Oh, That's The Old Testement

[Kurari]

ARRRRGH. I hate that "Oh, that's the Old Testement" excuse whenever I point out all the sadistic brutality in the Bible. Why do christians ALWAYS have to discount that ENTIRE first half of the book?! Do they mean it's invalid now? Is the New Testement supposed to be the "real" rules and the Old Testement just a history? I don't get this reasoning since they seem to just pick and choose whatever they want anyway out of it.

 

Anybody got any good responses to "Oh, that's the Old Testement?"

[Ouroboros]

Here's one: And so is the 10 commandments.

[Golden Meadows]

ARRRRGH. I hate that "Oh, that's the Old Testement" excuse whenever I point out all the sadistic brutality in the Bible. Why do christians ALWAYS have to discount that ENTIRE first half of the book?! Do they mean it's invalid now? Is the New Testement supposed to be the "real" rules and the Old Testement just a history? I don't get this reasoning since they seem to just pick and choose whatever they want anyway out of it.

 

Anybody got any good responses to "Oh, that's the Old Testement?"

 

The OT has nothing so bad as the doctrine of hell that Jesus gives to the world. Whoever wrote the gospels went to great lengths to ensure that Jesus fulfilled all the prophets words in the OT so if they dismiss the OT they are really also dismissing the NT as well.

[LosingMyReligion]

ARRRRGH. I hate that "Oh, that's the Old Testement" excuse whenever I point out all the sadistic brutality in the Bible. Why do christians ALWAYS have to discount that ENTIRE first half of the book?! Do they mean it's invalid now? Is the New Testement supposed to be the "real" rules and the Old Testement just a history? I don't get this reasoning since they seem to just pick and choose whatever they want anyway out of it.

 

Anybody got any good responses to "Oh, that's the Old Testement?"

 

It's their get out of hell free card.

 

They stand by the Old Testament 100%, but when you shoot holes in their faith they start spewing that "Love of Jesus" crap...

But, really, you don't need the old Testament. Jesus himself is a jerk off...His whole "gospel" is based upon the idea of going to hell. If you don't believe in him you'll rot in hell for all eternity.

[Lycorth]

Anybody got any good responses to "Oh, that's the Old Testement?"

 

Remind them that so is Jeezus™, according to their concept of the Trinity™.

 

Jeezus™ is one and the same as the Holah Farter™ and the Holy Spurt™. They exist as separate and also one and the same, and have done so ever since time began. Of course, it's not a Babblical concept, but it's the one most Xians hold to today.

 

Bring up that since Jeezus™ is therefore the same god as the one of the Old Testament™, then he is the same god who drowned the earth, incinerated Sodom and Gomorrah, ordered the Israelites to go on rampage after rampage of murder and rape and ruin, and ordered animal sacrifice at his temple. Jeezus™ therefore also permitted Jephthah to sacrifice his own daughter, Lot to send his daughters to the town rapists instead of letting them take Jeezus'™ pet angels, tormented Job just to "test" him (which is wholly cruel for an already all-knowing god to do), and much more.

 

Jeezus™ and the evil of the Old Testament™ go hand in hand.

[Mythra]

The bible says "I am GOD - I change not"

 

That's about right.

 

He was a spoiled, bratty 6 year old in the OT who did anything to get attention. When he didn't get the attention he wanted and things didn't go his way, he threw his toys around the room and sulked in the corner.

 

With the hell doctrine entering into the NT, he remains fairly consistent.

[white_raven23]

 

Anybody got any good responses to "Oh, that's the Old Testement?"

 

"Oh so you discount a little over half of the book you claim to base your life on."

[Young Mother Atheist]

ARRRRGH. I hate that "Oh, that's the Old Testement" excuse whenever I point out all the sadistic brutality in the Bible. Why do christians ALWAYS have to discount that ENTIRE first half of the book?! Do they mean it's invalid now? Is the New Testement supposed to be the "real" rules and the Old Testement just a history? I don't get this reasoning since they seem to just pick and choose whatever they want anyway out of it.

 

Anybody got any good responses to "Oh, that's the Old Testement?"

 

The OT has nothing so bad as the doctrine of hell that Jesus gives to the world. Whoever wrote the gospels went to great lengths to ensure that Jesus fulfilled all the prophets words in the OT so if they dismiss the OT they are really also dismissing the NT as well.

 

Yeah, and it is obvious, especially in Matthew that the author actually "tried" to make Jesus fulfill prophecy by Matthew's uneducation on OT history. It's so obvoius.

