The Bible is full of bloody and gruesome portrayals, many of which are carried out at what appears to be the direct command of God.
One atheistic author has written an entire book about these many thousands of passages in the Bible in which God blesses, causes, commands, or sanctions violence against human beings (Steve Wells, Drunk with Blood: God’s Killings in the Bible).
But it is not just atheists who notice and are troubled by such violent texts.
Many Christians consider the violent portions of Scripture to be the most troubling texts in all the Bible. In fact, I talked with one woman just this past week who has abandoned Christianity, largely because of the violent portrayals of God in the Bible. She said, “If there is a God, he is either is monstrous to cause such things, is impotent because he cannot stop them, or is absent and he does not care. Whichever way you go, such a god is not worthy of worship. ”
I couldn’t agree more.
I, too, could not worship a god like that.
Thankfully, I don’t think those are the only three options when trying to understand the violent portrayals of God in the Bible. I have tried to present my view in previous posts.
Yet although there are other options, this doesn’t mean it is easy to understand what is going on behind these bloody events in the Bible.
Most difficult to assess are passages portraying God as a bloodthirsty warrior—“I will make my arrows drunk with blood, while my sword devours flesh” (Deut 32:42)—or as burning with anger so ruthless it consumes the enemy “like stubble” (Exod 15:7). Also troubling are passages ordering the Israelites to “carry out the Lord’s vengeance” (Num 31:3); to “kill all the boys” and “kill every woman who has slept with a man” (Num 31:17); to “make no treaty with them, and show them no mercy” (Deut 7:2); to “not leave alive anything that breathes” (Deut 20:16); so that the Israelites “left no survivors” (Deut 2:34; Josh 10:39) (See Heath Thomas, Jeremy Evans, and Paul Copan, eds., Holy War in the Bible: Christian Morality and the Old Testament Problem, 189).
Over the course of the next several months, we are going to take a brief look at several of the violent and bloody portrayals of God in the Old Testament.
The analysis of these texts will be much shorter than the analysis of the flood in Genesis 6–8 because explaining all the texts in detail would simply mean that many of the same arguments and ideas presented as an explanation for one text would simply be repeated in an explanation for a different text. (See Paul Copan, Is God a Moral Monster? Making Sense of the Old Testament God).
Each text will be introduced in turn with a brief explanation of how God is portrayed in the passage, and this will be followed with a brief explanation of how to understand God’s actions in light of the Chaos Theory and in light of God taking on the sin of the whole world, just as Jesus did on the cross.
It must be reiterated, however, that not all the passages allow for a clear glimpse behind the curtain. While many of the violent and troubling depictions of God are explained in later texts of the Bible in a way which shows that God did not actually command or perform the evil that is ascribed to His name, many of the passages have no such explanation later in Scripture. So for those texts, we must simply rely on what we know about God through the revelation of Jesus, and also what we know about the six points of the Chaos Theory and how God has ordered the universe.
To prepare yourself for this series of posts, I strongly suggest you go read the previous posts I have written on this topic related to the Chaos Theory and the Proposal I am attempting to defend.
What are your thoughts on the violent portrayals of God in the Bible? Have you struggled with any of the bloody events in Scripture? Which ones?
Can’t get my head around all the things you have brought up in all your posts but know that God places great value on blood. . . that there’s life in blood. This morning my heart’s all in that there’s living present power in Jesus’ blood to cleanse me this moment and this day. . . not just as a point of doctrine but as reality from God that frees. Jesus’ invitation to drink his blood today remains the only way to know God and be alive in Him. Hard to match up violence with God but don’t want lose how precious spilled blood is to Him.
Brother-my post on my BLOG: http://revtonyvance.wix.com/tonyvance#!BLOODY/ca6m/78D76B68-D16B-42B2-8D2B-3B6BE09B6366
Deals with the importance of the blood. But, Jeremy is stating the APPARENT violence of God (as in bloody violent). It is a great subject he has been exploring on his BLOG.
Hey brother, thanks for the link. . . will check it out. Hopefully my comment wasn’t taken as criticism of Jeremy’s search. . . appreciate all the heavy lifting Jeremy’s doing. Wondering in viewing these questions if the sacrifice that blood represents to God gives value to violence. . . that shedding blood even in violence doesn’t just mean the end of something but points to something precious with God. Had posted before that in this subject, have more questions than answers.
I do believe there is a notion, in scripture, of blood representing something precious (such as life itself). I did not take your post as a criticism.
