How did they know?

marke

@Stephen 
But how did  these gospel writers  know the words spoken when they were spoken in the absence of anyone else.?

The Holy Spirit told the men what to write.

2 Peter 1:21

For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.

Stephen

marke said:

@Stephen 
But how did  these gospel writers  know the words spoken when they were spoken in the absence of anyone else.?

The Holy Spirit told the men what to write.

2 Peter 1:21

For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.

Yet no mention of this event is recorded in any of the four gospels . 
So where is your evidence for that wild supernatural claim, skidmark?

just_sayin

Stephen said:

On these occasions Jesus was either alone or only there were only two present at the time?

Jesus is tested by Satan alone.

Matthew 4:1-11

Only two present

Jesus prays alone. Matthew 26:38-45

 Stay here and keep watch with me.”

39 Going a little farther, he fell with his face to the ground and prayed, “My Father, if it is possible, may this cup be taken from me. Yet not as I will, but as you will.”

40 Then he returned to his disciples and found them sleeping. “Couldn’t you men keep watch with me for one hour?” he asked Peter. 41 “Watch and pray so that you will not fall into temptation. The spirit is willing, but the flesh is weak.”

42 He went away a second time and prayed, “My Father, if it is not possible for this cup to be taken away unless I drink it, may your will be done.”

43 When he came back, he again found them sleeping, because their eyes were heavy. 44 So he left them and went away once more and prayed the third time, saying the same thing.

45 Then he returned to the disciples and said to them, “Are you still sleeping and resting? Look, the hour has come, and the Son of Man is delivered into the hands of sinners. 

Nicodemus was taught the mysteries in secret.  John 3:1-15

Jesus speaks with Pilate alone. John 18:33-38

33 Pilate then went back inside the palace, summoned Jesus and asked him, “Are you the king of the Jews?”

34 “Is that your own idea,” Jesus asked, “or did others talk to you about me?”

35 “Am I a Jew?” Pilate replied. “Your own people and chief priests handed you over to me. What is it you have done?”

36 Jesus said, “My kingdom is not of this world. If it were, my servants would fight to prevent my arrest by the Jewish leaders. But now my kingdom is from another place.”

37 “You are a king, then!” said Pilate.

Jesus answered, “You say that I am a king. In fact, the reason I was born and came into the world is to testify to the truth. Everyone on the side of truth listens to me.”

38 “What is truth?” retorted Pilate.

Indeed Mr Pilate, what is truth?

But how did  these gospel writers  know the words spoken when they were spoken in the absence of anyone else.?

Well, the obvious is that Jesus told them.  Nicodemus became a follower of Jesus, so I imagine he could have told them too.  Let's go with the obvious answer first.

From a strictly historical perspective of how histories were written during that time - the historian could alter or manufacture conversations that may not have actually happened that way as a literary device to capture the character of the subject.  We see this often in Plutarch, Lucian, Josephus, and Theon.  In fact its one of Theon's lessons in how to write history.  They were much more concerned about capturing the essence of their subject, than the actual words.  That differs from our approach today .  So, when Plutarch writes 6 different histories that mention the same story , and has different conversations and different characters saying what another person said in another account, or has some accounts that seems to have happened in a shorter period of time - he isn't mistaken, he wasn't considered to be lying, he is employing acceptable literary devices of his day  (there are about 6 of them) to capture the essence of his subject.   This is an off topic observation - my apologies - just thought you should know though.

Fredsnephew

Argument Topic: Hey marke.

marke said:

@Stephen 
But how did  these gospel writers  know the words spoken when they were spoken in the absence of anyone else.?

The Holy Spirit told the men what to write.

2 Peter 1:21

For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.

@marke

Yep. Holy spirits and holy herbs, sure made them write in a holy ghostly fashion.

Such was and is the power of mind altering substances.

Stephen

just_sayin said:

Stephen said:

On these occasions Jesus was either alone or only there were only two present at the time?

Jesus is tested by Satan alone.

Matthew 4:1-11

Only two present

Jesus prays alone. Matthew 26:38-45

 Stay here and keep watch with me.”

39 Going a little farther, he fell with his face to the ground and prayed, “My Father, if it is possible, may this cup be taken from me. Yet not as I will, but as you will.”

