“The Lord came down in a cloud, stood with him there, and proclaimed his name, ‘the Lord.’ The Lord passed in front of him and proclaimed: The Lord – the Lord is a compassionate and gracious God, slow to anger and abounding in faithful love and truth, maintaining faithful love to a thousand generations, forgiving iniquity, rebellion, and sin. But he will not leave the guilty unpunished, bringing the consequences of the fathers’ iniquity on the children and grandchildren to the third and fourth generation.” (CSB – Read the chapter)
One of the gifts that is often given to expectant parents is a book of names. It’s basically a dictionary for names. There are hundreds of pages of names with their approximate meaning. They range from mundane to bizarre. The weight of naming a new human can be a heavy one. Today, many parents try to be creative with their name selections. While I can appreciate the desire to not pick the same name everybody else is choosing, leaving a child with a name that will be forever misspelled or mispronounced isn’t exactly a gift. Used to be, names were chosen because they were traditional in a family or because of the character they were understood to convey. When God came down to reveal Himself to Moses as the latter requested, this revelation primarily involved proclaiming His name…which was all about His character. Let’s talk about it.
It is worth noting again that when Moses asked for God to reveal His glory to him, God responded by proclaiming His name. God’s glory is wrapped up in His name because His name captures His character, and His character is the source of His glory. To put that another way, He is glorious by nature. That’s simply who He is. When we glorify Him, what we are doing is acknowledging and celebrating and participating in His character. And, as it just so happens, there’s a word that captures all three of those things in a single idea: worship. When we understand who God is and interact with Him in light of who He is, worship is the natural result.
As God reveals His glory to Moses (or at least as much of His glory as Moses could handle) by proclaiming His name to him, He says four things about Himself that are worthy of our consideration. The first is that He is a compassionate and gracious God. It is notable that these two things are mentioned first. When you make a list like this for another person, you generally put the most important thing at the top because that’s probably the one that’s going to stick. Of the four things God says about Himself in revealing His glory to Moses, He starts with the fact that He is compassionate and gracious.
God cares about people. All of them. He has a special concern for the people who have made themselves His own, but all of His actions across the Old Testament narrative are about blessing the entire world with an invitation into a relationship with Him; the relationship with Him, in fact, that they (we) were made to have in the beginning. Now, sometimes this compassion is hard to see or understand such as when terrible things happen. Yet those times are often when His compassion as ministered through His people shines the brightest.
My state was recently struck by a devastating hurricane. The heavy rains triggered massive flooding and mudslides that have been responsible for the deaths of more than 100 people. The clean up process is going to take years. It is going to take several weeks to months just to get basic services restored to residents in the hardest hit areas. How does any of this demonstrate the compassion of God? The storm didn’t. But the response has. Church groups of all shapes and sizes were on the ground helping to start the recovery process almost immediately, even before it was really safe to do that. Some counties have had to start turning away volunteers and donations of critical supplies because they have gotten so much. And the vast, vast majority of this help has come from Christians motivated by a desire to demonstrate the compassion of God in Christ. God is indeed a compassionate God.
He is also gracious. He never deals with us as we deserve. We get far, far better than that with incredible consistency. This happens whether we are worthy of it or not. The fact is that we never are, but He does it anyway because that is His nature. As the apostle Paul would much later observe, we were God’s enemies when He sent His only Son to die in our place. Graciousness is fundamental to His identity as God.
The second thing God declares about Himself is an extension of His graciousness. He is slow to anger and abounding in faithful love. I don’t know about you, but I can be pretty quick to anger sometimes. This is especially true if I am being inconvenienced in a very significant (or even mostly insignificant) way. Not God. His anger comes on slowly. It is fierce when it is finally triggered, but it is always perfectly proportioned to the situation that has triggered it. He never experiences the kind of out of control rage that we sometimes do. To put that another way, while He might get angry, He never loses His cool.
Instead of being angry, God is abounding in faithful love and truth. Another way to put this is that He is abounding in covenant love. He is entirely dedicated to those with whom He has made a covenant. When He is in a covenant relationship with someone, He is completely loyal to that relationship. He is loyal to it whether we are or not. He is committed first to the covenant and then to us in light of that commitment. And He’s true. He’s honest. Truth is determined by who He is. If something is not true, it has no association with Him nor He with it. This allows Him to always deal with us properly. He takes us just as we are no matter who we are. From there, He shapes us to more fully reflect the image He created us to bear.
The third thing God says in describing Himself to Moses extends this second idea like the second extended the first. He maintains that faithful love to “a thousand generations.” When someone is faithful to Him, God returns the favor of that faithfulness for a long time. Or, to turn that idea around just a bit, the blessings of faithfulness range far and wide and tend to be generational in their impact. We see this in the Old Testament narrative. The Israelites were experiencing it personally here. Abraham’s faithfulness is the justification God gives for His generous actions with the people of Israel for hundreds and hundreds of years of their history. The apostle Paul is still citing Abraham’s faithfulness and God’s promises to him because of it (although, from a strictly chronological standpoint, God’s promise ultimately comes first which is a nice indicator that our faithfulness is always a response to His initial faithfulness) as the reason for the blessings followers of Jesus enjoy in Him. I lose count of the number of times God announces that He is delaying a final judgment on the people of Judah for their sinfulness because of the faithfulness of David.
