Good morning Greg;

Just got your e mail and wanted to quickly respond.
I just wanted to wish you a happy Thanksgiving, Greg.  I wasn't looking for an argument over that too.  I'm well aware of the harvest festivals. The specific Thanksgiving that "Americans" celebrate, is however, in specific memory to the Pilgrims giving thanks to God for what they had been given, the harvest and survival of their first year in the New World. That's what my family was celebrating here.  I hope whatever you were celebrating was equally enjoyable.

 

In regards to the "hardened heart".  Again, Greg, I wasn't looking for an argument over that too.  It is merely a descriptive term.  No one is asking you to throw reason & logic completely out the window.  As I see it, one can use reason & logic and if the heart is sincerely open to God, that reason & logic will work in deepening understanding and faith. That is what happened to me 8 years ago.  Or, one can use reason & logic but be totally closed to God or anything He may be trying to reveal, and no matter what reason & logic is presented it will not help that person develop any deeper understanding or faith whatsoever. That, in my opinion, is where you are at, and the difference between you and I (why I was able to use my intellect to strengthen my faith in Jesus and you are not).

 

As far as the "burden of proof" goes.  As I had said when I first asked you if you wanted to correspond with me, I am not "burdened" with proving that Jesus exists, neither for my sake (I already have enough evidence to believe), nor yours (for it is written "...seek and ye shall find" I cannot "seek" for you.  It does not appear to me that you are truly seeking the Lord, but merely trying to "debunk" Him.)  I told you I would provide you with evidence, not proof, to which I feel I have adequately done.  Yet it is still obviously not enough for you.  My question is: in your mind, what evidence could one give you that would be enough for you to believe He did in fact, exist??

I asked you to give me the evidence you use to deny He existed and your only reply is about tooth fairies, easter bunnies, and santa.  My challenge is: rather than me having to do all the work, then you just quickly saying, "no, I still don't believe, give me more", how about we both provide as much logical and reasonable evidence to back up our beliefs, then merely examine the evidence. O.K.?

To summarize, let's look at what evidence each of us has shared to back up our respective beliefs:

Evidence for Jesus's existence:

  1. Numerous credible eye witness accounts who were even willing to die for their testimony. (know of anybody who says they actually saw Santa, tooth fairy, easter bunny, etc... then be willing to die for it??)
  2. Numerous "critics" of Jesus during that time even acknowledging His existence. (why would "critics" acknowledge His existence if He never did?)
  3. Numerous "early Church" writings, including the 4 Gospels, confirm His existence. (These writings refer to specific times, people, places, events, etc... that if they never occurred because there was no such man, people could have EASILY come forth to say it was all B.S!  Why didn't they?)
  4. Several "outside" preserved ancient manuscripts that acknowledge His existence.
  5. A body of "believers", consisting of several thousand emerging within the first 20 years after Jesus's death. (How could so many people, many living in the same exact town where Jesus was reported to be walking and talking, come to believe in Him if He didn't exist?  They would have merely said: "Jesus? Never heard of Him and none of the things you disciples say happened ever really occurred.  I was there and I know they never happened".  Why didn't they just say that, if He never existed at all?

Evidence that Jesus never existed:

  1. There are myths of Santa, tooth fairies, easter bunny, etc... therefore Jesus is a myth.

Is that all the evidence you use, Greg, to deny Jesus ever existed?  And your trying to tell me I'm not using reason & logic to back up my beliefs and you are???  Come on!  I have shared with you clear, direct and credible evidence and arguments that would likely stand up in a court of law, ie., I have given evidence that concludes "beyond REASONABLE doubt" that Jesus existed.  Do you really believe that a jury would conclude "beyond REASONABLE doubt" that Jesus never existed given only the evidence you provided?  In one of your first letters said you "want to believe".  Then in this last letter you said "I cannot... I WILL NOT".  I am sad to say... I believe you.

I'm going to send this off now.  I will respond to the rest of you letter in another one.   Don't throw your intellect out, but PLEASE, open your heart (figuratively for fear you'll go off on me again and provide another human anatomy lecture! lol) a bit and go back to what you said at first... "I want to believe". Then contemplate on what is being provided to you.

Derek

(2nd part of letter)

Greetings Greg;

As I said, here is my response to the rest of your correspondence.

In order to really understand what is being described in Deuteronomy 21:10-14 and Numbers 31:15-18, in fact much of the Old Testament, one must have an understanding of what the Jewish Culture was like back then, as well as what the other peoples of the world of that time were like.  And that is by far too much to be able to share with you in these correspondences.  I would therefore encourage you to do the research I have into the lives of the ancient Jews and other peoples mentioned in the Old Testament.  But I will try to explain these verses to you as clearly and as briefly as I can... but, in all honesty, I don't feel it will really make a difference for you... your mind seems quite made up and is unlikely going to change just by me explaining the truths of the passages you have been misunderstanding.

