A really good place to start is the PBS Nova presentation The Bible’s Buried Secrets with some of the best Bible scholars. Why bring up Finkelstein if he doesn’t believe in the conquest?
Biblical archaeologists would expect to find some evidence if such a violent conquest took place.
I think he missed a few things.
Whatever I say is merely a reflection of my own acquired beliefs, and not an intended slam on anyone else, even when I completely disagree. I am still learning and hope to do so for the remainder of my life. How anyone believes is ultimately between that person and God. We each have to work out our own salvation with Him.
That said, I believe that God is very much involved in His creation… in our lives. He created us in His image for a reason. He knows hearts and motives… so He knows when to intervene and when to leave things alone. And why He tells us that if we search for Him with our whole hearts we’ll find Him.
All through scripture I see God involved. He even says to trust Him many times in scripture, which means He is involved. Why trust Him in all my ways if He doesn’t care to be involved? The NT is also full of the talk of God’s love for us. How high and deep and wide it is. So I can’t imagine God creating us and then just sitting back watching us while twiddling His thumbs… without being involved in our lives… in the creation He says He dearly loves.
Love is active… not passive. He created us for relationship with Himself… which is demonstrated in the story of the prodigal son. I do get it however when some believe He is a hands-off kind of God… But, He is relational, so how can He not be? He is our Heavenly Father… which means He intervenes… in many ways.
Proverbs 3,:11-12 “My child, don’t reject the LORD’s discipline, and don’t be upset when he corrects you. For the LORD corrects those he loves, just as a father corrects a child in whom he delights.”
See also: Hebrews 12:5, Revelation 3:19, Acts 9:1-31, Acts 7:33+34, Psalm 86:5, Psalm 139…
Then, God’s ultimate intervention ►
1 Timothy 2 : 5-6 “For, there is one God and one Mediator who can reconcile God and humanity—the man Christ Jesus. He gave his life to purchase freedom for everyone. This is the message God gave to the world at just the right time.”
I didn’t say it wasn’t real. I said you are over-pressing the geography error to argue for non-historicity as if the author meant to portray flying pigs or marathon sprinting pigs. If the account is non-historical, geography has nothing to do with it. Mixing up place names in antiquity is not as big a deal as some people make it. Modern people with maps and GPS at their disposal can make more egregious mistakes. You mention Brown. Here is Adela Yarbro Collins in her Hermeneia commentary on Mark:
Some New Testament scholars have argued for a location outside Palestine as the place of composition because of the author’s alleged ignorance of Palestinian geography. The most problematic geographical reference occurs at the beginning of chap. 5, the story about the man possessed by a “legion” of demons: “And they came to the opposite shore of the sea, to the district of the Gerasenes.” The point from which they traveled is not specified, but the overall context suggests a place near Capernaum, on the northwest coast of the lake. The problem with the description of the point of arrival is that Gerasa is quite distant from the lake. Even if we assume that the evangelist is speaking of the countryside belonging to the city, and not of the city itself, the refer- ence is still problematic, since there were other major cities closer to the lake, which also had surrounding terri- tory, so the likelihood of the territory of Gerasa reaching o the coast of the lake at any time in the relevant period is very low.
The problem with this line of argumentation, however, is the assumption that anyone living near a region would be precisely informed about its geography. Such an assumption is dubious. Modern New Testament exegetes with scholarly maps and atlases are better informed about the geography of the ancient world than many of its inhabitants were. Lack of knowledge of even relatively nearby regions would be likely if the author had not actually visited them in person. Even modern Americans are ignorant of parts of our country, including some that are quite nearby!14
I can quote a host of critical, non-conservative and conservative scholars all saying the same thing. Too much has been made of geography mistakes in Mark in the past.
I said the children are in heaven. You said the Bible doesn’t say that. What you meant to say is the specific account in question does not narrate that but that is a non sequitur. For as Christians we clearly believe in heaven and innocents who die have an afterlife. I am not sure why you bothered pushing back on that at all.
