So here goes.

So its now a moral issue right? That wasn't ur initial argument. Remember. And where did you exactly get you parameters to judge morality from? Could it have been from the Bible? If not, can u please tell us? B'cos ur argument are now becoming convoluted.

In all the passages, it is clear the speaker is speaking to, and thereby referring to an adult audience, not children.

If you tell a group of adult to “honour their parents”. Would they assume you are speaking to all children, including babies, those who cant speak yet, cant walk yet, or those who cant understand yet, or to the adults who are listening? Go figure

This is ur original comment - He Demands human sacrifices Lev 27:29.

This is my reply - This is not about human sacrifices, but rather about the punishment of anyone who sells or redeemed a devotional offering already devoted to God.

And this is Lev 29.29 - No person under the ban, who may become doomed to destruction among men, shall be redeemed, but shall surely be put to death.

Can you see how confused you are, that you cannot read anymore. The punishment is death, for anyone under the initial ban who has been redeemed.

God never “arranged” anything. The Bible never mentions this, so I don’t know where you got it from. This shows ur ignorance about Christianity. So if you decide to go stand in front of a train to offer urself as a sacrifice to God, we can then conclude that God arranged it, or he because he did not prevent it, then he agreed to it? right? Can you see how idiotic that sounds?

This is what you initially said - Numbers 13 - He orders the ethnic cleasing of an entire community save for their virgin girls

Here was my reply - Moreover, God did not command this. Moses did.

Now lets look at the scripture you quoted –

What God commanded was to kill all the males,(remember, these were the male in the war, of fighting age)which is commensurate with war, not the Women or Children. It cannot be called ethnic cleansing if the Women and Children are left alone! It was customary to kill males in War and capture women/children and whatever was left. This was the way EVERY war was fought in those days. Just research some Roman/Greek/Hellenic/Persian history.

Clearly, the offering is for God, but its given its to Eleazar, more so, it is a “Heave Offering”, Not a “Sacrifice”, as u claim. It is disingenuous to change words to argue ur point!. Do u know what a “heave offering” means? It simply means an offering that is raised to God.

0
Avatar
Newbie

Matthew 15: 1-9 :

1 Then came to Jesus scribes and Pharisees (the scribes and pharisees came to Jesus) , which were of Jerusalem, saying, 2 Why do thy disciples transgress (disobey) the tradition of the elders? for they wash not their hands when they eat bread. 3 But he answered and said unto them, Why do ye also transgress(disobey) the commandment of God by your tradition? 4 For God commanded, saying, Honour thy father and mother: and, He that curseth father or mother, let him die the death (would reap what he sowed i.e his children would do the same to that child). 5 But ye say, Whosoever shall say to his father or his mother, It is a gift, by whatsoever thou mightest be profited by me; 6 And honour not his father or his mother, he shall be free(it means; any child who serves God and does that by disobeying his parents(his parents dont want him to serve God) shall be free of his children disobeying him). Thus have ye made the commandment of God of none effect by your tradition(they had always cursed any child( to suffer the same fate) who disobeyed). 7 Ye hypocrites, well did Esaias prophesy of you, saying, 8 This people draweth nigh unto me with their mouth, and honoureth me with their lips; but their heart is far from me. 9 But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men i.e putting them to death wasn't what the prophet meant as it was fabricated by men.

Die the death (Jesus), put to death means two different things, the first means suffer the same consequences the other means to be put to death, for instance, a child who curses his parents to die would also get the same from his children, or a child who beats up his parents will reap it too.

And i know Jesus who stopped the killing of an adulterer won't support the killing of anyone.

before you post anything, read, meditate, before drawing conclusion, bible passages can mean different things to different people.

0
Avatar
Newbie

Firstly, can you explain how you got the context of children to mean "adults with parents"? Where is this context from? Do you have some sort of previlege access to the context that is not available to a straight-forward reading of the text?

Secondly, why is this God, who is also Jesus, so brutal, violent and barbaric? This is not the only incident where he demands and displays behaviour which would be way beyond the pale today. Let me give some example, just to show you that killing children was well within the purview of this Jesus God:

1) He Demands human sacrifices (Lev 27:29, Exodus 22: 29-30)

2) He even gets a human sacrifice when Jephthat sacrifices his daughter to God, Judges 11.

3) Numbers 13 - He orders the ethnic cleasing of an entire community save for their virgin girls

4) He kills all the firstborn in Egypt

etc, etc, etc.

So, you see - you Jesus is a very bloodthirsty and barbaric god. If he ordered all of these violent crimes in the Old Testament, why would he not do the same in the NT. After all, did he not say that he did not come to change the LAW:

Matthew 5:

17"Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. 18I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. 19Anyone who breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. 20For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven.

Does the above suggest that Jesus meant to change the LAWS? Why would he require his followers to be more observant of the laws than the Pharisees and the teachers of the law? What law was Jesus refering to here?

What the deuce is this? Yes, the Pharisees where being hypocritical - that is NOT in dispute. But there were being hypocritical for a good reason - they did not wish to observe a barbaric law, and had reformed this, replacing it with the "the tradition of their elders", including which would have been a relaxation of Exo 21:17. Yes, they challenged with with a much more moral and humane tradition, rather than the barbarism of Exodus 21: 17.

Now, what is wrong with that?

