Throw That Old Testament Out!

[Reka]

I wasn't sure where to put this, but I thought a debate board would be the best place for it.

 

I was having a discussion on another board with a Catholic about the Westboro Baptist Church. I was attempting to explain to her that they are following the bible and that they are Christians, but she told me that they didn't follow Christ and the usual arguments. However, as we discussed it I brought up instances where people could justify their hate using the bible. I used some Old Testament passages, and I was rather surprised by how she answered me.

 

Her after I quoted passages from the bible that preach hate and cruelty: Anyone can find quotes from thousands, or hundreds of years ago to justify their hatred. Look at the way women in Saudi Arabia are forced to be covered, or they will be murdered. It doesn't mean that it was part of Mohammed's message.

I find the fact that they hope the whole world goes to hell to be quite disturbing, because they mascaraed as Christians. And Christ was all about love, not hate.

 

My Response: All my above quotes were from the Bible, and therefore are part of any Christian's religion. Some of them were from the Old Testament and some from the new.

 

The entire Bible is a message from thousands of years ago, but it is what Christians justify their entire belief system on. Some only take the good message and others take the bad parts, but the fact is the bible can justify almost anything that you want to believe. Cherry picking the bible isn't right, it's either the word of God as a whole or it's not. Those things are in the bible, and therefore are part of the Christian religion. Whether one wants to turn a blind eye to them or not.

 

In Matthew 5:17, Jesus strongly approved of the law and the prophets. He hasn't the slightest objection to anything said in the Old Testament.

 

5:17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.

 

In Matthew 7:13-14, Jesus says that most people will go to hell.

 

In Matthew 10:34-36, Jesus says that he has come to destroy families by making family members hate each other. He has "come not to send peace, but a sword."

 

10:34 Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword.

10:35 For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law.

10:36 And a man's foes shall be they of his own household.

 

There are many more instances where Jesus didn't do such nice things, be he justified or not. The Phelps take these instances and use them for their own beliefs, just as someone else takes the good things that Jesus taught to say that he is love and peace. People can and always will take the bible to mean whatever they want it to, thus the reason there are so many different religions sprouting from ONE holy text.

 

Her: The Old Testament is about a vengeful God, as displayed by the Flood, the Exodus, Sodom and Gomorah, etc.

The New Testament is where most Christians' faiths come from. It was from a loving God, who gave his only Son for the sins of his people. Jesus' message was one of love and forgiveness, not vengeance against his fellow man.

No Christian that I have ever heard of has referred to the vengeance of the Old Testament over the message of the New Testament. It goes against what we as Christians believe.

 

I noticed that she is still going on about the Old Testament even though I responded with the New Testament.

 

My Response: The Bible is a book of entirety for Christians. One can't say you follow one testament and not the other, Jesus followed the Old Testament.

 

I've been to several different churches in my lifetime Catholic, Baptist, Protestant, and more and they have all read from the Old Testament. If one wants to throw the old testament out, one has to throw out the creation story as well as the ten commandments and all the other foundations of Christian faith. Since Jesus was born of the God from the Old testament. One can't just throw out something about their religion that they don't agree with. The Bible is God's WORD, it's infallible.

 

Jesus is God as in the trinity, therefore he was the God of the Old Testament. There are plenty of cruel teachings in the new testament that people can cherry pick and use to their own devices.

 

This goes to what she said about stoning:

In Matthew 15:4-7 and Mark 7:9-10, Jesus criticized people for not killing disobedient children. That's not something we condone in today's society either.

 

I then proceeded to quote times in the New Testament when Jesus wasn't so kind from http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/cruelty/long.html as well as passages in the New Testament that speak negatively about homosexuality, since we are still discussing the Westboro Church here.

 

Her Response to "The Bible is a book of entirety for Christians. One can't say you follow one testament and not the other, Jesus followed the Old Testament.": Actually, I don't believe that is completely factual. I am a Catholic, and Catholic masses refer to the New Testament far more than the Old. The Old Testament is where we find our history, but our Scripture and beliefs are derived from the New Testament. Catholics, and most Christians, find their salvation through Christ, which, like I said previously came from a message of love, not damnation.