I am not an Iron-age Israelite reading this story. I have the full picture of scripture and I read it all in light of that canonical dimension. Many ancient authors didn’t believe in heaven. That doesn’t matter to me. I don’t think the text only means what some ancient Israelite would have taken it as. That is not my hermeneutic. I can assess the situation with more information and a fuller picture of God (exactly the same type of argument some are trying to use to justify dismissing the story). As @knor wrote:
We should also remember that God is not committed to our current ethical guidelines. He knows all the details and the future consequences of acts, and He may conclude that the path of least evil is to end the life of some people. Our perspective is limited to our current life, God views things relative to the eternity. What happens after a thousand years may not seem important for an individual living now but it matters for the future generations and even the person her/himself if we assume that there is a resurrection.
Correct. Which is how God wants it and why He made us in the first place. But as the story goes, sin led to the destruction of the people. God could prevent collateral damage if He so chose to. He could also prevent natural deaths in a flood or hurricane. He does not. God has commanded the destruction of sinful people in the Bible and aside from Genesis 18, there is a lot of collateral damage (flood, plagues, etc.). I have repeatedly attempted to demonstrate, this is a reality in the words of our Lord and Savior. I am sure God’s perfect will was not to bring judgment against His temple and His own people and have them slaughtered, tortured and deposed or sold as slaves. But according to Jesus as the Gospels narrate it, that is what happened. You might not like it and neither do I, but as a Christian I can only defer to what I think my Lord and Savior teaches. Once I start correcting Jesus on major doctrinal issues, I feel I am no longer a Christian.
This is a major paradigm shifting dimension of that relationship, yet it doesn’t cancel out the sense in which we were made to glorify God
I really don’t believe in that. A god who creates for such a reason is not one I can admire or believe in. For me that would go in the category descriptions of god is sounding more like the devil and thus more motivated by people using the idea/rhetoric of god for their own ends.
I believe God created for a parental relationship. That is a God I can believe in. I think it also give a good answer to theodicy and the problem of evil.
Otherwise I would be tempted to say that our pride, arrogance, and evil is a natural consequence of the pride and evil found in the creator, and what we need is not a reunion with such a god but a graduation from having anything to do with it.
I can only find one passage which says we were created for God’s glory.
6 I will say to the north, Give up,
and to the south, Do not withhold;
bring wmy sons from afar
and wmy daughters from the end of the earth,
7 everyone who is called by my name,
whom I created for my glory,
whom I formed and made.”
Maybe I am missing a bunch of others but the rest seem to tell us to glorify God and live so his glory increases which is different. But insofar as Isaiah 48:9-11 reflects God’s voice, He seems concerned with his Glory. Col 1:16 is probable relevant.
Maybe being created in God’s image means we bear his glory. We are the representatives of it. So I don’t see that as excluding a parental relationship. We do know that Jesus also came as a servant.
Romans 11:36 is one of the Scripture proofs for Westminster’s chief end of man. I especially like what Piper did with it, “the chief end of man is to glorify God by enjoying him forever.”
Quoting the Bible at me changes nothing. Either I interpret the passages differently or I discard the Bible (as most frankly seem to do one way or another).
So… what do I do with these passages?
Isaiah: This is about the creation of Israel and those called out for something, not about the creation of the earth and universe. In that case doing things to call attention to Himself may serve a higher purpose in the redemption of mankind. The point being that God does not elect people for their own sake or because they are better but because this serves some other purpose and I think this agrees with the rest of the Bible much better than the idea that this about why God created in the beginning.
Col 1:16 is about Jesus and I don’t see the relevance.
Romans 11:36 is not about this either.
“For my name’s sake I defer my anger, for the sake of my praise I restrain it for you, that I may not cut you off. Behold, I have refined you, but not as silver; I have tried you in the furnace of affliction. For my own sake, for my own sake, I do it, for how should my name be profaned? My glory I will not give to another.”
Isaiah 48:9-11
It is a real consideration. If somebody claims that Rhode Island is bigger than Texas that would make me wonder.