Yes, as I said, they are hypocrites because they were calling for the observance of the tradition while flouting the "laws of God". But Jesus too is a hypocrite, because on the one hand Jesus recognises the Pharisees as sticklers for the LAW (Matthew 5: 20, For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven) and on the other hand points accusatory fingers at them.

So they all are hypocrites - Jesus, the Scribes and Pharisees and the Teachers of the Law - All HYPOCRITES. But the worst is the one who falsely claims to be the son of God, Messiah, King of Kings, etc, etc. What a BIG LIAR.

0
Avatar
Newbie

The 1st -  Ex 21:17 concerns when God gave the 10 Commandments to Moses and in addition, other laws guiding the Israelites on various issues - Violence, Animal Control, Laws of the Alter, etc. This particular law (Ex 21:17), is in synergy with Gods view on how children (in this context, meaning adults with parents) should respect and honour their parents.

Remember this was in the time of the Law, before Jesus Christ, who brought the Grace. The Law was harsh, unforgiving, and was expected to be followed to the letter.

The 2nd - Mat 15:1-9, Here, Jesus actually refers to the original law in Exodus 21, when the Pharisees challenged him on why his disciples transgressed a tradition - eating bread without washing their hands, He reminded them that not only did [i]they [/i]disobey a law (Ex 21), they also challenged it with a tradition that was against the word of God concerning that specific Law

In other words, they were hypocrites! Jesus is saying - Which is worse,  Breaking a tradition enshrined by Man, or breaking the Law of God.

This is very clear in the scriptures, and for you guys to try to obfuscate this in order to score cheap points is hugely disappointing.

0
Avatar
Newbie

ONE THING IS SURE: EACH ONE OF US WILL DIE SOME DAY, AT THAT POINT WE WILL COME TO CONFIRMATION OF OUR BELIEFS.

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

You may call me a fool for keeping safe, it's alright.But I'd rather not be an atheist

0
Avatar
Newbie

There are so many bible verses which talks about your god rejoicing over the death of unbelievers. your god isn't after killing any one yet the bible says he drowned the whole world, Grin Grin

U say dat U don't know Him dat control da Universe! Pls add me, tomgirl4realshow@yahoo.com, maybe we toq beta, or +2348062835589. Remain blezed!

0
Avatar
Newbie

I don't usually engage in debates that lead nowhere, and I'm not going to start that now. But I'll certainly tackle the issues you raised one after the other, as much as I can.

@ Tudor.  I was actually expecting someone to mention that. I'll enlighten you on the issue. I know you're not a believer in God or Jesus, but have you ever wondered why Jesus (according to Christian beliefs) had to come into the world to die for our sins? Why did he have to do that when the people were already used to  making atonement with the blood of animals? The reason is simple. Before Christ came and died, there was nothing called CHRISTianity. What the people practised was Judaism. They were given rules and regulations to follow. But most times, the people flouted the rules because it's inherent in human nature to stray. So to make them comply, promises of rewards and blessings were made for the obedient and strict penalties were stipulated for the disobedient. The goal was to make the people see why they should obey and not violate God's laws. If you look at this method closely and the Jewish religious system as a whole, you'll see that it bears resemblance to the Islamic shar'ia system. Stone, punish, kill offenders - not because God was wicked because all they had was the law but they lack the grace of God (the divine enablement) to obey the law. The only way they could be restricted from disobeying the law therefore was to recommend harsh punishments for offenders.

But you know what? God wasn't really after killing or destroying anyone (Ezekiel 33:11). All he wanted was for them to live righteously and responsibly. But even with the strict measures, many of the people could still not obey God's laws. Hence the divine promise in Jeremiah 31:31-34:

Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah: Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which my covenant they brake,, But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the LORD, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people.  And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the LORD: for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the LORD: for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more.

The idea in the passage is that since despite all the harsh measures that were in place, the people continue to stray from the written law, then a new method (covenant) will be put in place that would ensure that God's laws were not just read, memorised and recited, but would be IN THEIR HEARTS. In other words, they'll no longer have much difficulty obeying it.

That was what the death of Christ was to accomplish. It was to mark the beginning of a new covenant, not a covenant of forced compliance through harsh laws, but a covenant that will ensure that as many as are willing to serve God get the divine enablement (grace) to do so from their hearts and not just for fear of punishment. When you receive Jesus and become born again, you're able to serve God NATURALLY because His power helps you; not something you have to FORCE yourself to do because you're afraid of being killed or stoned. This is why Christianity is different from Judaism and Islam. Christianity ensures that you have the grace to live for God without compulsion. Romans 8:2-4 explains it better: "For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the law of sin and death.  For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh: That the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit."

Christianity began after Christ had accomplished his mission, making the ultimate atonemnet and paying the ultimate price so that the power for righteousness will be imputed in us, once and for all, instead of sinning everytime and making atonement with the blood of animals. Hebrews 9:13,14 says: "For if the blood of bulls and of goats, and the ashes of an heifer sprinkling the unclean, sanctifieth to the purifying of the flesh: How much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without spot to God, purge your conscience from dead works to serve the living God?"

I hope my explanations clarifies the issue you raised, Tudor. If you have any more questions on the issue, feel free to ask (I'm very calm today for expository theology lol).

0
Avatar
Newbie

tudor again u r realy confused bt i pray God gives u wisdom

0
Avatar
Newbie
Your answer
Add image

By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.