Did the god of the bible kill people?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Liars like 17:15 are why we can never have good conversations on DCUM.

I am going by the words written, and I am the liar? While you are making things up out of whole cloth that aren't in the book?

That's rich.

As I said before, I am feeling pretty good about the objective value of my position, and will let it stand as is.

You may now resume shameless name calling and other ad hominems, as they clearly make you feel better and don't bother me at all, so why not? Indulge.

Says the troll who chooses negative meanings that fit her bigoted narrative and denies any word could possibly have other, more common meanings. Indulge.

I didn't choose anything. I copy and pasted biblical verses that directly contradict your extra-biblical claims. Glad you took me up on my offer though. Have a great evening.

Classic hair flip. “I know I’m wrong about defining a basic word like ‘new’ so I’ll just insult the other poster, declare victory, and flounce off.” Classic! Thanks for the laugh.

I didn't insult anyone. I copy and pasted biblical verses that directly contradict your extra-biblical claims.

LOL. Only because you’re sticking to your guns about “fulfill” meaning “Amazon fulfillment” instead of the other widely-used meanings of “completion” and “realization.” And the word “new” meaning, as you put it “throwing out the entire OT” instead of a more reasonable newer version that has some modifications.

You look silly. I’m repeating your definitions here so everybody on this new thread page can see how ridiculous you are. Tell us, how did you do on the SATs?

All righty then.

Reasonable people can conclude that when Jesus said in Matthew 5:17, “Do not think that I have come to abolish Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them,” he wasn’t tossing his new teachings on diet and food restrictions out the window in order to return to pure OT law. That wouldn’t make sense anyway—why would these have been included in the gospels if Jesus later threw them out. Jesus was was using “fulfill” to mean “perfect” or “complete.”

Jesus never changed the dietary laws.

Christians don’t keep kosher.

Matthew 15 v. 17. Don't you see that whatever enters the mouth goes into the stomach and then out of the body?
18 But the things that come out of the mouth come from the heart, and these make a man `unclean.'

But that was due to Paul wasn't it? He was the one who argued that someone (and he meant the Gentiles) didn't have to be circumcised or follow the Jewish dietary laws to be saved. They only had to believe in Jesus. There was much opposition to this initially among the surviving apostles.

Whoever wrote Matthew’s gospel, there’s no evidence it was Paul.

? well that's true. But what does it have to do with "Christians don't keep kosher."? That was die to Paul.

sorry, due to

Jesus said that it doesn’t what you eat in Matthew. Paul took it up and ran with it, but Paul didn’t make it up. This is very simple.

You quoted Matthew though, not Jesus. Matthew was written (by whom we don't know for sure, but he likely never met Jesus) in around 70 CE. Paul on the other hand was active much earlier, probably around 50 CE -- so you're probably wrong about this. I think ot's more due to Paul than Matthew/Jesus

You can, of course, think whatever suits your purposes. You’d be an outlier, though. The vast majority of scholars think Matthew (and Luke) draw on Mark, and there’s also a lot of scholarly thought that both Matthew and Luke draw on another source, Quelle or Q source.

I agree with all of that, but I sill don't see how it's responsive to the claim Jesus changed the dietary laws. Paul yes, but what did Matthew, Mark or Luke have to do with it?

Obviously the vast majority of Christians don’t follow the kosher laws. The Jews for Jesus do follow the kosher laws. The quoted passage from Matthew has absolutely nothing to do with the kosher laws. Pharisees were criticizing Jesus’ apostles for not washing their hands before eating bread. That is not a kosher law, it’s simply one of the many rules which Jewish leaders dreamed up during the time of the Second Temple which have absolutely no support in the Old Testament. Orthodox Jews still follow this rule. Jesus had no patience with rules which lack Old Testament support. It has nothing to do with the kosher laws. As made clear in The Book of Acts, Peter continued to keep kosher long after Jesus died.