It’s a grisly story about God ordering a slaughter of the innocents. Do you think the babies will have questions about this in the next life? Or will they be like children who were kidnapped at a very young age, and never told the truth? I’m happy that that this never happened.
Only if we choose to ignore history.
This is how we convince people to do terrible things. God solves problems this way, why shouldn’t we?
What major doctrinal issues are we talking about here?
Question: If you met a man today who sincerely believes that God wants him to murder a whole family with a sword, how would you handle it? Could this really be from God?
The real question is whether, just because it is deemed Scripture, did God make those commands? Can we dare say no?
Such is the power of Scripture. But whose power is it?
Richard
What is interesting is that God dealing with evil is judged so heavily by some and seems to be the focus … instead of children suffering excruciatingly. As tho it is better that they live even tho they are suffering in agony… and even dying slowly while in agony… in a situation where there is no other way out… then it is to be taken by God, where there is no more pain. It absolutely boggles me.
However, I believe that we don’t see death the way God does, which is completely understandable… because we don’t know what it will be like. So to us death is completely bad. Even those who know Christ, still don’t know what it will be like exactly… It is scary to most.
So, I do believe God, after many yrs of warnings, has wiped out barbaric societies… societies where the evil was not just practiced by some… so their venom would not spread. So children do not have to endure the most heinous suffering. Even today we war against countries who are hurting their own people, and those around them, to such an extent that we decide to take action. And war unfortunately always involves death, because of the kind of world we live in. These… done by both God and even human armies… are not done willy-nilly or without great thought, and after much patience, warnings and negotiations… because they know that any innocents will be affected too.
What is the alternative? If you were God how would you handle such things exactly? Maybe the alternative would be to snap His fingers like a genie and make them magically good. Or two, to take away their ability to choose… and make them more like robots or puppets than human beings… which would mean going against people freely choosing. Freely choosing to turn to Him and serve good, or at least go about their business and be a good citizen… or do the very opposite and serve evil and face the consequences of their evil actions. Doing good propagates doing good. It spreads. So does evil. It spreads too… but, will and should come with heavy consequences.
I am against capital punishment. In fact my late husband wrote a book about it. As he was a broadcast journalist who, in his career covered, on site, 185 executions. I am not against capital punishment because it can be useful in helping to eliminate evil. The only reason I am against it is because humans are limited in what we can see. We cannot see hearts. We cannot see absolutely everything that happened. We cannot be everywhere. So deciding that someone dies based on our very limited perspectives is why I am against it. But God can see everything. Which is why He can, and has the right, to be the judge of even an entire group of people.
I’d be willing to bet quite a few students in my high school would not know the answer to that question and Rhode Island is one state over.
Mary Healy Baker Academic Commentary
The territory ofthe Gerasenes, on the east side ofthe Sea ofGalilee,I would have been an eerie place even in daylight. To this day numerous caves dot the shoreline, many ofwhich were used to bury the dead. Then as now, tombs were popularly regarded as a favorite haunt of demons. The lifestyle and customs of this Gentile region would have seemed alien to Jews, since the inhabitants did not observe the Jewish moral or dietary laws. Indeed, this particular vicinity would be viewed as doubly unclean, containing as it did both tombs (see Num 5:2) and pigs (see Lev 11:7). As Jesus steps ashore, he is immediately challenged by the demonic powers that seem to hold sway in the area, as if they are jealous of their territorial rights.
- The exact location of this site is unknown, since the city of Gerasa (modern Jerash) is actually some thirty miles southeast of the lake. A few ancient manuscripts have “Gadarenes” instead of “Gerasenes” (in accord with Matt 8:28), but Gadara is about five miles from the shore, with no steep cliffs nearby. Other manuscripts attempt to resolve the problem by substituting "Gergesenes;’ a site nearer the lake. Most likely Mark had in mind a general area between Gerasa and the lake.