 

This "church" focuses on the damnation of the Old Testament, as opposed to the message of Christ, which was "Love your neighbor".

 

To be blunt, even if I didn't have a brother in the military, I would speak out against them and their message, because it goes against the very basic tenants of Christianity.

 

Christianity is about Christ, his life, and his message. The Jewish laws of the Old Testamant, are just that...Jewish laws that preceded Christ. You cant call yourself a Christian, ignore his message, and condemn your fellow human beings like that. Its simply immoral, and factually incorrect on so many levels.

 

In the 11 years I was in Catholic school, studying the Bible, the Scriptures, I never heard a message of hatred the way that these people endorse it.

 

Yes, it is written in the Old Testament, it doesn't make it the Christian message. You can continue to quote me passages, and I will continue to disagree with every passage you quote. Because by their standards Mary Magdalene should have been killed. Countless of other women should have been killed. But that is not what happened. The appearance of Jesus and the New Testament, changed all that. And TRUE Christians live by Jesus' message.

 

Those people don't.

 

I decided not to respond, obviously she doesn't care what her bible says and who am I to force her to read her own holy text. Though I wanted to say read it for yourself, instead of letting others read it to you, but I withheld.

 

Lashire steps in with: Rebecca's point is that the Westboro Baptist Church has a basis for their beliefs which they base out of the Bible and from Jesus himself. They have the right to believe whatever they wish to. They do so with the backing of the Bible.

 

You may not agree with them but you can not deny their beliefs anymore than they can deny yours. Both of you would be quoting the bible for days on end without ever ending. They go against your tenants, but you go against their tenants. No one can prove the other one right or wrong.

 

If the bible is God's word and it is infallible, how can you say that you can ignore parts of the bible that don't fit your views? Are you saying that the bible is not God's word or that it is not infallible? The Westboro Church ignores the parts of the bible that don't fit their views as well. Just because Catholics ignore the bad parts and keep the good doesn't make Catholics any less guilty of cherry picking the bible then them. The Bible is either God's word or it isn't.

 

Rebecca pointed out several passages where Jesus didn't say such nice things or teach love. He says to kill disobedient children, to chop of your offending limps and eyes, he said most people will go to hell, that he talks strangely to confuse people so they will go to hell, and he condemned entire groups of people to hell for not listening to him preach. He also said himself that he is not peace but a sword. There was much more in her post as well. These are teachings of Jesus and the New Testament that the Westboro Church uses. It's from Jesus and it's from the Bible.

 

After this someone else responded and she agreed with a small passage of theirs about the Westboro being bad people and never responded to Lashire's post or questions.

 

My reason for bringing up this long winded post was has anyone ever heard of this before? People saying that the entire Old Testament can basically be thrown out and ignored because it was a cruel God. To any Christians have you ever been taught anything like this? I was raised Catholic and I never heard of not using the Old Testament.

 

If anyone would like to see this thread in it's entirety, you can send me a PM and I'll give you a link.

[mwc]

Essentially what I went through as a xian was that the OT was history, etc. and all to show the lead-up to old JC. Beyond that it could be ignored because of the cross. This was from a Lutheran and Baptist POV. So what this other person is saying is very familiar to me and is usually the wall I hit in debates. Believers don't really accept the OT but they absolutely require it to be totally true otherwise their religion is based on nothing (jesus referred to it, Moses/the Exodus for example, and so the stories had to be factual and his lineage had to be real or he was full of crap or made up himself...Jews don't need this like xians do).

 

mwc

[Robbobrob]

The part that confused me is when she said the OT is about damnation, but the NT is about love. Last time I checked, Jews were not overly worried about Hell, and Christians can't wait for Judgement Day so all the non-believers will ge their comeuppance.

 

Just one of many points I could have picked to be annoyed with.

[Reka]

Essentially what I went through as a xian was that the OT was history, etc. and all to show the lead-up to old JC. Beyond that it could be ignored because of the cross.

This was from a Lutheran and Baptist POV. So what this other person is saying is very familiar to me and is usually the wall I hit in debates. Believers don't really accept the OT but they absolutely require it to be totally true otherwise their religion is based on nothing (jesus referred to it, Moses/the Exodus for example, and so the stories had to be factual and his lineage had to be real or he was full of crap or made up himself...Jews don't need this like xians do).

