NationStates Jolt Archive

I ask because the OT and NT seem like very different books. The OT is full of false creation myths, uncivilised punishments and contradictions to the NT. The NT seems to be more of stories and teachings of Christ. It seems Christians would really only need that book. I'm sure I'm wrong somehow, so show me what I'm misssing here.

As a Jew, I consider the OT to be the complete Bible.

Because there aren't enough passages about hating fags and forbidding women to speak in the NT.

Because God's Word is unchanging and eternal, of course. You can't just out-date an entire section of the Bible. Even if it is contradictory and ridiculous.

I ask because the OT and NT seem like very different books. The OT is full of false creation myths, uncivilised punishments and contradictions to the NT. The NT seems to be more of stories and teachings of Christ. It seems Christians would really only need that book. I'm sure I'm wrong somehow, so show me what I'm misssing here.

Christ read the OT, quoted it often, and heaped praise upon it. He strongly recommended his followers heed the laws written in it.

As a Jew, I consider the OT to be the complete Bible.

The Tanakh?

And doesn't the NT completely ignore the OT, and actually admit it's a bunch of bullshit and all you need to do is take Jesus into your heart or some shit?

because it supports the notion that christianity is an extention of judaism.

Because there aren't enough passages about hating fags and forbidding women to speak in the NT.

I hope you realize you will go to Hell for saying that and your whole family will drown in a flash flood.

And doesn't the NT completely ignore the OT, and actually admit it's a bunch of bullshit and all you need to do is take Jesus into your heart or some shit?

No.

Matthew 5:18, Luke 16:17

Because there aren't enough passages about hating fags and forbidding women to speak in the NT.

Lol, the NT really disappoints on that front.

I hope you realize you will go to Hell for saying that and your whole family will drown in a flash flood.

Funny, because I've said similar things and *notices huge wave of water blasting towards him* Oh shi-

Lol, the NT really disappoints on that front.

Actually, Paul does not.

Actually, Paul does not.

Paul stepped up.

I ask because the OT and NT seem like very different books. The OT is full of false creation myths, uncivilised punishments and contradictions to the NT. The NT seems to be more of stories and teachings of Christ. It seems Christians would really only need that book. I'm sure I'm wrong somehow, so show me what I'm misssing here.
without the old testament who is this god that jesus is the son of? what the fuck is a messiah and why is one needed? where did we come from? what is all this talk about the commandments, the sabbath, satan, passover, etc?

without the old testament who is this god that jesus is the son of? what the fuck is a messiah and why is one needed? where did we come from? what is all this talk about the commandments, the sabbath, satan, passover, etc?

Exactly. They didn't have that handy thing we have now, the "Previously On ...". Besides, the impression I get is that Jesus was after cleaning up Judaism and fulfilling its messianic prophesies, not starting a new religion. The original Apostles plus Paul all expected JC back soon. After it became clear that he hadn't just stepped out for a breath of air, and Christianity went from being just another Jewish sect to a movement with its own momentum and organization, people thought that maybe a little back-story wouldn't be a bad thing.

and it contains a lot of prophesies about Jesus...

and it contains a lot of prophesies about Jesus...

Welll ... and this is probably a quibble ... it contains prophesies about the Jewish Messiah, not specifically about Jesus. I suppose it depends on whether you think Jesus was that Messiah. Some folks don't think so.

Exactly. They didn't have that handy thing we have now, the "Previously On ...". Besides, the impression I get is that Jesus was after cleaning up Judaism and fulfilling its messianic prophesies, not starting a new religion. The original Apostles plus Paul all expected JC back soon. After it became clear that he hadn't just stepped out for a breath of air, and Christianity went from being just another Jewish sect to a movement with its own momentum and organization, people thought that maybe a little back-story wouldn't be a bad thing.
yeah. if jesus had come right back--before the deaths of the apostles--then it would have been a very jewish movement.