Speaking of delaying judgment, God gives Moses a concrete example of what this millennial faithfulness looks like. He forgives. He forgives iniquity, rebellion, and sin. Whether our deviations from His character are intentional or accidental, He forgives them when we are willing to walk in a relationship with Him in Christ. Christ makes the forgiveness available like a giant umbrella. We only need to walk close to Him and we are covered by that forgiveness. This, of course, fits with God’s being compassionate and gracious and slow to anger and abounding in faithful love that He’s already mentioned. Because He is all of those things (and so much more) He is a forgiving God.
We see this throughout the Scriptures as well. Time and time again God forgives instead of bringing the full and complete judgment sin deserves. He forgives the rebellion of Israel on multiple occasions. The iniquity of men who should have been righteous leaders like Samson and David and even Manasseh is forgiven when they repent and pursue a relationship with Him. Even the sin of people who were foreign to Israel and strangers to His covenant with them like Naaman or the Ninevites is forgiven when they are willing to move in His direction with faithfulness and obedience. Then, of course, there’s the whole offering forgiveness to the entire world by covering all the sins that had ever or would ever be committed by anyone for any reason by the sacrificial death of His own Son thing. That one’s pretty big too.
One last thing here. God is compassionate and gracious and slow to anger and abounding in faithful love and truth and forgiving to the point that even some of His followers consider a fault (see Jonah or Habakkuk). No question there. But He is also just. As a result, He includes one last thing in His proclamation of His identity (and thus His glory) to Moses. He will not leave the guilty unpunished. Sin will result in punishment. To put that another way, sin has consequences. Always. Because He is all of those first things, though, in the Scriptures we very often find God looking for any excuse He can to delay the full and just extent of those consequences for as long as He can. Ultimately, He sends His own Son to pay them by offering up His own life in exchange for ours.
This does not mean the guilty do not go unpunished. Instead, in Christ, God transferred our guilt to Jesus and allowed Him to take the punishment we deserved. As Peter put it, “He himself bore our sins in his body on the tree; so that, having died to sins, we might live for righteousness. By his wounds you have been healed.” This was wildly unfair, of course, but it was just. God’s justice was satisfied. Sins were punished. It was gracious and compassionate because we didn’t – and don’t – have to pay the price for our own sins. Jesus did that in our place.
But then there’s this thing about bringing the consequences of the sin of one person down on subsequent generations. How does that fit with the rest of God’s characterization of Himself here? Rather neatly when you think about it. How long does one person tend to live? Typically, long enough to see children and grandchildren. A fortunate person might live to see their great-grandchildren in the fourth generation. If a person is committed to a path of sin, that sin is not only going to affect them. It is going to affect their kids. If they continue in that path, it will affect their grandkids. Should they live long enough and don’t leave that path of sin, it will even affect their great-grandkids. But once they die, that impact will begin to evaporate. Even before they do, when the generations are far enough removed from them, the impact of their sin will be lessened somewhat.
Part of the punishment God gives for sin is to let its natural consequences play out naturally. This means that one sinner will very often see the impact of her sin on her subsequent generations. Sometimes that impact is enough to shake her from her sin and back to the path of redemption. But sometimes not. And in those cases where someone is so committed to a path of sin that they refuse to leave it and the devastation it is causing on her family, God graciously and compassionately brings that painful impact to an end when the person dies. He limits the generational impact of sin pretty severely because He is kind and abounding in faithful love. And, by comparison, 3-4 generations falls rather short of a thousand.
Our God is good. He is glorious. He is worthy of our love and devotion. He is worthy of your love and devotion. I hope you will give that to Him.
The Nexus 
Your god is the former Canaanite deity, Yahweh, who, based on his supposed actions as recorded in your holy book, is a meglomaniacal genocidal monster, who endorses rape and incest and slavery among so many of his fine (sic) qualities.
Do you truly consider there is any veracity in the notion of Original Sin?
And do you teach this/ have taught this to your children?
LikeLike
According to Jesus the 2nd greatest commandment is to love your neighbor as you love yourself. Would you agree that would be a good lesson to teach your children? You know what that looks like? It looks like our local churches sending supplies and people to help the residents in our mountains devastated by floods get their lifes back. It looks like our churches sending mission groups to Haiti and Guatemala to help recover from hurricanes. It’s our Baptist Food banks providing hot meals for the survivors of 9/11. And if Johannesburg gets hit by a devastating earthquake you’ll see Christians flying in from all over the world to help you as well. Belittle our belief if you will but the next time you’re researching the internet check out Christian relief efforts over the years and tell me what part of that you don’t agree with.
LikeLiked by 1 person
According to who?
LikeLike
How about Buffet, Gates and Soros?
Atheists. You can research I’m sure.