Sure, the context is around hand washing. But “what goes into your mouth doesn’t make you unclean” is a lot broader than hand washing. Do you think a guy who doesn’t care about eating a smidgeon of dirt would worry about eating pork? If Jesus meant just hand washing, he would have said that instead of saying “whatever.”

Your constant attempts to redefine simple words (“new” doesn’t mean “new,” “fulfill” can’t possibly mean “finalize” or “develop to completion,” and “whatever” only means “dirt”), and whole passages, surely serves some mental purpose of yours, but it’s ultimately easy to refute.

Your last paragraph is obviously aimed at some other pp. But anyway, the passage from Matthew is dealing with hand washing and bread, which is always kosher. Jesus was not even addressing the kosher laws. If he had been addressing the kosher laws, why didn’t his disciples get the message? Peter was the head of the church, but always considered the kosher laws to remain in force. In Acts 10:9-15 Peter has a dream that seems to order him to eat un kosher meat. Peter cries out that never in his life has he violated the kosher laws but he keeps on having the dream. Peter is perplexed because he knows that God could not possibly mean for him to violate the kosher laws. Then he realizes that what God is telling him to do is to violate the Second Temple prohibition against associating with non Jews, another ridiculous Second Temple rule which has little if any Biblical support but still practiced by some Orthodox communities who teach that it’s a sin to drink with non Jews, and meaning for Peter to preach to non Jews. He never violated the kosher laws.

Paul, Peter, and others read “whatever” differently. It happens, as you are proof.

Not really. Peter and James, the heads of the Church, believed that all Christians had to follow the kosher laws, as they did. Paul claimed that the kosher laws only applied to Jewish Christians, not to gentile Christians. Paul, however, as a Jewish Christian, never violated the kosher laws himself. Obviously he realized that if he agreed with Peter and James, gentiles would not become Christians.

“Whatever” still means “whatever.” Last I checked, Peter and James headed the early church, but many things have changed since then. Honestly, the kosher laws are hard to understand in a modern age.

Why are the kosher laws hard to understand in the modern age?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Liars like 17:15 are why we can never have good conversations on DCUM.

I am going by the words written, and I am the liar? While you are making things up out of whole cloth that aren't in the book?

That's rich.

As I said before, I am feeling pretty good about the objective value of my position, and will let it stand as is.

You may now resume shameless name calling and other ad hominems, as they clearly make you feel better and don't bother me at all, so why not? Indulge.

Says the troll who chooses negative meanings that fit her bigoted narrative and denies any word could possibly have other, more common meanings. Indulge.

I didn't choose anything. I copy and pasted biblical verses that directly contradict your extra-biblical claims. Glad you took me up on my offer though. Have a great evening.

Classic hair flip. “I know I’m wrong about defining a basic word like ‘new’ so I’ll just insult the other poster, declare victory, and flounce off.” Classic! Thanks for the laugh.

I didn't insult anyone. I copy and pasted biblical verses that directly contradict your extra-biblical claims.

LOL. Only because you’re sticking to your guns about “fulfill” meaning “Amazon fulfillment” instead of the other widely-used meanings of “completion” and “realization.” And the word “new” meaning, as you put it “throwing out the entire OT” instead of a more reasonable newer version that has some modifications.

You look silly. I’m repeating your definitions here so everybody on this new thread page can see how ridiculous you are. Tell us, how did you do on the SATs?

All righty then.

Reasonable people can conclude that when Jesus said in Matthew 5:17, “Do not think that I have come to abolish Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them,” he wasn’t tossing his new teachings on diet and food restrictions out the window in order to return to pure OT law. That wouldn’t make sense anyway—why would these have been included in the gospels if Jesus later threw them out. Jesus was was using “fulfill” to mean “perfect” or “complete.”

Jesus never changed the dietary laws.

Christians don’t keep kosher.

Matthew 15 v. 17. Don't you see that whatever enters the mouth goes into the stomach and then out of the body?
18 But the things that come out of the mouth come from the heart, and these make a man `unclean.'

