Afore I go to bed, a though to ponder.
How much relevance do you see in the two halves of the Bible.
Given Christianity, I have to presume that the New Testament is central as it describes the life of Christ.
How relevant do you see the Old Testament being to Christianity and how much is it a hangover from Christianity's anticedents?
Old and New
Old and New
Bryn Mawr:-6
An interesting topic.
I think the whole of the Bible is important to Christianity. However, the OT must be read in light of the NT.
Just bcause it is old does not mean that it does not mean that the wisdom it contains is no longer valuable.
Shalom
Ted:-6
An interesting topic.
I think the whole of the Bible is important to Christianity. However, the OT must be read in light of the NT.
Just bcause it is old does not mean that it does not mean that the wisdom it contains is no longer valuable.
Shalom
Ted:-6
Old and New
Ted wrote: Bryn Mawr:-6
An interesting topic.
I think the whole of the Bible is important to Christianity. However, the OT must be read in light of the NT.
Just bcause it is old does not mean that it does not mean that the wisdom it contains is no longer valuable.
Shalom
Ted:-6
If there is wisdom in the Old Testament Ted
it is well hidden except for a few psalms, etc.
In my opinion only, the Old Testament should be left entirely in the hands of those who have studied extensively, majored in the Old Testament. I think the Old Testament in the hands of all lay people, especially young people, is a dangerous thing.
I don't read the Old Testament because I don't understand it. I get it in church, some of it anyways, I watch movies of parts of it, but mostly the words are a total mystery to me. How then can a teenager read it and handle it well.....they don't and I know that.
The New Testament is all I need, actually the Gospels, to live as much like Chist as I can. God knows I fail a lot but I get back up and keep on trying. And that is just the Gospels which are quite easy.
An interesting topic.
I think the whole of the Bible is important to Christianity. However, the OT must be read in light of the NT.
Just bcause it is old does not mean that it does not mean that the wisdom it contains is no longer valuable.
Shalom
Ted:-6
If there is wisdom in the Old Testament Ted
it is well hidden except for a few psalms, etc.
In my opinion only, the Old Testament should be left entirely in the hands of those who have studied extensively, majored in the Old Testament. I think the Old Testament in the hands of all lay people, especially young people, is a dangerous thing.
I don't read the Old Testament because I don't understand it. I get it in church, some of it anyways, I watch movies of parts of it, but mostly the words are a total mystery to me. How then can a teenager read it and handle it well.....they don't and I know that.
The New Testament is all I need, actually the Gospels, to live as much like Chist as I can. God knows I fail a lot but I get back up and keep on trying. And that is just the Gospels which are quite easy.
miriam:yh_flower
Making the simple complicated is commonplace; making the complicated simple, awesomely simple, that's creativity.
.................Charles Mingus
http://www.gratefulness.org/candles/enter.cfm?
Making the simple complicated is commonplace; making the complicated simple, awesomely simple, that's creativity.
.................Charles Mingus
http://www.gratefulness.org/candles/enter.cfm?
Old and New
weber:-6
I can appreciate what you are saying. There are however great gems of wisdom in the OT.
Do not be afraid of it but don't take it literally. A literal reading would indeed be a mistake. Careful study will show even a teenager the wisdom contained withing.
Shalom
Ted:-6
I can appreciate what you are saying. There are however great gems of wisdom in the OT.
Do not be afraid of it but don't take it literally. A literal reading would indeed be a mistake. Careful study will show even a teenager the wisdom contained withing.
Shalom
Ted:-6
Old and New
weber:-6
I'm presently working on one of the great ancient mystics of the early church; Meister Eckhart in the early 14th cent.
Shalom
Ted:-6
I'm presently working on one of the great ancient mystics of the early church; Meister Eckhart in the early 14th cent.
Shalom
Ted:-6
Old and New
Ted wrote: weber:-6
I can appreciate what you are saying. There are however great gems of wisdom in the OT.
Do not be afraid of it but don't take it literally. A literal reading would indeed be a mistake. Careful study will show even a teenager the wisdom contained withing.
Shalom
Ted:-6
Unfortunately Ted
few people give careful study to the Old Testament. Most read as is and go around bible bashing with the Old Testament. And teenagers are the worst and the least likely to put time into it. So a few people like you give it careful study and the rest just read it and take it as it is. You have one voice and they have great multitudes of voices.
I stick to my guns. If I had the say, only the Gospels and a few other parts of the bible would be available to lay people. Then the lay people would have to go to the experts to hear the hard parts of the bible and even then they might not learn. I read the things you write and a lot of the time it is Greek to me. And I am not a stupid person by any means.
I can appreciate what you are saying. There are however great gems of wisdom in the OT.
Do not be afraid of it but don't take it literally. A literal reading would indeed be a mistake. Careful study will show even a teenager the wisdom contained withing.
Shalom
Ted:-6
Unfortunately Ted
few people give careful study to the Old Testament. Most read as is and go around bible bashing with the Old Testament. And teenagers are the worst and the least likely to put time into it. So a few people like you give it careful study and the rest just read it and take it as it is. You have one voice and they have great multitudes of voices.
I stick to my guns. If I had the say, only the Gospels and a few other parts of the bible would be available to lay people. Then the lay people would have to go to the experts to hear the hard parts of the bible and even then they might not learn. I read the things you write and a lot of the time it is Greek to me. And I am not a stupid person by any means.
miriam:yh_flower
Making the simple complicated is commonplace; making the complicated simple, awesomely simple, that's creativity.
.................Charles Mingus
http://www.gratefulness.org/candles/enter.cfm?
Making the simple complicated is commonplace; making the complicated simple, awesomely simple, that's creativity.
.................Charles Mingus
http://www.gratefulness.org/candles/enter.cfm?
Old and New
weber:-6
One mistake you make. I am not alone. I am not one voice. There are many out there.
The NT ought not to be taken literally either. That too requires study.
Shalom
Ted:-6
One mistake you make. I am not alone. I am not one voice. There are many out there.
The NT ought not to be taken literally either. That too requires study.
Shalom
Ted:-6
Old and New
Ted wrote: weber:-6
One mistake you make. I am not alone. I am not one voice. There are many out there.
The NT ought not to be taken literally either. That too requires study.
Shalom
Ted:-6
There may be many of you but where are all of you. I have only met 2 maybe 3. But I have met dozens and dozens who don't study carefully.
It is easier to figure out the Gospels and the few other parts I read. I know not literally but easier by leaps and bounds than the Old Testament.
One mistake you make. I am not alone. I am not one voice. There are many out there.
The NT ought not to be taken literally either. That too requires study.
Shalom
Ted:-6
There may be many of you but where are all of you. I have only met 2 maybe 3. But I have met dozens and dozens who don't study carefully.
It is easier to figure out the Gospels and the few other parts I read. I know not literally but easier by leaps and bounds than the Old Testament.
miriam:yh_flower
Making the simple complicated is commonplace; making the complicated simple, awesomely simple, that's creativity.
.................Charles Mingus
http://www.gratefulness.org/candles/enter.cfm?
Making the simple complicated is commonplace; making the complicated simple, awesomely simple, that's creativity.
.................Charles Mingus
http://www.gratefulness.org/candles/enter.cfm?
Old and New
weber:-6
Where are the others? To start with many are priests and pastors in many churches who are well studied and understand what they are talking about. The second place you can find them is in academic settings teaching those young men and women who are to become tomorrow's priests and pastors.
There are also many who simply have ordinary day to day jobs. Some become missionaries and I don't mean the Bible bashing of heads kind. There are many out there who simply go about helping others as part of their faith and what they believe is their duty.