Mark Stein: Baker Exegetical
The textual problems associated with the geographical location are well known. Along with Γερασηνῶν (Gerasēnōn), or “Gerasenes” ()* B D it vg copsa), we also have Γαδαρηνῶν (Gadarēnōn), or “Gadarenes” (A C K f13 syr p, h), and Γεργεσηνῶν (Gergesēnōn), or “Gergesenes” ()c L Δ Θ f1 copbo). Gerasa (modern Jerash) was a city of the Decapolis (see 5:20) located thirty-seven miles southeast of the Sea of Galilee. Gadara (modern Um Qeis) was also a city of the Decapolis about five miles southeast of the Sea of Galilee that “lay on the frontiers of Tiberias” (Josephus, Life 9 §42). Ancient coins bearing the name of Gadara often portray a ship, indicating that its territory was seen as bordering the Sea of Galilee (Metzger 1994: 19). Although the textual evidence favors “Gerasenes,” Metzger (1994: 72) gives this only a “C” rating, indicating considerable doubt as to whether this is the correct reading. The Matthean parallel (8:28) favors “Gadarenes,” but this also receives only a “C” rating (Metzger 1994: 18). The Lukan parallel (8:26) favors “Gerasenes,” but this reading likewise receives only a “C” rating (Metzger 1994: 121). The confusion of the textual evidence is compounded by geographical consider- ations. Gerasa, favored in Mark and Luke, but barely, requires too long a run (35+ miles) for pigs to the Sea of Galilee. Consequently, some suggest that the “territory of the Gerasenes” functions as a loose term for the whole of the Decapolis (France 2002: 227) or that the territory of Gerasa extended to the Sea of Galilee (J. Edwards 2002: 153). The territory of Gadara is favored in Matt. 8:28 but possesses the same kind of uncertainty as Gerasa does in Mark and Luke. This region can be understood as bordering the Sea of Galilee, but it possesses no steep banks/cliffs (5:13). Gergesa (El Kursi), identified as the site by Origen (Commentary on John, chap. 27), fits the geographical descrip- tion best, for it is located near a steep bank on the eastern side of the Sea of Galilee (J. McRay, ABD 2:991–92; cf. J. Edwards 2002: 153–54), but it has the least textual support.
IIf, for geographical reasons, we choose Gergesa as the original city designa- tion (Gundry 1993: 256–57), how do we explain its weak textual attestation? Did someone change its relatively unknown name for the name of the better- known Gerasa? Was “Gerasenes” added by an early copyist unfamiliar with the geographical area, or by an “ignorant” Mark, to a text that originally had no city designation? Was “Gerasenes” part of the early form of the tradition, and an ignorant redactor later added the references to the sea and the drowning of the pigs? All such suggestions are highly speculative and not without their own problems. It is probably best to interpret the present form of the story using thedesignation “Gerasa” for the city and territory. Apart from the geographical problem, the meaning of the Markan text is clear, but the historical evaluation of the actual site, which is dependent on the original textual designation of Mark, is best held in abeyance due to the textual confusion.
Cranfield (Cambridge Greek Commentary (dated)
The most likely explanation seems to be that Mark wrote ‘Gerasenes’ with reference to a town by the lake (whose name may be preserved in the modern Kersa or Koursi on the eastern shore), but that early readers mistook this for a reference to the well-known Gerasa. Since this Gerasa was some thirty miles from the lake, it was natural that improvements should be attempted: hence the variants. Gadara was a not unreasonable guess, but, being six miles from the shores of the lake, is hardly likely (though it was near enough for the land between it and the lake to be called ‘the country of the Gadarenes’). Origen was right in seeking a site by the lake but wrong in connecting it with the Girgashites mentioned in the O.T. At Kersa the shore is level, but about a mile further south there is a fairly steep slope within about forty yards of the shore.(SeefurtherLagrange,pp.132-6;Dalman,S.S.W.