But that was due to Paul wasn't it? He was the one who argued that someone (and he meant the Gentiles) didn't have to be circumcised or follow the Jewish dietary laws to be saved. They only had to believe in Jesus. There was much opposition to this initially among the surviving apostles.

Whoever wrote Matthew’s gospel, there’s no evidence it was Paul.

? well that's true. But what does it have to do with "Christians don't keep kosher."? That was die to Paul.

sorry, due to

Jesus said that it doesn’t what you eat in Matthew. Paul took it up and ran with it, but Paul didn’t make it up. This is very simple.

You quoted Matthew though, not Jesus. Matthew was written (by whom we don't know for sure, but he likely never met Jesus) in around 70 CE. Paul on the other hand was active much earlier, probably around 50 CE -- so you're probably wrong about this. I think ot's more due to Paul than Matthew/Jesus

You can, of course, think whatever suits your purposes. You’d be an outlier, though. The vast majority of scholars think Matthew (and Luke) draw on Mark, and there’s also a lot of scholarly thought that both Matthew and Luke draw on another source, Quelle or Q source.

I agree with all of that, but I sill don't see how it's responsive to the claim Jesus changed the dietary laws. Paul yes, but what did Matthew, Mark or Luke have to do with it?

Obviously the vast majority of Christians don’t follow the kosher laws. The Jews for Jesus do follow the kosher laws. The quoted passage from Matthew has absolutely nothing to do with the kosher laws. Pharisees were criticizing Jesus’ apostles for not washing their hands before eating bread. That is not a kosher law, it’s simply one of the many rules which Jewish leaders dreamed up during the time of the Second Temple which have absolutely no support in the Old Testament. Orthodox Jews still follow this rule. Jesus had no patience with rules which lack Old Testament support. It has nothing to do with the kosher laws. As made clear in The Book of Acts, Peter continued to keep kosher long after Jesus died.

Sure, the context is around hand washing. But “what goes into your mouth doesn’t make you unclean” is a lot broader than hand washing. Do you think a guy who doesn’t care about eating a smidgeon of dirt would worry about eating pork? If Jesus meant just hand washing, he would have said that instead of saying “whatever.”

Your constant attempts to redefine simple words (“new” doesn’t mean “new,” “fulfill” can’t possibly mean “finalize” or “develop to completion,” and “whatever” only means “dirt”), and whole passages, surely serves some mental purpose of yours, but it’s ultimately easy to refute.

Your last paragraph is obviously aimed at some other pp. But anyway, the passage from Matthew is dealing with hand washing and bread, which is always kosher. Jesus was not even addressing the kosher laws. If he had been addressing the kosher laws, why didn’t his disciples get the message? Peter was the head of the church, but always considered the kosher laws to remain in force. In Acts 10:9-15 Peter has a dream that seems to order him to eat un kosher meat. Peter cries out that never in his life has he violated the kosher laws but he keeps on having the dream. Peter is perplexed because he knows that God could not possibly mean for him to violate the kosher laws. Then he realizes that what God is telling him to do is to violate the Second Temple prohibition against associating with non Jews, another ridiculous Second Temple rule which has little if any Biblical support but still practiced by some Orthodox communities who teach that it’s a sin to drink with non Jews, and meaning for Peter to preach to non Jews. He never violated the kosher laws.

Paul, Peter, and others read “whatever” differently. It happens, as you are proof.

Not really. Peter and James, the heads of the Church, believed that all Christians had to follow the kosher laws, as they did. Paul claimed that the kosher laws only applied to Jewish Christians, not to gentile Christians. Paul, however, as a Jewish Christian, never violated the kosher laws himself. Obviously he realized that if he agreed with Peter and James, gentiles would not become Christians.

“Whatever” still means “whatever.” Last I checked, Peter and James headed the early church, but many things have changed since then. Honestly, the kosher laws are hard to understand in a modern age.