Yes, I belittle your religious beliefs as they are based on supernatural rubbish and the fact you lie to children and tell them they will be separated from your former Canaanite god, Yahweh for eternity if they do not love him. Or worse, be sent to Hell for eternity.
LikeLike
Out of interest, Thomas, as a Baptist how much of the Bible do regard as historical/ factual?
Example. Do you consider the Noachian global flood tale to have been an actual historical event?
LikeLike
You don’t accept the belief about the nature, character, and identity of God that has been held fairly consistently with a limited amount of development over time from the time when the Scriptures were written through to modern Christians. Because of this, the limited number of passages you harp on will only ever been able to be understood negatively as you do. In other words, I reject the whole premise of your initial assertion. The questions that follow are rooted in that premise. It’s beside the point that you’ve asked and I’ve answered the same questions before. More than once. If you are going to keep asking the same questions in a loop, then like I did the last time you raised a long-since debated issue, you are welcome to go on a hunt for what my answers were before. They haven’t changed.
LikeLike
I am only going on the evidence of your holy book and through this my description of your god, Yahweh is accurate.
Therefore, I can only conclude your erroneous understanding cam only be because of the indoctrination you suffer from.
LikeLike
According to Jesus, Matthew 22:39 sorry I forgot to list the verse.
Actually Buffet is an agnostic and Gates raised his children through the Catholic church. The fact you listed 3 billionaires who give despite not being religious does not change the fact that as we speak I have 13 FB friends who are not billionaires but are Christians that took off from their jobs to deliver supplies and help out their fellow men who are suffering. Again, instead of researching atheists who give, research Christians who give. Those 3 men have done a lot philanthropically but they can’t be everywhere. It takes a village, as they say, and that village is inhabited with Christians.
I do believe the story of Noah and the flood. In 2021 archeologists believe they may have found resting place in Eastern Turkey of the Ark, Ark…..lol.
Researcher Andrew Jones and lead scientist Dr. Fethi Ahmet Yüksel of the Department of Geophysical Engineering, Applied Geophysics Department of Istanbul University told British media that 3D scans of the area discovered a formation of the exact length of the ark, detailed in the bible as being around 150 meters, or 300 cubits in Biblical terms.
I’m not sure why that matters because they could find the ark intact, ship it across the Indian Ocean and bring it to your bakery on a flatbed truck and you still wouldn’t believe.
LikeLike
@Thomas
This you may find interesting.
https://www.jasoncolavito.com/blog/review-of-forbidden-history-s06e05-search-for-noahs-ark
LikeLike
So you would consider yourself to be a bible literalist, yes?
This story is old news and geologists have refuted this rather silly claim as it is simply a natural rock formation.
Why on earth would anyone who was not indoctrinated and knew anything about geology, plate tectonics and biology believe such a tale, especially as the bible story is a plagiarized version of the epic of Gilgamesh?
I presume therefore you reject the evidence of the human genome project?
And you probably reject evolution as well. yes?
LikeLike
@Thomas
Christians donate because they are commanded to do so and preach the word and try to convert.
Why do you think non believers donate if they have no god or preacher encouraging them to do so?
LikeLike
For the most part and by comparison, they don’t. I guess that command really makes a difference.
LikeLike
And why do you consider Christians need to be commanded?
LikeLike
If Noah’s Ark was found tomorrow, buried under hundreds of years of silt and rock, if there was no doubt it was Noah’s ark, would it change your point of view on the legitimacy of Christianity, that there is indeed a God?
Simple yes or no answer.
LikeLike
There is no legitimacy to Christianity. It is an invented religion.
Which god are you referring to?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Nope, because Noah’s story was simply lifted from much older flood tales, namely Gilgamesh. So, I’d be far more inclined to look more ccarefully at Utnapishtim (or perhaps king Manu in the Vedas) and his “gods.”
LikeLike
Welcome, John. I think Ark has shared a post or two of yours with me over the last year. I don’t think I agreed with your take on whatever it was, but I remember the reading being interesting at the very least. Thanks for joining the party over here.
That is a common argument against any sort of historicity of the Genesis flood narrative. It’s not a particularly strong argument, but it is an argument.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Hi
Curious — why do you think it’s not strong? I mean, amongst the professionals in this field, it’s not at all controversial to say with complete confidence that the Hebrew flood tale is a story taken from far older stories. Such a statement wouldn’t raise an eyebrow in genuine academic departments, in genuine universities around the world.
And it’s certainly not like this story-adaptation is a singular event. The Hebrews did it with Moses, as well. That’s well known and accepted by virtually all Jewish rabbis.
So, I guess my question is, if the owners of the stories (the Rabbis) understand it to be historical fiction, why do you believe it true?
I’d be genuinely interested to hear the substance of your reasons.
LikeLike
Well, I don’t consider the rabbis the owners of the stories. They are heirs of a tradition, yes, but so are Christians. The apostle Paul makes a pretty compelling argument in Romans 9-11 that modern Jews are not the real heirs of the tradition anyway. Christians are.