Some are hospice workers, others such as myself are senior's peer coursellors or as myself again a member of the client services committee of the CNIB. I thought that last one was a good move since I am visually impaired and will ultimately be legally blind. Some are members of Lions' clubs or the Rotary. Some are doctors of the medical variety. I know some of those.
They're all around but they don't go about proselytizing and only answer when asked about their faith. Is that not what you want? If you are interested they are there to be sought out. If not then it doesn't matter does it?
All the best.
Shalom
Ted:-6
Where are the others? To start with many are priests and pastors in many churches who are well studied and understand what they are talking about. The second place you can find them is in academic settings teaching those young men and women who are to become tomorrow's priests and pastors.
There are also many who simply have ordinary day to day jobs. Some become missionaries and I don't mean the Bible bashing of heads kind. There are many out there who simply go about helping others as part of their faith and what they believe is their duty.
Some are hospice workers, others such as myself are senior's peer coursellors or as myself again a member of the client services committee of the CNIB. I thought that last one was a good move since I am visually impaired and will ultimately be legally blind. Some are members of Lions' clubs or the Rotary. Some are doctors of the medical variety. I know some of those.
They're all around but they don't go about proselytizing and only answer when asked about their faith. Is that not what you want? If you are interested they are there to be sought out. If not then it doesn't matter does it?
All the best.
Shalom
Ted:-6
Old and New
Ted wrote: weber:-6
Where are the others? To start with many are priests and pastors in many churches who are well studied and understand what they are talking about. The second place you can find them is in academic settings teaching those young men and women who are to become tomorrow's priests and pastors.
There are also many who simply have ordinary day to day jobs. Some become missionaries and I don't mean the Bible bashing of heads kind. There are many out there who simply go about helping others as part of their faith and what they believe is their duty.
Some are hospice workers, others such as myself are senior's peer coursellors or as myself again a member of the client services committee of the CNIB. I thought that last one was a good move since I am visually impaired and will ultimately be legally blind. Some are members of Lions' clubs or the Rotary. Some are doctors of the medical variety. I know some of those.
They're all around but they don't go about proselytizing and only answer when asked about their faith. Is that not what you want? If you are interested they are there to be sought out. If not then it doesn't matter does it?
All the best.
Shalom
Ted:-6
Of course you are right.
They are there if I were to seek them out. I wasn't thinking about that. The ones with little worth saying are easy to find. They seek me and others out.
I don't seek out those who are carefully studied because even they cannot make the Old Testament clear to me. When I think about it, I have asked, and tried at different points in my life to no avail. A few people did make some sense to me but unfortunately they didn't stay here.
And your last statement of "If not then it doesn't matter does it". Everything matters Ted. The Old Testament matters to me or I wouldn't even mention it. It isn't that it doesn't matter to me or that I don't care or don't give a dam. If I could find somebody who could make at least one statement about it that I could understand, I might give it some time. My experiences with it have been dismal.
Do I care, give a dam? Sure I do. I don't have access to all those people you are talking about, not where I live.
Where are the others? To start with many are priests and pastors in many churches who are well studied and understand what they are talking about. The second place you can find them is in academic settings teaching those young men and women who are to become tomorrow's priests and pastors.
There are also many who simply have ordinary day to day jobs. Some become missionaries and I don't mean the Bible bashing of heads kind. There are many out there who simply go about helping others as part of their faith and what they believe is their duty.
Some are hospice workers, others such as myself are senior's peer coursellors or as myself again a member of the client services committee of the CNIB. I thought that last one was a good move since I am visually impaired and will ultimately be legally blind. Some are members of Lions' clubs or the Rotary. Some are doctors of the medical variety. I know some of those.
They're all around but they don't go about proselytizing and only answer when asked about their faith. Is that not what you want? If you are interested they are there to be sought out. If not then it doesn't matter does it?
All the best.
Shalom
Ted:-6
Of course you are right.
They are there if I were to seek them out. I wasn't thinking about that. The ones with little worth saying are easy to find. They seek me and others out.
I don't seek out those who are carefully studied because even they cannot make the Old Testament clear to me. When I think about it, I have asked, and tried at different points in my life to no avail. A few people did make some sense to me but unfortunately they didn't stay here.
And your last statement of "If not then it doesn't matter does it". Everything matters Ted. The Old Testament matters to me or I wouldn't even mention it. It isn't that it doesn't matter to me or that I don't care or don't give a dam. If I could find somebody who could make at least one statement about it that I could understand, I might give it some time. My experiences with it have been dismal.
Do I care, give a dam? Sure I do. I don't have access to all those people you are talking about, not where I live.
miriam:yh_flower
Making the simple complicated is commonplace; making the complicated simple, awesomely simple, that's creativity.
.................Charles Mingus
http://www.gratefulness.org/candles/enter.cfm?
Making the simple complicated is commonplace; making the complicated simple, awesomely simple, that's creativity.
.................Charles Mingus
http://www.gratefulness.org/candles/enter.cfm?
Old and New
weber:-6
But you have the net, a library, book stores. One can even buy online as I frequently do. Of course it is not as good as speaking to a specialist in the field. On the other hand it does give one the right questions to ask when the opportunity does arise.
For those who are visually impaired there are many good books on CD or tape that are available as well. They can be borrowed or bought.
Shalom
Ted:-6
But you have the net, a library, book stores. One can even buy online as I frequently do. Of course it is not as good as speaking to a specialist in the field. On the other hand it does give one the right questions to ask when the opportunity does arise.
For those who are visually impaired there are many good books on CD or tape that are available as well. They can be borrowed or bought.
Shalom
Ted:-6
Old and New
Ted wrote: weber:-6
But you have the net, a library, book stores. One can even buy online as I frequently do. Of course it is not as good as speaking to a specialist in the field. On the other hand it does give one the right questions to ask when the opportunity does arise.
For those who are visually impaired there are many good books on CD or tape that are available as well. They can be borrowed or bought.
Shalom
Ted:-6
That's a good idea.
I am not visually impaired. More likely mentally impaired.
But you have the net, a library, book stores. One can even buy online as I frequently do. Of course it is not as good as speaking to a specialist in the field. On the other hand it does give one the right questions to ask when the opportunity does arise.
For those who are visually impaired there are many good books on CD or tape that are available as well. They can be borrowed or bought.
Shalom
Ted:-6
That's a good idea.
I am not visually impaired. More likely mentally impaired.
miriam:yh_flower
Making the simple complicated is commonplace; making the complicated simple, awesomely simple, that's creativity.
.................Charles Mingus
http://www.gratefulness.org/candles/enter.cfm?
Making the simple complicated is commonplace; making the complicated simple, awesomely simple, that's creativity.
.................Charles Mingus
http://www.gratefulness.org/candles/enter.cfm?
Old and New
Ted wrote: Bryn Mawr:-6
An interesting topic.
I think the whole of the Bible is important to Christianity. However, the OT must be read in light of the NT.
Just bcause it is old does not mean that it does not mean that the wisdom it contains is no longer valuable.
Shalom
Ted:-6
But surely that's all it is - the collected history and folk wisdom of a peoples.
How does the fire and brimstone - an eye for an eye - mentality fit with the teaching of Christ from a religious point of view?
If Christ came with a new message then why drag the old message along with it?
An interesting topic.
I think the whole of the Bible is important to Christianity. However, the OT must be read in light of the NT.
Just bcause it is old does not mean that it does not mean that the wisdom it contains is no longer valuable.
Shalom
Ted:-6
But surely that's all it is - the collected history and folk wisdom of a peoples.
How does the fire and brimstone - an eye for an eye - mentality fit with the teaching of Christ from a religious point of view?
If Christ came with a new message then why drag the old message along with it?
Old and New
weber wrote: If there is wisdom in the Old Testament Ted
it is well hidden except for a few psalms, etc.
