Old Testament VS New Testament

[nbcrusader]

Over the years, I have come to realize that prayer changes me, not God. Thisis what happened to Moses, Abraham and many others who interceded before God on behalf of the people. Their hearts were changed in trusting God.

 

[pax]

That's really an excellent point, nb. I'm reminded of Anne Lamott's lovely little writing:

"Here are the two best prayers I know: 'Help me, help me, help me' and 'Thank you, thank you, thank you.'"

 

[Irvine511]

right. which is why i am always surprised when someone offers to pray for someone else. it seems a nice gesture, but really makes the prayer feel better, not the prayed-for. instead of praying for me, talk to me, or help me.

or am i missing something?

 

[Macfistowannabe]

I've prayed for those who have struggled, and when I see them make it by, I feel that God was listening.

 

[Irvine511]

yes, but it remains all about you, not the person you prayed for.

it's a lovely gesture, but that's about it. seems to me, at least.

 

[Macfistowannabe]

You make an interesting point. I can see how it can say nothing more than "I'm a little concerned" to someone who is not a Christian. As a believer, I find it comforting when I am prayed for.

 

[Irvine511]

okay, that's a fair way of putting it. if you know others are praying for you, and you draw strength from that, that makes sense to me.

thanks.

 

[pwmartin]

Mother Teresa's business card:

The fruit of silence is prayer.
The fruit of prayer is faith.
The fruit of faith is love.
The fruit of love is service.
The fruit of service is peace.


Praying, whether intercessory or personal, affects more than we can imagine.

 

[Se7en]

Like I said in the other thread, please don't base your opinions on God on some OT narrative stories that may never have happened anyway.

trust me, i don't base my opinion of god on ot narratives. i do however base parts of my opinions of judeo-christian religions on them.

 

[nbcrusader]

Like I said in the other thread, please don't base your opinions on God on some OT narrative stories that may never have happened anyway.

Should some portions be removed because they did not/could not have happened?

 

[pwmartin]

True theology stopped the moment someone first asked, "But did it really happen?"

 

[Se7en]

you'd think we'd be better off then.

 

[Dreadsox]

If I may, for some who believe in the Bible we may look at the story and believe it to mythology or legendary. For others it is a literal truth and it happened the way it says word for word.

Without putting words in LivLuvAndBootlegMusic's mouth, I kind of understand what was said to mean, do not just use what some of us might consider to fall into the mythological category to decide what you believe God to be.

Is it part of the picture? YES! Should we base it soley on this? No.

 

[Blacksword]

Well, certain parts of the Bible are largely literal, others not so much.

Jeremiah, is probably very close to the words that prophet, as it was written by his friend Baruch a royal scribe. In recent years excavations in Jerusalem (I think) turned up the seal of a royal scribe named Baruch of the apporopriate period. In any case we can be a lot more sure of Jeremiah's words as we know they were written down in his lifetime by smeone who knew him well. Though the last few chapters appear to be later additions.

The book of Kings (1&2 Kings) makes outside references to at least three sources which are now lost. One of these, the Chronicle of the kings of Judah certainly sounds plauseible. In fact the book over and over asks the reader to refer to outside material if they wish to know more as the author makes very plain that his work is not general history.

Daniel is solidly allegorical. It's an apocalypse (revelation) written in the 2nd century during the Maccabean revolt but uses the pseudonym of Daniel to express its eschatological (end times) views. This makes it no less crucial as it assures the reader that God is in command of history and shows the development of eschatological thinking, and is the first book in cannon where the belief in a final resurrection explicitly appears. It is also the source of the Messianic title Son of Man. And while Daniel (with the possible exception of chapter 12) is not prophesy, it has been reinterpreted and used as prophesy by others, most significantly Jesus.

 

[Macfistowannabe]

Yes, there are a few things in the Bible that aren't meant to be taken literally, like Jesus talking about taking your eye out if it causes you to sin.

 

[Blacksword]

But very relevant, as it tells us that Jesus is well aware how difficult living a just life is. Giving up the things that cause us to fall is often as hard as removing your eye. Still has to be done, but nowhere does he say it is easy.

 

[Rinn]

right. which is why i am always surprised when someone offers to pray for someone else. it seems a nice gesture, but really makes the prayer feel better, not the prayed-for. instead of praying for me, talk to me, or help me.

or am i missing something?

I agree with this exactly, it baffles me that a person will choose to pray that God will intervene instead of doing something themselves.