 

That's fascinating. I never heard anything about that and neither did my boyfriend who grew up strict Christian environment. Maybe we just don't remember. It seems like that wouldn't be a very intelligent thing to do. Considering they use the OT for their basis that evolution isn't true and it's the foundation of their faith.

 

Thanks for replying, I guess I won't use OT passages anymore unless the other person brings it up.

 

The part that confused me is when she said the OT is about damnation, but the NT is about love. Last time I checked, Jews were not overly worried about Hell, and Christians can't wait for Judgement Day so all the non-believers will ge their comeuppance.

 

She seems to think that Christianity is all about love and understanding, and has no room for when it's not. Although, she did not seem to dislike the homosexual community and even said we were all created in God's image, which is what started this as I tried to explain what that passage actually says. My favorite part is where she tells me to that I can continue quoting the bible all I want and she will continue to disagree with me. Either she didn't realize I was quoting the New Testament (which is entirely possible) or she just flat out refused to believe that was in her bible at all, even though I gave her the exact location to look it up herself.

[Grandpa Harley]

Marcion came VERY close to winning the day. IF he had, Clement's use of the OT would have been thrown out.

[Deva]

Grandpa is correct. The notion of throwing the Old Testament out caused an enormous controversy in the early church. There were a huge number of people who supported Marcion. The only issues more controversial and divisive might have been the questions of the divinity of Christ and the notion of the trinity. These doctrines did not just emerge cut and dried as facts but were argued and fought over for centuries. Read the series "The Christian Tradition" by Jaroslav Pelikan.

 

I can tell you that in the fundamentalist independent Baptist church where I was raised the Old Testament was definately not thrown out. It would have been heresy. The bad parts were always re-interpreted in such a manner that humans were at fault and not God. The book of Daniel was extensively used as prophecy for the end times, which we were told would be in our lifetime. I don't know how many times I heard "I believe the lord will come again in my lifetime." All the rapture fear nonsense. Then of course there was the Noahs ark story and the garden of eden thing reinterpreted to suit what the preacher wanted it to mean, usually tied somehow into creation science or the atonement. All absurdities.

 

I noticed when I attended the Episcopal Church that the bad parts of the Old Testament were never read at mass. Paul's letters were also largely ignored.

[mwc]

That's fascinating. I never heard anything about that and neither did my boyfriend who grew up strict Christian environment. Maybe we just don't remember. It seems like that wouldn't be a very intelligent thing to do. Considering they use the OT for their basis that evolution isn't true and it's the foundation of their faith.

 

Thanks for replying, I guess I won't use OT passages anymore unless the other person brings it up.

The OT is there, and used, for all the stories like creation, the flood, the patriarchs, the Exodus, and so on, but the rest is just glossed over. It's there if you want to read it but since JC came it's really just for reference more than anything. The unfulfilled "prophecy" is still good to read (Daniel) but without proper context (the NT) it's pointless really (as is the bulk of the OT and since the NT "sums up" the OT why not just read that?).

 

The Lutherans didn't care for Revelation at all. My church really tended to shy away from it. We knew about the return and all but it was such a "deep" thing that people really shouldn't delve into it on their own. The Baptists, on the other hand, really loved it and Daniel, and looked forward to the whole rapture thing. It caused a lot of inner conflict for me since I was first and foremost a Lutheran but going to a Baptist school for years and years.

 

Anyhow, both groups simply "used" the OT to uphold their NT beliefs but beyond that the OT was just history and the "old covenant" that god had with the Jews...the one we Gentiles didn't need to follow (so we really didn't need to know it beyond the very select passages "fed" to us...again to support the NT theology and world view).

 

So, unlike those who mentioned Marcion, I'm not saying we advocated the removal of the OT (which would be heresy) but ignoring and spinning it to the extent modern xianity does is really about the same thing. Modern xians are so ignorant of what is truly IN the OT that when you do point it out they'd just as soon call you a liar than accept these atrocities are in their book (and if/when they do check they simply absolve their god/Israelites anyhow but still hold other men/gods to a higher standard). But like Marcion, Paul explains the OT "better" than the OT explains itself and its god is "evil" so why use it? Most xians don't and use Paul's version of the OT instead. It's just "better."