40 Then he returned to his disciples and found them sleeping. “Couldn’t you men keep watch with me for one hour?” he asked Peter. 41 “Watch and pray so that you will not fall into temptation. The spirit is willing, but the flesh is weak.”

42 He went away a second time and prayed, “My Father, if it is not possible for this cup to be taken away unless I drink it, may your will be done.”

43 When he came back, he again found them sleeping, because their eyes were heavy. 44 So he left them and went away once more and prayed the third time, saying the same thing.

45 Then he returned to the disciples and said to them, “Are you still sleeping and resting? Look, the hour has come, and the Son of Man is delivered into the hands of sinners. 

Nicodemus was taught the mysteries in secret.  John 3:1-15

Jesus speaks with Pilate alone. John 18:33-38

33 Pilate then went back inside the palace, summoned Jesus and asked him, “Are you the king of the Jews?”

34 “Is that your own idea,” Jesus asked, “or did others talk to you about me?”

35 “Am I a Jew?” Pilate replied. “Your own people and chief priests handed you over to me. What is it you have done?”

36 Jesus said, “My kingdom is not of this world. If it were, my servants would fight to prevent my arrest by the Jewish leaders. But now my kingdom is from another place.”

37 “You are a king, then!” said Pilate.

Jesus answered, “You say that I am a king. In fact, the reason I was born and came into the world is to testify to the truth. Everyone on the side of truth listens to me.”

38 “What is truth?” retorted Pilate.

Indeed Mr Pilate, what is truth?

But how did  these gospel writers  know the words spoken when they were spoken in the absence of anyone else.?

Well, the obvious is that Jesus told them.  Nicodemus became a follower of Jesus, so I imagine he could have told them too.  Let's go with the obvious answer first..

You do realise what you have written there , don't you?  Good.
So how did Jesus manage to speak to these anonymous authors after- decades after- the crucifixion?

Indeed, how did Jesus manage to tell anyone of  know the content of his conversation with Pontius Pilate, when when he was handed his two pieces of wood and three nails and told to get moving?  

And again how did Jesus manage to tell  about  his begging his "father" not to let him die when he was immediately arrested and carted of to face the biggest miscarriage of justice in all of Christendom?

Factfinder

@just_sayin

.... They were much more concerned about capturing the essence of their subject, than the actual words....

Easier to shape and/or reinforce narratives as well. If the writers didn't know exact words then the quotes that follow are false. Which is why that "literary device" of capturing essence rather than substance is not used today.

marke

@Stephen
 Yet no mention of this event is recorded in any of the four gospels . 
So where is your evidence for that wild supernatural claim, skidmark?

God inspired those who wrote the Bible and nobody can prove He didn't.

Factfinder

@marke

God inspired those who wrote the Bible and nobody can prove He didn't.

Nobody can prove he did. That's the point. You've failed miserably. It has been proven the bible is erroneous when it comes to scientific reality and the laws of physics. Have you read the bible yet? Just asking.

Stephen

Factfinder said:

@just_sayin

.... They were much more concerned about capturing the essence of their subject, than the actual words....

Easier to shape and/or reinforce narratives as well. If the writers didn't know exact words then the quotes that follow are false. Which is why that "literary device" of capturing essence rather than substance is not used today.

They were more concerned about taking literary licence and making it up on the hoof.

Stephen

marke said:

@Stephen
 Yet no mention of this event is recorded in any of the four gospels . 
So where is your evidence for that wild supernatural claim, skidmark?

God inspired those who wrote the Bible and nobody can prove He didn't.

So that is no evidence then.???? 

just_sayin

Stephen said:

just_sayin said:

Stephen said:

On these occasions Jesus was either alone or only there were only two present at the time?

Jesus is tested by Satan alone.

Matthew 4:1-11

Only two present

Jesus prays alone. Matthew 26:38-45

 Stay here and keep watch with me.”

39 Going a little farther, he fell with his face to the ground and prayed, “My Father, if it is possible, may this cup be taken from me. Yet not as I will, but as you will.”

40 Then he returned to his disciples and found them sleeping. “Couldn’t you men keep watch with me for one hour?” he asked Peter. 41 “Watch and pray so that you will not fall into temptation. The spirit is willing, but the flesh is weak.”