Why are the kosher laws hard to understand in the modern age?

Rules that don’t make sense
Honey is only kosher if the beekeeper has paid a fee to register his honey as kosher
Technology has improved to create a more humane way to slaughter animals
I do not see anything indicating that finding a more kind way to kill an animal would be against the principles of the religion

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Liars like 17:15 are why we can never have good conversations on DCUM.

I am going by the words written, and I am the liar? While you are making things up out of whole cloth that aren't in the book?

That's rich.

As I said before, I am feeling pretty good about the objective value of my position, and will let it stand as is.

You may now resume shameless name calling and other ad hominems, as they clearly make you feel better and don't bother me at all, so why not? Indulge.

Says the troll who chooses negative meanings that fit her bigoted narrative and denies any word could possibly have other, more common meanings. Indulge.

I didn't choose anything. I copy and pasted biblical verses that directly contradict your extra-biblical claims. Glad you took me up on my offer though. Have a great evening.

Classic hair flip. “I know I’m wrong about defining a basic word like ‘new’ so I’ll just insult the other poster, declare victory, and flounce off.” Classic! Thanks for the laugh.

I didn't insult anyone. I copy and pasted biblical verses that directly contradict your extra-biblical claims.

LOL. Only because you’re sticking to your guns about “fulfill” meaning “Amazon fulfillment” instead of the other widely-used meanings of “completion” and “realization.” And the word “new” meaning, as you put it “throwing out the entire OT” instead of a more reasonable newer version that has some modifications.

You look silly. I’m repeating your definitions here so everybody on this new thread page can see how ridiculous you are. Tell us, how did you do on the SATs?

All righty then.

Reasonable people can conclude that when Jesus said in Matthew 5:17, “Do not think that I have come to abolish Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them,” he wasn’t tossing his new teachings on diet and food restrictions out the window in order to return to pure OT law. That wouldn’t make sense anyway—why would these have been included in the gospels if Jesus later threw them out. Jesus was was using “fulfill” to mean “perfect” or “complete.”

Jesus never changed the dietary laws.

Christians don’t keep kosher.

Matthew 15 v. 17. Don't you see that whatever enters the mouth goes into the stomach and then out of the body?
18 But the things that come out of the mouth come from the heart, and these make a man `unclean.'

But that was due to Paul wasn't it? He was the one who argued that someone (and he meant the Gentiles) didn't have to be circumcised or follow the Jewish dietary laws to be saved. They only had to believe in Jesus. There was much opposition to this initially among the surviving apostles.

Whoever wrote Matthew’s gospel, there’s no evidence it was Paul.

? well that's true. But what does it have to do with "Christians don't keep kosher."? That was die to Paul.

sorry, due to

Jesus said that it doesn’t what you eat in Matthew. Paul took it up and ran with it, but Paul didn’t make it up. This is very simple.

You quoted Matthew though, not Jesus. Matthew was written (by whom we don't know for sure, but he likely never met Jesus) in around 70 CE. Paul on the other hand was active much earlier, probably around 50 CE -- so you're probably wrong about this. I think ot's more due to Paul than Matthew/Jesus

You can, of course, think whatever suits your purposes. You’d be an outlier, though. The vast majority of scholars think Matthew (and Luke) draw on Mark, and there’s also a lot of scholarly thought that both Matthew and Luke draw on another source, Quelle or Q source.

I agree with all of that, but I sill don't see how it's responsive to the claim Jesus changed the dietary laws. Paul yes, but what did Matthew, Mark or Luke have to do with it?

Obviously the vast majority of Christians don’t follow the kosher laws. The Jews for Jesus do follow the kosher laws. The quoted passage from Matthew has absolutely nothing to do with the kosher laws. Pharisees were criticizing Jesus’ apostles for not washing their hands before eating bread. That is not a kosher law, it’s simply one of the many rules which Jewish leaders dreamed up during the time of the Second Temple which have absolutely no support in the Old Testament. Orthodox Jews still follow this rule. Jesus had no patience with rules which lack Old Testament support. It has nothing to do with the kosher laws. As made clear in The Book of Acts, Peter continued to keep kosher long after Jesus died.

