@FishPreferred
In Exodus 32, when only Moses could have been aware of the commandment against graven images and worship of things that aren't God, all of the people who prayed to the golden figurine are condemned, first by Moses and his chums who go on a horrible murder spree, then by God who casts a plague upon the survivors.
I believe that preferring worldly or material things over God is a sin. Actually, it's probably the root of all sin. By worshipping those images, they were actively telling God that they don't need or want Him. You don't need a commandment to understand that God deserved their upmost worship.
Leviticus 10 tells the story of two priests who lit their censers or an offering fire with incense and were set ablaze because the fire from the incense was strange in some unspecified way. Then Moses got around to setting down rules for priestly conduct.
Leviticus 10:1 ESV - "Now Nadab and Abihu, the sons of Aaron, each took his censer and put fire in it and laid incense on it and offered unauthorized fire before the Lord, which he had not commanded them."
They were told how to offer up sacrifices as priests or else that part of the verse would not have been added. Even if that part wasn't added, all you have to do is read the previous chapter. They had a whole ceremony that was led by Moses who was led by God. It is obvious that Nadab and Abihu acted out of turn based on how the story is written.
Numbers 11 involves people complaining about not having any meat to eat, and God burning more people alive until calmed by Moses. Then He gives them a supply of meat and immediately follows it up with a terrible plague. Why? I have no idea. It's never explained.
I'm curious about where you are getting your information from. Your answer is explicitly given in the exact same chapter. The Bible says that this is how God responded to his people's complaining:
Numbers 11:18-20 ESV - "...Therefore the Lord will give you meat, and you shall eat. You shall not just eat one day, or two days, or five days, or ten days, or twenty days, but a whole month, until it comes out at your nostrils and becomes loathsome to you, because you have rejected the Lord who is among you and have wept before him, saying, 'Why did we come out of Egypt?'"
The problem was not that they asked for meat to eat. The problem was that they were complaining about God's plan for them. They wanted to be back in Egypt where God didn't want them. Again, they were not seeking God for joy, but instead seeking worldly pleasures.
Side note: Eating and enjoying meat is not inherently evil. You can eat meat and not sin as long as it is part of God's plan for you. I think that goes for anything that gives pleasure.
Pretty much all of Numbers 16 is God killing people for complaining about His favoritism of Moses and Aaron, and then killing more people for complaining about Him killing so many people.
I'm pretty sure that all the signs that Moses and Aaron performed were evidence that God appointed them at those position. The people who complained wanted favor from God, but they disregarded God's sovereignty. They didn't act out of faith and previous knowledge of Moses and Aaron's works, but rather sought to carry out their own plans.
In 1 Samuel 6, 50000 people get massacred for looking into the ark of the covenant, which was never even in the rules, as far as I know.
Numbers 4:15 ESV - "...but they must not touch the holy things, lest they die..."
Like how are they gonna look into it without touching it. It's the same reason why no one but the high priest was able to enter the Most Holy Place in the temple.
Psalms and the book of Isaiah are filled with gruesome atrocities that God will supposedly inflict upon those who violate any laws of the covenant.
Those are rules that He does mention to his people.
Sure, if you exclude the rules against necromancy, communing with spirits, astral divination, disobeying the priesthood, and probably something else I'm forgetting.
Necromancy is the practice of communicating with the dead for answers of the future. Jesus used resurrection in order to give life to those who were dead.
When did Jesus commune with spirits, practice astral divination, or disobey the priesthood?
Commandments aren't made to be fulfilled; they're made to be held. Having somebody else follow all the rules doesn't mean they cease to apply to you.
I agree. I'm just saying that Jesus held the commandments perfectly making him the perfect sacrifice. The propitiation for our sins would not be true if Jesus wasn't offered up as a sacrifice.
1. Calling him Immanuel doesn't make his name Immanuel. You could call literally anyone Immanuel, and it would have the same evidential backing.
2. Who even calls him that? The only occasion where anyone would have a reason to is when they're specifically referencing that prophecy for apologetic reasons. In other words, your belief that he surely must fulfill the prophecy is your only grounds for believing that he fulfills this part of the prophecy.
You're right. What I said didn't really make sense. I think it's the meaning of the name that holds true today. It's not that people actually called Jesus Immanuel, but that Jesus is literally God with us.
No, Joseph was supposedly a descendant of David.
And Jesus was the adopted son of Joseph, just like how Christians are adopted sons and daughters of God.
What's more, we have it on no less authority than Jesus himself (at least according to both Matthew and Mark) that Christ is not a son [i.e. descendant] of David.
Matthew 1:1 ESV - "The book of the genealogy of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham."
The Bible claims that Jesus is the son of David in the very first verse of one of the books you mentioned. Also Jesus himself never denied that he is a son of David.
Here are times Jesus interacted with people who called him that or asked him if he is (from what I could find at least):
Matthew 9:27-28
Matthew 12:23-32
Matthew 15:21-28
Matthew 20:29-34
Matthew 21:14-16
Mark 10:46-52
Jesus allowed them to call him the Son of David because it was true. He never scolded them or anything.