I ask because the OT and NT seem like very different books. The OT is full of false creation myths, uncivilised punishments and contradictions to the NT.

To understand, you should consider the historical perspective.

The term "Bible" (from greek "biblia", iirc, meaning "books") was given to the collection of the basic texts of Jewish lore, law and religion that were translated into Greek at the Library of Alexandria, way before the advent of Christianity - so in the hellenistic koiné of the Mediterranean (first alexandrine, then roman), the "Bible" has always included AT LEAST the OT (of course, for Jews the Bible IS what Christians call the OT!).
Early Christians were, basically, a split-off sect of Jews.
They ADDED their texts (the four "good news" : eu-angeloi, the letters and the acts of the Apostles, and the Revelation of St.John iirc) to the original Bible (the OT) and made the Christian Bible, OT+NT, and fixed their canon with the Council of Nycaea (V century iirc).

The Tanakh?

Yes.

yeah. if jesus had come right back--before the deaths of the apostles--then it would have been a very jewish movement.

That or if Paul hadn't decided to defect to the people he was persecuting. Without Paul pushing for the expansion of the movement to the Gentiles, with the relaxations in the rules that involved, Christianity would have sunk back into Judaism and maybe would have merited a footnote now and then. Judaism is pretty good at re-absorbing break-away sects.

That or if Paul hadn't decided to defect to the people he was persecuting. Without Paul pushing for the expansion of the movement to the Gentiles, with the relaxations in the rules that involved, Christianity would have sunk back into Judaism and maybe would have merited a footnote now and then. Judaism is pretty good at re-absorbing break-away sects.
such an odd thing for a jewish defender to do--not so much the conversion thing but the "all that jewish stuff means nothing" thing.

i suspect that if there "paul" ever really existed his story is far different from the one in the bible.

such an odd thing for a jewish defender to do--not so much the conversion thing but the "all that jewish stuff means nothing" thing.

i suspect that if there "paul" ever really existed his story is far different from the one in the bible.

I suppose it is, especially if you take away the part where Jesus knocks Paul off his donkey in the middle of the road to Damascus. But people have convinced themselves of stranger things.

I think that Jesus, the Apostles and Paul all existed. It's the divine stuff I discard.

You might find the first chapter of Paul Johnson's A History of Christianity interesting. In it he discusses the "rise and rescue of the Jesus sect" and Paul's importance in the rescue.

The Paul of Tarsus we see in the letters that are accepted as authentic (not all are) is too real to be made up. And thinking that character was made up just violates Occam's principle of inventing entities.

The Paul of Tarsus we see in the letters that are accepted as authentic (not all are) is too real to be made up. And thinking that character was made up just violates Occam's principle of inventing entities.But what if Occam was made up?
^_^

I suppose it is, especially if you take away the part where Jesus knocks Paul off his donkey in the middle of the road to Damascus. But people have convinced themselves of stranger things.

I think that Jesus, the Apostles and Paul all existed. It's the divine stuff I discard.

You might find the first chapter of Paul Johnson's A History of Christianity interesting. In it he discusses the "rise and rescue of the Jesus sect" and Paul's importance in the rescue.

The Paul of Tarsus we see in the letters that are accepted as authentic (not all are) is too real to be made up. And thinking that character was made up just violates Occam's principle of inventing entities.

Thanks for the reading suggestion. I'll pick up a copy this summer - got any other ideas for books in the same vein?

But what if Occam was made up?
^_^

:eek2:

But we have pictures (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/70/William_of_Ockham.png)...

I suppose it is, especially if you take away the part where Jesus knocks Paul off his donkey in the middle of the road to Damascus. But people have convinced themselves of stranger things.

I think that Jesus, the Apostles and Paul all existed. It's the divine stuff I discard.

You might find the first chapter of Paul Johnson's A History of Christianity interesting. In it he discusses the "rise and rescue of the Jesus sect" and Paul's importance in the rescue.