Sure, the context is around hand washing. But “what goes into your mouth doesn’t make you unclean” is a lot broader than hand washing. Do you think a guy who doesn’t care about eating a smidgeon of dirt would worry about eating pork? If Jesus meant just hand washing, he would have said that instead of saying “whatever.”

Your constant attempts to redefine simple words (“new” doesn’t mean “new,” “fulfill” can’t possibly mean “finalize” or “develop to completion,” and “whatever” only means “dirt”), and whole passages, surely serves some mental purpose of yours, but it’s ultimately easy to refute.

Your last paragraph is obviously aimed at some other pp. But anyway, the passage from Matthew is dealing with hand washing and bread, which is always kosher. Jesus was not even addressing the kosher laws. If he had been addressing the kosher laws, why didn’t his disciples get the message? Peter was the head of the church, but always considered the kosher laws to remain in force. In Acts 10:9-15 Peter has a dream that seems to order him to eat un kosher meat. Peter cries out that never in his life has he violated the kosher laws but he keeps on having the dream. Peter is perplexed because he knows that God could not possibly mean for him to violate the kosher laws. Then he realizes that what God is telling him to do is to violate the Second Temple prohibition against associating with non Jews, another ridiculous Second Temple rule which has little if any Biblical support but still practiced by some Orthodox communities who teach that it’s a sin to drink with non Jews, and meaning for Peter to preach to non Jews. He never violated the kosher laws.

Paul, Peter, and others read “whatever” differently. It happens, as you are proof.

Not really. Peter and James, the heads of the Church, believed that all Christians had to follow the kosher laws, as they did. Paul claimed that the kosher laws only applied to Jewish Christians, not to gentile Christians. Paul, however, as a Jewish Christian, never violated the kosher laws himself. Obviously he realized that if he agreed with Peter and James, gentiles would not become Christians.

“Whatever” still means “whatever.” Last I checked, Peter and James headed the early church, but many things have changed since then. Honestly, the kosher laws are hard to understand in a modern age.

Why are the kosher laws hard to understand in the modern age?

well, for example, we have the USDA here in the US, and trichinosis really isn't a big problem anymore.

[Anonymous]

God’s vengeance on his own people, the Israelites, is particularly difficult to read.

Isaiah 24. 5 The people have ruined the land. They did what God said was wrong. They did not obey God’s laws. They made an agreement with God a long time ago, but they broke their agreement with God. 6 The people living in this land are guilty of doing wrong, so God promised to destroy the land. The people will be punished, and only a few of them will survive.

[Anonymous]

If God makes people kill each other, does he make people save each other and be kind to one another, too?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If God makes people kill each other, does he make people save each other and be kind to one another, too?

If you believe in God, then you accept him as being all powerful and capable of/responsible for everything that happens here on Earth. Sometimes it's hard to explain some of the stuff he does, but mere humans are not meant to understand.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If God makes people kill each other, does he make people save each other and be kind to one another, too?

If you believe in God, then you accept him as being all powerful and capable of/responsible for everything that happens here on Earth. Sometimes it's hard to explain some of the stuff he does, but mere humans are not meant to understand.

Many people believe God gave His creations free will. That would mean people make decisions about their actions and choices.

pp, is God controlling you to post here, or are you doing so of your own free will?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If God makes people kill each other, does he make people save each other and be kind to one another, too?

If you believe in God, then you accept him as being all powerful and capable of/responsible for everything that happens here on Earth. Sometimes it's hard to explain some of the stuff he does, but mere humans are not meant to understand.

So if people can't understand god, then people should stop saying that they do when it suits them. Agree?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If God makes people kill each other, does he make people save each other and be kind to one another, too?