The passage in question is probably Matthew 22:41-45 (also Mark 12:35-37). You can tell that Jesus is setting up the Pharisees for a lesson when he says in verse 42, "What do you think about the Christ? Whose son is he?" The Pharisees say David. He responds to the Pharisees, "If then David calls him Lord, how is he his son?" He is not denying that he is the Son of David, but rather letting them know that he is more than a descendent of David. He is David's Lord. At the end of this passage, the Pharisees shut up because they understand and agree with Jesus that when David is referring to his Lord, he is referring to Christ. The only thing that the Pharisees disagreed with is that Jesus was Christ.
His arrival wasn't heralded by swarms of insects covering the lands of Egypt and Assyria or any sudden proliferation of thorny plants.
I suppose you can take this as an interpretation to fit the prophecy, but I think Isaiah was using figurative language to describe the downfall of Judah.
All of this is from Isaiah 7, where Isaiah tells Ahaz (of the House of David) that he will behold this prophecy, in all it's weirdness, as a sign from God. This would necessitate that Ahaz is alive to behold it when it happens.
I don't think so. I think Isaiah was just telling Ahaz to behold the prophecy, not the events that were prophesied.
Not according to...
You're taking what I said out of context. I meant that God doesn't consider unnecessary factors like those things when He chooses to save someone. He obviously takes into account those factors when applying discipline, giving gifts, or anything like that.
In what sense? Can you think of any possible way for religious discrimination to result in impartiality?
I didn't say that that's the case all the time. I said that maybe putting someone in that family of a different religion or culture might be his way of electing them. If that makes sense? My point is that God may or may not save that person of a different religion. And by saving, I mean converting to Christianity.
No. If you define good as "whatever God says is good", then the term ceases to be useful. It's like defining yummy as "whatever your 3 year old child says is yummy" and using this to determine what you consider to be food. Dirt? Yummy. Soup? Not yummy. It doesn't work.
Not unless God is unchanging, is the creator of the world, and is the source of true happiness.
That's nothing more than an excuse to not think about the immorality of the biblical God, and you know it.
I disagree. "Your righteousness, O God, reaches the high heavens. You who have done great things, O God, who is like you?" Psalm 71:5. I'm basing what I said off what the Bible says.
You can't call a judge immoral for punishing a criminal according to the crimes they commit. You would call them just and fair.
We don't. That's why we have to think about our actions and their consequences before deciding what we should do, instead of blindly accepting that whatever is decreed by the highest authority is always a moral imperative.
What if the highest authority knows all consequences? What if God gives us these commands in order for us to have love, peace, and joy? All good things come from God. Bad things come from our worldly desires.
"Therefore thus says the Lord God: Because you have forgotten me and cast me behind your back, you yourself must bear the consequences of your lewdness and whoring" - Ezekiel 23:35.
"Discipline your son, and he will give you rest; he will give delight to your heart" - Proverbs 29:17.
"But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness," - Galatians 5:22.
In fact, read all of Proverbs. Ecclesiastes and Job are good books too, if you want to know how to live a good life.
Not really, no. You have to understand something to explain it. Otherwise, all you can give is a nonanswer.
Or you can experience something and build an understanding about that thing through that experience.
Genocides have resulted from people doing just that.
I didn't mean look to the Bible for verses that justify your actions or ideologies. You have to understand the Bible holistically.
The problem is that it is extremely easy to interpret in a variety of ways, most of which are horrible due to the nature of the old testament and the extremely antisemetic views of the early popes.
I don't believe in popes. It is up to individuals to read the Bible and consider all of it. Not just the Old Testament.
Then they cannot be deductive. Deductive reasoning is all about taking a general idea and considering what can be predicted from it. It is not about drawing conclusions from preexisting conclusions.
Agreed. My beliefs and knowledge of God do not come deductive reasoning.
Only according to your own beliefs, which are most certainly subjective.
Agreed.
Basically, it's getting to do whatever you want without having to deal with the consequences.
Oh, then I disagree that the gospel is a get out of jail card. Like you said, commandments are meant to be held.
Leviticus is very clear on the old testament's acceptance of slavery.
Leviticus 25:39-40 ESV - "If your brother becomes poor beside you and sells himself to you, you shall not make him serve as a slave: he shall be with you as a hired worker and as a sojourner. He shall serve with you until the year of jubilee."
Basically don't make slaves of God's people. Then in the same paragraph,
Leviticus 25:44-45 ESV - "As for your male and female slaves whom you may have: you may buy male and female slaves from among the nations that are around you. You may also buy from among the strangers who sojourn with you and their clans that are with you, who have been born in your land, and they may be your property."
God's people are allowed to make slaves of people of other nations. If God is good, then He will command his people to do good and will not command them to do evil. By allowing them to have slaves, it must mean that slavery is not inherently evil. I don't think it means that slavery is good. God doesn't command them to have slaves, He simply allows them. The Bible also outlines how to treat slaves. See Exodus 21. It's not like the slavery of the world.
Yeah, the thing about that; in the mediaeval period, the Vatican was concerned that average people with no formal education would misconstrue the words of the bible if they read it themselves. They were right, although I wouldn't say their interpretation was a whole lot better. Anyway, that's why they kept it in Latin for so long.
But there's no accountability if the common people can't read it. They might have had good intentions, but they had a huge misunderstanding of the word of God. It was meant for people to read and have a relationship with God.