All that to the side, I am perfectly willing to acknowledge that there is a collective ancient memory shared across all of the various ancient stories mentioning a massive flood. These stories aren’t limited to the Middle East either. But the argument that the Genesis account is simply adapted from those other ancient stories doesn’t hold up.
It is shorter and more concise than the others. Generally, adapted stories like that get longer and more colorful, not the other way around. The reason for the respective floods are dramatically different. The way the news about the flood was revealed is different. The details of the flood itself and how it went are different. How the recovery from the flood happened is different. And so on and so forth. If the Genesis account with Noah was simply borrowed from the Babylonian account with Gligamesh, it is reasonable to expect there would have been more total overlap in these and other areas than there is.
Furthermore, your suggestion that only the academic departments and universities whose position on this (and I suspect other questions as well) are to be considered “genuine” are the ones who share your position reflects a kind of arrogant worldview bias that is unhelpful to your point.
Allow me to use James Tour as an example of my point. Dr. Tour is perhaps the foremost expert in nanobiology and nanoengineering in the world. He’s also a committed Christian whose theology is very conservative. His position on the Genesis account of the flood is that it is historical and not borrowed from other narrative traditions. He accepts that it was a miraculous event and therefore absolutely could have happened just as the Genesis account describes it. Is he not a genuine scholar because of his Christian faith and position on this issue?
LikeLike
When did nanobiology become a recognised discipline in History/Archaeology departments?
The consensus position amongst actual professionals is solid, and summed-up quite nicely by Israel’s oldest daily Newspaper, Hareetz, a few years ago:
“Currently there is broad agreement among archaeologists and Bible scholars that there is no historical basis for the narratives of the Patriarchs, the Exodus from Egypt, and the conquest of Canaan, nor any archaeological evidence to make them think otherwise.”
Let’s repeat that last line: nor any archaeological evidence to make them think otherwise.
Now don’t get me wrong – you’re free to have ‘faith’ (belief without evidence) in the Jewish creation myth, but to tell known lies about it so as to deceive another person (a child) is just wrong. As Rabbi Adam Chalom, Ph.D. said:
“Would you willingly lie to your children? The truth is out there. They’ll find this archaeological, evidence-based version of Jewish history… and then they’ll say, why did you lie to me?”
LikeLike
Apologies, but just another point: you didn’t actually tell me why you think the consensus position is not ‘strong.’
You did make that statement, and I asked because i’d be genuinely interested in hearing the substance behind it.
(and just note: an engineer is not a near-eastern history/biblical scholar.)
LikeLike
Hi John. I looked back over my comment that this one from you was in response to. The third paragraph laid out the short version of why I don’t think the mostly non-Christian consensus (because, for the sake of honesty, I think that’s what you really mean when you use the word, but please correct me if I’m mistaken in that assessment) does not make for a very compelling argument. Give that another read and see if you still think I didn’t offer any substance. Happy Monday.
LikeLike
and just for your future reference, James Tour is a messanic Jew, not a Christian.
LikeLike
I’ll aim for meaningful responses to your other comments when I can get to my desk again, probably Monday. Quickly to this, though, a Messianic Jew is a follower of Jesus and thus still a Christian. My Greek professor in seminary who was a Messianic Jew herself would be quite surprised to learn she isn’t a Christian.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Well, you did write “He’s also a committed Christian.”
That’s just factually wrong. A lie. He’d never say such a thing. He is a Jew who believes in Jesus.
LikeLike
The title “Christian” has been applied to followers of Jesus since the mid-first century. Tour is a follower of Jesus. Therefore, He’s a Christian. He is a Christian who happens to be a Messianic Jew, but He’s still a Christian by any historic definition of the word. There was nothing factually wrong or untruthful about what I said.
I assume you are comfortable of wearing the label atheist. Please correct me if I am mistaken in that. Assuming that’s the case, however, you and I will likely find very little shared ground on a whole host of issues. If you’re going to take the route of accusing me of lying because I stake out a position you either reject or understand differently than I do as Ark is in the bad habit of doing, we’re not going to have much to talk about. I hope for productive dialogue, but your taking that route will limit our ability to have that.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Not accusing you of lying, merely pointing out that your claim he was a “Christian” is factually wrong. It’s not, after all, what he’d write on a form, is it?)
Anyway, it’s really not important. I’m not bothered at all by his beliefs. He is not, however, an expert in the subject we’re discussing, so i’m baffled as to why you’d even cite him.
So, when you have a free moment, I’d be interested in hearing your answer to my question.
(I hope you’re not in Florida, but if you are, stay safe.)
LikeLike
I already answered most of it, but I’ll take another whack, probably Monday. The point was that you described as “genuine” only those departments or universities whose position aligns with yours. By making such a sweeping designation, it sounded like you were painting with a far broader brush than merely the relevant fields. Thus the citation of Tour.
And, thank you. I’m not in Florida, but North Carolina. We’re far enough east that we escaped the devastation of Helene, but it’s really, really bad up in the mountains not too far to our west. Those folks will need help for a very long time. Thankfully, several groups of churches are already committed to being there as long as it takes.