If you believe in God, then you accept him as being all powerful and capable of/responsible for everything that happens here on Earth. Sometimes it's hard to explain some of the stuff he does, but mere humans are not meant to understand.

So if people can't understand god, then people should stop saying that they do when it suits them. Agree?

dp: no, we don’t all agree on what other people should do concerning God and their religion. Get a real hobby, instead of pretending anon posters here can control other people.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If God makes people kill each other, does he make people save each other and be kind to one another, too?

If you believe in God, then you accept him as being all powerful and capable of/responsible for everything that happens here on Earth. Sometimes it's hard to explain some of the stuff he does, but mere humans are not meant to understand.

So if people can't understand god, then people should stop saying that they do when it suits them. Agree?

dp: no, we don’t all agree on what other people should do concerning God and their religion. Get a real hobby, instead of pretending anon posters here can control other people.

So, you want to say you understand when it suits you, but when you can't understand horrific things attributed to your god you want to shrug and say "Well, we mere humans can't understand that. But don't be gay or eat bacon."

That is logically inconsistent well beyond the point of hypocrisy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If God makes people kill each other, does he make people save each other and be kind to one another, too?

If you believe in God, then you accept him as being all powerful and capable of/responsible for everything that happens here on Earth. Sometimes it's hard to explain some of the stuff he does, but mere humans are not meant to understand.

So if people can't understand god, then people should stop saying that they do when it suits them. Agree?

dp: no, we don’t all agree on what other people should do concerning God and their religion. Get a real hobby, instead of pretending anon posters here can control other people.

So, you want to say you understand when it suits you, but when you can't understand horrific things attributed to your god you want to shrug and say "Well, we mere humans can't understand that. But don't be gay or eat bacon."

That is logically inconsistent well beyond the point of hypocrisy.

If you don’t believe in God, why do you care how I live or worship?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Most Biblical religions are not Biblical literalists. Very few are in fact, just the extreme fundamentalist sects.

Which means they are just making it up.

No, that’s not what that means. If you actually believe that, you have a pretty simple understanding.

DP. A simple understanding, but likely also an accurate understanding.

DP - actually, no understanding at all. The whole premise of this thread is kindergarten level, illogical, all or nothing, silliness.

You certainly are entitled to your opinion, but the words In the book are pretty plain. If you claim some are allegory and some are literal but you can’t give guidance on how to know the difference the that’s a big logical problem for you.

No it isn't, but you aren't interested in learning. If you were, you'd go to school and take some real theology courses.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If God makes people kill each other, does he make people save each other and be kind to one another, too?

If you believe in God, then you accept him as being all powerful and capable of/responsible for everything that happens here on Earth. Sometimes it's hard to explain some of the stuff he does, but mere humans are not meant to understand.

So if people can't understand god, then people should stop saying that they do when it suits them. Agree?

dp: no, we don’t all agree on what other people should do concerning God and their religion. Get a real hobby, instead of pretending anon posters here can control other people.

+1. There’s no inconsistency in saying you understand some parts of a thing and not other parts. I say that about my car and about my friend’s diagnosis all the time, because I’m not a mechanic or a doctor. And that’s OK.

PP needs to stop trolling DCUM, go outside, and enjoy the warm weather while it lasts.

[Anonymous]

Why do we need hundreds of pages and many books about God punishing his people and sending them to Babylon? Wouldn’t a single book get the message (you didn’t follow Torah so I’m sending you to Babylon and killing a lot of you on the process) across?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Why do we need hundreds of pages and many books about God punishing his people and sending them to Babylon? Wouldn’t a single book get the message (you didn’t follow Torah so I’m sending you to Babylon and killing a lot of you on the process) across?

You mean the story is told in several books in the Bible? Well, they're from the perspective of different authors. Blame the assemblers of the Bible. Not sure when the canon was created and finally put to bed, but I'm pretty sure it was a thousand years ago or more.