# Deuteronomy



## Kapsha (Jun 23, 2012)

Deuteronomy 21:18-23...

Thoughts?


----------



## hobbs27 (Jun 23, 2012)

It sounds to me that if the Jews of that time had a fat stubborn kid that wouldn't stop drinking after His parents had exhausted themselves beating him for it that He left them no choice but to turn him over to the elders to have him stoned to death.
 And once he is stoned to death he is to be buried, not allowed to be hung in public for all to see.


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Jun 23, 2012)

That is a good example of "extreme" verses found in the OT. We see directions to divorce a woman if she does not please the husband, we see God saying if David's wives were not enough, he would have given him more, we see God directing his chosen to kill women and children. We see God directing slavery. etc, etc. This was an early church problem. A man named Marcion could not believe that this was the same God of the NT. So he derived that the NT God must have defeated the OT God. He had a growing following until later snuffed out. You got to admit even if you don't agree, that something changed. The OT portrayed God as a God with a big stick, ready to wack everyone on the head. It has been said that with a God like that, why fear the devil. Fear of God was used as a tool by the religious leaders to manipulate the people. Everything was a misrepresentation of God. Much of the OT is a misrepresentation of God. Take Solomon, just as the victors always write history, Solomon wrote his own Bio. Yet he was a ruthless oppressor of the people that he was supposed to shepherd. Every leader with the some temporary exceptions, instead of serving/ shepherding the people, had the people serve themselves. They made themselves as gods. But Jesus, did not try to rob equality with God as Eve had done, did not attempt to use his status to milk all he could from this world, but made himself nothing, taking the role of a servant. With this God was pleased. Gave him a name above all others, raised him from the dead, restored him to what Adam lost. In the beginning, God made man in his image, yet Adam failed to represent that image. But Jesus did so. If Adam had not failed, he would have been "the image of the invisiable God". He would would have been "the exact representation of his being". But he failed. Jesus, pleasing God by serving the people's ultimate need, has been restored to what Adam lost. Sadly, we have gone right back where mankind came from. Religion is once again a misrepresentation of God, and now Jesus also.


----------



## Kapsha (Jun 23, 2012)

hobbs27 said:


> It sounds to me that if the Jews of that time had a fat stubborn kid that wouldn't stop drinking after His parents had exhausted themselves beating him for it that He left them no choice but to turn him over to the elders to have him stoned to death.
> And once he is stoned to death he is to be buried, not allowed to be hung in public for all to see.



Where do you think that law came from?


----------



## Kapsha (Jun 23, 2012)

1gr8bldr said:


> That is a good example of "extreme" verses found in the OT. We see directions to divorce a woman if she does not please the husband, we see God saying if David's wives were not enough, he would have given him more, we see God directing his chosen to kill women and children. We see God directing slavery. etc, etc. This was an early church problem. A man named Marcion could not believe that this was the same God of the NT. So he derived that the NT God must have defeated the OT God. He had a growing following until later snuffed out. You got to admit even if you don't agree, that something changed. The OT portrayed God as a God with a big stick, ready to wack everyone on the head. It has been said that with a God like that, why fear the devil. Fear of God was used as a tool by the religious leaders to manipulate the people. Everything was a misrepresentation of God. Much of the OT is a misrepresentation of God. Take Solomon, just as the victors always write history, Solomon wrote his own Bio. Yet he was a ruthless oppressor of the people that he was supposed to shepherd. Every leader with the some temporary exceptions, instead of serving/ shepherding the people, had the people serve themselves. They made themselves as gods. But Jesus, did not try to rob equality with God as Eve had done, did not attempt to use his status to milk all he could from this world, but made himself nothing, taking the role of a servant. With this God was pleased. Gave him a name above all others, raised him from the dead, restored him to what Adam lost. In the beginning, God made man in his image, yet Adam failed to represent that image. But Jesus did so. If Adam had not failed, he would have been "the image of the invisiable God". He would would have been "the exact representation of his being". But he failed. Jesus, pleasing God by serving the people's ultimate need, has been restored to what Adam lost. Sadly, we have gone right back where mankind came from. Religion is once again a misrepresentation of God, and now Jesus also.



