Interventionist God

PDN

himnextdoor wrote: »

And can I ask this, when Jesus was alive and spreading the word, did He think that the only way that the population would understand His philosophy would be if great academics interpreted His words for them?

The words of Jesus were readily understood by the farmers and fishermen to whom they were spoken.

Then, in the rest of the New Testament, we see His earliest followers working out how to apply His teachings in radically different environments.

Theology, with its academics, is necessart today for two main reasons:
a) We live at a much greater cultural and linguistic distance from Jesus - so we need to draw on insights of language, history etc in order to put ourselves into the shoes of those who first heard His message.
b) We need to work out to apply His teachings to a world that would be unrecognisable to anyone from the 1st Century.

Fanny Cradock

himnextdoor wrote: »

Which suggests that God's plan could be derailed depending on how humans behave; is that true?

What you seem to be suggesting is that new creation is somehow depends upon us. That wouldn't be close to an orthodox understanding. I take the view that God works within the confines of his own creation - at least on some occasions. The incarnation, for example, is a physical event within time. That we have free will might in some way dictate the course of our history (as a species and as individuals) but not how that history culminates. A flawed analogy might be a trip you took on a plane as a child. While you had certain freedoms - you could choose from the menu, to argue with you siblings or not, to read a book or watch a film, whatever - it was ultimately not within your ability to will the plane to Austria instead of Australia.

himnextdoor wrote: »

And can I ask this, when Jesus was alive and spreading the word, did He think that the only way that the population would understand His philosophy would be if great academics interpreted His words for them?

I don't think Jesus was expounding a philosophy. I also don't think that Christianity needsto be explained by great academics. The Message is at foundation rather simple. One might not have any views on whether Christ's sacrifice was an act of expiation or and act of propitiation and still be saved. But if you want to go deeper there is always another level to drill down into.

Even a cursory glance at the Gospels shows Jesus amongst the common people - often poor, destitute, uneducated and even despised. In certain regards, the Gospels offer a quite unique perspective from antiquity. The overwhelming majority of works from antiquity are written from the perspective of the elite, not the commoner or the down-trodden. (Read some Richard Bauckham for more on this.)

That we apparently need academics might well be down to the church's failings on the most basic level. It might also be down to things like The Da Vinci Code and a general muddle of competing ideas, which the church isn't immune from. (BTW, when I talk about the church I mean it in a corporate sense of all denominations.)

himnextdoor

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

What you seem to be suggesting is that new creation is somehow depends upon us. That wouldn't be close to an orthodox understanding. I take the view that God works within the confines of his own creation - at least on some occasions. The incarnation, for example, is a physical event within time. That we have free will might in some way dictate the course of our history (as a species and as individuals) but not how that history culminates. A flawed analogy might be a trip you took on a plane as a child. While you had certain freedoms - you could choose from the menu, to argue with you siblings or not, to read a book or watch a film, whatever - it was ultimately not within your ability to will the plane to Austria instead of Australia.

Doesn't free-will bring the possibility of a hijack into play? Would new creation suffer if the planes didn't get to their intended destinations?

himnextdoor

PDN wrote: »

The words of Jesus were readily understood by the farmers and fishermen to whom they were spoken.

Then, in the rest of the New Testament, we see His earliest followers working out how to apply His teachings in radically different environments.

Theology, with its academics, is necessart today for two main reasons:
a) We live at a much greater cultural and linguistic distance from Jesus - so we need to draw on insights of language, history etc in order to put ourselves into the shoes of those who first heard His message.
b) We need to work out to apply His teachings to a world that would be unrecognisable to anyone from the 1st Century.

And c) 21st century people are more sophisticated than those who lived in the 1st century.

I'm often told, when questioning doctrine, that I should read this book or that book and it seems to me like the question is being avoided. There are so many books that one could spend many lifetimes reading and still not have any answers and I sometimes wonder if that is the point of all these books; to avoid answering awkward questions.

PDN

himnextdoor wrote: »

And c) 21st century people are more sophisticated than those who lived in the 1st century.

I'm often told, when questioning doctrine, that I should read this book or that book and it seems to me like the question is being avoided. There are so many books that one could spend many lifetimes reading and still not have any answers and I sometimes wonder if that is the point of all these books; to avoid answering awkward questions.