"Past the seeker, as he prayed,
came the crippled and the beggar
and the beaten. And seeing them...
he cried, 'Great God, how is it
that a loving creator can see such things
and yet do nothing about them?'
God said, 'I did do something.
I made you"
Sufi Wisdom (the Sufis are Muslim)

On the God thing:
The Hebrew scripture were created by the Jews and the New Testament was created by Christians so the introduction of Jesus changes the view point of God.
In a sense God has changed when you look at it through religious and scriptural ideas but if you just see God through an everyday approach most people would agree that He/She/It has always been there to watch over existance and make sure no-one feels completely alone.

Cheers

PS: that is the most spiritual thing I've ever said, I'll try not to do it very often. Scuse me.

 

[Macfistowannabe]

If the Jews created their own Testament, why would they suggest that God had them breed with their ancestors? Why are there so many clues of the savior and the crucifixion?

 

[AvsGirl41]

That the Jews wrote their own testament is evidenced by historical references to later events, such as the victory of the tribe of Judah and particularly their first great crisis--the invasion of Babylon, which resulted in the destruction of Solomon's Temple and the Babylonian Exile. The stories likely circulated orally, but were not believed to have been written down until then, which is why they added or edited certain passages. (Though the Hebrew Bible/Old Testament wasn't finalized until the early Middle Ages, which is also how the Apocrypha came to be.)

The belief in a Messiah was a fervent one after the exile--God had promised David's heirs would rule forever, and the Latter Prophets (Isiaiah, Ezekiel, Joel, etc., who are working during the time of the Exile, so their writings are eyewitness, so to speak) gave many, many predictions of his return. For the Jews, the Messiah was a political, military and religious leader all in one, and he would deliver them from Babylon. Cyrus the Great, king of Persia who conquered Babylon and allowed the Jews to return to Israel, was even hailed as a Messiah, as it was simply a title that meant "anointed one," originally applicable to whoever God chose to carry out his will.

Christians believe these Messianic passages all predicted Christ. I can't dispute that--I read them, and that is what I see. Certainly, logic says that no one else has arrived to fit the description.

Some of the Psalms have been taken as foretelling Christ, but they are really just prayers and songs for all sorts of occasions. Psalm 22 is the most famous one, "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?" It is certainly eerie, but I think it's our hindsight that makes it so, as if you read further it is about illness, not crucifixion. However, being a Psalm of lament and probably well known, it is fitting and haunting that Jesus should use it in prayer on the cross.

So, my rambling point is that these Messianic predictions have a long history in Jewish faith. I don't disagree they refer to Christ--I read them, and I see nothing wrong in interpreting them so. Holy men predicted them and wrote them down. God may have inspired the words, but He didn't write the Bible--Old or New. There wouldn't be editorial changes and repetition if He did. I don't see anything wrong in saying that.

 

[-macphisto-]

Jehova of the old testament was Jesus Christ of the New Testament.

 

[Macfistowannabe]

Sure they wrote it, but Rinn is basically saying that they created their own God. Highly doubtable, when their history tells otherwise. You might not interpret Psalms as images that foretell the crucifixion, which is fine, but many theologins believe it, so do quite a few biblical scholars. Oh well, many of us interpret scripture differently, I guess we can agree on that.

 

[nbcrusader]

Jehova of the old testament was Jesus Christ of the New Testament.

There are many references to The angel of the Lord (instead of "an" angel of the Lord) in the Old Testament. It has been interpreted that the appearance of The angel of the Lord is the pre-incarnate Christ.

 

[anitram]

So, my rambling point is that these Messianic predictions have a long history in Jewish faith. I don't disagree they refer to Christ--I read them, and I see nothing wrong in interpreting them so.

But the issue that Jews take with the notion that Jesus=Messiah is not so much the predictive value of the Scripture or its accuracy, but the fact they do not believe that Jesus ushered in the golden age, nor brought about the changes that the Messiah was supposed to have. And they are technically "correct" which is why the early Christians reworked the notion of the golden age to claim you must look at it in the context of individual souls and not the physical world itself.

 

[AvsGirl41]

But the issue that Jews take with the notion that Jesus=Messiah is not so much the predictive value of the Scripture or its accuracy, but the fact they do not believe that Jesus ushered in the golden age, nor brought about the changes that the Messiah was supposed to have. And they are technically "correct" which is why the early Christians reworked the notion of the golden age to claim you must look at it in the context of individual souls and not the physical world itself.

You're correct. I tried to walk the line in my post and didn't succeed with either argument very well.

 

[Rinn]

Sure they wrote it, but Rinn is basically saying that they created their own God. Highly doubtable, when their history tells otherwise. You might not interpret Psalms as images that foretell the crucifixion, which is fine, but many theologins believe it, so do quite a few biblical scholars. Oh well, many of us interpret scripture differently, I guess we can agree on that.

