The Old/New Covenant

[ag_NO_stic]

Okay, all, I am still in the beginnings of my research from people who aren't apologists. It's amazing how much reading material was either Christian apologist or devotional, as opposed to evidence, history, and reason. Anyway, I wanted to know how you guys respond to people who brush you off with the classic "That's part of the Old Covenant" when you bring up atrocious things in the OT?

 

I usually bring up James 1:17 (talks about how God is supposed to be unchanging and consistent so, therefore, will not change his mind about what does and does not offend him as time goes on) and Luke 16:17 "It is easier for heaven and earth to disappear than for the least stroke of a pen to drop out of the Law." or Matthew 5:17 "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them." 

 

Has anyone here had any luck with addressing this issue? Or, in other words, do you have a different/better way of dealing with this response?

[Joshpantera]

Why not just cut to the chase and show them how the bible is a completely man made venture with no divine inspiration involved in the first place? 

[ag_NO_stic]

 

Why not just cut to the chase and show them how the bible is a completely man made venture with no divine inspiration involved in the first place? 

 

Lol I guess I shouldn't expect to be invited to Christmas dinner this year.

[Storm]

Ask them if they tithe. If they say yes. Then tell them its part of the old covenant. There is no mandate to tithe in the New Testament. Only to give. If they argue that it was part of God's design, you can simply argue that that would also hold true for anything else in the old covenant. If this doesn't evoke a cognitive dissonant type response by them, then they are not worth continuing the conversation with, because you won't be able to convince them of any other thing.

[sdelsolray]

 

Okay, all, I am still in the beginnings of my research from people who aren't apologists. It's amazing how much reading material was either Christian apologist or devotional, as opposed to evidence, history, and reason. Anyway, I wanted to know how you guys respond to people who brush you off with the classic "That's part of the Old Covenant" when you bring up atrocious things in the OT?

 

I usually bring up James 1:17 (talks about how God is supposed to be unchanging and consistent so, therefore, will not change his mind about what does and does not offend him as time goes on) and Luke 16:17 "It is easier for heaven and earth to disappear than for the least stroke of a pen to drop out of the Law." or Matthew 5:17 "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them." 

 

Has anyone here had any luck with addressing this issue? Or, in other words, do you have a different/better way of dealing with this response?

 

The Christian's response, "That's part of the Old Covenant" is a classic, "Hey look over there!" response.  It does not address your inquiry, which deals with the gods' behaviors (yes, there are several different gods in the OT, but I digress).  You should point that out and repeat your question.  

 

You can always use the following quote to amplify your question:

 

"The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all of fiction:  jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infancidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously manevolent bully."

Richard Dawkins, The God Delusion, Chapter 2.

 

Of course, there are examples of each of these behaviors in the OT.

[ag_NO_stic]

 

Ask them if they tithe. If they say yes. Then tell them its part of the old covenant. There is no mandate to tithe in the New Testament. Only to give. If they argue that it was part of God's design, you can simply argue that that would also hold true for anything else in the old covenant. If this doesn't evoke a cognitive dissonant type response by them, then they are not worth continuing the conversation with, because you won't be able to convince them of any other thing.

 

I googled this concept and Matthew 23:23 came up, do you have any feedback on this? Only because that is exactly what would happen if I brought that up to a Christian and I want to be prepared.

 

You know how they are, they can find "without neglecting the others" as a command to tithe, but cannot find anything wrong with a passage discussing how a rapist is to marry their victim if they are caught and she hasn't screamed loud enough.

[Margee]

None of the excuses from the christians let the old testament god off the hook. If they are reading it like a storybook, (which Pentecostals do) they will know that the story continues to lead up to the point where the old testament god still had to revert to sending his only son as a blood sacrifice to atone for our sinful nature. The OT god could not straighten out his creation in the old testament himself, (he seemed to lose his magic powers?) so 'he' had to send jesus as the blood sacrifice. The Pentecostal church I went to always referred back to the old testament but said that jesus finally made it all better. All of it is a cruel doctrine.

[Storm]

 

 

I googled this concept and Matthew 23:23 came up, do you have any feedback on this? Only because that is exactly what would happen if I brought that up to a Christian and I want to be prepared.

 

You know how they are, they can find "without neglecting the others" as a command to tithe, but cannot find anything wrong with a passage discussing how a rapist is to marry their victim if they are caught and she hasn't screamed loud enough.

Jesus had not died yet. The old covenant was still in effect. The New Covenant didn't begin until Jesus' death on the Cross.

 

Strangely enough, it was tithing that started me on the path that eventually led me to my deconversion. I was having a hard time reconciling the old and new testament differences. It was during a search on tithing that I came across a testimony of someone who had been to this site and I came to visit and I haven't left. That was about 5 years ago.

[ag_NO_stic]

Does anyone know where the "New Covenant" passages even are in the Bible? I know it was apparently in the Old Testament, but I want to read more carefully where Christians get this distinction, because I think Jesus makes it pretty clear he did NOT come to abolish the law. Sorry if I'm asking amateur questions, I am still getting out of my apologetic frame of mind. I always said that crap and didn't know from where I got it. Is it in Isaiah with all of the apparent Messiah prophecies? 

[★ Citsonga ★]

 

Does anyone know where the "New Covenant" passages even are in the Bible? I know it was apparently in the Old Testament, but I want to read more carefully where Christians get this distinction, because I think Jesus makes it pretty clear he did NOT come to abolish the law. Sorry if I'm asking amateur questions, I am still getting out of my apologetic frame of mind. I always said that crap and didn't know from where I got it. Is it in Isaiah with all of the apparent Messiah prophecies? 