 

Also, if Christians believe prophecy fulfilling is what gives the Bible its validity, they can't discount the OT. Without the OT, the NT is based on nothing and would not stand by itself. They ripped off Judaism's texts to make their own and make it seem valid.

[nirrti]

These are the ones who are the quickest to bring up Leviticus to justify their hatred of homosexuality. Yet if it's something they want to do that violates OT law, all of a sudden, the OT doesn't count anymore. They want to have it both ways, I guess.

[DanInPA]

Ya know, I've seen the term "salad bar xtian", meaning one that picks and chooses whatever they want to believe, and I'm now convinced that there's not one xtian that's NOT a pick and choose believer. IMO it's impossible to cohesively follow all of the babble's teachings. There are just too many contradictions.

 

Dan

[Lycorth]

Ya know, I've seen the term "salad bar xtian", meaning one that picks and chooses whatever they want to believe, and I'm now convinced that there's not one xtian that's NOT a pick and choose believer. IMO it's impossible to cohesively follow all of the babble's teachings. There are just too many contradictions.

 

Exactly as I've been thinking for quite some time. The entirety of the Babble™ is just that - babble. Words that contradict each other somewhere in the rest of the book, and on every possible major point of belief and practice. You have to cherry-pick it just to be a Xian, even though doing so necessitates being in contradiciton with other parts of it - and it's all supposed to be the ineffable word of a god?

[woodsmoke]

"I come not to abolish the law, but to fulfill the law, and not one jot or tittle shall pass away but that it shall be fulfilled."

 

Paraphrase, and I couldn't give you a book, chapter or verse; but Jesus said it enough times it shouldn't be difficult to track down.

 

Here's one: And so is the 10 commandments.

 

Also that.

[-Demona-]

ARRRRGH. I hate that "Oh, that's the Old Testement" excuse whenever I point out all the sadistic brutality in the Bible. Why do christians ALWAYS have to discount that ENTIRE first half of the book?! Do they mean it's invalid now? Is the New Testement supposed to be the "real" rules and the Old Testement just a history?

My mom uses that apologetics phrase on me all the time. She claims it's because the New Covenant with Jesus' death and resurrection cancelled out the Old Covenant (read: Old Testament laws).

 

I don't get this reasoning since they seem to just pick and choose whatever they want anyway out of it.

That's liberal Christianity for you.

 

Anybody got any good responses to "Oh, that's the Old Testement?"

HanSolo's and Woodsmoke's are both good responses.

[godlessgrrl]

I don't get this reasoning since they seem to just pick and choose whatever they want anyway out of it.

That's liberal Christianity for you.

 

Heh... that's all of Christianity for you.

 

I agree with Varokhar and DaninPA - I have yet to see a Xian that doesn't cherry pick. Somewhere, somehow, every Xian I've known, spoken to, corresponded with, read posts by, or otherwise interacted with has favored some verses over others. And most have pulled some pretty amazing apologetics calisthenics to try to explain their selectivity away, doing everything they can to avoid the real reason why they cherrypick: because they want to.

 

Some Xians are just more honest about it than others.

 

I suppose my response to something like "Oh, that's just the OT" would be to get on the Xian's shit about how dismissive they are of it. Kind of a guilt trip, if you will: "Oh, it's 'just' the OT, huh? What, like the OT doesn't matter? What the hell is it doing in your Bible then?" And just generally be a megabitch about it.

 

But I've also been amazingly bitchy lately, so that's just me.

[Alexandrian]

Ya know, while discounting the OT may not be sound theology, I think the Christians that discount the OT aren't really the ones causing most of the problems. It's the ones that stand up and proudly defend the brutality, the ones who say it is alright for God to mass-murder because God gave life and can take it away- I think those are the bigger threat.

[xrayman7040]

These are the ones who are the quickest to bring up Leviticus to justify their hatred of homosexuality. Yet if it's something they want to do that violates OT law, all of a sudden, the OT doesn't count anymore. They want to have it both ways, I guess.

 

You made the exact point I was going to make before I got to your post. Yea they always bring up Leviticus as the hands down proof that homosexuality is an abomination and always will be, yet for some reason they've decided the verse about not eating seafood just doesn't apply in this day and age.

[RHEMtron]

hey woodsmoke... the quote you refer to is

 

do not think that i came to abolish the law or the prophets; i did not come to abolish, but to fulfill. for truly i say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass from the law until al is accomplished. whoever then annuls one fo the least of these commandments, and teaches others to do the same, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever keeps and teaches them, shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

 

also dont forget these passages:

Isaiah 8:20

To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them.