 

My favorite part is where she tells me to that I can continue quoting the bible all I want and she will continue to disagree with me. Either she didn't realize I was quoting the New Testament (which is entirely possible) or she just flat out refused to believe that was in her bible at all, even though I gave her the exact location to look it up herself.

Cognitive dissonance?

 

mwc

[garrisonjj]

That's

 

Forgive my ignorance, but who claims the babble is god inspired? What are the origins of old or new testements? Did god come down from the sky and dictate to the authors? How can we place such importance on an ancient book if god were not the author? What are religion"s claims for it being authentic? Thanks.

[Reka]

Grandpa is correct. The notion of throwing the Old Testament out caused an enormous controversy........ Read the series "The Christian Tradition" by Jaroslav Pelikan.

 

That is very interesting and informative. I am surprised that I have never come across this while doing my own research. I'll definitely put the book on my to-buy list. Thank you.

 

I can tell you that in the fundamentalist independent Baptist church where I was raised the Old Testament was definately not thrown out. It would have been heresy. The bad parts were always re-interpreted in such a manner that humans were at fault and not God. The book of Daniel was extensively used as prophecy for the end times, which we were told would be in our lifetime. I don't know how many times I heard "I believe the lord will come again in my lifetime." All the rapture fear nonsense. Then of course there was the Noahs ark story and the garden of eden thing reinterpreted to suit what the preacher wanted it to mean, usually tied somehow into creation science or the atonement. All absurdities.

 

Yes, this is what I was taught as well. I had never heard of it not being taught this way and since I was raised Catholic and she is a Catholic, I didn't possibly think that she could have been taught differently. It's really amazing how even within the same denomination we could be taught totally apposing viewpoints on the OT.

 

Forgive my ignorance, but who claims the babble is god inspired? What are the origins of old or new testements? Did god come down from the sky and dictate to the authors? How can we place such importance on an ancient book if god were not the author? What are religion"s claims for it being authentic? Thanks.

 

I'm not entirely sure what you are attempting to drive at here. Obviously the Christian faith says that it's authentic and that God inspired what they wrote in the bible. Which is why it's so shocking to see one deny that the OT is God's word or that it is null and void since Jesus came along. Because if either is true then for the former their entire foundation of faith is shatter. If the latter is true then the old testaments creation story, the ten commandments, and their other goodies are void as well. It's just another case of an illogical thought process and trying to sell Jesus and God as "good guys".

 

They have no proof that it's authentic except that it says that it is, other than that it's just an old book with a lot of cruel teachings that people have chosen to ignore for the few good teachings that it offers. In the first post with my friend, however, I was speaking to her as if the bible was authentic to make her justify herself. She didn't seem to be able to.

[mwc]

Which is why it's so shocking to see one deny that the OT is God's word or that it is null and void since Jesus came along. Because if either is true then for the former their entire foundation of faith is shatter. If the latter is true then the old testaments creation story, the ten commandments, and their other goodies are void as well.

No, it's not all "null and void." Just the Jewish Law is (mostly) null and void (except the first set 10 commandments in Exodus 20...the ones that broke and should therefore be unknown but Moses luckily memorized them really fast and wrote them down later even though they don't match the second copy). The "history" is still valid. Also, the other parts are "foreshadowing" of jesus and xianity (when "properly" interpreted. Also, there's still "unfulfilled" prophecy to be found there.

 

Also, "god" was only "mean" because that was the way the world worked back then...don't you know that? But the world has changed and "god" can behave more civil because we're more civil. Had we not been animals he wouldn't have been such a jerk. Just like everyone back then had slaves so, "god" went along with us on that and now that we don't have slaves anymore "god" is cool with that too...he prefers that in fact. It's all because we're maturing that "god" is able to punish us less just like a good parent.

 

mwc

[a skeptical believer]

Grandpa is correct. The notion of throwing the Old Testament out caused an enormous controversy........ Read the series "The Christian Tradition" by Jaroslav Pelikan.

 

That is very interesting and informative. I am surprised that I have never come across this while doing my own research. I'll definitely put the book on my to-buy list. Thank you.