Yes, books are an evil ploy to fudge the truth because every question should be answered in two sentences.

himnextdoor

PDN wrote: »

Yes, books are an evil ploy to fudge the truth because every question should be answered in two sentences.

Maybe but I think it is more to do with the fact that there are so many takes on Christianity.

Presumably, when Jesus was spreading the word He trying to convey a specific message. So if all Christians, that is Mormons, Catholics, Protestants, etc., are following the correct faith such that they will be saved then the core message must be the same and most of the books on Christianity must therefore be concerned with the differences between the denominations. I mean, a Catholic priest would hardly suggest that one should read a Mormon publication in order to answer questions of faith.

However, Catholics say that only Catholics will be saved. If it is the case that only Catholics are to be saved then all the other denominations must have perverted Jesus' message and since His mission was to 'get the ball rolling', as it were, to start building the infrastructure from where His message would be transmitted, wouldn't Jesus be angry that so few are receiving the correct message?

In other words, it seems possible that people are losing an opportunity to be saved because those who lead them are taking them in the wrong direction. Can we expect an intervention to deal with church-leaders who are leading people who want to be saved away from God?

Fanny Cradock

himnextdoor wrote: »

Doesn't free-will bring the possibility of a hijack into play? Would new creation suffer if the planes didn't get to their intended destinations?

I think you torture the analogy. The point I am making is that both Judaism and Christianity have certain eschatological teachings about a final resurrection and a final judgement. This would suggest that there is no possibility of a hijack.

I must say that I think it most unfair of you to suggest that further reading suggestions are a ploy. Frankly, if you think that view x as presented on a forum and in every book ever written is a load of cobblers that is your decision. It probably bothers people less than you think.

You know, it could simply be that people who give these responses don't have the time, the will or even the special knowledge to go any further than suggesting reading or listening to a source.

Perhaps the suspicions streak speaks more about your mindset and less about other people's intentions.

himnextdoor

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Yes, God is interested in the affairs of man because he has in mind (assuming God could be said to have such a thing) certain eschatological ends for creation. Which is another way of saying that God is interested in our affairs precisely because what we do impacts who we are, and who we are matters in the context of new creation.

himnextdoor wrote: »

Which suggests that God's plan could be derailed depending on how humans behave; is that true?

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

What you seem to be suggesting is that new creation is somehow depends upon us.

Forgive me but your quotes seem contradictory. If new creation doesn't depend on us the why does who we are matter?

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

I think you torture the analogy. The point I am making is that both Judaism and Christianity have certain eschatological teachings about a final resurrection and a final judgement. This would suggest that there is no possibility of a hijack.

Fair enough, I would have thought that all souls get to God and that He keeps or discards them according to His judgement. My point is that He wants our souls; He has attempted to 'fix' us at least five times according to the Bible. The thing is, I want my soul too. What is God going to use my soul for?

And I don't think a God of grace would object to me raising these concerns. If He did, I would be suspicious of the gift of free will.

georgieporgy

himnextdoor wrote: »

Maybe but I think it is more to do with the fact that there are so many takes on Christianity.

Presumably, when Jesus was spreading the word He trying to convey a specific message. So if all Christians, that is Mormons, Catholics, Protestants, etc., are following the correct faith such that they will be saved then the core message must be the same and most of the books on Christianity must therefore be concerned with the differences between the denominations. I mean, a Catholic priest would hardly suggest that one should read a Mormon publication in order to answer questions of faith.

However, Catholics say that only Catholics will be saved. If it is the case that only Catholics are to be saved then all the other denominations must have perverted Jesus' message and since His mission was to 'get the ball rolling', as it were, to start building the infrastructure from where His message would be transmitted, wouldn't Jesus be angry that so few are receiving the correct message?

In other words, it seems possible that people are losing an opportunity to be saved because those who lead them are taking them in the wrong direction. Can we expect an intervention to deal with church-leaders who are leading people who want to be saved away from God?

Without getting involved in the discussion too much , let me just correct two errors in your post.

1 Mormons are not Christians
2 Catholics don't say that only catholics are saved.

If you won't take my word for it I can suggest some good books to read:)

Boulevardier

This discussion seems to have gone way more off-thread than I ever was!

Surely the subject is whether/why God intervenes in the form of natural disasters?

himnextdoor

georgieporgy wrote: »

Without getting involved in the discussion too much , let me just correct two errors in your post.