 

Leviticus 19:37

Therefore shall ye observe all my statutes, and all my judgments, and do them: I am the LORD.

 

Deut 4:2 and 4:40

-Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you.

-Thou shalt keep therefore his statutes, and his commandments, which I command thee this day, that it may go well with thee, and with thy children after thee, and that thou mayest prolong thy days upon the earth, which the LORD thy God giveth thee, forever.

 

Deuteronomy 11:1

Therefore thou shalt love the LORD thy God, and keep his charge, and his statutes , and his judgments, and his commandments, always.

 

Eccl 3:14

I know that, whatsoever God doeth, it shall be forever: nothing can be put to it, nor any thing taken from it: and God doeth it, that men should fear before him.

 

Psalms 111:7-8

The works of his hands are verity and judgment; all his commandments are sure.

They stand fast forever and ever, and are done in truth and uprightness.

 

And i can go on and on and on with more scriptures from the old testament that say this. The OT says in many places that the laws are perfect, they are to be upheld FOREVER, and the laws are what's needed for salvation.

 

if anyone ever says their not bound by the old laws anymore, then quote from these scriptures. if they still fail to listen, then at least put the seed of doubt in their head with the question: who are you gonna listen to? Paul? or the very words of God?

[HuaiDan]

But, really, you don't need the old Testament. Jesus himself is a jerk off...His whole "gospel" is based upon the idea of going to hell. If you don't believe in him you'll rot in hell for all eternity.

 

I can't help but thinking that the whole "Hell" idea, if not exaggerated by Paul and later the Councel of Nicea, was entirely fabricated and not an important part of Jesus's teachings (if Jesus was real at all). Seems to contradict the Beatitudes, which to me seem the real core of the teachings of Jesus.

[BTDT]

hey woodsmoke... the quote you refer to is

 

do not think that i came to abolish the law or the prophets; i did not come to abolish, but to fulfill. for truly i say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass from the law until al is accomplished. whoever then annuls one fo the least of these commandments, and teaches others to do the same, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever keeps and teaches them, shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

 

 

As a Christian, the Matthew verse about "not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass from the law until all is accomplished " is quite easily explained. The law passed away when Jesus died and resurrected. THAT is when "all was accomplished." Never mind that the verse actually has Jesus feeling the need to say, "do not think I came to do this," "until heaven and earth pass away" and "whoever annuls or teaches others" Just bleep over that part, it's extra meaningless drivel from the mouth of Jesus that adds nothing whatsoever to the meaning.

 

So basically, you have the author of Matthew, many decades after it all happened, having Jesus using a bizarre form of everything-I-say-means-the-opposite hyperbole to make the inane statement to his followers, "I didn't come to abolish the Law, and grave consequences to those who think so! - wink wink nod nod - if you can just hold out for a few days" Hehe what a kidder that Jesus was.

 

It's an art form among Christians.

[BTDT]

But, really, you don't need the old Testament. Jesus himself is a jerk off...His whole "gospel" is based upon the idea of going to hell. If you don't believe in him you'll rot in hell for all eternity.

 

I can't help but thinking that the whole "Hell" idea, if not exaggerated by Paul and later the Councel of Nicea, was entirely fabricated and not an important part of Jesus's teachings (if Jesus was real at all). Seems to contradict the Beatitudes, which to me seem the real core of the teachings of Jesus.

 

Prior to my getting out of Christianity, a Jehovah's Witness successfully convinced me there was no actual hell preached by Jesus. They did this by demonstrating some facts about pagan mythology and by showing translation issues in the bible. Little did they know they would help me on my way out of the Christian mythology altogether.

 

A place of eternal torment - hell - was already a part of pagan mythology by the time Paul got ahold of it and Christianized it. Most of the references translated as 'hell' in the bible, as uttered by Jesus, were actually references to a literal place, "Gehenna." A burning garbage heap. Not a place of eternal everlasting torment; simply a literal foul place of disposal outside the city that was kept burning to dispose of carcasses, etc. The references by Jesus to the literal "Gehenna" which has been substituted with the mythological word "hell" throughout the NT is one of the deliberate deceptions in translation in support of the preferred doctrine.

 

Jesus's reference to "Gehenna," implied there would be no resurrection and 'kingdom of heaven' for such persons. Finality of death. Disposal. Regarded as mere garbage. He was not preaching, "everlasting torture of the soul."