Bock: New Cambridge Commentary
Jesus crosses the Sea successfully, having calmed the storm (v 1). He ends up in the region of Geresene. There is a complex textual issue here about the location that also shows itself in the parallels in Matthew and Luke. Geresene is the best attested in terms of external evidence (א*, B, D). Luke 8:26 reads like Mark. Gadarene is the best-attested reading for Matthew 8:28. These are overlapping regional references. Geresene is Geresa, which is the major city of the Decapolis, but is about 37 miles from any water.198 Gadarene refers to a location closer to water (A, C, M ), some 6 miles removed. Gergesa, yet a third option (2א, L) is located on the eastern edge of the Sea. These are references to a region or territory versus a specific location. It may well be the best known general location has been noted. The similarity in the spelling and the proximate locales by those who knew the geography has led to the textual confusion. Mark likely had Geresene as original.199 The important observation is that this is predominantly Gentile territory, as the prominence of pigs in the scene shows, although it also had much contact with Judaism.
William Lane : New International
“6 The problem of text and identification are well known. It is clear that Mark wrote r EpaorjvC)v (supported by B x* D latt sa Eus), apparently with reference to a town by the lake whose name may be preserved in the modern Kersa or Koursi on the eastern shore. Early readers of the Gospel found in this a reference to the well-known city of Gerasa, which unfortunately was located some thirty miles to the southeast of the lake. The strange variant “Gadara,” supported by Mt. 8:28 and in Mark by C S A p 543 pm syP, h, may have arisen through a confusion between the place and the toparchy, for Gadara was the capital of a toparchy. The incident could have taken place at a suitable locality within the territory of the toparchy but remote from the town, so that in the tradition the name of the toparchic capital replaced that of the particular village concerned, according to A. N. Sherwin-White, Roman Society and Roman Law in the New Testament (Oxford, 1963), p. 128 n. 3. Origen, in his commentary on John (In loan. vi. 41), pointed out the difficulties in both the “readings Gerasa (as commonly understood) and Gadara (the latter being six miles from the shore of the lake) and suggested that a more appropriate site would be Gergesa, near the lake, associated with the OT Girgashites. His reading IEpyEoTlv3v has left its mark on
x corr L A A X 28 33 565 579 700 892 1071 Epiph, most of which are associated
with the Caesarean tradition.
Mary Ann Beavis, Paideia
This spectacular demonstration of divine power is followed by the lengthy, vivid, and rather convoluted story (5:1–20) of Jesus’s confrontation with a demon-possessed man on the other side of the Sea of Galilee, in the region of the Gerasenes (5:1). Gerasa (modern-day Jerash in Jordan) was a prosperous hellenized city more than thirty miles from the coast, making it an unlikely location for the stampede of pigs into the lake described in 5:13. This is probably why some ancient manuscripts locate the story in Gergesa, on the eastern shore; Matt. 8:28 places it in Gadara, about five miles southeast of the lake. For Mark, the significance of the place is not the precise location of the town, but that Jesus’s mission has now spread to gentile territory, since Gerasa was one of the cities of the Decapolis (5:20), distinguished by political, social, cultural, and religious affinities with Greco-Roman culture (Mare 2000, 334). On reaching foreign soil, Jesus’s first act is an exorcism, paralleling his first public act in Galilee (1:21–28).
Edwards, Pillar Commentary
1 Mark locates the exorcism and healing of the demoniac in “the region of the Gerasenes.” The place name is puzzling because the city of Gerasa (modern Jerash) lay not on the eastern shore of the Sea of Galilee but thirty–seven miles inland to the southeast. A two–day commute by foot between Gerasa and the Sea where our episode takes place is obviously out of the question. Skeptics have made sport of the pigs running the great distance from Gerasa (or even from Gadara, according to Matt 8:28, five miles to the southeast) across steep ravines and wadis before plunging into the lake.