1 Mormons are not Christians

Chris·tian (krschn)
adj. 1. Professing belief in Jesus as Christ or following the religion based on the life and teachings of Jesus.
2. Relating to or derived from Jesus or Jesus's teachings.
3. Manifesting the qualities or spirit of Jesus; Christlike.
4. Relating to or characteristic of Christianity or its adherents.
5. Showing a loving concern for others; humane.

georgieporgy wrote: »

2 Catholics don't say that only catholics are saved.

Pope Innocent III: "There is but one universal Church of the faithful, outside which no one at all is saved." (Fourth Lateran Council, 1215.)

Pope Boniface VIII: "We declare, say, define, and pronounce that it is absolutely necessary for the salvation of every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff." (Unam Sanctam, 1302.)

Pope Eugene IV: "The most Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that none of those existing outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics, can have a share in life eternal; but that they will go into the eternal fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless before death they are joined with Her; and that so important is the unity of this ecclesiastical body that only those remaining within this unity can profit by the sacraments of the Church unto salvation, and they alone can receive an eternal recompense for their fasts, their almsgivings, their other works of Christian piety and the duties of a Christian soldier. No one, let his almsgiving be as great as it may, no one, even if he pour out his blood for the Name of Christ, can be saved, unless he remain within the bosom and the unity of the Catholic Church." (Cantate Domino, 1441.)

The official position of the Roman Catholic religion remains that there is no salvation outside the "church" of Rome. See Catechism of the Catholic "Church", copyright 1994, U.S. Catholic Conference, Inc.-Libreria Editrice Vaticana, page 225, article #846

"'Outside the Church there is no salvation' is a solemnly declared dogma which has always been believed and taught by the Church. Were this not so, it could never have been defined ex cathedra in the first place, for no Pope can declare something to be true unless it has always been true, if only recognized implicitly, such as the Immaculate Conception."

georgieporgy wrote: »

If you won't take my word for it I can suggest some good books to read:)

A previous, knowledgeable poster told me in another thread that ignorance is no excuse. Hmm, one of us is confused and one of you is wrong.

I guess you must be reading different books.:)

Fanny Cradock

himnextdoor wrote: »

Forgive me but your quotes seem contradictory. If new creation doesn't depend on us the why does who we are matter?

I don't believe they are contradictory. Let me compile them for you.

Christianity has a defined eschatology. It says that certain things will happen at the end of time irrespective of what we do. It also says that what happens to you at this stage depends on the choices you made in life. In other words, as each of us are ultimately responsible for our own choices we accept the consequences.

Fair enough, I would have thought that all souls get to God and that He keeps or discards them according to His judgement. My point is that He wants our souls; He has attempted to 'fix' us at least five times according to the Bible. The thing is, I want my soul too. What is God going to use my soul for?

And I don't think a God of grace would object to me raising these concerns. If He did, I would be suspicious of the gift of free will.

None of this was the point of my analogy. If you want to be suspicious of God then that is your choice.

Oh come on; every organisation that touts for business has a manifesto to which they direct questions. If I was to say to you, "If you don't believe me, read my pamphlet," you would expect it to reflect my beliefs. You directing me to a book that reflects your beliefs could well be an act of obfuscation for all I know.

I actually suggested a book and linked you to a free audio discussion that Wright gave on a college campus back in 2006. It would have taken an hour or so of your time. But instead here you are willingly spending time replying to me. Read the book, listen to the talk or remain suspicious. I don't care.

I think it is unfair, worse than unfair, that you should berate me for speaking openly and I think that you think that by trying to undermine my integrity you somehow increase your own credibility.

LOL - so I'm not allowed to "berate" you (what a delightfully hyperbolic word) because you spoke openly? Has there been a rule change? You made an accusation about certain unnamed people (clearly I was the focus of your accusation) and I attempted to rebut it. Really, how do I know the intentions of some unnamed person you have met on the internet. All I know are my intentions and I said that you have misread them. I also suggested that all of this suspicion that you cultivate reflects back to the mindset you adopt.

I mean to say, who brought 'cobblers' into it. It's funny how all the personal abuse has come from your side.

Please re-read what I said. I'll quote it again because you are obviously confused.

Me wrote:

I must say that I think it most unfair of you to suggest that further reading suggestions are a ploy. Frankly, if you think that view x as presented on a forum and in every book ever written is a load of cobblers that is your decision. It probably bothers people less than you think.

That isn't personal abuse. So stop acting the injured party.