The Paul of Tarsus we see in the letters that are accepted as authentic (not all are) is too real to be made up. And thinking that character was made up just violates Occam's principle of inventing entities.
the letters dont say much that is ...historical... they are discussions of theology and behavior for the most part. (not that i understand them at all without extensive notes).

his life story in the book of acts is not well backed up by independent sources....he went to ...cyprus?...and converted a king but there is no record of a king of cyprus being converted at that time or of any christian churches, monuments, etc existing at that time, for example.

does the book "a history of christianity" discuss the dozens of different christian sects that existed in early christianity?

Welll ... and this is probably a quibble ... it contains prophesies about the Jewish Messiah, not specifically about Jesus. I suppose it depends on whether you think Jesus was that Messiah. Some folks don't think so.

We call them "people that have actually READ the OT".

Here is a question, why if mainstream Christians accept the OT do most mainstream Christians then not know of the more complex view of God of the Jews, and still have a more primitive view as far as not knowing the Names, or more subtle contexts.

Also why is the Jewish underworld Sheol and the Greek Hades directly translated as HELL throughout the modern versions of the Bible when their really not "Hell" and there are huge differences between them and what Christians think of as Hell, especially Sheol and Hell.

Here is a question, why if mainstream Christians accept the OT do most mainstream Christians then not know of the more complex view of God of the Jews, and still have a more primitive view as far as not knowing the Names, or more subtle contexts.

Also why is the Jewish underworld Sheol and the Greek Hades directly translated as HELL throughout the modern versions of the Bible when their really not "Hell" and there are huge differences between them and what Christians think of as Hell, especially Sheol and Hell.
because christianity is the hellenification of judaism and because "most" mainstream christians dont do heavy theological thinking involving complex views of god.

Yes.

I own a copy; I like your guys' translation better--it makes more sense. In the Tanakh the Lord shows his back to Moses, but in the OT he moons him.

Thanks for the reading suggestion. I'll pick up a copy this summer - got any other ideas for books in the same vein?

Well ... Johnson has a history of Judaism, too, and I believe he edited the Oxford Book of Popes, which is reallt quite easy to read and just chock full of interesting information.

I mentioned in that thread on Pontius Pilate two books, The Memoirs of Pontius Pilate, by James Mills, and The Master and Margarita, by Mikhail Bulgakov. There's a lot more going on in The Master and Margarita than just the bits about Pilate and Jesus, and it's a novel from the depths of Stalin's Soviet Union, so beware. Still, Bulgakov is an interesting writer and might lead you along to other Russians.

Timothy Barnes' Eusebius and Constantine was good, too.

the letters dont say much that is ...historical... they are discussions of theology and behavior for the most part. (not that i understand them at all without extensive notes).

his life story in the book of acts is not well backed up by independent sources....he went to ...cyprus?...and converted a king but there is no record of a king of cyprus being converted at that time or of any christian churches, monuments, etc existing at that time, for example.

does the book "a history of christianity" discuss the dozens of different christian sects that existed in early christianity?

No, there isn't a lot and it's in the letters, not in Acts. Acts is considered a bit of a whitewash job, to promote unity in the Early Church after the disputes between Paul and the Elders (mostly Peter and James the Just). I'll have to go look it up.

And yes, the Johnson book does have quite a bit about early sects and heresies and such. very interesting reading.

without the old testament who is this god that jesus is the son of? what the fuck is a messiah and why is one needed? where did we come from? what is all this talk about the commandments, the sabbath, satan, passover, etc?

Your right on the money Ashmoria. The Old Testament explains what humans did that required the messiah to come into this world to redeem it from sin and death. The Torah, combined with the teachings of Christ, which are actually far harsher and demanding in terms of acceptable behavior, shows how believers, since they have already been saved, are to act towards one another and towards nonbelievers, so that all will be saved and God be glorified for his wondrous works.

because it supports the notion that christianity is an extention of judaism.