LikeLike
No.
LikeLike
I see that Ark finally followed through on his threat (;~) to spread the word about my blog. Welcome to the dark side, Nan. Or is it the light side? Jesus said His followers are to be light, so I’m inclined to lean in that direction, but maybe that’s just me. All the same, welcome. John, if you see this comment, same to you.
Nan, I’m curious if there’s any amount of evidence that would convince you to reconsider the truthfulness of the Christian worldview and what would it be.
LikeLiked by 1 person
No, nothing. I’ve been there, done that (over 15-years worth!), but thank life, after considerable reading and studying, I realized my failings and left “Christianity” behind.
And every time I come across blogs like yours, along with the comments of the “devoted,” it reinforces the decision I made those oh-so-many years ago.
It’s a difficult –if not impossible– transition for many because “the story” embeds itself deeply into the psyche. But life on the “other side” is well worth the effort. Trust me. 😊
LikeLike
I’m grateful for your honesty on the matter. But that means we really don’t have much to talk about. I’ll always be glad to hear your thoughts on this or that, but if no amount of evidence is going to convince you to consider Christianity again, I won’t worry with trying to present any or to convince you otherwise. Have a good weekend.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I’m confused, it was a simple yes or no answer.
So that’s a no?
LikeLike
I guess you didn’t understand my post. So that’s a no?
LikeLike
@Thomas
Your question speaks of the same level of intelligence as if I had asked you: “If a large sleigh with bells had been discovered under years of ice and snow at the North Pole and there was no doubt is was Santa’s would you consider this evidence of flying reindeer and a jolly fat man who delivers presents across the globe on Christmas Eve?”
You would consider I was an absolute blithering idiot who had completely lost his marbles.
So now you know pretty much how I feel regarding your question about Noah’s Ark.
For your party piece I am just waiting for you to enquire if I have heard about the discovery of a chariot wheel found on the bottom of the Red Sea and whether knew about its discoverer, Ron Wyatt?
Geez…. Some people, honestly.
🤦
LikeLiked by 1 person
So then, the answer is a no? Or did you really not understand his question?
Seemed like a fairly straightforward question to me. You insist (constantly) that you need empirical evidence to believe in something like Noah’s ark. So, he asked if you got empirical evidence for the historical existence of Noah’s ark, would you believe in it. Then, he asked for a simple yes or no. You’ve now responded twice with hand-waving blustered, but you still haven’t actually answered the question. You’re doing exactly the thing that critic on your own blog accused you of.
Let’s try again, then: If you received empirical, undeniable evidence that Noah’s ark existed, would you believe that it existed? Because so far it seems like the answer is no which suggests that you resistance to things Christians believe isn’t actually rooted in a lack of evidence like you claim, but rather in something more internal to you. Like, maybe you just don’t want to believe. And if that’s the case, that’s obviously a position you are free to hold, but in that case stop with all the nonsense about evidence being the reason for it and just be honest about why you don’t believe.
Some people, honestly…
LikeLike
He asked if I would believe in the legitimacy of Christianity, and that your god, Yahweh was real not merely if I would accept if the ark was real.
Read the bloody question properly and stop trying to use weak-arsed strawmanning to make your point, Jonathan.
So yes, if it, the ark – was discovered and determined to be real I would accept the evidence.
How this would he achieved is beyond me as the take is a plagiarized myth.
That said evidence is evidence. So carbon dating and that… again, yes I would accept that this was likely the Ark.
However, this fact has absolutely nothing to do with the rest of his question.
Now, as the Exodus has been shown to be nothing but a geopolitical foundation myth which the majority of a scholars, historians, archaeologists and Jews accept, then why the Gehenna do YOU not accept the evidence?
Do you think your resistance to fact is because of your indoctrinated faith-based supernatural Christian worldview, perhaps?
Yes, some people indeed, Jonathan.
LikeLike
There, see, that wasn’t so hard, was it? It just took a little goading to get you irate enough to actually answer. And to your last question, no more than your resistance is primarily rooted in your worldview ;~)
Now, let’s press the point a bit. If the ark was proven to be historical, demonstrating the reliable historicity of a key point in the Genesis account (not to mention one of the most ancient), would you then be open to reevalutating your opposition to the historicity of other major Old Testament narrative points? After all, if after years and years of insisting that the ark is a myth because of a lack of physical evidence, and then evidence was discovered demonstrating its genuine historicity, it would seem reasonable to surmise that in spite of much searching, the enduring lack of physical evidence for something like the Exodus is not the result of its total non-existence, but merely the result of its not being found yet.
And we should be clear, that the “geopolitical foundational myth” claim is not something that is proven by any amount of lack of evidence. That is an interpretation of the evidence. That is, it is a worldview-rooted conclusion based on philosophical commitments, not strictly the evidence.