In my opinion only, the Old Testament should be left entirely in the hands of those who have studied extensively, majored in the Old Testament. I think the Old Testament in the hands of all lay people, especially young people, is a dangerous thing.
I don't read the Old Testament because I don't understand it. I get it in church, some of it anyways, I watch movies of parts of it, but mostly the words are a total mystery to me. How then can a teenager read it and handle it well.....they don't and I know that.
The New Testament is all I need, actually the Gospels, to live as much like Chist as I can. God knows I fail a lot but I get back up and keep on trying. And that is just the Gospels which are quite easy.
As I see it, much of the wrongs committed by the Church have come on the back of people taking their stand from the more intollerent sections of the Old Testament.
it is well hidden except for a few psalms, etc.
In my opinion only, the Old Testament should be left entirely in the hands of those who have studied extensively, majored in the Old Testament. I think the Old Testament in the hands of all lay people, especially young people, is a dangerous thing.
I don't read the Old Testament because I don't understand it. I get it in church, some of it anyways, I watch movies of parts of it, but mostly the words are a total mystery to me. How then can a teenager read it and handle it well.....they don't and I know that.
The New Testament is all I need, actually the Gospels, to live as much like Chist as I can. God knows I fail a lot but I get back up and keep on trying. And that is just the Gospels which are quite easy.
As I see it, much of the wrongs committed by the Church have come on the back of people taking their stand from the more intollerent sections of the Old Testament.
Old and New
[QUOTE=Ted
They're all around but they don't go about proselytizing and only answer when asked about their faith. Is that not what you want? If you are interested they are there to be sought out. If not then it doesn't matter does it?
As Weber says, the voice of reason is drowned out by the shouting of the few.
By giving the Old Testament equal status with the New, indeed it is the larger part of the Holy book of the Christian religion, you are giving the attitudes and teachings within it equal weight.
Is Christianity not about the teachings of Christ? The New Testament contains all of that whilst the Old describes God as seen before those teachings existed.
They're all around but they don't go about proselytizing and only answer when asked about their faith. Is that not what you want? If you are interested they are there to be sought out. If not then it doesn't matter does it?
As Weber says, the voice of reason is drowned out by the shouting of the few.
By giving the Old Testament equal status with the New, indeed it is the larger part of the Holy book of the Christian religion, you are giving the attitudes and teachings within it equal weight.
Is Christianity not about the teachings of Christ? The New Testament contains all of that whilst the Old describes God as seen before those teachings existed.
Old and New
weber wrote: Unfortunately Ted
few people give careful study to the Old Testament. Most read as is and go around bible bashing with the Old Testament. And teenagers are the worst and the least likely to put time into it. So a few people like you give it careful study and the rest just read it and take it as it is. You have one voice and they have great multitudes of voices.
I stick to my guns. If I had the say, only the Gospels and a few other parts of the bible would be available to lay people. Then the lay people would have to go to the experts to hear the hard parts of the bible and even then they might not learn. I read the things you write and a lot of the time it is Greek to me. And I am not a stupid person by any means.
When Jesus says to search the scriptures because they testify of HIM, what scripture does HE mean?
When HE taught about HIMSELF from scripture in the temple, what scripture did HE use? When Paul or the other apostles did the same, what did they use? What was the Ethiopian using when Philip found him perplexed?
few people give careful study to the Old Testament. Most read as is and go around bible bashing with the Old Testament. And teenagers are the worst and the least likely to put time into it. So a few people like you give it careful study and the rest just read it and take it as it is. You have one voice and they have great multitudes of voices.
I stick to my guns. If I had the say, only the Gospels and a few other parts of the bible would be available to lay people. Then the lay people would have to go to the experts to hear the hard parts of the bible and even then they might not learn. I read the things you write and a lot of the time it is Greek to me. And I am not a stupid person by any means.
When Jesus says to search the scriptures because they testify of HIM, what scripture does HE mean?
When HE taught about HIMSELF from scripture in the temple, what scripture did HE use? When Paul or the other apostles did the same, what did they use? What was the Ethiopian using when Philip found him perplexed?
Old and New
Bryn Mawr wrote: As Weber says, the voice of reason is drowned out by the shouting of the few.
By giving the Old Testament equal status with the New, indeed it is the larger part of the Holy book of the Christian religion, you are giving the attitudes and teachings within it equal weight.
Is Christianity not about the teachings of Christ? The New Testament contains all of that whilst the Old describes God as seen before those teachings existed.
The Old Testament teaches about Christ, HIS coming, and HIS sacrifice. The New Testament is the fulfillment of what was taught in the OT.
All of the sacrificial system practiced by the Jews in the OT, is a type of Christ, HE came to fulfill that law, and so HE did.
Without the OT, the NT is dangling on nothing.
By giving the Old Testament equal status with the New, indeed it is the larger part of the Holy book of the Christian religion, you are giving the attitudes and teachings within it equal weight.
Is Christianity not about the teachings of Christ? The New Testament contains all of that whilst the Old describes God as seen before those teachings existed.
The Old Testament teaches about Christ, HIS coming, and HIS sacrifice. The New Testament is the fulfillment of what was taught in the OT.
All of the sacrificial system practiced by the Jews in the OT, is a type of Christ, HE came to fulfill that law, and so HE did.
Without the OT, the NT is dangling on nothing.
Old and New
Atsila wrote: The Old Testament teaches about Christ, HIS coming, and HIS sacrifice. The New Testament is the fulfillment of what was taught in the OT.
All of the sacrificial system practiced by the Jews in the OT, is a type of Christ, HE came to fulfill that law, and so HE did.
Without the OT, the NT is dangling on nothing.
Without the New Testament the Old Testament would see our death quite quickly I would say, like maybe a minute or two from now.
If I had to choose one or the other, I'd take the New Testament hands down. Basically it contains the best part of the Old Testament anyway.
People could live quite comfortably with just the New Testament.....there'd have to be a lot less bible bashing which comes mostly from the Old Testament.
All of the sacrificial system practiced by the Jews in the OT, is a type of Christ, HE came to fulfill that law, and so HE did.
Without the OT, the NT is dangling on nothing.
Without the New Testament the Old Testament would see our death quite quickly I would say, like maybe a minute or two from now.
If I had to choose one or the other, I'd take the New Testament hands down. Basically it contains the best part of the Old Testament anyway.
People could live quite comfortably with just the New Testament.....there'd have to be a lot less bible bashing which comes mostly from the Old Testament.
miriam:yh_flower
Making the simple complicated is commonplace; making the complicated simple, awesomely simple, that's creativity.
.................Charles Mingus
http://www.gratefulness.org/candles/enter.cfm?
Making the simple complicated is commonplace; making the complicated simple, awesomely simple, that's creativity.
.................Charles Mingus
http://www.gratefulness.org/candles/enter.cfm?
Old and New
weber wrote: People could live quite comfortably with just the New Testament.....there'd have to be a lot less bible bashing which comes mostly from the Old Testament.
:wah:
...except maybe the Jews. I'm not one to take either Testament too seriously but if I was going to study the OT I'd probably go to the source.
:wah:
...except maybe the Jews. I'm not one to take either Testament too seriously but if I was going to study the OT I'd probably go to the source.
Old and New
koan wrote: :wah:
...except maybe the Jews. I'm not one to take either Testament too seriously but if I was going to study the OT I'd probably go to the source.
How do you do that? Can you read what I am typing as I am typing? Your post is times two minutes after mine. I hadn't even gotten to submit and click Today's Topics and your answer was there.
...except maybe the Jews. I'm not one to take either Testament too seriously but if I was going to study the OT I'd probably go to the source.