I concur. The God of the Old Testament sounds a lot different than the God of the New Testament. 

There are MANY passages in the OT that I find, well rather disturbing to say the least. 

When do you think man stopped abiding by those rules? Or do you think he ever did?


----------



## Artfuldodger (Jun 23, 2012)

With all those Old Testament rules that man was suppose to follow, God had to be strict to enforce them. With the coming of the New Covenant, there are no rules or are there?


----------



## rockman7 (Jun 23, 2012)

i keep this in mind. from adam till basically now man was and is guilty and deserves to die. we(mankind) have repeatedly disobeyed Him time and time again.  His creation has mocked the creator and we think He does some bad things?!?!?

this law like others were instituted to keep rebellion downand unite a people who, altho had just inherited a land, were surrounded by enemies on every front.Gods laws(such as reaping and sowing)were in operation and unchangeable. He even went so far as to basically spell it out for israel by saying "i put before you blessings and cursings.....choose".the blessings were as great as the bad was bad and we think He's heartless?and i do believe He had to keep things in check, or to not let us screw it up so bad that His plan was not possible to implement(He needed pure hebrew stock for His mesiah to go thru according to His promise)

one difference i do see between the nt and the ot was a tiny thing called grace .and i don't hold with the thought that God "knows" everything. at least the way most of us think. i believe God may have "known" His Son would be born, die,ect.. but in the same way only a woman truly knows what childbirth is, only a father knows what its like to see his son shoot his first deer, God didn't "know" what it was like to see His son travel from birth to the cross.until Jesus was tempted in all points like us God certainly never knew what sin was like. God never changes but after this His relationship with man certainly did(until Jesus arrived only one priest was allowed into the holy of holies...now we can all go).but then that was His plan all along!


----------



## Kapsha (Jun 23, 2012)

So you think God made a law for people to kill their own kids to make sure people would stay united?


----------



## hobbs27 (Jun 23, 2012)

Kapsha said:


> Where do you think that law came from?



The Lord God Almighty.


----------



## Kapsha (Jun 23, 2012)

hobbs27 said:


> The Lord God Almighty.



You believe God told people to kill their kids?


----------



## Kapsha (Jun 23, 2012)

Artfuldodger said:


> With all those Old Testament rules that man was suppose to follow, God had to be strict to enforce them. With the coming of the New Covenant, there are no rules or are there?



I listed them in another thread I started under Deuteronomy.


----------



## hobbs27 (Jun 23, 2012)

Kapsha said:


> You believe God told people to kill their kids?



Sure. Remember the story with Abraham?


----------



## Kapsha (Jun 23, 2012)

hobbs27 said:


> Sure. Remember the story with Abraham?



Sure I do. I am well aware of many passages in the Old Testament that speak of God in a very disturbing light.


----------



## rockman7 (Jun 23, 2012)

Kapsha said:


> So you think God made a law for people to kill their own kids to make sure people would stay united?



yes...He made a law. yes..... in the military if you don't follow orders(especially in war) you get shot. is mans law any different?i can only guess but i'd say man himself has killed way more children than God ever has.also notice.... it was the parents who initiated the law, not God.i'm sure lots of parents never choose this route. but i've noticed your questions seems to be questioning God, or at least the validity of His word. seems your asking the wrong guys in that case.


----------



## hobbs27 (Jun 23, 2012)

Kapsha said:


> Sure I do. I am well aware of many passages in the Old Testament that speak of God in a very disturbing light.



Then you remember that Abraham didn't have to go through with it. Any evidence that a parent ever turned their son over to the elders to be stoned?


----------



## Artfuldodger (Jun 23, 2012)

Kapsha said:


> I listed them in another thread I started under Deuteronomy.



So in this particular thread, I take it you are just looking for responses to the laws in Deuteronomy? Sorry I got carried away with the whole Old Testament.


----------



## Kapsha (Jun 23, 2012)

rockman7 said:


> yes...He made a law. yes..... in the military if you don't follow orders(especially in war) you get shot. is mans law any different?but notice.... it was the parents who initiated the law, not God. but i've noticed your questions seems to be questioning God, or at least the validity of His word. seems your asking the wrong guys in that case.