42 He went away a second time and prayed, “My Father, if it is not possible for this cup to be taken away unless I drink it, may your will be done.”

43 When he came back, he again found them sleeping, because their eyes were heavy. 44 So he left them and went away once more and prayed the third time, saying the same thing.

45 Then he returned to the disciples and said to them, “Are you still sleeping and resting? Look, the hour has come, and the Son of Man is delivered into the hands of sinners. 

Nicodemus was taught the mysteries in secret.  John 3:1-15

Jesus speaks with Pilate alone. John 18:33-38

33 Pilate then went back inside the palace, summoned Jesus and asked him, “Are you the king of the Jews?”

34 “Is that your own idea,” Jesus asked, “or did others talk to you about me?”

35 “Am I a Jew?” Pilate replied. “Your own people and chief priests handed you over to me. What is it you have done?”

36 Jesus said, “My kingdom is not of this world. If it were, my servants would fight to prevent my arrest by the Jewish leaders. But now my kingdom is from another place.”

37 “You are a king, then!” said Pilate.

Jesus answered, “You say that I am a king. In fact, the reason I was born and came into the world is to testify to the truth. Everyone on the side of truth listens to me.”

38 “What is truth?” retorted Pilate.

Indeed Mr Pilate, what is truth?

But how did  these gospel writers  know the words spoken when they were spoken in the absence of anyone else.?

Well, the obvious is that Jesus told them.  Nicodemus became a follower of Jesus, so I imagine he could have told them too.  Let's go with the obvious answer first..

You do realise what you have written there , don't you?  Good.
So how did Jesus manage to speak to these anonymous authors after- decades after- the crucifixion?

Indeed, how did Jesus manage to tell anyone of  know the content of his conversation with Pontius Pilate, when when he was handed his two pieces of wood and three nails and told to get moving?  

And again how did Jesus manage to tell  about  his begging his "father" not to let him die when he was immediately arrested and carted of to face the biggest miscarriage of justice in all of Christendom?

The gospels as well as Acts say Jesus was with the disciples for 40 days after the resurrection in both Jerusalem and in Galilee.  That's plenty of time to have discussions with them.  Even if he just told one of the disciples, they could then relay the message.  This is a non-issue.

just_sayin

Stephen said:

Factfinder said:

@just_sayin

.... They were much more concerned about capturing the essence of their subject, than the actual words....

Easier to shape and/or reinforce narratives as well. If the writers didn't know exact words then the quotes that follow are false. Which is why that "literary device" of capturing essence rather than substance is not used today.

They were more concerned about taking literary licence and making it up on the hoof.

No, they are not considered 'false'.  You are reading into ancient history your own standards.  Ancient histories are not really concerned about the ipsissima verba but the ippisma vox.  They are not saying these were the very words of Caesar, but the basic voice and meaning.  This was the case for all histories until the last 100 or so years ago.  For example the famous speech by Patrick Henry where he says give me liberty or give me death was not written down till 10 years later based on recollections by 2 attendees.  The speech is not the very words of Patrick Henry, but just the basic ideas he shared.  The phrase 'Give me liberty or give me death' may have actually been spoken, but it may have been different - like how everyone misquotes Vader and thinks he said 'Luke, I am your father.'  When that is not what the actual movie says.  The speech communicates the basic essence of what Patrick Henry said, but his actual words are unknown.  Most of ancient history is like this.  It would be wrong to say that it is 'false' to say that Patrick Henry said 'Give me liberty or give me death'.  We don't know the exact words, just the sentiment of his speech.  

marke

@Factfinder

I don't have to prove believers wrote the Bible.

Factfinder

marke said:

@Factfinder

I don't have to prove believers wrote the Bible.

What has that have to do with the fact nobody can prove your elf god inspired them? And you wonder why I always bring up the fact you’re illiterate?

Stephen

just_sayin said:

Stephen said:

Factfinder said:

@just_sayin

.... They were much more concerned about capturing the essence of their subject, than the actual words....

Easier to shape and/or reinforce narratives as well. If the writers didn't know exact words then the quotes that follow are false. Which is why that "literary device" of capturing essence rather than substance is not used today.

They were more concerned about taking literary licence and making it up on the hoof.