How do you do that? Can you read what I am typing as I am typing? Your post is times two minutes after mine. I hadn't even gotten to submit and click Today's Topics and your answer was there.
miriam:yh_flower
Making the simple complicated is commonplace; making the complicated simple, awesomely simple, that's creativity.
.................Charles Mingus
http://www.gratefulness.org/candles/enter.cfm?
Making the simple complicated is commonplace; making the complicated simple, awesomely simple, that's creativity.
.................Charles Mingus
http://www.gratefulness.org/candles/enter.cfm?
Old and New
weber wrote: How do you do that? Can you read what I am typing as I am typing? Your post is times two minutes after mine. I hadn't even gotten to submit and click Today's Topics and your answer was there.
Weird.
I'm in a groove today, I guess.
Weird.
I'm in a groove today, I guess.
Old and New
Atsila wrote: The Old Testament teaches about Christ, HIS coming, and HIS sacrifice. The New Testament is the fulfillment of what was taught in the OT.
All of the sacrificial system practiced by the Jews in the OT, is a type of Christ, HE came to fulfill that law, and so HE did.
Without the OT, the NT is dangling on nothing.
I'm not sure about this one. The Old Testament contains the belief system that held before Christ - it is not about Christ, it is about the beliefs of people before Christ.
Jesus had to teach in light of the beliefs of that time and therefore referenced works of the Old Testament but his message was different from and distinct to those beliefs. The New Testament carries his word and his teachings - it stands complete and fully describes his ministry.
His disciples used the prophecies of the Old Testament to add to his ligitimacy in the eyes of the people to whom they were preaching but I think that Jesus himself did not claim to be the fullfillment of those prophecies.
I do not understand your assertion that a system is a type of Christ - could you explain that to me?
All of the sacrificial system practiced by the Jews in the OT, is a type of Christ, HE came to fulfill that law, and so HE did.
Without the OT, the NT is dangling on nothing.
I'm not sure about this one. The Old Testament contains the belief system that held before Christ - it is not about Christ, it is about the beliefs of people before Christ.
Jesus had to teach in light of the beliefs of that time and therefore referenced works of the Old Testament but his message was different from and distinct to those beliefs. The New Testament carries his word and his teachings - it stands complete and fully describes his ministry.
His disciples used the prophecies of the Old Testament to add to his ligitimacy in the eyes of the people to whom they were preaching but I think that Jesus himself did not claim to be the fullfillment of those prophecies.
I do not understand your assertion that a system is a type of Christ - could you explain that to me?
Old and New
koan wrote: Weird.
I'm in a groove today, I guess.
Well you pair have put up three posts whilst I've laboured to put one together!
I'm just slow I guess
I'm in a groove today, I guess.
Well you pair have put up three posts whilst I've laboured to put one together!
I'm just slow I guess
Old and New
Bryn wrote: I do not understand your assertion that a system is a type of Christ - could you explain that to me?
brave man.
I try not to ask questions of THOSE who capitalize certain words as if IT means something beyond the norm.
brave man.
I try not to ask questions of THOSE who capitalize certain words as if IT means something beyond the norm.
Old and New
koan wrote: brave man.
I try not to ask questions of THOSE who capitalize certain words as if IT means something beyond the norm.
A worrying habit I'll agree but unless you ask ........
Give it time and I'm sure my inevperience will wear off.
I try not to ask questions of THOSE who capitalize certain words as if IT means something beyond the norm.
A worrying habit I'll agree but unless you ask ........
Give it time and I'm sure my inevperience will wear off.
Old and New
Bryn Mawr wrote: I'm not sure about this one. The Old Testament contains the belief system that held before Christ - it is not about Christ, it is about the beliefs of people before Christ.
Jesus had to teach in light of the beliefs of that time and therefore referenced works of the Old Testament but his message was different from and distinct to those beliefs. The New Testament carries his word and his teachings - it stands complete and fully describes his ministry.
His disciples used the prophecies of the Old Testament to add to his ligitimacy in the eyes of the people to whom they were preaching but I think that Jesus himself did not claim to be the fullfillment of those prophecies.
I do not understand your assertion that a system is a type of Christ - could you explain that to me?
Do you understand the meaning of type of Christ, the Lamb that was slain from the foundations of the world? HE is in every innocent animal slain for sin in the OT. Once HE died on the cross, that system became void. Type met anti-Type?
When Jesus opened the scriptures to teach in the synagogue and said 'search the scriptures because they testify of me', he spoke correctly. So did the apostles teaching from the same source. The three wise men had the same source. The Jews anticipating Jesus, had the same source. Some used prophecy to figure HIS coming (Magi) almost to the day.
The OT is the promise of the Messiah, the NT is the fulfillment of HIM.
Teaching the promise and teaching its fulfillment would just about have to be different. But the Christ of the OT is the same as the one of the NT.
The other theme running through the OT is the rise and fall of the Jewish people and the example they serve to this day. Syncretism is deadly.
Jesus had to teach in light of the beliefs of that time and therefore referenced works of the Old Testament but his message was different from and distinct to those beliefs. The New Testament carries his word and his teachings - it stands complete and fully describes his ministry.
His disciples used the prophecies of the Old Testament to add to his ligitimacy in the eyes of the people to whom they were preaching but I think that Jesus himself did not claim to be the fullfillment of those prophecies.
I do not understand your assertion that a system is a type of Christ - could you explain that to me?
Do you understand the meaning of type of Christ, the Lamb that was slain from the foundations of the world? HE is in every innocent animal slain for sin in the OT. Once HE died on the cross, that system became void. Type met anti-Type?
When Jesus opened the scriptures to teach in the synagogue and said 'search the scriptures because they testify of me', he spoke correctly. So did the apostles teaching from the same source. The three wise men had the same source. The Jews anticipating Jesus, had the same source. Some used prophecy to figure HIS coming (Magi) almost to the day.
The OT is the promise of the Messiah, the NT is the fulfillment of HIM.
Teaching the promise and teaching its fulfillment would just about have to be different. But the Christ of the OT is the same as the one of the NT.
The other theme running through the OT is the rise and fall of the Jewish people and the example they serve to this day. Syncretism is deadly.
Old and New
Bryn Mawr:-6
As I said earlier the OT must be read in light of the New Testament. I see no reason to throw out the wisdom of the ages just because it is called the OT.
Yes some folks have used the OT to commit serious actions. Some have used the New Testament to justify slavery and some have used the gospel of John to engage in anti-semitism.
Many great writings can be abused not just the Bible.
Shalom
Ted:-6
As I said earlier the OT must be read in light of the New Testament. I see no reason to throw out the wisdom of the ages just because it is called the OT.
Yes some folks have used the OT to commit serious actions. Some have used the New Testament to justify slavery and some have used the gospel of John to engage in anti-semitism.
Many great writings can be abused not just the Bible.
Shalom
Ted:-6
Old and New
Atsila wrote: Do you understand the meaning of type of Christ, the Lamb that was slain from the foundations of the world? HE is in every innocent animal slain for sin in the OT. Once HE died on the cross, that system became void. Type met anti-Type?
When Jesus opened the scriptures to teach in the synagogue and said 'search the scriptures because they testify of me', he spoke correctly. So did the apostles teaching from the same source. The three wise men had the same source. The Jews anticipating Jesus, had the same source. Some used prophecy to figure HIS coming (Magi) almost to the day.
The OT is the promise of the Messiah, the NT is the fulfillment of HIM.
Teaching the promise and teaching its fulfillment would just about have to be different. But the Christ of the OT is the same as the one of the NT.
The other theme running through the OT is the rise and fall of the Jewish people and the example they serve to this day. Syncretism is deadly.
Killing animals and roasting them as sacrifice is weird stuff. If I went out and did that, they'd haul me off to jail. And you say Jesus was in the slain animal. Strange sounding thought to me.
