Crucifixion of the Warrior God - Overview
Вставка
- Опубліковано 13 бер 2017
- Greg reviewed the content of his new book, Crucifixion of the Warrior God, as a part of our Covenant Partner Gathering on March 5, 2017. He's taken on a big challenge - trying to reconcile the violence of the Old Testament with the character of Jesus.
He and Paul Eddy also answered questions about the book, Woodland's perspective on it, and potential critiques.
Thank you Greg Boyd for not stopping at the learned response that is common of the average person. ❤️ it and blessing to you and yours always
I have struggled for over 50 yrs trying to rationalize the Father of the old testament with the Son of the new. Thanks Greg for finally giving me a perspective that I can now chew on. Father's Love and Blessings to you and your ministry.
What Greg has done is enabled you to rationalize the irrational. Perhaps he can write two long books that do so for the immoral passages within the Koran also. Seems some Muslims are committing atrocities today in the name of their God. Look up Megan Phelps Ted talk..... she may help you understand better. ; )
The Son comes back with a sword in Revelation.
Yes, and its coming out of His mouth...that will either make for awkward sword play or it represents something else...
you're a great example of confirmation bias. rather than rejecting a hypothesis until there is sufficient evidence you've held onto the belief until you found something that sounds good to you.
@@jeremyconway9143 it's a metaphor, but seeing as there's a lot of intense action, it's clearly not merely making sounds either.
God... rather the WORD of God has the power of life and death.
If he signed chose Christ revealed in the fullness if his role as the word could literally cut you in half with a word.
A sword from his mouth.
That's not steel and erol Flynn repartee... it's much much deadlier.
More like a life and death laser of truth from the mouth of the God who created the universe with that same mouth.
Either way it's not "nice".
It's not pacifist, It's not gentle.
But it's GOOD.
This was so good! Thank you! So much insight!
Quite interesting to me how God holds certain truths until they will have the impact or acceptability in the way that would be best to advance the kingdom.
Such as Peters vision of the gentiles being accepted by God. That was approximately 10 years after Pentecost. God is so patient with us because that’s what love is.
I died laughing at 54:30. Paul and Greg, for all their theological insight and the incredible density of this topic, still don't fail to make me laugh at the same time as really giving my brain something to chew on.
But I honestly have been lost on how to deal with this issue and Greg has really given me something to think about! I love the idea and the Christ-centrality of this view so much that I really want to say I'm already a proponent of it, but I'll wait to read the book for a final decision. Either way, this guy doesn't stop raising EXCELLENT questions that the church has tended to ignore.
What Greg has actually done is piled heaps and heaps and heaps of rambling rubbish on top of atrocities....and goes...voila! See everyone! You can't find the immorality if you cover it up with confusion. ; ) Greg appears to be trying hard to circle a square, but doesn't succeed. I'm sure he a kind gentle soul, he's using his free will to defend the indefensible. Very sad. : (
Plato Bird, what’s “really sad” is your religion: atheism.
At sequence 53:50 the question about Jesus or Paul being clearer on this subject... Well Jesus said "NO ONE KNOWS THE FATHER..." Mat 11:27
For me it makes it clear that the study of the Torah doesn't reveal the Father, but more like a God endeavoring to introduce Himself in the only image of God we had of "a God made in our own image".
And my question: So, in a way, as we, without the full knowledge of God (only truly knowable through the revelation of Christ) have no other choice but make Him a God in our own image, God in His Love and Mercy, knowing us too well, endorses (has to) this false image for a time until humanity is RIPE FOR THE TRUE REVELATION OF HIMSELF?
Thank you Greg for your in depth study!!!
The Living Word and the Written Word are to be interpreted the same way .. a balance of the human and divine. At the core is the reason for the incarnation to reveal God.