There is a difference between killing your own child vs. killing someone else. I understand the analogy you are trying to create, but it is not the same thing.

I question what man believes is God's word. There will be many that disagree with me but there is a basic fact:

God did not write the holy book we call the bible. Man did. Some will say God inspired it. That is not the same thing. The same person did not write the books in the bible. Different people did at different times. The bible that is used today was compromised at a meeting. Man decided what would be in it and what would not.

We live in a Patriarchal society as they did 2,000 years ago. Mind you some things have changed, but some have stayed the same. Is it possible that had any influence on what was written?


----------



## Kapsha (Jun 23, 2012)

Artfuldodger said:


> So in this particular thread, I take it you are just looking for responses to the laws in Deuteronomy? Sorry I got carried away with the whole Old Testament.




No, not at all. I started it that way to see what people thought of it. Feel free to speak about anything in the Old Testament.


----------



## Kapsha (Jun 23, 2012)

hobbs27 said:


> Then you remember that Abraham didn't have to go through with it. Any evidence that a parent ever turned their son over to the elders to be stoned?



Do you have any evidence they didn't?


----------



## rockman7 (Jun 23, 2012)

why is it so difficult to accept the fact that every person that ever lived was born with a death warrant on our heads? that children are no different than adults and abouve all.....we did it to ourselves?

by His very own nature had man not fallen God could not have done anything to anyone but bless them.again....we cause such laws to exist.


----------



## rockman7 (Jun 23, 2012)

lol....not even the government sees a difference between killing your kid or someone else. you go to jail for just as long.why does this worry you so much?


----------



## Artfuldodger (Jun 23, 2012)

Kapsha said:


> I question what man believes is God's word. There will be many that disagree with me but there is a basic fact:
> 
> God did not write the holy book we call the bible. Man did. Some will say God inspired it. That is not the same thing. The same person did not write the books in the bible. Different people did at different times. The bible that is used today was compromised at a meeting. Man decided what would be in it and what would not.
> 
> We live in a Patriarchal society as they did 2,000 years ago. Mind you some things have changed, but some have stayed the same. Is it possible that had any influence on what was written?



I agree with you on the Bible being compromised at that meeting. I'm also reminded about the Patriarchal society  thing in the Bible by my wife & daughters. I also have problems understanding the importance of the oldest male son getting all the glory.


----------



## Kapsha (Jun 23, 2012)

rockman7 said:


> lol....not even the government sees a difference between killing your kid or someone else. you go to jail for just as long.why does this worry you so much?




You're missing my point. Please see my comment on who wrote the bible.


----------



## centerpin fan (Jun 23, 2012)

Kapsha said:


> The bible that is used today was compromised at a meeting.



... and what meeting was that?  

Please God, in the name of all that is good and holy, don't let him say, "Nicea".


----------



## rockman7 (Jun 23, 2012)

Kapsha said:


> You're missing my point. Please see my comment on who wrote the bible.



i'm pretty sure i'm getting your point.... and quiet possibly the motives


----------



## Artfuldodger (Jun 23, 2012)

centerpin fan said:


> ... and what meeting was that?
> 
> Please God, in the name of all that is good and holy, don't let him say, "Nicea".



I agree about the meeting but i'll let Kapsha say it.


----------



## centerpin fan (Jun 23, 2012)

Artfuldodger said:


> I agree about the meeting but i'll let Kapsha say it.



I'm on pins and needles.


----------



## Kapsha (Jun 23, 2012)

centerpin fan said:


> I'm on pins and needles.




Yep, you got it.


----------



## centerpin fan (Jun 23, 2012)

Kapsha said:


> Yep, you got it.



The canon of scripture was not even a topic of discussion at Nicea.  It sounds nice and convenient when you read it on an anti-Bible website, but it's just not true.


----------



## Kapsha (Jun 23, 2012)

centerpin fan said:


> The canon of scripture was not even a topic of discussion at Nicea.  It sounds nice and convenient when you read it on an anti-Bible website, but it's just not true.




Interesting how you assume that I just conveniently read that on some website. I did not. I was taught that at, you guessed it, church.