^this. also the people who count things say it prophecies down to the day of Jesus arrival on palm Sunday and also Jesus quotes it and also it has "historical" significance and has the original fall in it which introduced sin which makes Jesus all the more useful.

and it contains a lot of prophesies about Simon/Mithras/Horus...There, fixed.
*beams*
http://www.thediabetesblog.com/images/2005/12/baby%20crying.jpg

because christianity is the hellenification of judaism and because "most" mainstream christians dont do heavy theological thinking involving complex views of god.Nicely put.
*bows*

Because God's Word is unchanging and eternal, of course. You can't just out-date an entire section of the Bible. Even if it is contradictory and ridiculous.

Are you sure? It was written about 80+ years after said events......

I think you got it backwards, bro. Religions operate on a LIFO basis.

i think you got it backwards, bro. Religions operate on a lifo basis.

LIFO?i

Also why is the Jewish underworld Sheol and the Greek Hades directly translated as HELL throughout the modern versions of the Bible when their really not "Hell" and there are huge differences between them and what Christians think of as Hell, especially Sheol and Hell.
The word hell can trace its history back to the Old Norse word "hel", the Norsemen's land of the dead prior to Christianization. As far as for what Christians think of as Hell, the fire and brimstone Hell, its history in appears quite muddled in my opinion, borrowing from all sorts of sources and traditions.

What would the average person living in the Dark Ages of Europe know of Sheol or Hades? I suspect not much. So I imagine that missionaries of the Catholic church utilized such linguistic shortcuts from the entrenched religion's view of the afterlife to make Christianity more palatable as they often did with feast days and whatnot. The central concept existed already and it was utilized. Of course, the old mixed with the new, and once services were eventually made vernacular the word Hell stuck but had eventually gained a whole new meaning that is relevant to Christians.

In the end, language just happens.

In the end, language just happens.
Damn!
http://zoidberg.wz.cz/futurama/zoidprof.gif

True, dat. I think the natural progression was to the Klingon version
http://www.kli.org/wiki/index.php?Klingon%20Bible%20Translation%20Project
1 yeSuS 'IHrIStoS, [Qun'a' puqloD] Delbogh De' QaQ'e' taghlu'.

2 nemSovwI' yeSay'a paq ghItlh pabtaH ghu':

SuH bIghoSpa', lenglIj qeqbogh QumwI'wI''e' vIngeHlI'.

3

DebDaq jachwI' ghogh:

joH'a' leng yIqeq;
HemeyDaj tISIHHa'moH.

4 qaS:
DebDaq taymo' Say'moHtaH yo'a'neS.
'ej yem net noDHa'meH, paywI'pu' Say'moH, 'e' maq.
and the Tech Slang version ...
http://www.rdrop.com/~cary/html/tsv.html
Genesis 1:

"At time t = 0, Elohiym implemented the heavens and Earth.

Now Earth had low information content, ...

And Elohiym said, "Let there be electromagnetic radiation",

and there was electromagnetic radiation."

--Genesis 1:1 to 1:3, Technical Slang Version.

[4: Elohiym saw that the electromagnetic radiation was a Good Thing.]

4: Elohiym saw that the electromagnetic radiation passed QA [Quality Assurance].

And he bifurcated the high-intensity electromagnetic radiation areas from the negligible-intensity electromagnetic radiation areas.

5: Elohiym called high-intensity electromagnetic radiation areas "day", and the negligible-intensity electromagnetic radiation areas "night".

And there was evening and there was morning: t = 1 day.

6,7,8: And Elohiym said, let there be a [Spreader Outer][frame][brace][liner] between the H2O to bifurcate the H2O from H2O. So Elohiym made the [Spreader Outer] and separated the water under the [Spreader Outer] from the water above it. And it was so. Elohiym called the [Spreader Outer] "sky".

[No mention is made of the waterproofing process and the polymers used to waterproof the [Spreader Outer]; or its geometric structure.]