When Jesus opened the scriptures to teach in the synagogue and said 'search the scriptures because they testify of me', he spoke correctly. So did the apostles teaching from the same source. The three wise men had the same source. The Jews anticipating Jesus, had the same source. Some used prophecy to figure HIS coming (Magi) almost to the day.
The OT is the promise of the Messiah, the NT is the fulfillment of HIM.
Teaching the promise and teaching its fulfillment would just about have to be different. But the Christ of the OT is the same as the one of the NT.
The other theme running through the OT is the rise and fall of the Jewish people and the example they serve to this day. Syncretism is deadly.
Killing animals and roasting them as sacrifice is weird stuff. If I went out and did that, they'd haul me off to jail. And you say Jesus was in the slain animal. Strange sounding thought to me.
miriam:yh_flower
Making the simple complicated is commonplace; making the complicated simple, awesomely simple, that's creativity.
.................Charles Mingus
http://www.gratefulness.org/candles/enter.cfm?
Making the simple complicated is commonplace; making the complicated simple, awesomely simple, that's creativity.
.................Charles Mingus
http://www.gratefulness.org/candles/enter.cfm?
Old and New
Atsila wrote: Do you understand the meaning of type of Christ, the Lamb that was slain from the foundations of the world? HE is in every innocent animal slain for sin in the OT. Once HE died on the cross, that system became void. Type met anti-Type?
No. This is meaningless to me.
Atsila wrote: When Jesus opened the scriptures to teach in the synagogue and said 'search the scriptures because they testify of me', he spoke correctly. So did the apostles teaching from the same source. The three wise men had the same source. The Jews anticipating Jesus, had the same source. Some used prophecy to figure HIS coming (Magi) almost to the day.
The OT is the promise of the Messiah, the NT is the fulfillment of HIM.
Teaching the promise and teaching its fulfillment would just about have to be different. But the Christ of the OT is the same as the one of the NT.
The other theme running through the OT is the rise and fall of the Jewish people and the example they serve to this day. Syncretism is deadly.
I understand the premise that the Old Testament prophecied the coming of the Messiah. I find the link tenuous and of little relevance to the teachings of Jesus - something that was used by the Disciples rather than something that was claimed by Jesus.
Apart from that one instance of Jesus reading a set text from the Old Testament that you have now quoted twice, does Jesus anywhere, in his own words, claim to be the subject of the Old Testament prophacies?
If the only other purpose of the Old Testament is Jew bashing (holding them up as an example of a deadly sin) then count me out of it.
No. This is meaningless to me.
Atsila wrote: When Jesus opened the scriptures to teach in the synagogue and said 'search the scriptures because they testify of me', he spoke correctly. So did the apostles teaching from the same source. The three wise men had the same source. The Jews anticipating Jesus, had the same source. Some used prophecy to figure HIS coming (Magi) almost to the day.
The OT is the promise of the Messiah, the NT is the fulfillment of HIM.
Teaching the promise and teaching its fulfillment would just about have to be different. But the Christ of the OT is the same as the one of the NT.
The other theme running through the OT is the rise and fall of the Jewish people and the example they serve to this day. Syncretism is deadly.
I understand the premise that the Old Testament prophecied the coming of the Messiah. I find the link tenuous and of little relevance to the teachings of Jesus - something that was used by the Disciples rather than something that was claimed by Jesus.
Apart from that one instance of Jesus reading a set text from the Old Testament that you have now quoted twice, does Jesus anywhere, in his own words, claim to be the subject of the Old Testament prophacies?
If the only other purpose of the Old Testament is Jew bashing (holding them up as an example of a deadly sin) then count me out of it.
Old and New
Michael Baigent goes through a fair bit of trouble to show how Jesus was intentionally fulfilling various prophecies in order to convince people he was the messiah. Can't recall that he even once managed to find a quote from Jesus claiming to be the messiah himself. I fugure, someone who is attempting to show such things as the endeavour of his book would have been able to find such a thing. Maybe he did and I've just forgotten. Loaned the book out to someone not likely to return it so I'm left guessing.
Old and New
Ted wrote: Bryn Mawr:-6
As I said earlier the OT must be read in light of the New Testament. I see no reason to throw out the wisdom of the ages just because it is called the OT.
What do you mean by this? (Please do not take offence - I am truly curious and want to understand)
I'm not suggesting throwing away the wisdom contained in the writings, just demoting them from Holy Writ to the history and collected wisdom of the peoples at the time of Jesus.
Do you see the Old Testament as a fundamental underpinning to the Christian faith without which it could not exist?
Do you see the New Testament as incomplete without the Old - more than just being given context by it?
How relevant is, for example, the Book of Ecclesiastes, to the teaching of Jesus?
Confused of London.
As I said earlier the OT must be read in light of the New Testament. I see no reason to throw out the wisdom of the ages just because it is called the OT.
What do you mean by this? (Please do not take offence - I am truly curious and want to understand)
I'm not suggesting throwing away the wisdom contained in the writings, just demoting them from Holy Writ to the history and collected wisdom of the peoples at the time of Jesus.
Do you see the Old Testament as a fundamental underpinning to the Christian faith without which it could not exist?
Do you see the New Testament as incomplete without the Old - more than just being given context by it?
How relevant is, for example, the Book of Ecclesiastes, to the teaching of Jesus?
Confused of London.
Old and New
Bryn Mawr:-6
By reading the OT in light of the NT what we are saying is that the message of Jesus qualifies the messages in the OT. A good example would be found in Matt. 5 where Matthew's Jesus says "You have heard it said . . . (a commandment) but I say . . .(a new take on how to respond). Another good example is the arrest of Jesus. In the OT swords and spears flew but during Jesus' arrest he refused to allow his followers to use weapons to protect him.
Many scholars today see the OT as the foundation for the NT but it needs to be reinterpreted in light of the teachings of Jesus. I would agree that it is foundational to the NT. Would the church fall apart if it were not used? I don't think so as there are some churches that never use it. On the other hand it sets the scene for the NT. The OT gives us a great deal of information about how the folks lived and worshiped. It also gives us a good view of how they were thinking. It is in understanding our history that we can begin to understand our present situation.
A closer look at Ecclesiastes shows us that in many ways nothing has changed. The times continue on as they always have and humans continue to behave as they always have. Being aware of the words of Ecc. shows us that the message of Jesus is important and responds to the ills of the day. It is a, kind of see how it was and see how it is. Now here is the answer to the problems. Is some of its wisdom obvious? Yes, and how soon man seems to forget even the obvious.
Shalom
Ted:-6
By reading the OT in light of the NT what we are saying is that the message of Jesus qualifies the messages in the OT. A good example would be found in Matt. 5 where Matthew's Jesus says "You have heard it said . . . (a commandment) but I say . . .(a new take on how to respond). Another good example is the arrest of Jesus. In the OT swords and spears flew but during Jesus' arrest he refused to allow his followers to use weapons to protect him.
Many scholars today see the OT as the foundation for the NT but it needs to be reinterpreted in light of the teachings of Jesus. I would agree that it is foundational to the NT. Would the church fall apart if it were not used? I don't think so as there are some churches that never use it. On the other hand it sets the scene for the NT. The OT gives us a great deal of information about how the folks lived and worshiped. It also gives us a good view of how they were thinking. It is in understanding our history that we can begin to understand our present situation.
A closer look at Ecclesiastes shows us that in many ways nothing has changed. The times continue on as they always have and humans continue to behave as they always have. Being aware of the words of Ecc. shows us that the message of Jesus is important and responds to the ills of the day. It is a, kind of see how it was and see how it is. Now here is the answer to the problems. Is some of its wisdom obvious? Yes, and how soon man seems to forget even the obvious.