There was more than one Council of Nicea.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Jun 23, 2012)

centerpin fan said:


> The canon of scripture was not even a topic of discussion at Nicea.  It sounds nice and convenient when you read it on an anti-Bible website, but it's just not true.



I stand corrected, when did the canon of  scripture take place? I never read it on an anti-Bible website. I guess I was just misinformed.


----------



## hobbs27 (Jun 23, 2012)

Kapsha said:


> Do you have any evidence they didn't?



Yes, its not in the bible that it ever happened.


----------



## centerpin fan (Jun 23, 2012)

Kapsha said:


> Interesting how you assume that I just conveniently read that on some website.



Most do.




Kapsha said:


> I did not. I was taught that at, you guessed it, church.



They got it wrong.




Kapsha said:


> There was more than one Council of Nicea.



Yes, and the second one in 787 also had nothing to do with the canon.  It dealt with icons.


----------



## centerpin fan (Jun 23, 2012)

Artfuldodger said:


> I stand corrected, when did the canon of  scripture take place? I never read it on an anti-Bible website. I guess I was just misinformed.



St. Athanasius listed the same 27 NT books we had today in the late 4th century.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Jun 23, 2012)

centerpin fan said:


> The canon of scripture was not even a topic of discussion at Nicea.  It sounds nice and convenient when you read it on an anti-Bible website, but it's just not true.



This is even more reason to believe the Bible was not inspired by God. You have to admit that a collection of books written in Hebrew, then Greek, then translated to English by men with an agenda, could have some conflicting verses. I was always told these conflicting verses were not present in the Bible. 

This new inspiration about Nicea in no way undermines my belief in God & his son Jesus.


----------



## Kapsha (Jun 23, 2012)

centerpin fan said:


> St. Athanasius listed the same 27 NT books we had today in the late 4th century.



St. Athanasius was at the Council of Nicea. (The first Council.) 

And I'm sure my bible and yours do not match. You're probably missing a few books.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Jun 23, 2012)

centerpin fan said:


> St. Athanasius listed the same 27 NT books we had today in the late 4th century.



He was at Nicea to discuss the Trinity. Why the variation between the Old Testament books between Catholics & Protestants? I'm not trying to start anything, i'm just trying to figure out if the Catholic New Testament is Canon to Protestants, why wasn't the Old Testament?


----------



## rockman7 (Jun 23, 2012)

centerpin fan said:


> St. Athanasius listed the same 27 NT books we had today in the late 4th century.



then theres tertullian, presbyter of the north-african church and his agreements,"the teachings of the apostles" written 105 a.d.,ignatius,bishop of antioch,along with polycarp(a disciple of john) and thier writings.... these all seem to be in lock step with our present day bible (new testament of course).

the old testament is actually easier to establish creditials for(or one could just watch discovery channel on the dead sea scrolls if you want the cliff notes format)


----------



## centerpin fan (Jun 23, 2012)

Kapsha said:


> St. Athanasius was at the Council of Nicea. (The first Council.)



Yes, he was, and he was the chief opponent of Arius (which is what the council was all about.)




Kapsha said:


> And I'm sure my bible and yours do not match. You're probably missing a few books.



Don't be so sure.  Remember what you said about assuming things.


----------



## centerpin fan (Jun 23, 2012)

Artfuldodger said:


> He was at Nicea to discuss the Trinity. Why the variation between the Old Testament books between Catholics & Protestants? I'm not trying to start anything, i'm just trying to figure out if the Catholic New Testament is Canon to Protestants, why wasn't the Old Testament?



I'll get back to you, but it may be tomorrow.  I just got in from fishing, and I need a shower.


----------



## rockman7 (Jun 23, 2012)

Kapsha said:


> St. Athanasius was at the Council of Nicea. (The first Council.)
> 
> And I'm sure my bible and yours do not match. You're probably missing a few books.



might wanna gaze over my thread on "kenosis" as to why some books were left out of the nt....in the old testament writings such as macabees were only duplicates of existing books basically. there were a couple others that gave more info but with no backup from other books


----------



## Artfuldodger (Jun 23, 2012)

If someone tomorrow put all the books together as a Bible, what would be wrong with that? Then the individual could decide for himself. I feel cheated that others have decided for me what books belong and what books don't.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Jun 23, 2012)

centerpin fan said:


> Yes, he was, and he was the chief opponent of Arius (which is what the council was all about.)
> Don't be so sure.  Remember what you said about assuming things.