And there was evening and there was morning: t = 2 day.

9:And Elohiym said, let the H2O under "sky" be [concentrated][reduced][averaged][localized], and let

ground lacking in H2O [make its outcome known][appear]. And it was so.

10:Elohiym called the ground lacking in H2O "land", and the [concentrated H2O] "seas".

Elohiym saw that it passed QA.

11: Then Elohiym said, Let the "land" produce Embryophytes (land plants):

Spermatopsida (seed plants) [the spermatophytes ("seed plants")][seed-bearing plants] and

trees on the land that bear fruit with seed in it, according to their kinds.

Elohiym saw that it passed QA.

13: And there was evening and there was morning: t = 3 day.

14:And Elohiym said, let there be photon sources in the [Spreader Outer] of the sky to bifurcate the "day" from the "night", and let them serve as signs to mark seasons and days and years, and let them be photon sources in the [Spreader Outer] of the sky to give light on Earth.

And it was so.

The word hell can trace its history back to the Old Norse word "hel", the Norsemen's land of the dead prior to Christianization. As far as for what Christians think of as Hell, the fire and brimstone Hell, its history in appears quite muddled in my opinion, borrowing from all sorts of sources and traditions.

What would the average person living in the Dark Ages of Europe know of Sheol or Hades? I suspect not much. So I imagine that missionaries of the Catholic church utilized such linguistic shortcuts from the entrenched religion's view of the afterlife to make Christianity more palatable as they often did with feast days and whatnot. The central concept existed already and it was utilized. Of course, the old mixed with the new, and once services were eventually made vernacular the word Hell stuck but had eventually gained a whole new meaning that is relevant to Christians.

In the end, language just happens.

Language happens, but I would say that it changed the whole conception and concept and is not clear. Sheol and Hades are somewhat similar, but not necessarily, and then neither are probably the picture of Hell that Christians see today.

Of course then Dante's Inferno and the other books helped stroke the fires of the imagination of Christians everywhere....

Of course then Dante's Inferno And may everything he envisioned for us be his homecoming, alone.

LIFO?i

Last In First Out. (It's accountancy type stuffs).

Short answer: Genesis shows the supremacy of the Creator and the fallen nature of Mankind along with the beginnings of then tribe of Israel. The rest of the OT is primarily a historical record of God's guidance of Israel to be in the right place at the right time for God to bring about a Redeemer so humanity is no longer saddled with the burdens of sin and can have a new relationship with God without the OT burdens of ritual. Most of the OT laws and covenants are considered prophetic, as a display of humanity's futile attempts to become pure and as a foreshadowing of the life of Christ according to most Christian teachings. It is intended as a contrast between the concepts of Law and Grace.

And may everything he envisioned for us be his homecoming, alone.

Amen to that!

It is sad that modern Christians draw their image of Hell from fictional writers, and not from the original untranslated, unadulterated (as they say) words of their Bible.

And may everything he envisioned for us be his homecoming, alone.

Everything?

It's gonna be tough to cram the City of Dis and the Rose of Heaven into the same afterlife. I'm not sure if this is going to work out.

As a Jew, I consider the OT to be the complete Bible.

Except that, as a Jew, you don't really ascribe to the Bible, but the Torah... so why would you need a complete Bible in any way? Except for literary reasons.

And doesn't the NT completely ignore the OT, and actually admit it's a bunch of bullshit and all you need to do is take Jesus into your heart or some shit?

Who know? *shrugs*

Amen to that!

It is sad that modern Christians draw their image of Hell from fictional writers, and not from the original untranslated, unadulterated (as they say) words of their Bible.
its pretty hard to find the original untranslated, unadulterated (as they say) words of their Bible.

all you can get is the oldest closest approximation.

Because of the powerful paper mill and lumber lobbies. Remember, the Bible is the most published book worldwide. These greedy industries will do anything to increase their output.