 

Actually, it's mostly from the New Testament, although there is one Old Testament mention of a "new covenant" in Jeremiah. There's a convenient list here: https://www.biblegateway.com/quicksearch/?quicksearch=new+covenant&qs_version=NIV

 

Interestingly, Genesis 17:7 says that the first covenant was everlasting. So much for that, huh?

 

[rerics]

How I pose this to Christians: Even if (just for the sake of argument) the horrendous monstrous acts of the OT god *were* part of the old covenant and are no longer valid or  acceptable, how can you explain the fact that those horrendous monstrous acts were *ever* acceptable back then?  This is unconscionable behavior no matter what century we're living in. 

 

Of course, they try and explain it with answers like "God's ways are not our ways" "you have to be imbued with the Holy Spirit to understand", etc etc blah blah blah.

[Geezer]

 

Okay, all, I am still in the beginnings of my research from people who aren't apologists. It's amazing how much reading material was either Christian apologist or devotional, as opposed to evidence, history, and reason. Anyway, I wanted to know how you guys respond to people who brush you off with the classic "That's part of the Old Covenant" when you bring up atrocious things in the OT?

 

I usually bring up James 1:17 (talks about how God is supposed to be unchanging and consistent so, therefore, will not change his mind about what does and does not offend him as time goes on) and Luke 16:17 "It is easier for heaven and earth to disappear than for the least stroke of a pen to drop out of the Law." or Matthew 5:17 "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them." 

 

Has anyone here had any luck with addressing this issue? Or, in other words, do you have a different/better way of dealing with this response?

 

 

I respond by saying the historical evidence indicates that both the Old and New Testaments are fictional stories commonly referred to as legends, folklore, and myths. None of them were actual historical events. The OT is based on Jewish myths and legends, the NT Epistles are Gnostic. The Gospel story appears to have been created by rewriting OT scripture. That was and still is a common Jewish practice that is called midrash.

 

Christians worship a God named Yehowah. A search of history will reveal Yehowah was the son of a Canaanite war God named EL and EL was created/invented by the Canaanites. The Jews can trace their history back to Canaan and that is how Yehowah became their one true God. Jesus was created from Jewish OT scripture as the personification of their promised Messiah. Based on the fact this Jesus of Nazareth character left absolutely no historical footprint that is a strong indication he was just a literary figure. No such person actually existed.

 

Therefore Christians are worshipping 2 man made Deities, Yehowah (God) and his imaginary son Jesus.

[dangitbobby83]

 

How I pose this to Christians: Even if (just for the sake of argument) the horrendous monstrous acts of the OT god *were* part of the old covenant and are no longer valid or  acceptable, how can you explain the fact that those horrendous monstrous acts were *ever* acceptable back then?  This is unconscionable behavior no matter what century we're living in. 

 

Of course, they try and explain it with answers like "God's ways are not our ways" "you have to be imbued with the Holy Spirit to understand", etc etc blah blah blah.

 

This. This, this, this.

 

You should also ask WHY a new convenant is even needed. Did god screw up the first time? Why did he need an update/retcon? Why is the murdering of the entire human race justified in the OT but not now? 

There are verses that say god is unchanging and unmovable. Find those verses (I don't have the time to search now) and bring those up. If god is unmovable then why did he need something entirely new? 

[★ Citsonga ★]

 

You should also ask WHY a new convenant is even needed. Did god screw up the first time?

 

That's basically what Hebrews 8:6-7 boils down to.

 

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Hebrews+8%3A6-7&version=KJV

 

[dangitbobby83]

 

 

That's basically what Hebrews 8:6-7 boils down to.

 

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Hebrews+8%3A6-7&version=KJV

 

Funny, it's pretty obvious the NT says the OT is fucked up. 

 

I don't ever remember reading or studying those verses in church. I wonder why? 

 

Maybe because it begs the question: "How and why could an infinite god royally fuck up covenant #1?"

[ag_NO_stic]

 

 

That's basically what Hebrews 8:6-7 boils down to.

 

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Hebrews+8%3A6-7&version=KJV

 

 

Wow, there it is. Right in plain English. So....how would you respond to someone who says it was always in God's plan? "We don't know the mind of God or his plan, he obviously had it figured out."

[Lucy]

God made bad covenants so that we would appreciate the better covenants he made later to replace the bad covenants. It's all part of The Plan™!

 

How to respond to people who brush off old testament atrocities? The New Testament only gains its legitimacy due to its basis in the Old Testament. The new covenant doesn't excuse god's behavior in the old testament. It doesn't matter though. They likely won't listen. Just because their arguments are illogical doesn't mean they will bother to rethink and change them. It's easier to say old testament doesn't count anymore than try to defend it. That shows how bad it is.

[ag_NO_stic]

 

God made bad covenants so that we would appreciate the better covenants he made later to replace the bad covenants. It's all part of The Plan™!

 

How to respond to people who brush off old testament atrocities? The New Testament only gains its legitimacy due to its basis in the Old Testament. The new covenant doesn't excuse god's behavior in the old testament. It doesn't matter though. They likely won't listen. Just because their arguments are illogical doesn't mean they will bother to rethink and change them. It's easier to say old testament doesn't count anymore than try to defend it. That shows how bad it is.

 

I guess I just have hope since I was able to see the light. (light - lux, aka Lucifer.....so ironic.)

[Rounin]

If they actually read the new testament, they'd find enough to be horrified by there. Part of me wants to suggest to all believers to read it. Another part of me wants them to never read it.