Here is the reference:
Lev. 17:11
For the life of the flesh is in the blood, and I have given it for you on the altar to make atonement for your souls, for it is the blood that makes atonement by the life.
Hey man, checked out your blog post. . . thanks for giving the link.
Alan, Tony, and Lisa,
Thanks for the discussion here. Yes, it is true that “the life is in the blood” (Lev 17:11) So yes, God does value “blood” in that He values life.
I guess what I am trying to argue is that since God values life, He does not want anyone to perish. Yet of course, people do perish, and the OT often portrays God has the one who causes people to perish. I am trying to argue that God’s primary activity in the OT is to rescue and deliver people from perishing….
the theology is easy to argue… and the idea is easy to argue from the NT…. but I am finding great difficulty in arguing this idea from OT passages like this one on Sodom and Gomorrah.
There are few issues here.
The first is that this issue of God being a ‘moral monster’ wasn’t something I had heard until the aggressive new atheists started bandying it around, and then as an accusation, or possibly an excuse to not believe.
Second is that it is, I think, a very post-modern question. To mix concepts a bit, as a generation, we want to ban everyone else from violence, but keep the violence in our own hearts. We don’t like accountability or consequences: we want simultaneously to do whatever we want, but to have the God we don’t accept anyway to curb the actions of others (this takes the form of : why doesn’t God stop …?)
Third, in saying things like “I, too, could not worship a god like that.” and “such a god is not worthy of worship” shifts the argument to whether humans (the creation) gets to decide whether God (the creator) is worthy. In a way, it is falling into trap of arguing on the other side’s terms (an established activist tactic). It’s probably a good thing for an apologist to do, but be aware that you can never ‘win’ that way. All you can hope to do is better equip those who genuinely want to understand.
So, in the light of all this, I’ll be interested to see how your argument develops.
Finally, I’m uncomfortable with your use of the term ‘chaos theory’, but that’s because it has a precise mathematical meaning in my household. If you have some mathematician/physics friends, you might want to run the way you have used the concept past them. Having seen scientists get precious about little things, I would invent my own term and avoid all argument that way.
Hmm. I did not know this about “Chaos Theory.” Is there a place I could read more about it from a scientific perspective? Maybe I should come up with another phrase… but what?
As to the accusations of the atheists, yes, they were probably the first ones to make such accusations, but …. I would argue that this is only because Christians were slow to do so. To our shame, we defended the violent actions of God rather than followed the example of Jesus in condemning violence…. That’s what I am trying to argue in my book anyway.
This article is a great introduction, and it is very close to the way it was released into the popular mainstream back in the late 1980s/early 1990s (Jurassic park lead aside). This wikipedia article also covers it in more up-to-date detail, even if the language descends into jargon in places.
You can decide from there if you want to tread in that territory. As for alternative labels, that’s a hard one. You might decide you’re happy with ‘chaos’ theory after all (maybe just drop the word ‘theory’?), and just add some explanation. I hope that’s useful to you.
And here is an example of the bickering that comes with labels (see the comments section). It takes me back to old jobs … it’s so not worth it. You want people to argue your main ideas, not whether you’ve used a label in a way that’s consistent with their understanding of a complex theory.
Thank you! I will check it out.
Marcion saw the God of the Tanakh as a “moral monster”, so that criticism is not something recently coined.
The only thing that is new, is that it is much easier to locate material about that criticism today, than it was thirty years ago.
I find it interesting that someone who does not believe in anything outdide the natural would spend so much time disrespecting a god that they do not believe in.
Maybe they are actually searchers of The Truth and want to believe in the supernatural but can’t swallow the blood letting. It’s not only in the old testament that people died because of their rebellion against the God they believed in. Just like Gods people before them the Jews were to suffer from the blood letting as much as those who did not believe.
I believe that those who call themselves atheists are angry searchers after God.
Clive,
Maybe so! I like the perspective anyway, though I doubt any atheist would admit to it…
Yes Chritianity has become less attractive from old to young searching for The Truth but rejecting it when it appears to not embrace our modern ideas of truth, even suggesting there are many truths.
My 39 year old son has been searching for his own personal truth and thought he had found it in yoga and read the Hindu yogi book which focused on so called exercise and self awareness. He is now plagued with a spirit of death which stops him thinking or working.
yogi talks about using the body as an end to a means of perfect enlightenment of the spirit, death of self for selfs sake. The ultimate lie. He does not think his going into yoga is the problem but did admit yesterday that reading about death all the time in the yogi writings may have been the trigger. Not only was it the trigger but the deadly bullet as well.