A basic "101" summary of the Old Testament...
God chose a people out of the earth to become His children.  These children, or Nation would be the descendants of Abraham.  God promised a large portion of land to His people, the Nation of Israel. God had Moses, lead His people to this "promised land" and had Joshua bring His people into the land to "possess" it.  God told Joshua to remove the pagan, "detestable" people from the land, make it sacred and Holy unto Him and for His people.  Joshua led the Jews through numerous battles in conquering this promised land, the land of Cannan. We may think that the most dangerous problem for Joshua and the Jews was the battles and wars which they fought to possess the land. But that was not the case.  The most dangerous problem that Joshua and the Jews faced was the ever present temptation to compromise with the Canaanite religions and culture.  That is why God told them to wipe them all out, to protect the Jewish nation from falling back into the sinful practices and the worshipping of other gods that God had redeemed them from.  However, the Jews several times failed to obey God's commands, leaving some of the pagan people still alive.  And just as God knew, these pagan influences tempted the Jews away from God again and again throughout their history.  

Now with that background in mind lets look specifically at the story being told in Numbers 31...  Note verse 1... God told Moses to "Take vengeance on the Midianites for the Israelites..." which meant to kill ALL the Midianite people, Men, women, children.  What did the Midianites do to Israel that God was saying to take vengeance about you might ask?  The answer is found in the chapters just preceding chapter 31... (you see, Greg, if you are REALLY interested in TRUTH, then it pays to READ THE WHOLE BOOK and not just take bits and pieces and misinterpret them)  Specifically, in Chapter 22 we are told the story of how the Moabites and the Midianites collaborated in a scheme against Israel.  By chapter 25 we find the Israelite men being seduced by the Moabite and Midianite women into sexual immorality and pagan god worship.  God greatly punishes the Jews for this and there tells Moses to "treat the Midianite people as enemies and to kill them..."  

Which now can bring us back to chapter 31, the chapter you bring into question.  So God tells Moses to go kill the Midianites.  Moses tells his armies to carry this out, but when they return Moses finds that the Jewish army allowed the Midianite women to live (brought them back as captives, along with others) which was in direct disobedience to God. Moses then instruct the army to kill all the other captives except the virgin women.  (Remember the Midianite people were pagan and EXTREMELY sexually immoral. Moses was in a sense "salvaging the damage" done by his armies disobedience in not killing everyone, and to then at least allow the women who had not defiled themselves with a man, to live).
NOTE GREG: Nowhere in the text does it suggest that God was commanding the act of Rape!  You jumped to a false interpretation.  And to make this even more clear what the Jewish practice of "saving a woman for themselves" meant, we can now move onto Deuteronomy 21:10-14.

If you were, again, to read the entire Old Testament, you would find that at times God told the Jews to completely destroy a Nation.  That meant everything,... men, women, children, livestock, food, plunder, EVERYTHING!  Other times God would allow them to take some things from a conquered Nation.  Here in Deuteronomy we are hearing Moses instructing the Jews in what is appropriate in taking woman captive.  He says..."After she has lived in your house and mourned her father and mother for a full month, then you may go to her and be her husband and she shall be your wife...." which specifically means then they could have sex with her.

AGAIN NOTE, GREG: Nowhere in the text does it suggest that God was commanding the act of Rape!  You jumped to a false interpretation.

The fact is, as the text shows, quite the opposite.  They were treated with respect.  Yes, they were obviously taken against their will... they were captives.  But I know of no other culture that did such respectful treatment of their "captive women".  The fact of the matter is, if these women were not taken captive, they would have been killed.  God was providing a way for these pagan women to be spared and brought into being one of "God's people", through this process.

Finally...

Yes Greg... some Jews had multiple wives.... and the Jews also used captives as slaves. This was a common worldwide practice.  Not something God commanded them to do.  Remember He is taking His people out of the world.  Therefore God gave them instructions on how they were to treat these "captives".  In fact, did you know that it was ancient Jewish custom to forgive ALL debt every 7 years... as part of the Sabbath cycle... and that included releasing ALL slaves after a 7 year period of time?... Again, Greg due to your general lack of total Old Testament knowledge and lack of Jewish custom knowledge and traditions, you are jumping to VERY WRONG CONCLUSIONS.

Did this help you understand that passages you were confused about? I'm sad to say, I believe it very likely hasn't.  As I said before, your mind seems made up and "not wanting to be confused by the facts!"  I must tell you though, I have put many numerous hours of time and energy into researching and writing down the truthful answers to your questions (my wife sometimes gets frustrated with the time it takes away from her and the rest of my family).  I would be much more enthused to continue on if there was even the slightest sign that you were receptive. But alas...

And to finally answer your last question to me....

YES.   I do believe both the Old and New Testaments to be the inspired Word of God.  Although written by men, they were under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit and as such there is a complete unity of thought and one full story... the story of God redeeming His people and restoring His Kingdom.  Any "contradictions" found therein, tend to be from our own lack of understanding, not the fallibility of the Word.  Any "errors" found therein, are never around the basic doctrines and important themes of what God is wanting to communicate to us.

Sincerely,

Derek