There is evidence of the presence of an ancient semitic people in Egypt before the accepted dates of the Exodus. That evidence exists in the places the Exodus story locates the Israelites during their sojourn as immigrants and later slaves. There is evidence that a semitic slave population existed in Egypt that was used to make mud bricks, another historical claim of the Exodus narrative. There is evidence of semitic names (including one of the actual names mentioned in the Exodus narrative) in Egypt during the relevant historical period. There is evidence of the appearance of a semitic people in Canaan around about the time the Exodus narrative places their arrival. We know all of those things. Yes, the lack of physical evidence along one of the possible routes is challenging, but it is not totally unreasonable to draw a tentative conclusion that the semitic people in Egypt before the Exodus and the semitic people in Canaan after the Exodus time period were connected with one another and may have gotten from point A to point B by migration.
Then, there is the additional fact that as far as origin stories go, Israel’s is rather embarrassing. They were slaves, did nothing to free themselves from that condition, and look really incompetent and faithless on the journey to their new homeland. The reporting against interest contributes to the likelihood of the truthfulness of the narrative. That’s a concept widely accepted in modern prosecution work. Testimonies against interest are more likely to be true than not. That’s part of what weighs in favor of the historicity of the Gospel accounts. The disciples all look like clueless idiots throughout the narratives. Why would they do that as the ones writing the stories unless they were more committed to telling the truth than merely advancing a narrative?
LikeLike
The point you are conveniently hand waving away, demonstrating your disingenuity, is the fact that the Noachian Flood myth incorporates a global deluge and all the two by two animal nonsense, a human genocide and a single incestuous family.
So, if you are focusing solely in the boat, then yes, why not? Grand takes have been woven around such things.
However, if you are seriously trying to establish the legitimacy of the entire narrative then I’m sorry, you are a bloody fool.
And there is evidence to demonstrate n the Exodus tale as presented in the bible is nothing but a geopolitical foundation myth. It is called the Internal Settlement Pattern and has been accepted for decades. Not by people like you, of course, but certainly by those concerned with evidence truth and fact.
Now the Real question is…. Do you believe Noah’s Ark to be real?
LikeLike
Yes, I know it’s Wiki, but all the links are legit.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sources_and_parallels_of_the_Exodus#:~:text=There%20is%20no%20indication%20that,the%20early%2012th%20century%20BCE
LikeLike
“Tour is a follower of Jesus. Therefore, He’s a Christian. He is a Christian who happens to be a Messianic Jew, but He’s still a Christian by any historic definition of the word. There was nothing factually wrong or untruthful about what I said.”
Nope. Wrong. He is a Messianic Jew who just happens to believe the character Jesus of Nazareth is the Jewish Messiah, and while Messianic Jews embrace the NT they also abide by the Torah and observe dietary laws, probably to retain their Jewish heritage.
This other fact I think is fun. While Messianic Jews celebrate the resurrection they do not celebrate it on the pagan holiday Christians do.
So, in short, Tour is a Jew, not a Christian.
Do I hear a: “Sorry, John. My mistake.”
LikeLike
Do you know which historical group first earned themselves the name “Christian”?
LikeLike
Yes.
LikeLike
And that was…
LikeLike
If I tell younI know why are you asking and what is your point?
Perhaps you would be better asking why Tour regards himself as Jewish rather than trying to insist he is Christian?
Or maybe you subscribe to the notion that so called Christians as opposed to Jesus followers are ostensibly Paulites?
By the way, I asked if you were serious about natural disasters being the result of human sin?
LikeLike
The first people who were called Christians were practicing Jews who regarded Jesus as the Messiah. People like Tour. Referring to him as a Christian is simply accurately descriptive. Yes, he calls himself a Messianic Jew, but the title is historically accurate. His confession of faith looks pretty much the same as mine. If I’m accurately called a Christian (and I am), then he is one too by logical consistency. Once again, my Greek professor is a Messianic Jew who would be shocked to learn she’s not a Christian. And, no, the Paulite nonsense is silly. I’m not sure why this has become such a sticking point except that you just like to be argumentative.
And, yes, you did ask that. And I’ll get to that later. I told you I only have so much time for this. Now that you’ve sent more folks my way to dialogue with, I have to prioritize. You wanted more people talking here. Now you’ve got it 😉
LikeLike
I know the tale so why are you repeating it?
And if you egard Tour as a Christian why does he regard himself as a Messianic Jew?
I will take it for granted he is circumcised?
And why not go the whole hog? Ditch dietary laws, celebrate the pagan festivals Christians celebrate… Xmas, Easter etc?
I had never heard the term “Paulite”/ “Pauline Christianity” until I saw it written by someone who considered themselves to be a proper Christian.
But when one considers the doctrines and dogma it seems a fair description. After all, the character Jesus of Nazareth was born a Jew, raised a Jew and died a Jew.
All the Christian nonsense was invented afterwards largely by followers of Paul.
I wanted more people here? I thought you would be happy having more people visit your blog? If not I can just as easily ask them not to visit? Up to you. Say the word.
And the sin question doesn’t require a tome; a simple affirmation will do.