I believe only his rejection of yogi ideas and acceptance that Jesus is the way the truth and the life can he receive prayer of deliverance and get his life back. Please pray for this my brothers and sisters in Christ. Clive
The only text God ‘wrote’ was the first Ten Commandments, which Moses broke, literally, as he came down with them. That’s significant as man was always going to break those 10 rules and continue to do so.
The rest is a struggle with never being up to the mark and the stories told of what they believed to be God’s role in it.
Mark I think you could be incorrect. Jeremiah 31 v 31 to 35 and in Isaiah 59 v 21 and in Hebrews 10 v 16 I hope this is helpful. Clive
Two versions of the Ten Commandments are recorded in Exodus.(20, and 34).
In set two, adhering to three-quarters of them is trivial, if one organizes one’s life accordingly. However, violating them requires nothing more than ignoring them. An even more trivial task.
Set one is echoed in Muslim, Hindu, Bhuddist, and Daoist texts.
Mark, Yes, that is fairly close to the view I am arguing for.
Make no mistake here, God is the same today as he was yesterday and as he will be forever. What we think of God doesn’t change who he is or what he can do….. of course you all know that, but God does have wrath and that wrath is justified in his sight, Jesus took a severe battering to satisfy this wrath and because of that we now have access to the same God that the prophets of old had access to. Jesus did not stand in the way of a God who sat there saying ”oh ok I’ll let them off then” he stood between a God who is fully prepared to smash all of your faces in had it not been for Jesus taking that punishment for us.
Now when he returns he will be wearing a robe that has been dipped in blood. Yep, this kind and loving God who longs to gather you in his arms is no limp wristed namby pamby wishy washy God, he is the Lord Almighty.
So, as peter says, since the heavens will disappear with a roar and the elements will be destroyed by fire what kind of people ought you be?.
The fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge, the fear of the Lord is absent from most churches right now and has been replaced with a sanitised version of a more palatable God. Christianity itself has become a principality and holds thousands captive,
Before anyone comments on me calling todays Christianity a principality, ( a demonic stronghold) let me just make a request that those who do answer are those who live as the followers of the way did in biblical times, that is, meeting every day, considering nothing they owned as their own, laying their lives down for the gospel (and not getting paid to do so) and having signs and wonders accompany them when they speak of the Lord.
I read that the ones who lived like this also spoke very clearly about the wrath of God as well as the mercy and love of God. Shouldn’t we do the same? The paranoia of offence is crippling the gospel.
Get the bible and preach the bloody thing.
one difficulty with your view is that it makes the Father and the Son to be of two very different purposes
in your view there is no grace in the Father, but Jesus alone offers grace as He must “save us from the Father smashing all our faces”
in your view Jesus is different from the Father, Jesus is the one who shows grace and prays for the forgiveness of His murderers so that God the Father won’t “smash in their faces”
this is not the picture of the Father that Jesus paints in the Prodigal Son parable, it never entered his head to smash in the boy’s face
Jesus says “If you have seen me, you have seen the Father.”
God didn’t pursue Adam after the fall in order to smash in his face
your view of the Father’s heart is very disturbing
John 3:16
Tony,
Let me add a bit to what what Lisa has so well said….
First, I will be discussing at great length the “wrath of God.” I do not think it means what you might think it means….
Second, the robe dipped in blood that Jesus wears turns out to be dipped in his OWN blood, not that of His enemies. He is not red with the spattered blood of His enemies, but with His own blood, shed for His enemies.
Also, I am not a proponent of the penal substitution theory of the atonement, which states (among other things) that God had to pour out His wrath on Jesus so that we could be loved. I hold to the Christus Victor view, and will defend it in more detail in future posts.
Jeremy,
Are you familiar with the book The Deliverance of God by Dr. Douglas Campbell? I did not read it (It is 1200 pages and very detailed) but it critiques penal substitutionary atonement theory as a misreading of Romans 1 – 4. There is a 12- part review of the book on Richard Beck’s blog that breaks it down and discusses it in a very understandable manner for nonscholars like myself.
I am not familiar with it… but will check out Beck’s review anyway. Thanks!
Jeremy, not sure where you come to the conclusion that the robe Jesus wears is dipped in his own blood? I’m also not sure where you concluded I suggested his robes were dipped in the blood of his enemies either?? did you make that up yourself or is it just to support Lisa who also is suggesting I have said things that I actually haven’t.