No, they are not considered 'false'.  You are reading into ancient history your own standards.  Ancient histories are not really concerned about the ipsissima verba but the ippisma vox. 

Look. You simply cannot worm around these very valid questions. And as much as they may be taken as "true"  by millions, I'm afraid your appeal to numbers and  my "reading into ancient history your own standards", the fact escapes you that there have been GIANT leaps in science and archaeology , there are new discoveries being unearthed every day the world turns. We are better informed , more educated and are free of the authoritarian clutches of the Pastors and Priest of the Christian Church.

We can read for ourselves instead of being told to turn to  verses in the bible and have them read interpreted for us by others including the likes of YOU who believe only they understand them and can interpret them. 

The Christian church has been nothing more than a legalised con trick since the day of its conception. You people, just like the gospel authors, cannot even agree about who has the correct version of the life and times of Christ...... for christ sake!

marke

@Factfinder

Nobody needs to prove to unbelievers that holy men of God wrote the Bible as led by the Holy Ghost.  Let the wicked try to disprove it if they think they can.

Stephen

marke said:

@Factfinder

Nobody needs to prove to unbelievers that holy men of God wrote the Bible as led by the Holy Ghost.  Let the wicked try to disprove it if they think they can.

Tell me skidmark;  without capturing infant followers at birth via christening/ baptism, just how does the church gain it's followers without preaching the - "word of the lord" -  to begin with?

marke

@Stephen

God seeks the lost and convicts them of their sins.  Those sinners who repent of their sins and seek forgiveneness from Jesus will be saved.

Factfinder

@marke

Nobody needs to prove to unbelievers that holy men of God wrote the Bible as led by the Holy Ghost.  Let the wicked try to disprove it if they think they can.

You do realize how psychotic that sounds I hope. 

21CenturyIconoclast

@Stephen

YOUR REVEALING QUOTE WHERE JESUS IS NOTHING BUT A "MYTH!":  "But how did  these gospel writers  know the words spoken when they were spoken in the absence of anyone else.?"


THIS IMAGE ALONE AND ITS REVEALING STATEMENT SHOULD
WAKE UP PSEUDO-CHRISTIANS TO TELL THEM THAT THEIR
 BRUTAL SERIAL KILLER JESUS IS A TOTAL MYTH!!!





.

just_sayin

Stephen said:

just_sayin said:

Stephen said:

Factfinder said:

@just_sayin

.... They were much more concerned about capturing the essence of their subject, than the actual words....

Easier to shape and/or reinforce narratives as well. If the writers didn't know exact words then the quotes that follow are false. Which is why that "literary device" of capturing essence rather than substance is not used today.

They were more concerned about taking literary licence and making it up on the hoof.

No, they are not considered 'false'.  You are reading into ancient history your own standards.  Ancient histories are not really concerned about the ipsissima verba but the ippisma vox. 

Look. You simply cannot worm around these very valid questions. And as much as they may be taken as "true"  by millions, I'm afraid your appeal to numbers and  my "reading into ancient history your own standards", the fact escapes you that there have been GIANT leaps in science and archaeology , there are new discoveries being unearthed every day the world turns. We are better informed , more educated and are free of the authoritarian clutches of the Pastors and Priest of the Christian Church.

We can read for ourselves instead of being told to turn to  verses in the bible and have them read interpreted for us by others including the likes of YOU who believe only they understand them and can interpret them. 

The Christian church has been nothing more than a legalised con trick since the day of its conception. You people, just like the gospel authors, cannot even agree about who has the correct version of the life and times of Christ...... for christ sake!

You keep forgetting which account you are using.

I've been discussing ancient biographies - which is much broader than the 4 gospels and Acts. Lucian in his How to Write History and Theon whose lessons, progymnasmata, became the standard writing lessons for kids who could read and write, both emphasize the need to paraphrase, use anabasis and catabasis literary techniques, and create dialogue to communicate essence of the person they were writing about, Lucian argued that the historian had license to improve a speech as long as he kept true to the essence of the person.  They would change statements into questions in dialogue from how they actually happened, they would use compression - shorting speeches or the time between events to highlight some point, they would displace events and move them to another point in the narrative for thematic effect, they would transfer actions - they would knowingly allow someone else to say or do something that happened for emphasis, they used transferal, conflation, simplification, and literary spotlighting, where there may have been many more people involved, but the text just spotlights one person.  All of these techniques were used by historians such as Plutarch, Tertullian, Lucian, and Josephus - who greatly exaggerated numbers throughout his histories.  These techniques were known and there use was not considered lying - the goal of the histories was not to give an exactly accurate description, but to capture the essence and meaning of events and persons.  If you think I'm wrong, please feel free to do your own research.  Again, I haven't been talking about the gospels, but Greco-Roman biographies in general.  