 I think the Catholic & Orthodox churches have more books in the Old Testament than Protestants.

I agree with Arius so i'm in a Biblical minority. I often wonder if Arius would have won the debates.  Arius' writings were destroyed by the wining side. Whoever wins the war gets to write the history. Arius didn't come up with the belief that Gad & Jesus were two different entities, he was just more vocal about it.


----------



## hobbs27 (Jun 24, 2012)

Artfuldodger said:


> If someone tomorrow put all the books together as a Bible, what would be wrong with that?.



My understanding is they have to be proven to be inspired. I know I read the books left out when the 1611 KJV were put together, were left out because they could not be proven to be inspired.They found no reference to it by the early church or by Christ.
 There are a few books that's not in any Bible that are referenced to .

The Book of Jasher mentioned in 2Samuel 1:18, and Joshua 10:13

The Book of Wars of the Lord.Numbers. 21:14

The Annals of Jehu  2Chronicles20:34

The  Treatsie of the Book of Kings 2Chronicles 24:27

The Acts of Solomon 1Kings 11:41

The sayings of Hozai 2Chronicles 33:19

The Chronicles of David 1Chronicles 27:24

The Chronicles of Samuel,Nathan,Gad 1Chronicles29:29

Samuels Book 1Samuel 10:25

The records of Nathan the prophet 2Chronicles 9:29

The Prophecy of Ahijah the Shilonite 2Chronicles 9:29

The treatsie of the Prophet Iddo 2Chronicles 13:22

Many more old scrolls have been found, but I beleive God had a hand in putting together the book of 1611. That book was put together to be perfect, not to make a profit.

Profit and the influence of Money has proven it almost impossible to do a unbiased book these days.


----------



## Kapsha (Jun 24, 2012)

centerpin fan said:


> Most do.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



In the context of the time, it should be no surprise it was not documented. They even censored who were allowed to attend the meeting.


----------



## centerpin fan (Jun 24, 2012)

Kapsha said:


> Actually, they didn't. There are several mentions of them deciding what would be holy scripture and what would not. For example: "In the year 327 A. D., the Grand Council of Nice, in Bythinia, took place under the pres-
> idency of Constantine the Great. Pappus, in his
> Syndicon to the same council, affirms that, " having
> placed all the sacred books under the altar in a
> ...



Two points:

1)  The author can't spell "Nicea", and she got the date wrong.  (It was 325, not 327.)  If she can't get the name and the date, I'm not sure why I should care what else she has to say.

2)  Your link doesn't work, so I had to do a little looking.  That quote is from _Facing the Sphinx_ by Marie L. Farrington.  From what I can tell, it's some type of occult work.  You can check it out on Amazon.  It's definitely "interesting".




Kapsha said:


> In the context of the time, it should be no surprise it was not documented. They even censored who were allowed to attend the meeting.



No, they invited everybody.  Since Nicea was in the east, most of the bishops that attended were also from the east.  About seven bishops from the west attended.


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Jun 24, 2012)

Artfuldodger said:


> He was at Nicea to discuss the Trinity. Why the variation between the Old Testament books between Catholics & Protestants? I'm not trying to start anything, i'm just trying to figure out if the Catholic New Testament is Canon to Protestants, why wasn't the Old Testament?


I would like to point out that the "trinity" was not discussed at nicea of 325. They were fighting over whether Jesus was created or not and whether he was equal or not.  The HS as a person, or the trinity as we know it was never a thought until much later. 451, I believe was when they made the statement of faith with which resembles the trinity of today. The declaration of faith at Nicea of 325, is clearly nothing close to trinitarinism. Google Nicene Creed


----------



## Artfuldodger (Jun 24, 2012)

1gr8bldr said:


> I would like to point out that the "trinity" was not discussed at nicea of 325. They were fighting over whether Jesus was created or not and whether he was equal or not.  The HS as a person, or the trinity as we know it was never a thought until much later. 451, I believe was when they made the statement of faith with which resembles the trinity of today. The declaration of faith at Nicea of 325, is clearly nothing close to trinitarinism. Google Nicene Creed



But they were discussing whether Jesus was God.