I see the blood on his robe as the blood of the saints.
In your streets flowed the blood of the prophets and of God’s holy people
and the blood of people slaughtered all over the world.”
I would also say that I agree God didn’t pour out his wrath on Jesus so that we could be loved, we were loved first which is why Jesus took the wrath of God on our behalf so that we could go free. He opened the way to the father by making atonement for our sins.
Now to what Lisa has ”so well said”
1. The grace of the father in heaven is the offering of his son Jesus as a sacrifice for us all.
2. in my view Jesus does show grace and forgiveness of sins and is a reflection of the father in heaven.
3. the prodigal son? seems a bit of a random comment actually, the prodigal son is returning to the father, where did I suggest that God will smash in the face of anyone turning to him, as for those that refuse to accept or even fight against him or not return after turning away the bible is clear they come under the wrath of God.
4. I agree that God didn’t pursue Adam to smash his face in, never suggested that or alluded to it, but there is no confusion where sin leads and there is no doubt about the consequences off those who love their lives, they will lose it where as those that hate their lives will find it…
So to conclude, Jesus and the father are not two different things, they are both the very same in as much as God desires all to be saved and has shown the way to salvation. If however you wish to do something other than accept Jesus then the future is bad. If you start with the assumption that I think Jesus and the father are two very different things then your comments would carry weight.
Demons believe in Jesus and shudder, so just believing is not enough.
Satan knows scripture better than any human, so knowing scripture is not enough.
Accepting Jesus and following him is a completely different matter. The kingdom of heaven is not just a matter of mere persuasive words but of a demonstration of the power of God, it is a call to death, so die now and the second death wont hurt you.
let me finish with 1 Thessalonians.
1Now, brothers and sisters, about times and dates we do not need to write to you, 2for you know very well that the day of the Lord will come like a thief in the night. 3While people are saying, “Peace and safety,” destruction will come on them suddenly, as labour pains on a pregnant woman, and they will not escape
Tony,
Are you angry? Your comment sounds angry.
Note that my comment said nothing about what you actually believe. I was not saying anything about what you personally might or might not believe. So don’t take my comment as an attack on y our beliefs, or as an assumption about what you believe.
All I was saying is this:
The wrath of God as the anger of God against sinners is a common belief. I don’t hold it it. The robe dipped in blood of the enemies interpretation is a common belief. I don’t hold to it. Penal substitution is a common belief. I don’t hold to it.
If you believe these things, I invite you to stay around and hear an alternative perspective. If you don’t believe those things, that’s fine too… please feel free to clearly state and defend your views in a succinct and gracious way.
Jeremy, I don’t believe any of those things which is what my post clearly says? Your post really does comment on what you think I believe and yet you say it doesn’t? really, really, strange.
The very notion that you would assume that I would think my beliefs are under attack is also open to interpretation. If my beliefs were under attack then I sincerely hope any deception or delusion I am under would be destroyed in the attack never to rise again.
Just for the record I am not angry either, that was a cunning opening to your response, I was eating salt and vinegar flavour Hoola Hoops when I was writing and getting salt all over my keyboard..
So, lets keep it short then Jeremy, where do you arrive at the conclusion that the robe Jesus wears is dipped in his own blood. Just asking.
The thing with writing on here is that it falls into the same category as texting, there is no expression of voice. I would say though that if you are not going to challenge someone on their beliefs directly then maybe leave their name out of the start of your post? I’ve put your name there because I am challenging yours. Iron sharpens Iron.
Tony,
Whether you intend to or not, your comments sound angry and argumentative. I am issuing you a warning: stay on topic and stop the ad hominem attacks or else I will ban you from commenting. If you want to ask a question, ask a question. If you want to object, object. But be clear, concise, and kind.
As to the robe dipped in blood of enemies, have you read any commentaries on the Book of Revelation? I have read dozens, and this is the common view. I just spent five minutes looking through a few and found it in: Matthew Henry, Jammieson-Fausset-Brown, John Gill, The Pulpit Commentary, and several others.
Jeremy, I fully understand. But, I would rather be banned than be controlled.
Yours in Christ.
Tony
Tony, I understand. I am not trying to control you or anyone. Just trying to allow us both to hear each other. Thanks, my man!
Just an after thought.
Lisa is talking about what she thinks I believe, You say her post is well written and you would like to add to it, then you say your comments say nothing about what I believe. I am struggling not to see a touch of spin here.