Shalom
Ted:-6
Old and New
Ted wrote: Bryn Mawr:-6
By reading the OT in light of the NT what we are saying is that the message of Jesus qualifies the messages in the OT. A good example would be found in Matt. 5 where Matthew's Jesus says "You have heard it said . . . (a commandment) but I say . . .(a new take on how to respond). Another good example is the arrest of Jesus. In the OT swords and spears flew but during Jesus' arrest he refused to allow his followers to use weapons to protect him.
Many scholars today see the OT as the foundation for the NT but it needs to be reinterpreted in light of the teachings of Jesus. I would agree that it is foundational to the NT. Would the church fall apart if it were not used? I don't think so as there are some churches that never use it. On the other hand it sets the scene for the NT. The OT gives us a great deal of information about how the folks lived and worshiped. It also gives us a good view of how they were thinking. It is in understanding our history that we can begin to understand our present situation.
A closer look at Ecclesiastes shows us that in many ways nothing has changed. The times continue on as they always have and humans continue to behave as they always have. Being aware of the words of Ecc. shows us that the message of Jesus is important and responds to the ills of the day. It is a, kind of see how it was and see how it is. Now here is the answer to the problems. Is some of its wisdom obvious? Yes, and how soon man seems to forget even the obvious.
Shalom
Ted:-6
I still have a problem with this.
I'm still seeing "good background, nice history, should be remembered" - I'm not seeing "part of the creed, a basic part of Christian belief, as fundamental as the New Testament to the faith".
Your quote from Matthew is a case in point - Jesus saying "up until now you have been taught x but I am telling you that that is wrong and I am teaching you y". Surely this is saying "put aside the Old, here is the New".
As for his arrest, the response was by his rules which, as you say, are very different to those of the Old Testament.
By reading the OT in light of the NT what we are saying is that the message of Jesus qualifies the messages in the OT. A good example would be found in Matt. 5 where Matthew's Jesus says "You have heard it said . . . (a commandment) but I say . . .(a new take on how to respond). Another good example is the arrest of Jesus. In the OT swords and spears flew but during Jesus' arrest he refused to allow his followers to use weapons to protect him.
Many scholars today see the OT as the foundation for the NT but it needs to be reinterpreted in light of the teachings of Jesus. I would agree that it is foundational to the NT. Would the church fall apart if it were not used? I don't think so as there are some churches that never use it. On the other hand it sets the scene for the NT. The OT gives us a great deal of information about how the folks lived and worshiped. It also gives us a good view of how they were thinking. It is in understanding our history that we can begin to understand our present situation.
A closer look at Ecclesiastes shows us that in many ways nothing has changed. The times continue on as they always have and humans continue to behave as they always have. Being aware of the words of Ecc. shows us that the message of Jesus is important and responds to the ills of the day. It is a, kind of see how it was and see how it is. Now here is the answer to the problems. Is some of its wisdom obvious? Yes, and how soon man seems to forget even the obvious.
Shalom
Ted:-6
I still have a problem with this.
I'm still seeing "good background, nice history, should be remembered" - I'm not seeing "part of the creed, a basic part of Christian belief, as fundamental as the New Testament to the faith".
Your quote from Matthew is a case in point - Jesus saying "up until now you have been taught x but I am telling you that that is wrong and I am teaching you y". Surely this is saying "put aside the Old, here is the New".
As for his arrest, the response was by his rules which, as you say, are very different to those of the Old Testament.
Old and New
When we speak of Jesus reading the OT to the folks it raises some questions. In all likelihood Jesus was an illiterate peasant. He Knew all the important parts of the OT from memory as most other Jewish boys did.
If one looks at the history of the gospels then one can understand their very nature. They are not biographies. They are the writings that reflect what the early church had come to believe about Jesus by the time of writing. The ancient Hebrews, or at least some of them, decided that Jesus was indeed the Messiah, so profound was the Hebrews experience of this Jesus. As each new gospel was written we have a developing tradition of the early church.
Having decided that he was the Messiah they went through the OT to find all of the sayings that seemed to predict the coming of the Messiah. Then the stories were written up accordingly. Though he was born in Nazareth the OT indicated that he was to be born in Bethlehem. Thus the story was so composed. This was the nature of ancient midrash, which was both a style of writing and interpretation.
Thus the stories we have of the Birth and the Crucifixion of Jesus are midrashic. This does not deny his birth or his crucifixion but represents the historical reality. That is how things were done. The OT was used to interpret the meaning of Jesus.
Shalom
Ted:-6
If one looks at the history of the gospels then one can understand their very nature. They are not biographies. They are the writings that reflect what the early church had come to believe about Jesus by the time of writing. The ancient Hebrews, or at least some of them, decided that Jesus was indeed the Messiah, so profound was the Hebrews experience of this Jesus. As each new gospel was written we have a developing tradition of the early church.
Having decided that he was the Messiah they went through the OT to find all of the sayings that seemed to predict the coming of the Messiah. Then the stories were written up accordingly. Though he was born in Nazareth the OT indicated that he was to be born in Bethlehem. Thus the story was so composed. This was the nature of ancient midrash, which was both a style of writing and interpretation.
Thus the stories we have of the Birth and the Crucifixion of Jesus are midrashic. This does not deny his birth or his crucifixion but represents the historical reality. That is how things were done. The OT was used to interpret the meaning of Jesus.
Shalom
Ted:-6
Old and New
Ted wrote: When we speak of Jesus reading the OT to the folks it raises some questions. In all likelihood Jesus was an illiterate peasant. He Knew all the important parts of the OT from memory as most other Jewish boys did.
Did he not study in the Synagogue as a child? Certainly Luke 4 is quite specific that he found his place in the Book of Esaias and read from it.
Did he not study in the Synagogue as a child? Certainly Luke 4 is quite specific that he found his place in the Book of Esaias and read from it.
Old and New
Bryn Mawr:-6
One could interpret it as throw out the old and bring in the new. Many scholars read it as a time to reinterpret the ancient wisdom in light of the new way. They ask "Can it apply to today", meaning at the time of Jesus. That is of course our problem today. Many are afraid to reinterpret the Bible in light of todays greatly advanced society. That is a shame because it appears to make God, in my opinion, look no better than the ancient Greek or Roman Gods. Thus we see a God of horrible wrath who is going to torture recalcitrant folks for eternity. This is hardly the message that we get from Jesus.
It is also the Hebrew story of their past; much of it parable and yet much of it foundational to both Judaism as well as Christianity. The Passover story becomes for Christians the "Last Supper" and the crucifixion. Jesus is often referred to as the second Adam. The idea is that the first Adam brought sin into the world where as the second Adam will counteract that sin. Of course for this to have some validity means that one has to accept the theology of "original sin".
The OT has become the vehicle by which the meaning of Jesus was interpreted.
The order to kill all the babies over two and the flight into Egypt is a midrashic use of the Moses hidden in the papyrus.
The resurrection, which by the way I do believe happened, but not quite as written reflects the resurrection and salvation of the Hebrews from their bondage in Egypt. It may also represent their return from exile in Babylon.
The OT has been used as the basis for the Parables about Jesus. There is no problem for most concerning the historicity of Jesus nor his crucifixion or resurrection but we know virtually nothing about his crucifixion and absolutely nothing about his birth other than the name of his parents. At that even his paternity is in question though for now we will accept it as being Joseph.
Absolutely none of this detracts from the central Christian message. In fact I see it as an enhancement.
Thus the foundation of the creeds is to be found in the OT.