Then say, "I don't know".

Who are we talking about? These other people who suggested that you "should read this book or that book" or are you just talking about me?

You know, it would be nice if you didn't dictate to me my options when replying to you. I have read a number of Wrights books and listened to many of his talks and sermons. If you are interested in exploring the relationship between the OT and the NT - at least as people like Wright see it - then read the book I suggested or listen to the FREE talk (of which there are many - see the resources thread for a link to more of Wright's stuff).

What I am saying is that I am not going to give a poor synopsis of somebody else's argument when you can listen to them in person. Beside, we all know you think it's cobblers (You see! No personal insult there) so I don't want to waste my time any further. (I should have been in the office earlier but I allowed myself to get sidetracked by this.)

Well, Fanny, there are a lot of serpents out there.

Enough of this silly game you are playing. If you have something to say then say it straight to my virtual face. You can even PM me your uncensored insults. I conversed with you in good faith and gave you the resources to peruse some answers to your questions at no expense to yourself. What I've gotten in return is a load of guff. And I'm not interested in your guff.

Boulevardier

Hello? Interventionist God, people?

himnextdoor

Boulevardier wrote: »

Hello? Interventionist God, people?

Where were we? Oh, yes: An interventionist God would make a mockery of free-will. And he made a covenant with Noah; no more floods.

Mind you, He said nothing about incineration.

himnextdoor

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

I You know, it would be nice if you didn't dictate to me my options when replying to you. I have read a number of Wrights books and listened to many of his talks and sermons. If you are interested in exploring the relationship between the OT and the NT - at least as people like Wright see it - then read the book I suggested or listen to the FREE talk (of which there are many - see the resources thread for a link to more of Wright's stuff).

Soul Winner already answered that question; the OT is gone, the law is dead and anyone who resurrects it is a heretic and cursed by God. (I think.)

PDN

himnextdoor wrote: »

Soul Winner already answered that question; the OT is gone, the law is dead and anyone who resurrects it is a heretic and cursed by God. (I think.)

Now, you're just trolling. If you're not prepared to read the links people provide for you then at least you could refrain from this kind of silliness.

The OT is not gone and is viewed by Christians as being the inspired Word of God.

wolfsbane

Wicknight wrote: »

The response to the Japanese Earthquake raised a some what interesting question as to whether or not it is a particularly Christian notion to believe in an interventionist God, particularly if that intervention is in the form of something considered negative.

I have heard it said from some Christian friends of mine that since Jesus God is not really interested in big Old Testament style interventions, either positive (parting of the seas) or negative (destruction of Sodom), that since Jesus the issue is really been far more on salvation to the after life.

I was wondering what Christian views on this were, is the large scale interventionist position mainstream or the opposite, or is this just an area where different Christian interpretations differ?

(by interventionist I mean large scale stuff rather than God opening an individuals heart or minor miracles)

---

Just a note, I'm in no way offended or angered or upset by the idea that a Christian might feel this earthquake or any earthquake is an interventionist act of God for some purpose. I feel anyone who claims to be directly offended by that is just being silly. I don't like the idea, but to say I'm offended by someone expressing that idea is nonsense.

We can't have Christian only threads any more but to all non-Christians PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE do not derail this thread with such responses. There have been quite a few 'Whats your thoughts on this...' threads and as soon as a Chrisitan gives an honest answer they are set upon with faux outrage and anger.

This is just silly baiting in my view, this 'Say something offensive so I can be offended'. Atheists, get over it.

That is NOT the purpose of this thread, if you want to be offended take it to the A&A forum please. This is a genuine question that I don't know the answer to and would be interested to hear from Christians about.

Mods feel free to self destruct this thread if it quickly turns into this, which I hope it won't.

I'm sure many wars and natural disasters are direct interventions by God in judgement.

God's rule in the world was not abandoned with the advent of the New Covenant. He still puts down kings and raises others up. He still cuts short excessive wickedness.

But we must distinguish between the normal course of life, with its mixture of pleasure and pain that the Fall introduced, and special interventions of God.

ALL normal events happen only with His permission: one doesn't fall victim to chance. It may look like chance from our viewpoint, but God had to say Yes before it could happen. Much more for special judgements: He decides what judgement is to fall and when.

Natural events like tsunamis may not have anything to do with special punishment on the wicked - they can be just part of our fallen world. God still, of course, decides if they will happen.