If “the region of the Gerasenes” is the original reading in v. 1, then Mark may mean the region associated with Gerasa, which may have extended to the Sea of Galilee, rather than the city itself. But “Gerasenes” is not a certain reading. The name of the location in v. 1 appears in different manuscripts as “Gerasa,” “Gadara,” or “Gergesa.”13 None of the three locations is clearly superior to the other two in terms of textual support.14 As we have noted, both Gerasa and Gadara lay too far inland to be suitable sites for the story. We cannot say for certain, but a town named Gergesa apparently existed on the northeast shore of the lake. Both Origen (Comm. on John 6:41, chap. 24) and Eusebius (Onomasticon 64.1) identified the swine miracle with a town named Gergesa on the eastern side of the lake. Moreover, a midrash to Song of Songs (Zuta 1:4) mentions a form of the name in the following reference, “the graves of Gog and Magog will be open from south of the Kidron Valley to Gergeshta on the eastern side of
Lake Tiberias.” Although the Zuta midrash is late, this particular saying is ascribed to Rabbi Nehemiah, an acclaimed disciple of Akiba in the second century A.D. This quotation preserves an independent tradition a century earlier than Origen and two centuries before Eusebius that a town named Gergesa (or Gergeshta) existed along the northeast shore of the lake. In 1970 a bulldozer cutting a road along the eastern shore of the lake unearthed the remains of an ancient town immediately south of Wadi Samak in the Valley of Kursi (“Gersa” or “Gursa,” as known in local dialect). The location of the town and the similarity in the place names suggest an identification of Kursi with Gergesa. By the early third century both archaeology and church tradition locate the swine miracle at this site. The date is important, for pre–Byzantine site identifications are generally more trustworthy than those that stem from the Byzantine period. Although the foregoing evidence is not conclusive, it is both respectable and reasonable. The “Gerasa” of Mark 5:1 was probably Kursi/Gergesa, which lay within the administrative district of Hippos, one of the major cities of the Decapolis situated on the commanding promontory to the south overlooking the Sea of Galilee.15
Donahue, Sacra Pagina
“in the territory of the Gerasenes: Both textually and in terms of understanding the location this is one of the most disputed phrases in Mark. Matthew (8:28) reads “Gadarenes,” as do some good ancient manuscripts of Mark, while Luke (8:26) reads “Gerasenes” but with the clarification “which is opposite Galilee.” Some other ancient manuscripts read “Gergesenes.” The real problem is correlating the suggested sites with the narrative. Gerasa, modern Jerash, was a leading city of the Decapolis, which is consistent with 5:20, but it is located roughly thirty-seven miles southeast of the sea—an extraordinary run even for demon-possessed swine. Gadara, proposed by Matthew, is five miles from the sea, but with no steep cliffs nearby. Since this story was most likely altered in transmission (see the Interpretation), one solution may simply be that the evangelist, who elsewhere lacks precise knowledge of Palestinian geography, found Gerasa in his tradition and left it. Mark locates other events in Gentile territory in relation to a significant large city (see 7:24, “the vicinity of Tyre”). Finally, much of the debate is based on a misguided understanding that Mark’s realism reflects Petrine memoirs or actual events. His[…]”
Gundry
In v 1 the v.1. “Gadarenes” (A C 1’3 Majority Text syp,h) is probably due to parallel influence from Matt 8:28. But to decide between “Gerasenes” (l’\ * B D latt sa) and “Ger- - gasenes” (l’\ 2 L /:::,. E> I’ 28 33 565 700 892 1241 1424 al sys bo) is much more difficult. The argument of T. Baarda (in Neotestamentica et Semitica 181-88) that “Gergasenes” arose out of a conjecture by Origen deserves respect (cf. M.-J. Lagrange in RB 4 [1895] 512-22), but itself depends on a conjecture that the similar but differently spelled OT “Girgashites” influenced Origen (Joh. 6 §§208-11). The possibility remains that Origen was working with earlier tradition (cf. F. G. Lang [in ZDPV 94 (1978) 145-46, n. 4], who posits an original “Gergasenes,” changed in the West to the better known “Gerasenes,” which was then “cor- rected” in the East to “Gadarenes”; contrast W. M. Christie [Palestine Calling 78], who accepts "Gerasenes’; as original but regards it as a contraction of “Gergasenes”).