----------



## centerpin fan (Jun 24, 2012)

Artfuldodger said:


> I think the Catholic & Orthodox churches have more books in the Old Testament than Protestants.



The Orthodox church has always viewed the apocryphal books as "worthy to be read" but not holy scripture.  I believe that was the Roman Catholic position as well, up until the Council of Trent.  At Trent, the Catholics adopted the Apocrypha as a way of differentiating themselves from the Reformers.  I'm going from memory, so I may not have that last bit exactly right.


----------



## Israel (Jun 24, 2012)

I believe the law.
I believe men could see one of two things. 
The horror of sin and its consequences.
Or just an opportunity to open a new quarry.

Is there any record where a parent said "I know my son is disobedient, but I will not hand him over to be stoned. Kill me instead?"


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Jun 24, 2012)

Romans 7:4 "you also died to the law...."vs 6 "but now by dying to what once bound us, we have been released from the law so that we serve in the new way of the Spirit and not the old way of the written code." There is much to show us that Paul believed that we were not under law. But Paul's thought is that if we live by the Spirit, then the purpose of the law would be fullfilled. For example, the Pharasis thought they had mastered the law.Yet Jesus pointed out that the heart was not affected. They were white washed tombs. Beautiful on the outside yet full of dead mens bones on the inside. Such as lust, they may not have cheated on their wives but likely did have lust in their hearts.


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Jun 24, 2012)

The purpose of the law was to bring us to Christ. I have always thought it interesting that people flocked to John the baptist. He was not a traveling preacher. They came to him. Why? Because they had observed the self righteous and the things they did and they realized that they could not live up to this standard. An evaluation of self, gave them a guilty conscience. They heard that a man was baptizing out in the dessert for the forgiveness of sins, so they flocked to him.


----------



## StriperAddict (Jun 26, 2012)

*hmmm*



rockman7 said:


> i'm pretty sure i'm getting your point.... and quiet possibly the motives


 

I fear that HawgJowl, er, Kapsha, hasn't considered studies of Hebrews and Romans, in context with the law, Deut., etc.  Those books speak better than I could on this subject, so !


----------



## gordon 2 (Jun 26, 2012)

Kapsha said:


> Deuteronomy 21:18-23...
> 
> Thoughts?



It would be interesting to know how this was interpreted by the hebrews. I  initially suspect that this was a rule to protect against elder or parental abuse by adult children for two reasons-- 1. which adult  "westrels and drunkards" are well capable of. 2. And the hebrews hi-lighted importance of honoring parents.

Today we turn those who commit these crimes to the courts who in turn commit them to some restoration, prison and or therapy. In the days before massive injections of Valium and Ativan and 24 hour nursing ( and Dr. Phil)-- detoxing westrals and drunkards was almost impossible. It was easier for all to treat the criminal and the crime instead of the ill in the imbacile. What was to be protected was the honor due to parents. If said son was a psycopath or a sociopath  or mentally impaired--well it was like living in Texas minus the rocks.

"Honour thy father and thy mother: that thy days may be long upon the land which the LORD thy God giveth thee."


----------



## Artfuldodger (Jun 26, 2012)

gordon 2 said:


> "Honour thy father and thy mother: that thy days may be long upon the land which the LORD thy God giveth thee."



I'm not sure who was suppose to honor their father and mother but isn't the "honor" requirement something that requires an action by humans? Maybe you could get to HEAVEN sooner by not honoring your father & mother.


----------



## gordon 2 (Jun 27, 2012)

Artfuldodger said:


> I'm not sure who was suppose to honor their father and mother but isn't the "honor" requirement something that requires an action by humans? Maybe you could get to HEAVEN sooner by not honoring your father & mother.



The dishonoring of parents required definite action. Honoring parents by their children is one of the ten commandments or #5. It means being good, caring and loving towards parents and not a one time roast.


----------