 

I can tell you that in the fundamentalist independent Baptist church where I was raised the Old Testament was definately not thrown out. It would have been heresy. The bad parts were always re-interpreted in such a manner that humans were at fault and not God. The book of Daniel was extensively used as prophecy for the end times, which we were told would be in our lifetime. I don't know how many times I heard "I believe the lord will come again in my lifetime." All the rapture fear nonsense. Then of course there was the Noahs ark story and the garden of eden thing reinterpreted to suit what the preacher wanted it to mean, usually tied somehow into creation science or the atonement. All absurdities.

 

Yes, this is what I was taught as well. I had never heard of it not being taught this way and since I was raised Catholic and she is a Catholic, I didn't possibly think that she could have been taught differently. It's really amazing how even within the same denomination we could be taught totally apposing viewpoints on the OT.

 

Forgive my ignorance, but who claims the babble is god inspired? What are the origins of old or new testements? Did god come down from the sky and dictate to the authors? How can we place such importance on an ancient book if god were not the author? What are religion"s claims for it being authentic? Thanks.

 

I'm not entirely sure what you are attempting to drive at here. Obviously the Christian faith says that it's authentic and that God inspired what they wrote in the bible. Which is why it's so shocking to see one deny that the OT is God's word or that it is null and void since Jesus came along. Because if either is true then for the former their entire foundation of faith is shatter. If the latter is true then the old testaments creation story, the ten commandments, and their other goodies are void as well. It's just another case of an illogical thought process and trying to sell Jesus and God as "good guys".

 

They have no proof that it's authentic except that it says that it is, other than that it's just an old book with a lot of cruel teachings that people have chosen to ignore for the few good teachings that it offers. In the first post with my friend, however, I was speaking to her as if the bible was authentic to make her justify herself. She didn't seem to be able to.

 

If you will allow me to add my 2 cents in. Interestingly enough, there are many interpretations of the OT just as there are of the NT. I have learned this through Torah study where the Rabbi has taken all his many versions of the OT (including Christian versions) and we have gone line by line - a slow process, where he has read the hebrew, interpreted it, and we have discussed all the interpretations based on which ever book we have picked off the pile. I have found this fascinating as to how many differences there actually are. Many Christians are unaware of this which I have found out when I have brought to their attention my copy of the Tanach and they were surprised that even the order of the books is different.

 

To deny the OT in any Christian religion would be akin to denying Darwinism in creation. But then, there is that also

[Robbobrob]

Don't forget they all love Job...because without Job, people may actually try to better their miserable lots in life. Keep the masses in control by getting them to believe that suffering is joyous and proof of God's Love.

[Sceadugenga]

Don't forget they all love Job...because without Job, people may actually try to better their miserable lots in life. Keep the masses in control by getting them to believe that suffering is joyous and proof of God's Love.

 

Then there are missing the whole theological arguement that spawned the book - but then again that might be the point...

 

Anyways the subtext of the book is a debate about the logic fallacy behind the arguement:

"God will/may punish the 'wicked', and may/will reward the 'righteous'. Thereore all those suffering must have done something to deserve God's wrath, and all those prospering must have God's favour." Each of Job's friends present or argue an interpretation of this 'logic' as a way to hash out the framework for the theological arguement only to have God state that a person's suffering or prospering isn't always sign of his favour or displeasure.

 

Of course I'm sure that's lost on most of the fundies who get caught up in the rivetting tale of a God who'll fuck with a guy on a dare from the Devil.

[Reka]

No, it's not all "null and void." Just the Jewish Law is (mostly) null and void (except the first set 10 commandments in Exodus 20...the ones that broke and should therefore be unknown but Moses luckily memorized them really fast and wrote them down later even though they don't match the second copy). The "history" is still valid. Also, the other parts are "foreshadowing" of jesus and xianity (when "properly" interpreted. Also, there's still "unfulfilled" prophecy to be found there.

 

So in essence, they are cherry picking the OT; taking what they want from it and saying the rest isn't needed anymore? I guess I'm an all or nothing type gal then, because this makes less and less sense to me as it gets explained. Not that you folks aren't doing a great job, but the whole reasoning and logic of it is on very shaky ground.