That's not what I meant, I meant that with the introduction of Jesus and Christianity the perspective changed. ie same God, different smell. and I don't read the bible because I think that many people (and I'm not pointing the finger at anyone here) go to it with their mind set on what they want to find in it and read and interpret the scriptures to suit their needs. Again, no-one here does that, but I've seen it and it insenses me.

 

[Macfistowannabe]

You're right about people taking one verse they like and using it for their own agenda. I think the Bible should be read by those who are sincere about their faith, but then again, I can't really tell people what to do. Sometimes, you do have to refer to it when you disagree with something that you find unbiblical, and if I quoted the entire Bible on a thread, I'd have to wonder who would have the time to read all that.

 

[Rinn]

and if I quoted the entire Bible on a thread, I'd have to wonder who would have the time to read all that.

I second that! Why would ya bother? hehe

Cheers

 

[ludwig72]

I am a late comer, but this topic is so killer.

My 1.5 cents worth...

God (Jehovah) mentioned in the Hebrew scrips (The lads are using the Hebrew translation - Yahweh on track 11 - very kewl) is the same God (Jehovah) mentioned in the Greek.

I wouldn't necessarily say the Jews wrote the Hebrew scrips. I would probably word it that Moses, Samuel, David, ect helped in writing the scripts. And that all of these dudes happened to be of Jewish decent. But the direction came from the big guy upstairs.

Ditto with the Christian Greek Scrips. You had numerous writers who were not Jewish. (Off the top of my head, I can only remember Paul being part Jewish.) But the same holds true, these were men of different nationalities assisting Jehovah in writing the bible. More like documenting his thoughts in written form.

As far as expectations goes, the Jews at that time had a different expectation of their Messiah. They knew he was coming. Heck, it was even prophesied as to what part of the region the Messiah would come from. What shook the Jewish religious system was the hope their Messiah was going to free them from the Roman government. They were hoping the Messiah would not only free them, but place the Romans under them. When this did not happen, naturally they were ticked and tried to discredit Jesus. Then we all know how that story ends.

I firmly believe the Mosaic law prepared us to accept Jesus and what he was going to do for us. As history shows, some people appreciated Jesus coming and some did not. But I don't feel God changed his plan for us. In fact, he made it better. He gave us back what Adam and Eve lost for us.

Like I said, my 1.5 cents worth...

 

[pwmartin]

Just a note:

Calling the Hebrew/Christian God "Jehovah" is actually wrong, even though it's in dozens of hymns, etc.

"Jehovah" came about in the 18th century...it is a German mispronunciation of a Hebrew misspelling of God's name in the Old Testament.

"Yahweh" is actually closer to it, but even that is technically not correct. "Yahweh" is derived from pronouncing the Hebrew tetragrammaton as if it actually had vowel-pointing. God's name is actually not meant to be spoken...that's why when the Jews would read Scriptures and they'd come across God's "proper" name they would say Adonai (Lord), rather than pronouncing the tetragrammaton with vowel-pointing.

But since we don't have Hebrew letters on our typewriters, I suppose it's OK to write Yahweh, since that's a transliteration of the Hebrew.

"Jehovah" just grates on my nerves, that's all.

 

[Blacksword]

Not all of the Bible was written late. The first texts of Jeremiah most likely date from the Exile (earlied 6th Century BC). The book of Kings (1&2 - it's one book that was later divided into two parts for convenience) in it's final likely dates from the shortly after the return (roughly 500 BC). We have manuscripts of most of the books that ended up in cannon found in the Dead Sea Scrolls at Qumran, which proves that the books that ended up in cannon had been authoritative for some time. The text of the manuscripts at Qumran is basically identical to that of the Masoretic and Old Greek versions of the Hebrew Bible. There are some variant readings (which has helped clarify some wierd passages) but the Dead Sea scrolls establish that that the books of the Hebrew Bible as we have it today are more or less as they were 2000 years ago.

And to correct some misconceptions here about the authorship of the New Testament. Most of it was written by Jews, not Greeks. Matthew was certainly written by a Jew, Mark most likely a gentile, Luke most likely a Jew living outside of Palestine, and John likely by a Hellenized Jew. Paul was not part Jewish, he was 100% Jewish, a Pharisee, the student of the greatest Jewish rabbi of the era. The writer of the letter to the Hebrews was certainly Jewish. All of the disciples were Jews, and while some of the letters atributed to the disciples were likely by others, again as most of these letters are fairly early they too are most likely by Jewish authors.

Simply put the overwhelming majority of the New Testament was written by Jewish authors. Christianity at it's roots is Jewish, though with a strong thread of Hellenistic (Greek) colouring... which was present in Jewish thought of the time. This was thoroughly mixed with Greek philosophy as later Christians struggled to understand the full implications of who Jesus is. But at its roots Christianity is Jewish, one of many Jewish religious traditions present in the 1st Century.