As a Christian, how does one only accept the God of the NT but not accept Him in the OT. It may be hard to understand his actions, but to doubt his sovereignty and holiness? We are but a blip in time, and we assume that a timeless God has no master plan or reasons for the things that he does or command his people to do? The Canaanites were a sinful people for hundreds of years, sacrificing their babies to the god Molek. God is holy and did not want his people to adopt the ways of the Canaanites. God wants his people to be holy in the promised land, which he promised at that time to Abram and to which Jesus is part of this geneology. We are here and soon we are gone. Our time is brief, but God's master plan for his people is still being written. God gives life and he also takes life. It's hard for our minds to process God's methods, but I know without a doubt that he has his reasons for our good. God is sovereign and he is holy. God cannot contradict his nature and be evil. Yes , God is love and that is why Jesus died for the world. But don't forget why Jesus had to die. God abhors and detests sin. There is hell, and ultimately God will judge everyone. Just because you believe doesn't mean you are saved. One must repent of one's sins, also. How did John the Baptist announced the coming of Jesus? He told people to repent. Just as God allowed for death and destruction in flood of the OT, he will do likewise in the end times. We should not make the mistake of projecting our morals to the moral giver nor paint a picture of only God's love without also his wrath. Yes, accept God's love, but also fear him and repent and believe. This is the story of the Old and New testaments.
pinecreek channel breakdown and critique of this video: ua-cam.com/video/oxuJkQmF5Ns/v-deo.html
No... the cross doesn't tell the whole story of God's nature.
I find the hermeneutic assumptions to be an aspect of the problem here.
Right. It sort of demotes the importance and value of the Resurrection 1:02:27
Genesis 6:6-8
And it repented the LORD that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart. And the LORD said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth; both man, and beast, and the creeping thing, and the fowls of the air; for it repenteth me that I have made them. But Noah found grace in the eyes of the LORD.
(if not for Noah having favour from God we might not be here) also don't forget the fallen angels had offspring with woman called nephilm, so the DNA gene pool would be corrupt and no way could the promised seed to come be tainted from the original Adam, perhaps Noah's family still had a pure lineage all way back to Adam hence way all corrupted DNA was killed in the flood?
Couldn't one use that view for say a president, i.e. LBJ didn't actually kill or personally do anything in Vietnam, but he authorized it and let it happen as did congress by financing it along with military contractors etc. So LBJ has no responsibility for Vietnam, because somehow the soldiers are the agents? But said agents would not act if LBJ did not authorized them to do it - therefore they are acting on behalf of the president, or in place of the president since he is the commander and if they didn't act on his behalf they would be in violation of a command. Since God allows it he is on some way responsible for it since he created the thing(s) that actually carry it out. IT is really demonstrated in the divine council meeting passage about putting a lying spirit in the mouth of Micaiah. Now one could say God didn't do it personally, but he allowed something he didn't have to allow.
Would you consider it "violent" when Jesus made a whip of knots and hit the money changers with it and flipped their tables over etc, to drive them out of the Temple area?
IS not intervening into something violent when you have the ability and power to do so not being complicit in the violence in some way? For example, on a daily basis children are kidnapped, or even sold by their parents to evil people to be used as sex toys. Significant evil is happening to these kids and if they survive this ordeal they are scarred for life. Now one can say God did not personally commit this act it was other actors (agents as you say), and one can argue that God is not going to interfere with people having free will to do whatever they want whenever they want to do it even if this means destroying someone's soul and well being for the rest of their life, physically and mentally, with a very high percentage being massively addicted to drugs or whatever to deal with the trauma, or even committing suicide. These kids never stood a chance and no one helped them, not even God.
Yeah, that’s a problem I recognise… the old testament seems to be filled with misunderstandings about God by barbaric people.
The first 10 minutes remind me of Don Quixote
so much post hoc also where is his biblical support he's presenting this huge structure of apologetics. all he's doing is taking scripture that's problematic and then just makes up some rationalizations with no grounds for justification. anybody can do this and in my opinion people in any religion do exactly this. this is nothing but constructing a "god" to asuage the feelings of repulsion to the violence condoned in the bible. absolutely ridiculous.
It seems you didn’t even watch this video. He gave specific bible passages that support his views several times. And he explained how those verses mention who is doing the violence, ie “The Destroyer”, and it isn’t God.
I like Greg Boyd, he is a breath of fresh air in the world of UA-cam theology - funny, intelligent, iconoclastic. But there is a dark undercurrent to the implications of his thinking, as it foregrounds differences between the Old and New Testaments and implies Jews worship a merciless, warrior king, which is not the case. Ironically, his desire to undercut conservative Evangelical theology opens the door towards antisemitism, which is what happened to liberal theology in Germany before WW2. He is keen to show off his cleverness (he is very much the people pleasing entertainer who wants to be loved), but he doesn't think through the implications of what he is actually saying. Jesus was Jewish and he foregrounds the elements of the prophetic tradition which emphasise Love, but he never rejected the Jewish God.