 

Let me get this straight, it's still history and the ten commandments are still in effect. However, God no longer has to punish people the way he did in the OT, because Jesus came along and taught them "to hang out and be groovy." The fundamentals of the OT should be followed, but God changed drastically into a good, loving deity after having his son. Therefore, everything he did in the OT was his only way and even though he did all that we should ignore that for God 2.0 of the NT. That about right?

 

Also, "god" was only "mean" because that was the way the world worked back then...don't you know that? But the world has changed and "god" can behave more civil because we're more civil. Had we not been animals he wouldn't have been such a jerk. Just like everyone back then had slaves so, "god" went along with us on that and now that we don't have slaves anymore "god" is cool with that too...he prefers that in fact. It's all because we're maturing that "god" is able to punish us less just like a good parent.

 

So, who is making the laws here, humans or God?

 

If you will allow me to add my 2 cents in. Interestingly enough, there are many interpretations of the OT just as there are of the NT. I have learned this through Torah study where the Rabbi has taken all his many versions of the OT (including Christian versions) and we have gone line by line - a slow process, where he has read the hebrew, interpreted it, and we have discussed all the interpretations based on which ever book we have picked off the pile. I have found this fascinating as to how many differences there actually are. Many Christians are unaware of this which I have found out when I have brought to their attention my copy of the Tanach and they were surprised that even the order of the books is different.

 

It's so strange that I never encountered this before in the various churches that I have attended. I may not have been paying attention though, I was very skeptical even when I was young. Does anyone know of any websites or books that look at the various interpretations? I would be interested in reading more about that.

[Reka]

Double post, my apologies.

[a skeptical believer]

Try this comparison. Parallel Hebrew Old Testament I couldn't find another on the web. Maybe others will have more luck.

[a skeptical believer]

Now I'm guessing most of you are going right to Isaiah 7:14 Scroll down to 14 to see if the Hebrew actually looks like: "עלמות"

 

From Wikipedia

[Reka]

http://www.mechon-mamre.org/e/et/et0.htm I found an english translation of the Hebrew bible, where it says "young woman" instead of "virgin" in Isaiah 7:14. I'll probably compare my favorite lines of the bible to this and see how it turns out.

 

Thanks for the links!

[Grandpa Harley]

THe whole 'Virgin' mess came when they translated it into Greek.

 

A pastor I know claims that a 'young woman' would be a virgin any way... but he also claims that the Isralites would have tipped off 'good' Egyptians to mark their doors with the blood of a young goat to avoid the angel of death visiting them for their first born.

 

That is something I never got... why couldn't an omniscient and omnipotent god do it himself, rather than send an idiot angel who couldn't tell the good guys fromthe bad?

 

Also, God appeared as a man numerous times to Abraham, yet he takes the face off Moses when they meet face to face.

 

 

When did God go from being able to stroll in the Garden of Eden and kick back having a meal with Abraham to discuss the fate of Sodom and Gomorrah to being a nuclear chaos that burns and kills and needs containment in the Ark?

[Grandpa Harley]

I've often pondered if Moses actually had leprosy in his later years.

[mwc]

So in essence, they are cherry picking the OT; taking what they want from it and saying the rest isn't needed anymore? I guess I'm an all or nothing type gal then, because this makes less and less sense to me as it gets explained. Not that you folks aren't doing a great job, but the whole reasoning and logic of it is on very shaky ground.

Right. They are essentially cherry picking and glossing the text. However, if you WANT you can CHOOSE to follow the OT but you have to do it PERFECTLY (even though the OT never, ever says this but Paul does) to bypass the NT and get to heaven. So you have a choice: The OT way or the NT way. Two paths. Law or grace. So you can't really throw it out but since you can just go with old JC and grace why wouldn't you?

 

Oh, and if you want logic and reason, we should just stop because this whole issue is just convoluted and confusing. I think this is why people just ignore it and choose JC without really examining all the options.

 

Let me get this straight, it's still history and the ten commandments are still in effect. However, God no longer has to punish people the way he did in the OT, because Jesus came along and taught them "to hang out and be groovy." The fundamentals of the OT should be followed, but God changed drastically into a good, loving deity after having his son. Therefore, everything he did in the OT was his only way and even though he did all that we should ignore that for God 2.0 of the NT. That about right?