We all, like sheep, have gone astray,
each of us has turned to our own way;
and the Lord has laid on him
the iniquity of us all.
I genuinely feel that seeing the wrath that Jesus took for our iniquity on the cross for me just makes the cross all that more amazing and powerful.
Lisa,
if you would permit me to challenge you too.
Here is a copy and paste of something you wrote not so long ago
Jesus came to inaugurate the Kingdom of God. He came as King of the Jews. If the nation did not accept him, there was going to be a fiery judgment – which there was in 70 A.D. Jerusalem and the Temple were utterly destroyed. Thousands (maybe more?) Jews were crucified and their bodies dumped and burned in Gehenna.
Do you think out of all these thousands of people who were crucified and dumped that none of them had their faces smashed in? Perhaps my language is more violent than yours, granted, but if we look at things a little more graphically we can begin to sense the true horror of what they suffered.
So you admit that God will leave those who do not accept him to the mercy of what is in the world, and when he does there is brutality and blood. Does God not say through Isaiah,
”It is I who created the destroyer to work havoc”
There is only one escape from this, that is the acceptance of Jesus. Trouble is the acceptance of Jesus is actually a call to death in order to find life, it never was and never will be an enhancement to the life you have now.
The Jews suffered at the hands of the Romans. It wasn’t the Father’s heart to to have this violence unleashed on them. That is why Jesus weeps over Jerusalem in Luke 19: 41 – 44.
“Would that you, even you, had known on this day the things that make for peace!…because you did not know the time of your visitation.”
In Chapter 13 he said he wanted to gather them like a hen gathers chicks under her wings. It was his heart (and He is the image of the invisible God) to protect Jerusalem, not to do it violence. He could prevent the the Roman war if they accepted Him as King of the Jews.
When Judas came to betray Him in the garden, Jesus called him “friend”. I do not believe there is violence in the heart of God even toward His enemies. Jesus prayed for His crucifiers as they nailed Him to the cross.
Violence on earth comes from the heart of man and ultimately Satan, who was a murderer from the beginning.
Even at the atonement (and I agree with Jeremy that penal substitutionary theory is not the best explanation of the atonement) the beatings and mockings were perpetrated by the Romans and were not necessarily part of the reconciliation of the world to God. That work between the Father and Son seems to have been done on the cross in the darkness between the sixth and ninth hour – not in Pilates’ nor Herod’s nor Annas/Caiaphas’ presence.
The whole point of Jeremy’s series here is to look at the OT violence and explain it in light of the revelation of the Father that Jesus gives us. Jeremy is working on one theory and there are several books and articles published recently along similar lines. Jesus is the fullest revelation of the Father, greater than the revelation the Jews had in the Old Testament. Remember the Jewish leaders did not recognize Him because of what they were expecting from their reading of the OT! Jesus turned their expectations upside down.
He is the image of the invisible God (Col.1:15), when we see Him, we have seen the Father.
Lisa, I did write ”It is I who created the destroyer to work havoc”
We are talking of the same thing here, accepting Jesus and being saved from the coming wrath of God. The Jews were chosen so that we may learn of the nature of God.
There are many accounts in the old testament where Jewish people had a great revelation of Jesus, look at Isaiah for one, he understood more of Jesus and God than the majority of Christians do these days and explained in clear detail why Jesus was going to be brutalised the way he was.
If you want to believe in a God who has no wrath then im ok with that, if however he does has the capacity for wrath does that affect your love towards him?
Hey. Im not trying to convince you of anything but I will ask you this, If your son was being smashed in ready to be nailed to a cross and left in the sunshine to suffer and die, and you had the power to stop it but instead turned away and let it happen then tell me what was that for? If god could woo you with a nice bunch of flowers and a big hug then why the cross.
As Isaiah says
But he was pierced for our transgressions,
he was crushed for our iniquities;
the punishment that brought us peace was on him,
and by his wounds we are healed.
God calls warrior nations in the old testament to fight against other nations, he does the same today, he is not violent, he is God, he is not wrong, he is right, he is not defenceless, he is mighty.
Can I just correct you on one thing you have said.
”That work between the Father and Son seems to have been done on the cross in the darkness between the sixth and ninth hour – not in Pilates’ nor Herod’s nor Annas/Caiaphas’ presence.”
Just want you to know that what Jesus did was not done in the fathers presence either, at the point he was about to die on the cross the father had turned away and Jesus knew he hung there alone at one point.
theologians do not all agree that the Father turned from the Son on the cross….