But they MAY be a judgement on a nation for exceptional sin. We would be speculating to name any so. God knows.

Man-made disasters may be natural too, but wars especially seem more likely to have a special judgement attached to them. The grave sins of a nation are visited in the horrors of war. Slavery and the oppression of the American Indian cried out for vengeance. The Civil War followed. The great nations who built their wealth on oppression sent their sons to the slaughter in WWI & 2.

God is not indifferent to sin, nor has He left ALL judgement/discipline until the Last Day. He judges individuals and nations in this gospel age:
Acts 12:21 So on a set day Herod, arrayed in royal apparel, sat on his throne and gave an oration to them. 22 And the people kept shouting, “The voice of a god and not of a man!” 23 Then immediately an angel of the Lord struck him, because he did not give glory to God. And he was eaten by worms and died.

1 Thessalonians 2:14 For you, brethren, became imitators of the churches of God which are in Judea in Christ Jesus. For you also suffered the same things from your own countrymen, just as they did from the Judeans, 15 who killed both the Lord Jesus and their own prophets, and have persecuted us; and they do not please God and are contrary to all men, 16 forbidding us to speak to the Gentiles that they may be saved, so as always to fill up the measure of their sins; but wrath has come upon them to the uttermost.

**********************************************************
The Almighty has his own purposes. "Woe unto the world because of offences! for it must needs be that offences come; but woe to that man by whom the offence cometh!" If we shall suppose that American Slavery is one of those offences which, in the providence of God, must needs come, but which, having continued through His appointed time, He now wills to remove, and that He gives to both North and South, this terrible war, as the woe due to those by whom the offence came, shall we discern therein any departure from those divine attributes which the believers in a Living God always ascribe to Him? Fondly do we hope--fervently do we pray--that this mighty scourge of war may speedily pass away. Yet, if God wills that it continue, until all the wealth piled by the bond-man's two hundred and fifty years of unrequited toil shall be sunk, and until every drop of blood drawn with the lash, shall be paid by another drawn with the sword, as was said three thousand years ago, so still it must be said "the judgments of the Lord, are true and righteous altogether"
http://showcase.netins.net/web/creative/lincoln/speeches/inaug2.htm

wolfsbane

himnextdoor wrote: »

Where were we? Oh, yes: An interventionist God would make a mockery of free-will. And he made a covenant with Noah; no more floods.

Mind you, He said nothing about incineration.

Who said man's will is absolutely free? It is enslaved to his evil nature. He freely chooses to reject God.

Noah was not promised no more local floods. He was promised no more universal flood - no flood that would destroy all men and beasts who drew breath.

**********************************************************
Genesis 7:21 And all flesh died that moved on the earth: birds and cattle and beasts and every creeping thing that creeps on the earth, and every man. 22 All in whose nostrils was the breath of the spirit of life, all that was on the dry land, died. 23 So He destroyed all living things which were on the face of the ground: both man and cattle, creeping thing and bird of the air. They were destroyed from the earth. Only Noah and those who were with him in the ark remained alive. 24 And the waters prevailed on the earth one hundred and fifty days.

wolfsbane

himnextdoor wrote: »

Soul Winner already answered that question; the OT is gone, the law is dead and anyone who resurrects it is a heretic and cursed by God. (I think.)

Confusion of terms leads to confusion of thinking!

The Old Covenant is gone. The Old Testament remains. The former was a covenant between God and Israel; the latter is His word given to the prophets before the New Covenant age.

************************************************************
Hebrews 8:7 For if that first covenant had been faultless, then no place would have been sought for a second. 8 Because finding fault with them, He says: “Behold, the days are coming, says the LORD, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah— 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 did not continue in My covenant, and I disregarded them, says the LORD. 10 For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, says the LORD: I will put My laws in their mind and write them on their hearts; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people. 11 None of them shall teach his neighbor, and none his brother, saying, ‘Know the LORD,’ for all shall know Me, from the least of them to the greatest of them. 12 For I will be merciful to their unrighteousness, and their sins and their lawless deeds I will remember no more.”
13 In that He says, “A new covenant, ” He has made the first obsolete. Now what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away.

himnextdoor

PDN wrote: »

Now, you're just trolling. If you're not prepared to read the links people provide for you then at least you could refrain from this kind of silliness.

The OT is not gone and is viewed by Christians as being the inspired Word of God.