 

I would have to doublecheck this, but I believe Judaism believed in literal 'bodily resurrection,' a restoration to life for those who were deserving. Not an everlasting, ethereal soul that would live on forever in either pure suffering or pure bliss. Those concepts are later, again, of pagan origins. The Jehovah's Witnesses try to stay closer to the original Jewish doctrines and dismiss the 'pagan' ones they believe corrupted Christianity. This is what makes them different from mainstream Christianity, and considered a cult - since they dismiss "Jesus is God," the Trinity, etc. This also makes them embrace the OT atrocities and chant, 'God can do what he wants; his ways are always right and good.' Shudder.

[Kurari]

Prior to my getting out of Christianity, a Jehovah's Witness successfully convinced me there was no actual hell preached by Jesus. They did this by demonstrating some facts about pagan mythology and by showing translation issues in the bible. Little did they know they would help me on my way out of the Christian mythology altogether.

 

A place of eternal torment - hell - was already a part of pagan mythology by the time Paul got ahold of it and Christianized it. Most of the references translated as 'hell' in the bible, as uttered by Jesus, were actually references to a literal place, "Gehenna." A burning garbage heap. Not a place of eternal everlasting torment; simply a literal foul place of disposal outside the city that was kept burning to dispose of carcasses, etc. The references by Jesus to the literal "Gehenna" which has been substituted with the mythological word "hell" throughout the NT is one of the deliberate deceptions in translation in support of the preferred doctrine.

 

Jesus's reference to "Gehenna," implied there would be no resurrection and 'kingdom of heaven' for such persons. Finality of death. Disposal. Regarded as mere garbage. He was not preaching, "everlasting torture of the soul."

 

That's facinating, I've never heard of that viewpoint before. So it means that when some people die, they just die and the rest go on to have an afterlife?

 

Sounds like a win/win situation for us humans to me.

[RHEMtron]

Just to add to BTDT's statement on Hell... there were actually 3-4 words in the scriptures that were translated as "hell".

 

excerpt from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hell

The religious and secular man's nightmarish ideas of HELL (that is, of a Christ-managed hothouse where sinners get burned forever) come to them compliments of ... careless translating ... the practice of ignoring separate Greek words.

 

In 2 Pet. 2:4, God chose the Greek word "Tartaros" (ταρταροω; English transliteration, "Tartarus") to identify the temporary abode of sinning angels. Tartarus holds spirit beings, not humans, and there is not a flame on the premises. The KJV and NIV translators (neither of whose versions have any influence in the expression of Eastern Orthodox doctrine) gave this specific Greek word the English equivalent, "hell".

 

In Matthew 5:22 (and in several other places), God chose a different Greek word, "Geenna," (English transliteration: "Gehenna") to name a valley on the southwest corner of Jerusalem where the corpses of criminals will be disposed of during the thousand-year kingdom. There are flames here, yes, but the flames cremate the dead (Is. 66:24), they don't torture the living. Most of humanity is not even alive to see Gehenna (Rev. 20:5), let alone be tormented there. The KJV and NIV translators gave this specific Greek word the English equivalent, "hell".

 

In Luke 16:23 (and in other places), God chose the Greek word, "hades", to describe the state of invisibility; in Greek, the word means "unseen". God uses this word often to describe a person's nonexistence in death: unless spoken of figuratively, a dead person doesn't see anything, hear anything, feel anything, know anything, do anything: hades. Flames, screams, pointy tails and pitchforks are conspicuously absent. All the dead "go" here, not just the wicked. The KJV and NIV translators gave this specific Greek word the English equivalent, "hell".

 

Priddy goes on to point out that if a (Western) Christian says that someone is in "Hell", that "is a terrible lack of information", because many versions of the Bible indiscriminately use the word "Hell" to describe three different places. If you press the point, and the Christian says that person is in Gehenna, then you could take a plane to Jerusalem and look for the person there. If the claim is that the person is in Tartarus, you can point out that they were never a stubborn, sinning angel who surrendered their sovereignty during the days of Noah (1 Pet. 3:19-20. 2 Pet. 2:4, Jude 6). And if in Hades, you could rejoice that, like Christ (briefly, Acts 2:3 l), David (Ps. 16: 10), and Jacob (Gn. 37:35) before him, the person has ceased from their troubles and sufferings (Jb. 3:11-19), and now rests, as if asleep (Jn. 11:11,14). However, given the perfectly natural evolution of concepts over a long period of time, examples such as Sheol, provide us with a good example of how ideas can begin with a simple meaning - "the grave" - and morph into a far larger concept - a place of eternal torment.