Shalom
Ted:-6
One could interpret it as throw out the old and bring in the new. Many scholars read it as a time to reinterpret the ancient wisdom in light of the new way. They ask "Can it apply to today", meaning at the time of Jesus. That is of course our problem today. Many are afraid to reinterpret the Bible in light of todays greatly advanced society. That is a shame because it appears to make God, in my opinion, look no better than the ancient Greek or Roman Gods. Thus we see a God of horrible wrath who is going to torture recalcitrant folks for eternity. This is hardly the message that we get from Jesus.
It is also the Hebrew story of their past; much of it parable and yet much of it foundational to both Judaism as well as Christianity. The Passover story becomes for Christians the "Last Supper" and the crucifixion. Jesus is often referred to as the second Adam. The idea is that the first Adam brought sin into the world where as the second Adam will counteract that sin. Of course for this to have some validity means that one has to accept the theology of "original sin".
The OT has become the vehicle by which the meaning of Jesus was interpreted.
The order to kill all the babies over two and the flight into Egypt is a midrashic use of the Moses hidden in the papyrus.
The resurrection, which by the way I do believe happened, but not quite as written reflects the resurrection and salvation of the Hebrews from their bondage in Egypt. It may also represent their return from exile in Babylon.
The OT has been used as the basis for the Parables about Jesus. There is no problem for most concerning the historicity of Jesus nor his crucifixion or resurrection but we know virtually nothing about his crucifixion and absolutely nothing about his birth other than the name of his parents. At that even his paternity is in question though for now we will accept it as being Joseph.
Absolutely none of this detracts from the central Christian message. In fact I see it as an enhancement.
Thus the foundation of the creeds is to be found in the OT.
Shalom
Ted:-6
Old and New
Bryn Mawr:-6
That is what Luke's Jesus said. However, we know nothing about his young life. So it is put there to present a truth about Jesus and not history. That truth being that he was and is the Messiah.
Shalom
Ted:-6
That is what Luke's Jesus said. However, we know nothing about his young life. So it is put there to present a truth about Jesus and not history. That truth being that he was and is the Messiah.
Shalom
Ted:-6
Old and New
Bryn Mawr:-6
How profound must have been their experiences of the historical Jesus if they were willing to go to such great effort to pas on his message. At that it is a message that is still around 2000 years later. There experience of Jesus was so unbelievably profound. I don't think that anyone since has ever experienced a living historical human being in such a way since.
Add to that the utterly profound Easter experience, whatever it was, and you indeed have a powerful person who in some mysterious way manifest the true nature of God.
I can only stand in awe. I need neither magic or make believe.
Shalom
Ted:-6
How profound must have been their experiences of the historical Jesus if they were willing to go to such great effort to pas on his message. At that it is a message that is still around 2000 years later. There experience of Jesus was so unbelievably profound. I don't think that anyone since has ever experienced a living historical human being in such a way since.
Add to that the utterly profound Easter experience, whatever it was, and you indeed have a powerful person who in some mysterious way manifest the true nature of God.
I can only stand in awe. I need neither magic or make believe.
Shalom
Ted:-6
-
William Ess
- Posts: 339
- Joined: Mon Aug 28, 2006 5:15 am
Old and New
weber wrote: If In my opinion only, the Old Testament should be left entirely in the hands of those who have studied extensively, majored in the Old Testament. I think the Old Testament in the hands of all lay people, especially young people, is a dangerous thing.
.
Well said. I couldn't agree more. (Apparently Henry Tudor agreed as well since he repealed the act of 1519!)
WE
.
Well said. I couldn't agree more. (Apparently Henry Tudor agreed as well since he repealed the act of 1519!)
WE
Old and New
Ted wrote: Bryn Mawr:-6
How profound must have been their experiences of the historical Jesus if they were willing to go to such great effort to pas on his message. At that it is a message that is still around 2000 years later. There experience of Jesus was so unbelievably profound. I don't think that anyone since has ever experienced a living historical human being in such a way since.
Add to that the utterly profound Easter experience, whatever it was, and you indeed have a powerful person who in some mysterious way manifest the true nature of God.
I can only stand in awe. I need neither magic or make believe.
Shalom
Ted:-6
He was certainly a charismatic and inspirational teacher whose message has changed the face of the world.
As such, I believe that his word stands on its own two feet and significantly differs from the God of hell, vengance and damnation shown in the Old Testament.
How profound must have been their experiences of the historical Jesus if they were willing to go to such great effort to pas on his message. At that it is a message that is still around 2000 years later. There experience of Jesus was so unbelievably profound. I don't think that anyone since has ever experienced a living historical human being in such a way since.
Add to that the utterly profound Easter experience, whatever it was, and you indeed have a powerful person who in some mysterious way manifest the true nature of God.
I can only stand in awe. I need neither magic or make believe.
Shalom
Ted:-6
He was certainly a charismatic and inspirational teacher whose message has changed the face of the world.
As such, I believe that his word stands on its own two feet and significantly differs from the God of hell, vengance and damnation shown in the Old Testament.
Old and New
If we reserve the OT for the academics only then we run into the same problem that faced the early church and that generated so much animosity. The early church didn't think that the lay person should read the Bible and thus generated a great deal of suspicion.
Personally, I don't think we need to go there again. People are still asking what secrets are hidden in the Vatican.
Shalom
Ted:-6
Personally, I don't think we need to go there again. People are still asking what secrets are hidden in the Vatican.
Shalom
Ted:-6
Old and New
Ted wrote: If we reserve the OT for the academics only then we run into the same problem that faced the early church and that generated so much animosity. The early church didn't think that the lay person should read the Bible and thus generated a great deal of suspicion.
Personally, I don't think we need to go there again. People are still asking what secrets are hidden in the Vatican.
Shalom
Ted:-6
There's no question of restricting access to it as they did to the Bible before the 16th century - just removing it from the required reading list.
Personally, I don't think we need to go there again. People are still asking what secrets are hidden in the Vatican.
Shalom
Ted:-6
There's no question of restricting access to it as they did to the Bible before the 16th century - just removing it from the required reading list.
-
William Ess
- Posts: 339
- Joined: Mon Aug 28, 2006 5:15 am
Old and New
Ted wrote: If we reserve the OT for the academics only then we run into the same problem that faced the early church and that generated so much animosity. The early church didn't think that the lay person should read the Bible and thus generated a great deal of suspicion.
Personally, I don't think we need to go there again. People are still asking what secrets are hidden in the Vatican.
Shalom
Ted:-6
I think you are missing the point. Much of the Bible is of a complexity that a practiced mind is needed to smooth out what appear to be inconsistencies to the lay reader. For the rest of us, the ten commandents should suffice.
As for Christ, he claimed to be the son of God. I don't think you get more messanaic than that.
The OT belief that sacrifices were necessary for redemption were nullified by Christ's sacrifice. His was the final sacrifice - had he wished he could have saved himself by using his powers - and the new covenant.
Personally, I don't think we need to go there again. People are still asking what secrets are hidden in the Vatican.
Shalom
Ted:-6
I think you are missing the point. Much of the Bible is of a complexity that a practiced mind is needed to smooth out what appear to be inconsistencies to the lay reader. For the rest of us, the ten commandents should suffice.
As for Christ, he claimed to be the son of God. I don't think you get more messanaic than that.
The OT belief that sacrifices were necessary for redemption were nullified by Christ's sacrifice. His was the final sacrifice - had he wished he could have saved himself by using his powers - and the new covenant.
Old and New
William Ess wrote: I think you are missing the point. Much of the Bible is of a complexity that a practiced mind is needed to smooth out what appear to be inconsistencies to the lay reader. For the rest of us, the ten commandents should suffice.
As for Christ, he claimed to be the son of God. I don't think you get more messanaic than that.