From http://www.gotquestions.org/Christian-law.html

The key to understanding this issue is knowing that the Old Testament law was given to the nation of Israel, not to Christians. Some of the laws were to reveal to the Israelites how to obey and please God (the Ten Commandments, for example). Some of the laws were to show the Israelites how to worship God and atone for sin (the sacrificial system). Some of the laws were intended to make the Israelites distinct from other nations (the food and clothing rules). None of the Old Testament law is binding on us today. When Jesus died on the cross, He put an end to the Old Testament law (Romans 10:4; Galatians 3:23-25; Ephesians 2:15).

I asked if the OT was relevant to Christianity in respect of the criteria for going to heaven. I never challenged the historical relevance in that regard.

Check out #46 of this thread.

himnextdoor

wolfsbane wrote: »

Confusion of terms leads to confusion of thinking!

The Old Covenant is gone. The Old Testament remains. The former was a covenant between God and Israel; the latter is His word given to the prophets before the New Covenant age.

************************************************************
Hebrews 8:7 For if that first covenant had been faultless, then no place would have been sought for a second. 8 Because finding fault with them, He says: “Behold, the days are coming, says the LORD, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah— 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 did not continue in My covenant, and I disregarded them, says the LORD. 10 For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, says the LORD: I will put My laws in their mind and write them on their hearts; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people. 11 None of them shall teach his neighbor, and none his brother, saying, ‘Know the LORD,’ for all shall know Me, from the least of them to the greatest of them. 12 For I will be merciful to their unrighteousness, and their sins and their lawless deeds I will remember no more.”
13 In that He says, “A new covenant, ” He has made the first obsolete. Now what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away.

Fair enough.

himnextdoor

wolfsbane wrote: »

Noah was not promised no more local floods. He was promised no more universal flood - no flood that would destroy all men and beasts who drew breath.

How should I read this from Genesis 8:21 "And the LORD smelled a sweet savour; and the LORD said in his heart, I will not again curse the ground any more for man's sake;"?

PDN

himnextdoor wrote: »

From http://www.gotquestions.org/Christian-law.html

The key to understanding this issue is knowing that the Old Testament law was given to the nation of Israel, not to Christians. Some of the laws were to reveal to the Israelites how to obey and please God (the Ten Commandments, for example). Some of the laws were to show the Israelites how to worship God and atone for sin (the sacrificial system). Some of the laws were intended to make the Israelites distinct from other nations (the food and clothing rules). None of the Old Testament law is binding on us today. When Jesus died on the cross, He put an end to the Old Testament law (Romans 10:4; Galatians 3:23-25; Ephesians 2:15).

I asked if the OT was relevant to Christianity in respect of the criteria for going to heaven. I never challenged the historical relevance in that regard.

Check out #46 of this thread.

The OT is very relevant to Christianity in respect of the criteria for going to heaven. It points to Jesus Christ. Just try reading Paul's letter to the Galatians.

himnextdoor

wolfsbane wrote: »

Hebrews 8:7 For if that first covenant had been faultless, then no place would have been sought for a second. 8 Because finding fault with them, He says: “Behold, the days are coming, says the LORD, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah— 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 did not continue in My covenant, and I disregarded them, says the LORD. 10 For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, says the LORD: I will put My laws in their mind and write them on their hearts; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people. 11 None of them shall teach his neighbor, and none his brother, saying, ‘Know the LORD,’ for all shall know Me, from the least of them to the greatest of them. 12 For I will be merciful to their unrighteousness, and their sins and their lawless deeds I will remember no more.”
13 In that He says, “A new covenant, ” He has made the first obsolete. Now what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away.

Loosely speaking, can the highlighted part, verse 11, be understood as "Don't preach!"?

If it can, then what are the consequences for preachers?

himnextdoor

PDN wrote: »

The OT is very relevant to Christianity in respect of the criteria for going to heaven. It points to Jesus Christ. Just try reading Paul's letter to the Galatians.

I did read it but (unsurprisingly perhaps) I'm a little confused.

Galations 6:16 And as many as walk according to this rule, peace be on them, and mercy, and upon the Israel of God.

and

Hebrews 8:10 For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, says the LORD: I will put My laws in their mind and write them on their hearts; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people.