[mwc]

Here's one: And so is the 10 commandments.

Which set? I still haven't gotten a xian to take a stand on this one.

 

mwc

[mwc]

do not think that i came to abolish the law or the prophets; i did not come to abolish, but to fulfill. for truly i say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass from the law until al is accomplished. whoever then annuls one fo the least of these commandments, and teaches others to do the same, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever keeps and teaches them, shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

 

In addition to this and all the other stuff you said about the law I sent the following that I found in an email (so unfortunately no source...I pulled it from a website some time ago but I'm sure a search on the text would turn up something...I'm just too lazy right now ):

in rabbinic argumentation "destroy" means "misinterpret" while "fulfill" means "correctly interpret." The intention is not to weaken the Law by misinterpreting it. By properly interpreting it, Jesus would make it more lasting. Heaven and earth would be destroyed before He would cause anything to disappear from the Law.

 

...

 

Therefore, if we used the Complete Jewish Bible version of Matthew 5:17 and changed the wording correctly interpreting the words "abolish" and "complete" we would have, "Don.t think that I have

come to [misinterpret] the Torah, or the Prophets. I have come not to [misinterpret] but to [assign the fully intended meaning to the words of Scripture]." (Matthew 5:17, CJB, emphasis mine). Thus, Yeshua is giving the correct, fully intended meaning of the Torah to His talmidim.

 

You might also notice that the entire paragraph (Matthew 5:17-20) and the rest of the "Sermon on the Mount" deals with Torah. He is not discussing His mission of being the blood sacrifice for the sins of all mankind. Therefore, the above Rabbinic argument form must be the correct interpretation of this Scripture.

Even as a xian I really had no idea what "fulfill" meant in the context of a law. How does one fulfill a law so that the law is null and void? Driving the speed limit on the highway does not nullify the law from that point on. I was told that jesus lived the perfect life to prove it could be done. Shouldn't that mean the laws are still in effect since we now know they can be kept? But instead now that jesus kept them they are cancelled and we just need to believe in him. I never truly understood it. I just accepted it and I've yet to hear a satisfactory answer.

 

Anyhow, if the Rabbi that wrote this is correct, then using the proper rabbinic "jargon" jesus truly did mean that the law was eternal and all xians are in error. Paul, not being a rabbi, would not be aware of this and has led many astray. This whole explanation just makes so much more sense to me.

 

mwc

[BTDT]

 

Even as a xian I really had no idea what "fulfill" meant in the context of a law. How does one fulfill a law so that the law is null and void? Driving the speed limit on the highway does not nullify the law from that point on. I was told that jesus lived the perfect life to prove it could be done. Shouldn't that mean the laws are still in effect since we now know they can be kept? But instead now that jesus kept them they are cancelled and we just need to believe in him. I never truly understood it. I just accepted it and I've yet to hear a satisfactory answer.

 

Anyhow, if the Rabbi that wrote this is correct, then using the proper rabbinic "jargon" jesus truly did mean that the law was eternal and all xians are in error. Paul, not being a rabbi, would not be aware of this and has led many astray. This whole explanation just makes so much more sense to me.

 

mwc

 

I never understood it either; it was just one of those mysteries I had to not think much about. The explanation you provide above, is consistent with all of the content of the verse and makes far more sense.

 

The more I studied the bible, the more I realized words were deliberately translated in favor of 'approved doctrine,' and to force more consistency between clearly disparate passages, to soften the nasty stuff, etc. The entire bible is 'gerry-rigged.'

 

I often look to Jewish resources as a great source of information as to why the Jesus character that Paul invented didn't even REMOTELY fulfil the role of a messiah, and that they had no expectation whatsoever of God coming to earth to have himself sacrificed to himself 'for their sins,' etc. All of that is completely foreign to their theology, if not revolting and blasphemous to them. The arrogance of Christians to claim they know better than Judaism, what constitutes 'a fulfilled messianic prophecy,' is beyond the pale. (The so-called Messianic prophecies that the Jesus story was scripted to 'fit' are a total joke).

 

Not that Judaism is any more valid or respectable as a theology. I just can't believe how Christians co-opted it, twisted it beyond all recognition into something actually opposite and blasphemous from what Jews believed, then blamed the Jews for being 'so rebellious against God' as to not change their entire theology, while simultaneously claiming that this was God's plan all along. Even as a Christian I had a hard time keeping the "What the hell did God do, play one big giant joke on the Jews?" thought suppressed.