Factfinder

just_sayin said:

Stephen said:

just_sayin said:

Stephen said:

Factfinder said:

@just_sayin

.... They were much more concerned about capturing the essence of their subject, than the actual words....

Easier to shape and/or reinforce narratives as well. If the writers didn't know exact words then the quotes that follow are false. Which is why that "literary device" of capturing essence rather than substance is not used today.

They were more concerned about taking literary licence and making it up on the hoof.

No, they are not considered 'false'.  You are reading into ancient history your own standards.  Ancient histories are not really concerned about the ipsissima verba but the ippisma vox. 

Look. You simply cannot worm around these very valid questions. And as much as they may be taken as "true"  by millions, I'm afraid your appeal to numbers and  my "reading into ancient history your own standards", the fact escapes you that there have been GIANT leaps in science and archaeology , there are new discoveries being unearthed every day the world turns. We are better informed , more educated and are free of the authoritarian clutches of the Pastors and Priest of the Christian Church.

We can read for ourselves instead of being told to turn to  verses in the bible and have them read interpreted for us by others including the likes of YOU who believe only they understand them and can interpret them. 

The Christian church has been nothing more than a legalised con trick since the day of its conception. You people, just like the gospel authors, cannot even agree about who has the correct version of the life and times of Christ...... for christ sake!

You keep forgetting which account you are using.

I've been discussing ancient biographies - which is much broader than the 4 gospels and Acts. Lucian in his How to Write History and Theon whose lessons, progymnasmata, became the standard writing lessons for kids who could read and write, both emphasize the need to paraphrase, use anabasis and catabasis literary techniques, and create dialogue to communicate essence of the person they were writing about, Lucian argued that the historian had license to improve a speech as long as he kept true to the essence of the person.  They would change statements into questions in dialogue from how they actually happened, they would use compression - shorting speeches or the time between events to highlight some point, they would displace events and move them to another point in the narrative for thematic effect, they would transfer actions - they would knowingly allow someone else to say or do something that happened for emphasis, they used transferal, conflation, simplification, and literary spotlighting, where there may have been many more people involved, but the text just spotlights one person.  All of these techniques were used by historians such as Plutarch, Tertullian, Lucian, and Josephus - who greatly exaggerated numbers throughout his histories.  These techniques were known and there use was not considered lying - the goal of the histories was not to give an exactly accurate description, but to capture the essence and meaning of events and persons.  If you think I'm wrong, please feel free to do your own research.  Again, I haven't been talking about the gospels, but Greco-Roman biographies in general.  

For the life of me Just_lyin, I can't figure out what about your argument above is compelling? In your favor? None of it is convincing of a zombie elf god existing of which only the likes of you have a relationship with and are aware of its magical powers to defy reality.

21CenturyIconoclast

@marke

MARKE, YOUR QUOTE OF YOUR SERIAL KILLER JESUS CONVICTING INNOCENT INFANTS, BABIES, AND CHILDREN!:  "God seeks the lost and convicts them of their sins"

JESUS AS GOD SAID: "Now go, attack the Amalekites and totally destroy all that belongs to them. Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys’”

Why did your mythical Jesus have to MURDER innocent children and INFANTS, where they knew not of their parents in displeasing Jesus within the passage above to begin with?! 

THIS IS THE UMPTEENTH TIME I HAVE ASKED YOU THIS QUESTION THAT YOU HAVE RAN AWAY FROM BECAUSE YOU ARE NOT A CHRISTIAN:  When Jesus as god murders innocent children and infants, is he still considered ever loving (1 John 4:8) and forgiving (Ephesians 1:7) as the Bible states relative to his godly modus operandi?