The present commentary rests hesitantly on the v.l. ;‘Gergasenes." In v 14 the definite article with “city” most naturally refers back to the city implied in v 1. But Gerasa lies about thirty miles southeast of the nearest point on the southeastern shore of the Sea of Galilee (and even Gadara lies about five miles southeast), i.e. too far away for the city folks’ arrival at lakeside an apparently very short while after Jesus performed the exorcism there. Yet modem Kursi, which is associable with ancient Gergasa (N.B. the consonantal similarity in that both begin with a gutteral, proceed with I, and tail off with s), has a location on the east shore of the lake. Not far away, a steep slope such as the story refers to leads down toward the lake (though it does not drop off into it - but Mark does not say that the pigs fell from a cliff directly into the sea; cf. G. Dalman, SSW 176-79). And recent excavations have uncovered at least one nearby cave, which could have been used for a tomb as caves often were (Mark does not describe the tombs as cut out of rock [contrast 15:46]), and a fifth century church quite possibly commemorating the occurrence there of the exorcism (D. Urman in CNI22 [1971] 176-77; J.-B. Livio in BTS 152 [1973] 6-16; V. Tsaferis in IE! 22 [1972] 276-77; cf. W. M. Christie [Palestine Calling 79-80], who reports having found in 1893 both a number of ancient caves evidently used as tombs and also a modem bedouin cemetery in front of the caves, which were subsequently obliterated by the falling in of part of the hillside - though M.-J. Lagrange [in RB 4 (1895) 519-20] denies any evidence of burials). It is easier to believe that Mark or, more likely, a pre-Marcan traditioner knew the topography and correctly mentioned the Gergasenes than that later scribes, scattered about the Roman Empire, knew the topography and corrected a false mention of the Gerasenes by Mark, or even that Origen first corrected it and influenced others to do so.
Unless you are perusing fundamentalist atheist sites, the geography problem in Mark has little to do with the accounts potential historicity. Some people think, based on the details it is a transfer story or two combined stories in one. Those arguments are largely independent of the geography issue though it can play a role if a story from one region was conflated with a story from another. That still requires detailed internal examination and does not rest on geography.
I think heaven will be radically different and a place without these issues. Rev 21: "Look! God’s dwelling place is now among the people, and he will dwell with them. They will be his people, and God himself will be with them and be their God. 4 ‘He will wipe every tear from their eyes. There will be no more death’[b] or mourning or crying or pain,for the old order of things has passed away.” I think you are just grasping at straws here.
Either God commanded this or not. If he did and people use it to justify their personal warmongering and sins then that is irrelevant to the issue under consideration. You are engaging in fallacious thinking. People can abuse God’s commands and use the Bible to do things God doesn’t want. Okay. What is your actual argument? Either God commanded this or not. If he did and people later use it to justify their personal warmongering and sins then that is irrelevant to the issue under consideration. God gave us other commands as well.
I could use thinking like this. Nature solves lot of “problems” this way as well. It is very violent. “Rape” in the animal kingdom is pretty prevalent. Why shouldn’t we think it’s okay? Evolution is how God chose to make life after all. Isn’t this how things are done? These types of arguments you are making reek of desperation and can be used to argue all sorts of silly things. They are non sequiturs.
I would report the man to the authorities. His views are not my scared scripture or a part of inspired salvation history. This is another red herring.
The temple as I pointed out over and over in this thread. Then there is the flood as I noted to you, S&G and those not so nice parables by Jesus everyone seems to conveniently forget about I posted above. Our Lord and Savior has no issue with God casting violent judgment on sinful nations. Sometimes there is collateral damage. Who am I to tell Jesus he is wrong? This doesn’t mean God historically ordered there annihilation of the Canaanites but pretending this is inconsistent with God’s image in the NT is false. Jesus attributes the same type of divine violence to God’s judgment. This may be a very harsh to some, but it is a Christian reality. Our action sin life have real consequences that impact our families, friends and innocents.
The real question, which you ignore time and time again, is whether or not the words of Jesus are accurately reported and represent a correct view of God. If you ever want to move beyond generalizations and platitudes and dig into actual details, I’ll be here.