You’re making him out to be some kind of Marcionite which is not. He completes rejects Marcionism. He thinks that Yahweh and Jesus are the same God. He thinks Jesus is the fulfillment of Yahweh’s promises and the result of his covenant faithfulness.
I know The One in 6 aspects, which correspond roughly with the 6 aspects of The One in the 19th chapter of the 19th book of the Protestant Bible. By The One, I refer to Revelation 4:2. I know The One in this aspect but without all 4 Living Creatures and so on. Just floating out there in space. It was an awesome experience I'd just as soon not reprise. The difference between fear and The Fear of the Lord is an important calibration in the Personal Pucker Factor. The fact that you can discern the difference is a result of the wisdom that was initiated in your personal experience by The Fear of the Lord.
Cornelius is the only person in the entire Bible I identify with. As an example of devotion to duty, Jesus and John McCain are in a common catagory of miliary virtue and, in the Epicurean habit of thought of combat soldiers, better them than me. I abandoned a military career because I was confronted with the probability that, if I was in John McCain's position, I would have taken the early out and never looked back in the example of MacArthur's escape from Corregidor. I was raised to be a professional soldier and I became one and I was confronted with a moral insufficiency in myself that the better part of valor counseled a civilian career.
Anyway, I have been convinced that Cornelius is the author of the Gospel of Mark and it is an update on the original intelligence assessment on the nature of Christianity as a military technology that compelled Tiberius to propose elevating Jesus to the status of legal deity, but the Senate refused for reasons not unlike McConnell's obstruction of Obama's efforts to fix the damage to the US economy from 36 years of Reaganomics which he inherited from GW Bush. According to Tertullian, this happened sometime before 37, the year Tiberius died. My guess is that the intelligence upon which Tiberius acted is the Roman content in the Gospel of Peter. The Gospel of Peter is the fushion of that intelligence, as a subject of intense interest throughout the Roman legions, and what Peter and the other Disciples were doing during the time in Mark 15 - 16:1 - 8. The Gospel of Peter is actually what became Peter's preaching after the encounter with Cornelius in Acts 10.
Cornelius is probably the centurion in Matthew 8:5 - 13 and Luke 7:1 - 10 are the same person, but not the centurion in Mark 15:39.
Both Pilate and Cornelius are creatures of the Praetorian Guard, Pilate on the same career path as Jules Caesar and Cornelius a career military servant-leader, the centurion class from which the modern republican NCO originated. In the Marine Corps, the centuriate class of soldier begins with the Gunnery Sergeant and tops out at Command Sergeant Major of the USMC. All the US military have Masters of Trade in this catagory. The centurion is a unique element of military structures at the time of Jesus and an essential component of Rome's operational cohesion. It's still true, today. After Tet 1968, the senior officers in the US Army were running around, bumping into each other like the Marx Brothers meet the Three Stooges, but without the choreography. The credibility of McNamara's Whiz Kids, whose agenda a particular coalition in the Army's political culture tied their careers to and, when that agenda blew up entirely in 1968, so did these guy's moral authority and what might be called orthodox orientation. They had been led astray by Robert McNamara and the Harvard Business Model and, for about 4 years, the US Army was without senior leadership. In Ken Burn's Vietnam, this period is reflected in the quote by the Army general that the Army was in the worst shape in his experience and then the segue about the troops being mostly draftees, with the editorial implication of the Oliver Stone version of Vietnam being that the draftees were the problem, which is why we now have an All Volunteer military: it is a monument to the failure of command during this period and the on-going slander of the devotion to duty of the young men who answered their country's call to arms in the true meaning of the 2nd Amendment kind of way. I was leading a platoon in the Central Highlands composed of almost entirely draftees just back from Cambodia. I was not drafted, my platoon sergeant wasn't drafted and a sergeant-sniper on his second tour wasn't drafted. My biggest problem was that I thought they were too agressive. I changed my mind.