The OT belief that sacrifices were necessary for redemption were nullified by Christ's sacrifice. His was the final sacrifice - had he wished he could have saved himself by using his powers - and the new covenant.
It's only complex because it's unclear, contradictory, chauvinistic, misogynistic, homophobic and scientifically and historically inaccurate. Of course it requires a "practiced" mind to "smooth" it out.
As for Christ, he claimed to be the son of God. I don't think you get more messanaic than that.
The OT belief that sacrifices were necessary for redemption were nullified by Christ's sacrifice. His was the final sacrifice - had he wished he could have saved himself by using his powers - and the new covenant.
It's only complex because it's unclear, contradictory, chauvinistic, misogynistic, homophobic and scientifically and historically inaccurate. Of course it requires a "practiced" mind to "smooth" it out.
You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say will be misquoted, then used against you.
-
William Ess
- Posts: 339
- Joined: Mon Aug 28, 2006 5:15 am
Old and New
zinkyusa wrote: It's only complex because it's unclear, contradictory, chauvinistic, misogynistic, homophobic and scientifically and historically inaccurate. Of course it requires a "practiced" mind to "smooth" it out.
You make my point admirably. You need a thinking mind to unravel it. The fact it is complex does not of itself invalidate it and the fact it has been around for over two thousand years says a great deal for its qualities. It would be unreasonable to expect a work of its type to echo the style of a comic strip.
Not the least of the remarkable qualities of the Bible is that it has no rival. However, there is no need to be burdened with its more erudite ingredients: the ten commandments will provide all that is needed to get the purpose of the work.
You make my point admirably. You need a thinking mind to unravel it. The fact it is complex does not of itself invalidate it and the fact it has been around for over two thousand years says a great deal for its qualities. It would be unreasonable to expect a work of its type to echo the style of a comic strip.
Not the least of the remarkable qualities of the Bible is that it has no rival. However, there is no need to be burdened with its more erudite ingredients: the ten commandments will provide all that is needed to get the purpose of the work.
Old and New
William Ess wrote: You make my point admirably. You need a thinking mind to unravel it. The fact it is complex does not of itself invalidate it and the fact it has been around for over two thousand years says a great deal for its qualities. It would be unreasonable to expect a work of its type to echo the style of a comic strip.
Not the least of the remarkable qualities of the Bible is that it has no rival. However, there is no need to be burdened with its more erudite ingredients: the ten commandments will provide all that is needed to get the purpose of the work.
You really think it was planned to be complex? It just evolved into what it is. The different writing styles argue for different authors. It is certainly wondrous as piece of literature and myth and is not to be undervalued in that respect, but that is all. A few possibly devinely inspired nuggetts with an chocolate ego driven covering..
As to the Ten Commandments mostly there to instill some measure of law into the society of the time. A bit simplistic and outdated for today IMO.
Not the least of the remarkable qualities of the Bible is that it has no rival. However, there is no need to be burdened with its more erudite ingredients: the ten commandments will provide all that is needed to get the purpose of the work.
You really think it was planned to be complex? It just evolved into what it is. The different writing styles argue for different authors. It is certainly wondrous as piece of literature and myth and is not to be undervalued in that respect, but that is all. A few possibly devinely inspired nuggetts with an chocolate ego driven covering..
As to the Ten Commandments mostly there to instill some measure of law into the society of the time. A bit simplistic and outdated for today IMO.
You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say will be misquoted, then used against you.
-
William Ess
- Posts: 339
- Joined: Mon Aug 28, 2006 5:15 am
Old and New
zinkyusa wrote: As to the Ten Commandments mostly there to instill some measure of law into the society of the time. A bit simplistic and outdated for today IMO.
I should be most interested to hear why the ten commandments are outdated. What would you replace them with?
I should be most interested to hear why the ten commandments are outdated. What would you replace them with?
Old and New
William Ess wrote: I should be most interested to hear why the ten commandments are outdated. What would you replace them with?
They are to simplistic, they attamept to cover a few moral issues in a black and white manner but not all issues. For example "Thou Shalt Not Steal" tell that to starving people and see what kind of reaction you get.
There are also different versions of the Ten Commandments, uh let's see if we take them literally then he prohibition against "any graven image, or any likeness of any thing...,"would seem to forbid a wide range of objects, including a statue in a church, a cross, a crucifix, etc...
As for replacing them I would just say teach love always by living it and ask yourself in any situation Why you doing whatever it is you are doing, always be honest with yourself. That's all I'm teaching my boys.
The world is not the black and white, good vs evil place the Bible makes it out to be..
There can be evil in any good and good in any evil..
All this is just my opionion of course..
They are to simplistic, they attamept to cover a few moral issues in a black and white manner but not all issues. For example "Thou Shalt Not Steal" tell that to starving people and see what kind of reaction you get.
There are also different versions of the Ten Commandments, uh let's see if we take them literally then he prohibition against "any graven image, or any likeness of any thing...,"would seem to forbid a wide range of objects, including a statue in a church, a cross, a crucifix, etc...
As for replacing them I would just say teach love always by living it and ask yourself in any situation Why you doing whatever it is you are doing, always be honest with yourself. That's all I'm teaching my boys.
The world is not the black and white, good vs evil place the Bible makes it out to be..
There can be evil in any good and good in any evil..
All this is just my opionion of course..
You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say will be misquoted, then used against you.
-
William Ess
- Posts: 339
- Joined: Mon Aug 28, 2006 5:15 am
Old and New
zinkyusa wrote: They are to simplistic, they attamept to cover a few moral issues in a black and white manner but not all issues. For example "Thou Shalt Not Steal" tell that to starving people and see what kind of reaction you get.
There are also different versions of the Ten Commandments, uh let's see if we take them literally then he prohibition against "any graven image, or any likeness of any thing...,"would seem to forbid a wide range of objects, including a statue in a church, a cross, a crucifix, etc...
As for replacing them I would just say teach love always by living it and ask yourself in any situation Why you doing whatever it is you are doing, always be honest with yourself. That's all I'm teaching my boys.
The world is not the black and white, good vs evil place the Bible makes it out to be..
There can be evil in any good and good in any evil..
All this is just my opionion of course..
On the one hand you complain that the Bible is too complex yet on the other you say that the ten commandments are too simplistic. It makes it difficult to know where a happy medium would lie.
The injunction against images simply warns against worshiping a false entity which can harm relations with others. For example, neglect of friends or family through ambition, money, etc.
Advising other to be honest to themselves has its pitfalls. Hitler, for example, was honest with himself.
Where is the evil in good? What is meant by this?
There are also different versions of the Ten Commandments, uh let's see if we take them literally then he prohibition against "any graven image, or any likeness of any thing...,"would seem to forbid a wide range of objects, including a statue in a church, a cross, a crucifix, etc...
As for replacing them I would just say teach love always by living it and ask yourself in any situation Why you doing whatever it is you are doing, always be honest with yourself. That's all I'm teaching my boys.
The world is not the black and white, good vs evil place the Bible makes it out to be..
There can be evil in any good and good in any evil..
All this is just my opionion of course..
On the one hand you complain that the Bible is too complex yet on the other you say that the ten commandments are too simplistic. It makes it difficult to know where a happy medium would lie.
The injunction against images simply warns against worshiping a false entity which can harm relations with others. For example, neglect of friends or family through ambition, money, etc.
Advising other to be honest to themselves has its pitfalls. Hitler, for example, was honest with himself.
Where is the evil in good? What is meant by this?
-
William Ess
- Posts: 339
- Joined: Mon Aug 28, 2006 5:15 am
Old and New
zinkyusa wrote: "Thou Shalt Not Steal" tell that to starving people and see what kind of reaction you get.
.
Is poverty an excuse for theft? I think not.
.
Is poverty an excuse for theft? I think not.