It seems as if Christianity is a reformation of Judaism and was meant to be applied to Israelites. It's as if God is saying that the law was a kind of training program that showed the Jews that they were unable to live by the law and once they realised that, they would be ready for the next step in His plan which involved Jesus; and that this was a contingency already prepared by God.

Why do we think that Jesus died for our (non-Jewish) sins as opposed to only the sins of the Jews?

I'm not a believer as you are but nor am I a troll.

PDN

himnextdoor wrote: »

It seems as if Christianity is a reformation of Judaism and was meant to be applied to Israelites.

Yes, but not solely to Israelites. The whole point of Israel being called as a nation in the Old Testament was to be a light to the other nations and to witness to God. Their status as a chosen nation was not one of privilege (being God's pets) but one of responsibility (being God's ambassadors).

It's as if God is saying that the law was a kind of training program that showed the Jews that they were unable to live by the law and once they realised that, they would be ready for the next step in His plan which involved Jesus; and that this was a contingency already prepared by God.

Yes, that sums it up pretty well. But the training programme was more to lead them to an expectation of Christ as being the fulfillment of the Law.

Why do we think that Jesus died for our (non-Jewish) sins as opposed to only the sins of the Jews?

Because the Bible tells us this very clearly. "For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life." (John 3:16)

The old Israel was predominantly a national thing, and the mark that one was part of the covenant people was keeping the Law.

The new Israel is a faith thing, and the mark that one has entered into that covenant is faith in Christ.

As Paul put it in Galatians: "Understand, then, that those who have faith are children of Abraham. Scripture foresaw that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, and announced the gospel in advance to Abraham: “All nations will be blessed through you.” So those who rely on faith are blessed along with Abraham, the man of faith." (Galatians 3:7-9)

"So in Christ Jesus you are all children of God through faith, for all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. If you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise." (Galatians 3:26-29)

Lantus

Is it's Gods intervention when 1 million people die every year in road traffic accidents? Or when planes fall out of the sky? This is not really any different. People have chosen to habitate near to this region even knowing and fully understanding the risks associated with it. Earthquake zones and risk of tsunami.

Japan will come out of this with a stronger sense of dealing with this and preventing it in the future.

To believe that God instigates these acts is to believe in a very wicked and evil being indeed. Murdering the old and young alike for no other reason other than he can.

himnextdoor

Lantus wrote: »

Is it's Gods intervention when 1 million people die every year in road traffic accidents? Or when planes fall out of the sky? This is not really any different. People have chosen to habitate near to this region even knowing and fully understanding the risks associated with it. Earthquake zones and risk of tsunami.

Japan will come out of this with a stronger sense of dealing with this and preventing it in the future.

To believe that God instigates these acts is to believe in a very wicked and evil being indeed. Murdering the old and young alike for no other reason other than he can.

I'm sure that I read somewhere that God would not pass judgement until the very last day when each of us will have account for our life.

I personally believe that divine retribution by way of natural disaster is/was a device to 'encourage' conformity of the masses. Natural disasters create an opportunity to preachers to 'prove' that God abhors non-Christians.

Cynical but not surprising when you consider the evil that men can do.

wolfsbane

himnextdoor wrote: »

Loosely speaking, can the highlighted part, verse 11, be understood as "Don't preach!"?

If it can, then what are the consequences for preachers?

Yes, since all these are converted people, no one should urge them to repent & believe - to "Know the Lord". Only the lost need evangelising.

************************************************************
John 13:10 Jesus said to him, “He who is bathed needs only to wash his feet, but is completely clean; and you are clean, but not all of you.” 11 For He knew who would betray Him; therefore He said, “You are not all clean.”

wolfsbane

himnextdoor wrote: »

How should I read this from Genesis 8:21 "And the LORD smelled a sweet savour; and the LORD said in his heart, I will not again curse the ground any more for man's sake;"?

The curse was not local floods. It may refer here to the global Flood, or to the special curse after the Fall - so no extra curse to come, despite continuing wickedness.

************************************************************
Genesis 3:17 Then to Adam He said, “Because you have heeded the voice of your wife, and have eaten from the tree of which I commanded you, saying, ‘You shall not eat of it’:
“ Cursed is the ground for your sake;
In toil you shall eat of it
All the days of your life.

18 Both thorns and thistles it shall bring forth for you,
And you shall eat the herb of the field.

19 In the sweat of your face you shall eat bread
Till you return to the ground,
For out of it you were taken;
For dust you are,
And to dust you shall return.”