EXPLAIN: 




Here is an image of Marke if he can't address my question above in running away from his faith!







.

Factfinder

@21CenturyIconoclast

As you expertly expose @marke has no answers, just self willed ignorant blind faith. 

marke

@Factfinder
You do realize how psychotic that sounds I hope. 

You cannot prove that nobody banged billions of stars and planets into their orbits with no intelligence, plan, or materials to work with.

marke

@21CenturyIconoclast ;
 JESUS AS GOD SAID: "Now go, attack the Amalekites and totally destroy all that belongs to them. Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys’”
Why did your mythical Jesus have to MURDER innocent children and INFANTS, where they knew not of their parents in displeasing Jesus within the passage above to begin with?! 

  The Lord giveth and the Lord taketh away, blessed be the name of the Lord.  The Lord does not murder people but he does take away their lives at whatever point He deems best.

Stephen

 @marke God said to Moses -"Thou shalt not kill"
God says  to Saul: ""Now go, attack the Amalekites and totally destroy all that belongs to them. Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys’” 

marke

@Stephen ; 
God said to Moses -"Thou shalt not kill"
God says  to Saul: ""Now go, attack the Amalekites and totally destroy all that belongs to them. Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys’” 

Humble sinners who go to God for forgiveness of their sins understand God.  The wicked don't.  God had commanded the Jews not to commit murder but if a Jew did commit murder then God commanded the Jews to put the murderer to death.  Taking away lives the Lord ordered them to take away was not murder.

Stephen

marke said:

@Stephen ; 
God said to Moses -"Thou shalt not kill"
God says  to Saul: ""Now go, attack the Amalekites and totally destroy all that belongs to them. Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys’” 

Humble sinners who go to God for forgiveness of their sins understand God.  The wicked don't.  God had commanded the Jews not to commit murder but if a Jew did commit murder then God commanded the Jews to put the murderer to death.  Taking away lives the Lord ordered them to take away was not murder.

He's Hypocrite then.  Why didn't god simply say " though shalt not kill" unless its on my say so?  

marke

@Stephen ;
 Why didn't god simply say " though shalt not kill" unless its on my say so?  

God did not say 'thou shalt not kill a murderer' because God was not like soft on crime American leftists.

21CenturyIconoclast

@marke


MARKE; ANOTHER ONE OF YOUR BIBLE DUMBFOUNDED QUOTES:  " The Lord giveth and the Lord taketh away, blessed be the name of the Lord.  The Lord does not murder people but he does take away their lives at whatever point He deems best."

Jesus H. Christ, you show your ignorance outside of the JEWISH bible as well!

MURDER: specifically implies a motive and premeditation and therefore full moral responsibility.

Addressing your imbecilic pre-school quote above, where you say that the serial killer Jesus as god does not murder, "BUT," then you contradict yourself in saying that he does murder in taking away the lives at whatever he deems best!  HELLO, anybody home today? NOT!  You blatantly contradicted yourself AGAIN!

EXPLAIN YOUR BIBLE STU-PIDITY ON MY RESPONSE:  



Marke, please take your equally bible stu-pid RickeyHoltsclaw's position in leaving this Religion Forum to save yourself any further embarrassment, whereas, how much can you take in letting the Atheists outright own you and your faith?!








.

Stephen

marke said:

@Stephen ;
 Why didn't god simply say " though shalt not kill" unless its on my say so?  

God did not say 'thou shalt not kill a murderer' because God was not like soft on crime American leftists.

Marke, Do you just spout the first lie that comes into you head? God said to " kill anyone that I says kill".
And this extends to innocent children and the unborn. 
But there again.....he said we should not kill...... but there again, he told Saul to kill everything that breaths in the lands of the Amalekites. Quite a confused chap. isn't he you god?

marke

@21CenturyIconoclast ;
 The Lord does not murder people but he does take away their lives at whatever point He deems best."

Whether sinners like the fact or not their lives are in God's hands.

marke

@Stephen ; But there again.....he said we should not kill...... but there again, he told Saul to kill everything that breaths in the lands of the Amalekites. Quite a confused chap. isn't he you god?

God has directed His people to kill those who need to be killed and save alive those He wants saved alive.  That is God's business and humans cannot change that fact.