1 minute 41 seconds of Biblical truths..
Categories: Bible, Speakers Corner
-
Follow
Following
Already have a WordPress.com account? Log in now.
1 minute 41 seconds of Biblical truths..
Categories: Bible, Speakers Corner
Blogging Theology 
But surely the Christian ‘get-out’ clause is that with St Paul’s account of Jesus (peace be upon him) and the notion of there being no need to follow the Mosaic Law, then they have side – stepped the ‘problem’ of the Old Testament. Is that not so?
Does the New Testament have violent verses?
But actually is this whole topic even the right question? Shouldn’t we be asking: ‘How can we verify what was God’s (Allah’s) actual revelation (so we can grasp the actual Truth)?’
(Thinking out loud.)
LikeLiked by 1 person
ModWestMuse,
There is no “side-stepping” away from the problem of the OT for the Trinitarian Christian, as Jesus is believed by them to be part of the triune Godhead which then means that the God of the OT who ordered such violence was the very same triune God which in fact includes Jesus himself. This is a BIG problem for Trinitarians to cope with.
Yes the NT has violent verses for instance in the following verse the Bible portrays Jesus as advocating violent physical Jihad (why else would one purchase a sword): “And He said to them, “But now, the one having a purse, let him take it, and likewise a bag; and the one having no sword, let him sell his cloak and buy one.” Luke 22:36
With regard to your last question, the Holy Qur’an is the criterion for truth…but I’m sure you already knew that!! 🙂
LikeLiked by 2 people
I.
The NT connected some of the “violent acts” directly committed by Yahweh. I don’t have comprehensive references but one does come to my mind is 1 Corinthians 10:
II.
Bishop Barron tries to address this.
He brings up Revelation with the lamb opening the scroll. He says (3:55) the imagery of the gentle lamb is a way of understanding the NT.We should read the Bible according to the standpoint of Christ crucified. (This is a suggestion for exegesis from Origen.) Barron says that if we read the Bible in such a away that God would appear capricious or vindictive, then you are reading it wrong. Apparently, this is a form of eisegesis, that is “reading in” as opposed to “drawing out” meaning from the text; it relies on a future revelation and future salvation history in order to understand it properly. So, since there was no definite incarnation before Christ, then how is one supposed to read the OT?
He says that the passages should be read in an allegorical and spiritual way. I doubt it address the direct command from God.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I get the impression that saying that Christ fulfilled the Mosaic law is a cop-out for some to avoid answering difficult questions about some of its more violent content, historically however Christians have attempted to implement the mosaic law including the laws regarding women.
Lets not also forget that Jesus regarded the law as holy as did St Paul, so even if we grant that Christians are not obliged to follow certain commandments, it is not correct to allow for the idea that this means we can reject certain parts of the law as it is still from God, old or new testament (terms that did not arrive until much later after these texts were written)
LikeLiked by 2 people