Anyone might think you were avoiding the question with your weak “I only have so much time for this” excuse.
LikeLike
What on earth does circumcision have anything to do with any of this? The idea that there were followers of Paul who were not also followers of Jesus really doesn’t have any merit, and the one puff of some evidence on the matter comes from Paul himself who was intentionally correcting the error. I feel kind of like you’re just being argumentative for the sake of being argumentative here.
My only point on increased traffic was that the more there is, the less time I have to dedicate solely to you. I’m happy for it, but you’ll occasionally have to wait longer on responses because of it.
On the sin question, no, a simple yes or no would not suffice in response to your question. You don’t have anything like a robust understanding of the doctrine of sin. Your understanding is a caricatured version of an historically orthodox one at best, at worst an open mockery of it. My simply answering yes or no to that question without a proper contextual framework would either leave you believing something is true that is not, or else ignorantly mocking an idea you don’t understand. Are you interested in a real answer to your question, or are you just looking to belittle whatever answer I do finally give you?
LikeLike
Okay, Iunderstand your response regarding the extra traffic.
But how long dies it take to formulate a yes or no response to my question?
To refresh: The question was in relation to what I thought was an allusion to sin being the reason for natural disasters.
If I have misunderstood simply say sosnd you can post your answer in what you regard as the proper contextual framework.
If this context is about global warming etc then I can see your point… Sort of.
So, once again, Jonathan, do you consider that (human) sin is responsible for ( non global warming) natural disasters ?
LikeLike
At long last for you: An historically orthodox understanding of the doctrine of sin is that one of the broader consequences of sin is that the creation itself is broken which includes but is not limited to the presence of natural disasters in the world. A standard doctrine of John’s vision of future restoration which is informed by Paul’s words to the Roman believers in Romans 8:18-25, sees a future in which creation itself will be restored along with the rest of humanity. Theologians have long referred to things like natural disasters as examples of natural evil. The presence of evil in the world is a result of sin, natural evil included. So, yes, I’m entirely comfortable understanding that natural disasters like the recent hurricanes in my neck of the woods are a result of the brokenness caused by sin in the world, but, no, we cannot point to some specific sin that was the cause of a specific natural disaster.
LikeLike
So then, in effect with regard your belief of the cause and the results of sin: you are simply round the bend.
Another reason why such beliefs should be kept as far away from kids as possible.
Furthermore, if your god, Yahweh is allowing/causing such things as the hurricane in your neck of the woods then he is truly one mean, rotten heartless sonofabitch.
I truly and with all sincerity feel very very sorry for your children.
However, on the bright side… kudos for the power of indoctrination.
The level of stupidity on display by believers never ceases to amaze.
🤣🤣🤣🤦🤦
LikeLike
So then you didn’t really ask to understand at all, but only to mock. Kind of like I assumed. Your mocking is rooted in ignorance, of course, but if you’re really just looking to mock, why bother asking in the first place?
Out of curiosity, would you be okay with my expressing my sincere apologies for the way you’ve raised your kids or how you have abused and indoctrinated them into a horrible worldview, or my hopes that they won’t one day hate you too much when they finally realize the hopeless wool you’ve kept pulled over their eyes for so long by the utter nonsensical garbage you’ve foisted upon them? I assume not which is why I haven’t ever expressed something like that, but perhaps I’m wrong.
LikeLike
I asked because I was genuinely hoping for a different answer and thinking :
“Nah… He Can’t be serious, surely?”
This was why I included the caveats.
Turns out that every time I am on the verge of giving you the benefit of the doubt for being at least reasonably sensible you go and pop yet another balloon.
And still you insist you are not indoctrinated and the fault lies with my worldview. Good gods, man, do you not hear yourself?
Do you recall how many tens of thousands died in that tsunami and here you are basically asserting it is humanity’s own fault. In fact you are stating they deserve it because of “sin” .
What about all the children who die from preventable diseases every minute of the day?
That is one very warped and sick way of looking at the world.
And to think you pass on such beliefs! Wow… Just frakking Wow.
As for my children.
Sure, go ahead and state what you like about the way I have raised my kids.
Evidence will win out of course and they are the evidence of our parenting skills, or lack thereof.
Both graduated schools with distinctions, both independant, both self employed. Both excellent critical thinkers, one plays classical guitar.
How am I doing do far?
LikeLike
It sounds like about as well as my own kids are doing. So, why don’t we leave each other’s kids out of our conversation?
I didn’t say a word about people’s deserving anything. You added that. A conversation about the doctrine of sin and God’s response to it (or any other Christian doctrine) isn’t going to be profitable for us to have because you don’t believe in a supernatural God in the first place. Beliefs that are subsequent to that won’t ever make sense to you. Trying to defend an idea to you that you don’t possess the necessary worldview resources to be able to understand in the first place strikes me as a waste of time.
LikeLike
You implied humans deserve the disasters because of the sin that caused the evil in the world. Good grief do you have any idea how difficult it is for me to write such nonsense?