And all during this turmoil at the top of the US Army food chain, it was just another day in Paradise for the US Army centuriate. When I say it took 4 years to turn things around, it didn't take the Army 4 years to know something was broke. A reason why I left the Army was because what was broke was a disaster waiting for me. I've had 47 years to chew this over and I did the wise thing to leave. If I had known then what I now know about myself, I wouldn't have missed Vietnam for the world, but I might have stayed in for another tour or two. Combat and the teams was the only place fit in seamlessly, but I left as soon as I could to avoid any possibility of staining my dad's service.
And all of this is context which informs my conviction that Cornelius was the executive editor of the Gosple of Mark which he prepared for a presentation in Rome. There are parts that are missing that suggests to me this was presented personally by Cornelius in Rome. The Lord's Prayer, for example. The format of the Lord's Prayer is the same as the Think Globally, Act Locally of the Army 5 Paragraph Field Order, which is a primary structure of the US Army Ranger School as a training process. Why isn't it in Mark? I think Cornelius wanted to keep it a proprietary secret of the Praetorian Guard until they understood what it was they had. Caligula was Emperor in 40 and regime change was already in the pipeline, but it was wise to be circumspect.
So, this subject the Warrior God interests me at a professional level. I am a commercial process consultant and my approach as to Bible, generally, is as a pagen professional soldier with a strong Counter-Insurgency background and combat experience. I agree with the observation regarding the Old Testament's martial flavor. Moses had a similar military education as Prince Harry and Queen Elizabeth and the books of Moses are obviously the product of a military staff as a field manual for cultural transformation. I don't know if the synagogue in Capernaum used the Septuagint or Hebrew, but Cornelius would have recognized Yaweh in the Bible from his own experience. Yaweh is the Queen of Battle and She is a feminine aspect of The One. When soldiers ride to the sound of guns, it is the ululation of Yaweh they obey. It's one of the things Cornelius understood about Jesus and authority. "For I, too, am a man under authority...".
I know Yaweh. I know The One. Jesus, not so much. He is opaque to me. He has assured me at several moments that I love Him, which comforts me. The Holy Spirit is male. Until I began to dig into the origins of Mark, I thought the Spirit of God and the Holy Spirit are the same thing, but they aren't. The Spirit of the Lord is pure, undomesticated spiritual energy that is part of the processes of Earth, especially weather systems. The Holy Spirit is male, as I say, and is very available to employ the Spirit of the Lord constructively for those whose faith is stronger than mine. I am content to accompany the Holy Spirit on the vision quest I began when I left the Army.
So, I am intrigued by the facial premise of the Warrior God, but I have been listening to this video for 44:31 minutes and he hasn't hooked me yet.
Nope...
Sad. Greg has chosen to ignore his conscience and write 492(?) pages of defending "..... nasty stuff....impressively bad....a 1000 passages of commanding or engaging in violence... slaughter everybody, every man, women, and child infant and animal ...37 times.....but if you find a virgin keep her as war booty.." One's conscience is central to being a human being. If you choose (free will) to defend evil acts, you are willfully ignoring 'God.' I do not believe that anyone can find God in the Old Testament, the New Testament, or the Koran. However that does not mean I am strictly an atheist. I have a moral compass. I know right from wrong. What Greg Boyd has chosen to do is deplorable. He has pretzeled himself into a knot to defend evil. Islamic terrorism is founded upon extremely similar evil passages within a book. I would no more defend the God of the Koran than I would the OT, or the NT. God doesn't live in books people. When you ignore your moral compass you are ignoring God. Greg just wrote two hefty books because he has CHOSEN to ignore his conscience. Very sad to listen to you Greg....very sad. : (
Plato Bird your moral compass comes from God.
Even worse, 1400 pages
@@samephraimshaversjr8864 yes but the Bible doesn’t have a monopoly on God
Don’t forget Yahweh said it’s ok to beat your slave with a rod as long as he/she isn’t bedridden for more than two days.
Remember that there were 12 groups of people in the land of Canaan. And 6 were so wicked that God said they had to be exterminated. And 6 lands that God didn’t allow to be touched according to Deuteronomy 2 and 3. And God called Abraham and he obeyed God unlike the 6 Canaanite nations. And they did things so horrific that it’s a great thing they were destroyed. Quit hardening your heart and actually read your word and soak in it. Because you have a Canaanite spirit right now.