The Joshua statement, "...but as for me and my house, we will serve the LORD." is anti-Christian.

1 "Joshua was not a Jew. Since Joshua was not Jewish he was at least one more step removed from Christianity. Therefore The words that Joshua used cannot mean the same thing that those words mean to Christians." This is absurd. We can see that this argument leads to ridiculous conclusions. For one thing, within this contention is the genetic fallacy, or some weird version of it, in which my opponent says that because Joshua was not a Jew his words have a different meaning than it does for Christians. The ethnicity of someone does not validate or falsify, nor change the meaning of, any statement. To base your argument on the ethnicity of Joshua is fallacious. Moreover, the Christian message of the Gospel transcends race and ethnicity. The good news of Jesus is for all who believe. Romans 10:12 says, "For there is no distinction between Jew and Greek; for the same Lord is Lord of all, bestowing his riches on all who call on him." Galatians 3:27-28 says, "For as many were baptized into Christ have put on Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek..." Looking at the New Testament as a whole, the writers argue from the Old Testament. In Romans 4, Paul uses the story of Abraham to show that, just as Abraham was justified by faith, so are Christians. And Abraham was not a Jew. However, all people who descended from Abraham, including Joshua, were Hebrews. The terms "Hebrew" and "Jew" are virtually synonyms in the Bible. Therefore, according to the Bible, Joshua was a Jew, and my opponents argument falls. Simply put, this argument contradicts what Christians believe. Who cares if Joshua wasn't a Jew. If the author or speaker being a Jew is the criterion for interpreting the Christian message, then we must through out the books of Luke and Acts. That would be absurd. This contention is rubbish because it is based on a) false evidence b) fallacious logic and c) goes against what Christians actually believe. 1 "Service Serving the LORD to Joshua meant exterminating every living being in the city of Jericho by butchering them. This fact can only mean one thing- When Joshua used the word "LORD" he did not mean the first person of the Holy Trinity. Or even the second person. Or even the third person. Therefore The word "LORD" as used by Joshua can only mean one thing. The word "LORD" as used by Joshua means- SATAN It has to be this way because it is illegal to butcher people just so that the butchers can have the property of the butchers' victims." If I had to choose which contention was better, this would be it. However, it still has many faulty areas. To say that for Joshua, to serve the LORD meant killing every living being, is ridiculous. This goes against what Joshua himself said. Furthermore, when the Bible says that the Hebrews killed all of the people in the land, hyperbolic language is being used. In the Ancient Near East, the language of total extermination of a people simply meant that there was a victory. It is like a football team saying, "We annihilated them." That of course, is not literal. It simply means that the football team won. So it was with Joshua and his armies. Still, the word "serve" in the Bible is simply talking about loyalty to someone. When Joshua says that he will serve the LORD, he is saying that he is going to be loyal to Him. He will worship the Triune God of Scripture alone and obey his commandments. Just a few quick notes on the claim that Joshua meant "Satan" when he said "LORD." The Hebrew words for Satan and LORD are totally different. The word "LORD" is the proper name for the God of the Hebrews, Yahweh. So, what my opponent is saying is that, when Joshua said he would serve Yahweh, he was actually calling Yahweh "Satan." Really? Now, God promised the Hebrews the land of Canaan. God is faithful to fulfill his promises (Heb. 10:23). and he specifically told Abraham that the land would belong to his offspring (Gen. 15). God kept that promise by giving Israel the land. He did so by driving out the people who lived in the Promised Land, by the hand of Joshua. My opponent says it is illegal to butcher someone just to take their property. But we must remember, the land was ultimately God's property and he could give it to whomever he wanted by whatever means he wanted. Clearly, the satanic thing for Joshua to do was to not trust that God would fulfill his promise and to disobey God. Because God promised the land to the offspring of Abraham, it would certainly belong to them.