God's Morality and Justice

[Vinnie]

@beaglelady

So you might be willing to murder me if God ordered it?

I can only hope I would have the faith of Abraham to do what is right.

@beaglelady

I was referring to the one where Jesus caters to the wishes of the demons.

A full understanding of the issue requires looking at all the evidence, not the one account with the highest chance of being creatively embellished.

@beaglelady

At what point do we stop looking for a natural cause for strange behavior? I hope never.

Maybe when scripture AnD Jesus teach otherwise? I find methodological naturalism useful but it’s only one tool. I am not an atheist.

@St.Roymond

The parable of the tenants isn’t about the Temple, it’s about those entrusted to guard and guide Israel. The cursing of the fig tree is about the nation of Israel which had the forms of bearing fruit but no actual fruit. Cleansing the Temple is about limiting access to God. Jesus’ answer to the challenge of His authority is about faithless leaders who put their own benefit above that of their people and who failed to recognize their Messiah. The bit about David’s son is a hint that the promised son is standing right there in front of them. The widow’s offering comment indicates that despite all the failure of leadership and of the nation as a whole there are still some who pledge their lives to God. And the statement about the “marvelous stones” reads as nothing more than a statement of what is coming – which in context is (just) a warning.

You have to go to Luke to get the punishment aspect; it just isn’t there in Mark.

It is in Mark as well. Keep in mind a full blown judgment on the temple is a judgment on Israel and its leaders. This was God’s home on earth and the center of Jewish worship. The temple was magnificent and a marvel of the ancient world. For the temple to be destroyed is about the nation of Israel. It is anachronistic to think otherwise.

1. the cursing of the fig tree is found as the bread in a Marcan sandwich (a literary device that shows up ~9 or so times). Here is a link to a thread on this. The temple incident with Jesus (sometimes called a “cleansing” but I think prophetic judgment) is the meat inside the bread of the literary device. When Mark sandwiches material it usually means the internal material is a key to unlocking its meaning or it moves us to deeper insight. The temple was too big and too busy at the time to be “cleansed.” People in one part would have had no idea what was even happening in another it would have been so packed and noisy at the time. It’s probably more about the Gentile court being used for selling livestock. This was a necessary practice as people made long journeys and the offerings had to be unblemished and they needed currency changers because they came from all over the world. It was this way for centuries. There was no pristine original Jesus could hark back to. It would get millions of visitors at Passover and Jesus had to know he would never make a dent in this. Best I can tell, Jesus wanted this done in a different location and flipped tables as a sign of prophetic judgment.

2. The fig tree withers from its roots at Jesus’s command. The temple will also be totally destroyed (not one stone).

3. The widow is an example of unbridled charity but this is as much a condemnation of the Jewish leaders and the temple as well. The OT says widows should be looked after but instead she if giving everything she has to the Temple. The irony would not be lost on Mark. She is a victim of exploitation and a failure of the leadership to take care of widows as the OT commands. Just before the scene Jesus talks of the leaders devouring widow’s houses.

4. Jesus probably isn’t referring to just any mountain but the actual Temple Mount when he says with faith you can throw this into the sea. That’s where they were.

5. the parable of the tenants is quite clear. The vineyard owner is God, the Son is Jesus etc

12 Then he began to speak to them in parables. “A man planted a vineyard, put a fence around it, dug a pit for the winepress, and built a watchtower; then he leased it to tenants and went away. 2 When the season came, he sent a slave to the tenants to collect from them his share of the produce of the vineyard. 3 But they seized him and beat him and sent him away empty-handed. 4 And again he sent another slave to them; this one they beat over the head and insulted. 5 Then he sent another, and that one they killed. And so it was with many others; some they beat, and others they killed. 6 He had still one other, a beloved son. Finally he sent him to them, saying, ‘They will respect my son.’ 7 But those tenants said to one another, ‘This is the heir; come, let us kill him, and the inheritance will be ours.’ 8 So they seized him, killed him, and threw him out of the vineyard. 9 What then will the owner of the vineyard do? He will come and destroy the tenants and give the vineyard to others

God, the owner of the vineyard, destroys the vineyard and gives the vineyard away. A strong case can be made that the temple is now inside believers in Mark and again, a judgment on the temple is a judgment on Israel.

6. Keep in mind all this material is lumped together along with Jesus being challenged repeatedly by people in the temple in a gospel largely written for Greek speaking Gentiles unfamiliar with Aramaic phrases and Jewish customs Mark must explain. That is a lot of Temple related material clustered together for that seemingly non-Jewish audience.

God’s judgment on the temple/Israel is in Mark as well. Luke just comes out and says it directly.

@RichardG

No, there is the option you refuse to see.

Jesus can and does perform exorcisms when they are needed. Jesus heals all illnesses when asked and within God’s purposes. But
The people of Bible times could not tell the difference between demonic possession and other ailments so they just claimed it all as demonic.
There is no deception by Jesus or Scripture. You just need to understand the context.

It’s not that I refuse to see them. It’s that you ignore what is written, don’t address details and pontificate on high.

You can argue people would say “Jesus, my son is possessed by a demon and Jesus would heal the individual.” You can claim people thought Jesus was healing demons when in fact he was just curing physical ailments.

But you repeatedly fail to read. The gospel of Mark clearly and unequivocally distinguished between physical healings and spirit possessions/ exorcisms. Clearly people at the time knew not all sickness was the result of a demon. Yes there seems to be a belief that sin leads to bad things but people at the time also had access to the book of Job. Do you think they were all dumb and misunderstood everything? If only they could aspire to your wisdom.

The details of scripture show Jesus having conversations with demons, who know his name, hometown and identity. He silences them and even distinguishes between types privately with his disciples. These are the problem. The details of scripture disagree and you always ignore them while just spitting out whatever random interpretation suits your fancy.

If you want to say those details in the Gospels were made up, just say so. That can end the discussion. But if Jesus is having fake conversations with demons, I’m calling deception. What would it even mean for some demons (just a physical disorder) to come out by prayer and others not?

@RichardG

Otherwise Jesus is behaving and teaching contrary to Job, which states unequivocally that illness and disease is not caused by sin or healed by forgiveness.

This has little to do with anything for me. And it’s been a while but you can tell me where is it denied that sin leads to sickness? Logically speaking, that not all sin leads to sickness does not imply that sin does not in some cases lead to sickness. You are using an account of a story with a wager between God and the devil where a man’s family is slaughtered (don’t worry, he is given even more property at the end) to argue sin never results in possession or physical problems? I think you are putting too much weight on one story.

His disciples asked him, “Rabbi, who sinned, this man or his parents, that he was born blind?” 3 “Neither this man nor his parents sinned,” said Jesus, “but this happened so that the works of God might be displayed in him.

I have often wondered about the meaning of the disciples question. How can the man’s sin lead to his blindness when he was born that way? At any rate, Jesus’s answer does not rule out that sin can lead to physical ailment. You are just not thinking logically or using proper reasoning. All physical ailments and mental problems are not the result of sin. I am not sure on what grounds you can go further than this. But I’m all eyes.

In some cases, bad things happen for our benefit and the glory of God. That’s per Jesus. The man was born blind not because of some random chance of evolutionary biology, but so that the works of God could be made manifest through him.