History. Yes. !0 Commandments. Yes. God is "nice" because of JC. Yes. OT principals are still "good idea." Yes.

 

The OT path was required to get to JC. The OT actions were needed to "get through" to the OT age people. The God of OT was for the Jews but the god of the NT is for ALL so new methods are needed. Also, the reason the OT god is "nice" now is basically because he bas put the earth under the power of his "son" and so the OT god is still exactly the same but the buffer that is JC is what makes it seem like he changed. Before god dealt with us directly but not anymore...which is good for us so we should embrace JC as go between. So it's like having an angry dad who spanks you but then mom says she'll be responsible for discipline and puts you on time-out instead. If mom goes away you get spanked. You don't want mom to leave because dad hasn't changed. He still only spanks. It just seems like dad is nicer since mom is who you deal with but he's the same old dad he always was. So it's like god was single in the OT and got married in the NT so we now deal with "mom" and don't get spanked for everything but he's still the same old spank happy guy.

 

Haven't you yet encountered the xian that believes that all the encounters with god/angels in the OT were really just incarnations of JC? So, for example, the burning bush was a version of JC and the pillar of smoke was JC and so on? Now, I wasn't like that but I've met those folks and it gets a little surreal.

 

So, who is making the laws here, humans or God?

Humans are god.

 

But, in context, I guess you could say that god doesn't want to demand too much from us at once since we're kind of "simple" so, to paraphrase the bible, he won't give us more than we can handle. So this is why, when people were barbaric, god "seems" barbaric, but note how this god was ever so slightly ahead of his times when compared to the other barbaric gods? That was him "nudging" us in the way he wanted us to go but knowing that if he forced us that we'd resist as is the human way (we're like herding cats to a degree). At the same time once god lays down his laws he demands strict obedience and will punish us to make sure we adhere to them since he knows they aren't more than we can handle. Of course this last part contradicts Paul in the NT so it's a bit odd that this seems to be the reasoning but contradictions never seem to stop anyone.

 

mwc

[a skeptical believer]

There are so many other mis-interprtations of proofs text which I only learned from disputing what an evangelical Greek Orthodox told me was "The Truth". One of the best sources I have used in disputing her clains is: Reference Center- FAQ - Prooftexts

 

This is one of the topics I fond to be the most eye-opening & fascinating in my discussion with my evangelical friend. You can't really discuss this with Jews, because they don't have a clue. I wish I had more time this morning, but I have to go to work.

[a skeptical believer]

Now I have a question for you. There's a guy at work who keeps telling me I should listen to Charles Stanley & Joel Osteen. In my best Seinfeld voice I ask: "Who are these people?"

[Kirangel]

No, it's not all "null and void." Just the Jewish Law is (mostly) null and void (except the first set 10 commandments in Exodus 20...the ones that broke and should therefore be unknown but Moses luckily memorized them really fast and wrote them down later even though they don't match the second copy). The "history" is still valid. Also, the other parts are "foreshadowing" of jesus and xianity (when "properly" interpreted. Also, there's still "unfulfilled" prophecy to be found there.

 

So in essence, they are cherry picking the OT; taking what they want from it and saying the rest isn't needed anymore? I guess I'm an all or nothing type gal then, because this makes less and less sense to me as it gets explained. Not that you folks aren't doing a great job, but the whole reasoning and logic of it is on very shaky ground.

 

Let me get this straight, it's still history and the ten commandments are still in effect. However, God no longer has to punish people the way he did in the OT, because Jesus came along and taught them "to hang out and be groovy." The fundamentals of the OT should be followed, but God changed drastically into a good, loving deity after having his son. Therefore, everything he did in the OT was his only way and even though he did all that we should ignore that for God 2.0 of the NT. That about right?

 

It's not necessarily cherry picking, it's using other passages of the bible to support what they hold to be true, that the mosaic laws are null and void, that they were not meant for the Christians.

 

In my humble opinion, the God of the bible must be bipolar either that or the God of the OT is just a different God, an evil demiurge. And this is where I get the lack of training in biblical hermeneutics accusation thrown at me. I know cruelty when I see it.

[Grandpa Harley]

You damn Gnostic!