Jesus was reciting Psalm 22:
My God, My God why have you forsaken me?
which goes on to say in verse 24 :
For He has not despised or abhorred the affliction of the afflicted,
and he has not hidden his face from him, but has heard, when he cried to him.
I think Jeremy did a post on this recently: Why Did Jesus Say Why Have You Forsaken Me?
He also did a post on: God Cannot Look Upon Sin?
The view of the atonement that you have been taught (Penal Substitution) is one of four or five major theories on the atonement. It is NOT the only one although it is very popular in American culture. It comes from Augustine via John Calvin.. The Orthodox Church has another view as they followed different early church fathers than Augustine.
Thanks Lisa,
I still hold to the sacrificial lamb on the cross, he carried our sins and transgressions and satisfied the wrath of God that was due towards our sinful nature. I will however look up some of the stuff you have mentioned and have a read on Jeremy’s other post before I continue any further on here. Ill probably continue on the other threads since the conversation has now drifted into the cross.
At this point I just want to stop and give you and Jeremy a big cyber hug for the way you guys have interacted with Rudransh Saraf on the unforgiveable sin thread. The 11 year old boy who is in a rut. The tenderness of you guys really shone through and I just want to encourage you in the midst of us thrashing out all this stuff on here.
Hi Jeremy we have conversed in the past. I’m the ‘fading’ JW who doesn’t believe in the Trinity. Do you remember? You were very gracious in your response to me, which is something I really appreciated. You certainly not like some of the fire breathing Trinitarians that I’ve encountered 🙂
Well any case I’ve been following your posts regarding violence in the Bible. This is something that obviously plays on your mind a lot, as you try to reconcile Yahweh and Jesus.
I came across a web site and immediately thought of you. It is called the Christian Think Tank and the the author provides some really deep theological thoughts on a number of issues. In particular he addresses the question of a loving God ordering the killing of the Canaanites.
It is so well written and looks at the matter contextually, historically and theologically. It is a long read, but definitely worth it. It can be found here: (http://christianthinktank.com/qamorite.html)
I think you will find it addresses many of your questions that satisfies both the mind and heart. I hope it helps and I would be interested to know what you think.
Yes, I remember our previous interactions. Thank you for sticking around!
Thanks as well for the web site recommendation. I will go check it out right now!
Hi Jeremy. I’m really looking forward to your up and coming blog posts. Would it be possible to cover Numbers 16? That passage really bothers me.
Kathy,
Yes, I will be looking at Korah’s rebellion. Is that the main issue in Numbers 16 that you were wondering about?
Anyone wanting to be wonderfully enlightened on this subject I recommend you read this book: Is God a Moral Monster?
Yep, I’ve read it. It was helpful, though it did not provide a wholly satisfactory answer for me.
Ephesians 6 v 11 to 13 God knows the consequences of pride and warned everybody continuously in the Old Testament through His prophets and in the New testament through John, Jesus and his followers. The consequences of rebellion against God The Good will cause the onslaught of powers, principalities and rulers against us, why because we choose to remove ourselves from the protection of God who is our shield.
God did not kill anyone, the angel of death did. 2 Samuel 24 v 15 to 16 God had mercy and stopped the killing. God has not changed.
Adam and Eve were immortal until they fell (rebelled) we will become immortal after we die and begin a new life with The Father.
I find it amazing that anyone should think they are so good they deserve to live at all. Sin and we are all sinners, deserves a penalty God has been paying for it from the time he created the universe, not us. Adam blamed Eve, Eve blamed the serpent the serpent blamed God, who do you blame? There was no other good enough to pay the price of sin he only could unlock the gate of heaven and let us in. Clive
Yes, God did not kill anyone. The angel of death did. I will make this point more clear in the posts about the Tenth Plague.
Just had a thought Jeremy. Going to give you a title for a new book to write. “THE BOOKS JESUS NEVER GOT TO WRITE”. Good title eh!! I have never authored a book before and have not attained the skill set. So over to you. Maybe the closing of the biblical narrative was inhibitive to the complete story. In fact so many books have been written since, it obviously was. We live in a kingdom of many jesui. That’s a new word maybe. Jesui. Meaning many jesus, s. Makes me think of jesuits given my Catholic background. And jedi, s. Given my ehhhhhhhh star wars background. Lol lol lol. Second bits a load of b.s. Just sounding off. My creative, open trait design. Lol. Blame Jordan Peterson.