Vinnie
Setting yourself up as supreme authority are you? (join the club. I do not wish to be a member)
That is a question that can only be answered by belief. It is not as if there were paparazzi following Jesus around and noting every word said. The Gospels are memories. The precise wording is unlikely to be accurate but the gist will be correct. Of course, if you think that all Scripture is dictated… Hmm.
So when people try and eek out doctrine from specific wording…
That is not what Scripture is.
Richard
No. That is Jesus. I am attempting to understand Him.
The gist of Mark 11-13 is quite clear. If that gist represents the voice of Jesus then what I have argued is correct. In fact, it is contingent upon it as I have mentioned many times. The same idea of accepting the violent judgment by God and even participating in it is found in what the Gospels attribute to Jesus as well.
What is scripture in your view? And what specifically do you make of the material that goes back to Jesus in so far as we can know it?
Vinnie
That is a deceptively simple question which does not have a simple answer.
It is easier to say what Scripture is not. But Scripture is not all the same. You cannot lump Song of Songs with the Gospels and expect to get a sensible answer.
Are you talking of Scripture that reports about Jesus specifically? Or written by people who knew or followed Him?
For certain, Scripture is not word perfect enough to be used like most people on this forum try to.
Even if the original text was perfect, the words “lost in translation” come into play… However, the number of people who think the original text was perfect are in the minority. (and I am not one of them)
Richard
Agreed. I opt for window to God. Something God uses to mediate the Sacred. That requires 1000 pages of unpacking with lots of examples of course.
Exactly true and that makes it easy for liberals like myself to ignore parts of scripture while accepting others that tell us what we want to hear. For example, some people think the God of the OT is much more violent than the God of the NT. You advocated that view in here. I have been guilty of it in the past and probably on here. I called you out on it. A closer look actually reveals the continuity is far more extensive than any discontinuity and many of us have simply forgotten about many of Jesus’s more violent materials and selectively focus on the congenial material in the Gospels.
I actually think most people on this forum have a highly liberal view of scripture. I just think it is probably inconsistently applied and I include myself in that. I think Scripture is good enough to serve God’s intended purpose. Being perfect has nothing to do with anything.
I have been talking primarily about the synoptic gospel material that reports about Jesus specifically. I firmly believe Jesus was God incarnate. He js my lord and Savior so regardless of what I think of the inspiration of the entire Bible, if I think Jesus said something or the material in say Mark 11-13 represents the voice of Jesus, then I am bound to follow my Lord and Savior. God left us four gospels to learn about Jesus. The gospels are the most essential canon within the canon to me–for all their problems.
That is all I have been saying. Jesus repeatedly comes across in the synoptic Gospels in a host of ways, one of which is fully accepting God is capable of divine judgment that causes suffering and death even to innocent people caught in the crossfire. In fact, the entire thrust of Mark 11-13, as verified by Luke’s addition to Mark’s text shows exactly this.
So if you know Jesus said something, do you consider that Gospel? Or do you feel it’s okay to reject teachings by Jesus if you disagree with them?
Again it is not that simple. In John 14 Jesus admits to not speaking plainly. Then there is the writer’s viewpoint. People often hear what they need rather than what is actually said. Each of the Synoptic Gospels has a purpose in mind and quotes Jesus in that light. The disciples were convinced that Jesus would return within their earthly lifetime. How much of that is reflected in the material; they used is anyone’s guess.
As far as I am concerned His return marks the end of the world as we know it. The consequences of that will involve changes that we may consider violent and cruel.
I am sorry but i have been called for dinner. i will get back to you
Richard
Since that is just a matter of arbitrary lines drawn by someone on a map. Things like that can change over time. We ARE talking about ancient texts about times extending into prehistory.
Even geographical feature change over time, not to mention the arbitrary human names for such things. Something contrary to the laws of nature on the other hand is another matter. Nothing supports the idea of the laws of nature changing over time – and I will not believe in a God who changes them by magic just to prop up someone’s anti-science interpretation of the Bible.
“Let your conversation be always full of grace, seasoned with salt, so that you may know how to answer everyone.” -Colossians 4:6
This is a place for gracious dialogue about science and faith. Please read our FAQ/Guidelines before posting.