The problem is YOU believe it and you introduce such outrageous beliefs into the worldviews of others, especially children, ostensibly condemning them. And this condemnation includes non believers such as me.
Once again your condescension is noted.
As you have never produced a scrap of evidence to demonstrate your worldview is based on anything but supersticious rot I fail to see how I can even have a notion of these supposed resources you deem I do not have.
Pray tell, Jonathan, exactly how does one obtain such resources?
LikeLike
Sorry forgot you other question on circumcision.
Circumcision is an integral part of being Jewish.( male)
The Bible character, Jesus of Nazareth would most certainly have been circumcised, him being Jewish, and sent solely to rescue ( Yahweh’s chosen people) the Jews, and I am presuming that Tour, as a Messianic Jew, is likewise circumcised.
Hence he is a Jew who believes Jesus to be the Jewish Messiah and not really a Christian, which relies almost exclusive on the doctrines laid out by the inventors/ promotors of the Christian religion. The character, Saul/Paul of Tarsus and the Church of Rome. Even Marcion may have had a say at some point.
LikeLike
This is probably going to come across way snarkier than I intend, but that sounds like something cobbled together by AI and not you. You’re working so hard to try to make Tour not a Christian in spite of the fact that as a Messianic Jew and from his own statement of faith he literally checks all of the historical boxes for someone any sociologist or demographer would label a Christian that you are making arguments that don’t make any sense. I can only conclude that the purpose of this is just to be argumentative for its own sake.
LikeLike
Well, the crux would be, does he self-identify as a Christian or a Messianic Jew?
I would imagine the bloke knows what religion he adheres to, wouldn’t you?
LikeLike
Perhaps I would have saved both of us much trouble by using the less culturally connoted phrase “follower of Jesus” instead of “Christian.” I meant the same thing either way. He is a committed follower of Jesus. Historically, those people have been referred to as Christians. If he chooses to use the title “Messianic Jew” for himself instead of “Christian,” by all means. The standard and historically utilized definition of Christian nonetheless applies to him. We’ll go with “follower of Jesus,” though for the sake of eliminating the need for argument.
LikeLike
No, you were good with Christian. No need to try to obfuscate at this point.
As you wrote, you meant the same thing anyway.
Christian refers to all the doctrine and dogma garbage found in the Church and the myriad sects of your religion.
So you are asserting Tour is basically shaming it by calling himself Jewish?
From what I have read Jews do not consider Messianic Jews to be proper Jews.
Do Messianic Jews partake of the Eucharist?
Would seem weird that any Jew would drink the “blood of Christ”.
LikeLike
I didn’t assert that or anything like it about Tour. No, non-Messianic Jews do not consider Messianic Jews to be right and proper Jews. They consider them to be heretical apostates who have crossed the line into the camp of Christians. And, no, to my knowledge Messianic Jews don’t assume on the Catholic understanding of communion you seem to be referencing there. Either way, you’re still just taking stabs from a position of not really having any idea what you’re talking about beyond perhaps a few internet searches. I’m just going to consider this topic a dead one and leave it alone going forward.
LikeLike
Why a dead subject?
You referenced him as a go-to- guy to defend the notion of the historicity of the Noachian Flood.
As John pointed out he is neither a relevant scholar or archaeologist or geologist, merely like you, a believer.
He brings nothing to the table regarding the subject at hand.
LikeLike
It is always amusing to see atheists lecture believers on the scriptures, while we believe every word of it, they believe none of it, therefore as the Lord says, blindness is kind of in the way. They will not see because they cannot see. It they are the enlightened ones!
it’s like the man born blind telling us we don’t know what blue is. But they use the same playbook. No exodus because Prof. so and so as well as his colleagues said it was a fable.
Noah may have lived but the ark is a recycled tale. Paul may have lived but he created his own religion, totally foreign to scripture. Blah blah blah.
Scripture has never lost a wink of sleep to atheism, as Gods word is good and ever more.
LikeLike
I confess I also find that amusing. Mostly amusing. Occasionally infuriating, but mostly amusing. I have remarked before that Paul on more than one occasion, Peter multiple times, and even Jesus did say that people would react just like is being demonstrated. That tends to get lost in the shuffle. Oh well. We’ll keep plugging away in the meantime.
LikeLike
@2016 I wrote a post re. the analogy of atheists trying to sink a submarine with a pea shooter. The utter pride and arrogance in trying to sink scripture w/ insults and lies. Has not changed in a few years- and has not changed in thousands of hrs-
‘Noah never lived.’ ‘There was no exodus.’ God did not create anything.’ Blah blah blah.
So yes, amusing that the Creator of the brain has not even been given the courtesy of existing.
LikeLike
And I apologize once again for the typos. Since the incident in January I have not bothered to replace my laptop and sometimes my fat fingers will not behave on the phone keyboard.
I must learn extra patience 😊
LikeLike
Just don’t pray for patience. That’s the one prayer I always tell my people not to pray. Not because we don’t need it, but because the way God tends to answer it is by giving us opportunity to exercise it. Those are typically tough lessons to learn.
LikeLike