Why Are The Ot And Nt Together In One Book?

[PandaPirate]

Why?

 

They are such radically different books. One talks of sex, violence, rape, murder, incest and has a god with severe borderline personality disorder.

 

Jesus, on the other hand, is illustrated as mostly peaceful. The antithesis of his "father."

 

Why are these two books even lumped together?

[Guest Babylonian Dream]

Are you sure about that?

To me, the NT is worse. Instead of a God with Borderline Personality Disorder who goes around killing people for fun. He's keeping them alive, sadistically torturing them in a fiery pit for all eternity.

 

Though I do agree, totally different books/religions/ideas of God.

 

Though look closer, there isn't any religious unity between just one of either testaments.

 

You don't even have to get past the first chapter of Genesis to spot theological contradictions. for example, how many gods are there?

[nightflight]

Why?

 

They are such radically different books. One talks of sex, violence, rape, murder, incest and has a god with severe borderline personality disorder.

 

Jesus, on the other hand, is illustrated as mostly peaceful. The antithesis of his "father."

 

Why are these two books even lumped together?

 

Its easier to carry.

[PandaPirate]

Are you sure about that?

To me, the NT is worse. Instead of a God with Borderline Personality Disorder who goes around killing people for fun. He's keeping them alive, sadistically torturing them in a fiery pit for all eternity.

 

Though I do agree, totally different books/religions/ideas of God.

 

Though look closer, there isn't any religious unity between just one of either testaments.

 

You don't even have to get past the first chapter of Genesis to spot theological contradictions. for example, how many gods are there?

 

Well, not really. The idea of hell and eternal damnation came later on. The History Channel did a great show on the idea of hell, which they claimed, was not in the Bible, but a man made concept. (Not sure if this is entirely correct, someone tell me if I'm wrong.)

 

And, by the way, I've been to hell, it's called addiction

[oddbird1963]

The old testament (in one form or another in the early 1st century) contained the documents of the religious heritage of Judaism.

 

The first early Christians were Jews who told of Jesus' life and times in a way to make it seem that he fulfilled Messianic prophesies contained in the Old Testament. Note I said "make it seem." Many early Christians believed Jesus died to make them better Jews, so the Old Testament would still be important to them.

 

The appeal of the early church to other Jews was, "Jesus is the messiah foretold in Scripture (Old Testament).

 

As the message of Christianity spread out into the Hellenistic world (Greek culture, greek language), the church needed to make Christianity seem like an ancient religion. That's what gave religions street cred - - was it a religion of the ancients. Did it contain the wisdom of our ancestors? It's connection to Judaism, thanks to the influence of secular, Hellenistic Jews throughout the Greek and Roman world, made it appealing.

 

Plus, it is really hard to understand the New Testament without having a knowledge of he contents of the Old Testament. For example, you really cannot understand anything in Revelation without a thorough knowledge of the Book of Exodus in the Old Testament. Try appreciating the Epistle to the Hebrews without understanding references to the OT ritual laws.

 

So, the two belong together, although the differences in the nature and personality of god are striking. Remember, many Christians believe there is a unifying reality behind the entire canon of the OT and NT, a "crimson thread" which sees an Ultimate plan, hidden in the OT and revealed in the NT behind every word of the Old Testament.

 

This allows many Christians to smooth out the dissonance by injecting an apologetic narrative, creating an "Uber Bible" that contains the OT text, their NT text and the "explanations" to make the rough spots seem more palatable.

[Guest Babylonian Dream]

Well, not really. The idea of hell and eternal damnation came later on.

As did the view that Jesus was God, the rapture, the end of days/armaggeddon, the belief that jesus died for our sins as a sacrifice, and the view of Jesus as something more than the messiah (as in earthly king who liberated his people and founded a dynasty as was the hopes of the jews).

Though it's still based on the Bible. And the NT still has God pouring out wrath, killing 1/3 of humanity (which in today's population would be more than at Noah's time it was possible).

It's still worse.

 

The History Channel did a great show on the idea of hell, which they claimed, was not in the Bible, but a man made concept. (Not sure if this is entirely correct, someone tell me if I'm wrong.)

It's not wise to get you're history from the history channel. Ever seen the naked archaeologist? He's on the history channel, along with alot of other people dishing our pseudohistorical nonsense. Though hell itself I think you're right, isn't in the Bible.

[★ Citsonga ★]

The History Channel did a great show on the idea of hell, which they claimed, was not in the Bible, but a man made concept. (Not sure if this is entirely correct, someone tell me if I'm wrong.)

It's not wise to get you're history from the history channel. Ever seen the naked archaeologist? He's on the history channel, along with alot of other people dishing our pseudohistorical nonsense. Though hell itself I think you're right, isn't in the Bible.

 

When people talk about "hell" they're usually actually referring to the "lake of fire," and that is in the buybull. It's toward the end of Revelation.

[PandaPirate]

It's not wise to get you're history from the history channel. Ever seen the naked archaeologist? He's on the history channel, along with alot of other people dishing our pseudohistorical nonsense. Though hell itself I think you're right, isn't in the Bible.

 

Don't they have fact checkers at the History Channel? I know that I write for the newspaper and I'm held to intense scrutiny when writing a simple home and garden story. I would think the History Channel would be use fact checkers before airing a program. But then again...

[Shyone]

It's not wise to get you're history from the history channel. Ever seen the naked archaeologist? He's on the history channel, along with alot of other people dishing our pseudohistorical nonsense. Though hell itself I think you're right, isn't in the Bible.

 

Don't they have fact checkers at the History Channel? I know that I write for the newspaper and I'm held to intense scrutiny when writing a simple home and garden story. I would think the History Channel would be use fact checkers before airing a program. But then again...

Lately the history channel has broadened its material to include aliens, bible miracles and Mayan (and Nostradamus) prophecies.

 

I think certain topics make their fact checkers' eyes glaze over.

[Neon Genesis]

 

As did the view that Jesus was God, the rapture, the end of days/armaggeddon, the belief that jesus died for our sins as a sacrifice, and the view of Jesus as something more than the messiah (as in earthly king who liberated his people and founded a dynasty as was the hopes of the jews).

Though it's still based on the Bible. And the NT still has God pouring out wrath, killing 1/3 of humanity (which in today's population would be more than at Noah's time it was possible).

It's still worse.

 

 

But then Revelation almost didn't make it into the NT and was only added in at the last minute. It almost lost to the Apocalypse of Peter which was almost as popular as Revelation during ancient times. Interestingly, there's a passage in the Apocalypse of Peter where it says that if Christians in heaven pray to save all the sinners in hell, God will answer the prayer and all the sinners in hell will go to heaven, so the Apocalypse of Peter seems to teach you can be saved in the afterlife.

[Guest Babylonian Dream]

But then Revelation almost didn't make it into the NT and was only added in at the last minute. It almost lost to the Apocalypse of Peter which was almost as popular as Revelation during ancient times. Interestingly, there's a passage in the Apocalypse of Peter where it says that if Christians in heaven pray to save all the sinners in hell, God will answer the prayer and all the sinners in hell will go to heaven, so the Apocalypse of Peter seems to teach you can be saved in the afterlife.

That makes it all the worse, they choose to leave out the one book that says that God can have mercy for you, and let you have free will in heaven.

[Brought None]

Why is the OT & NT in one book?

 

 

Cause consumers like two for one deals.

 

Seriously, think about it.

 

Order now and receive the Double Decker Holy Pack Deluxe which includes:

• Old Testament Classic
  
• New & Improved Testament

 

Hurry, this offer is for a limited time only!

 

It's all buzz words to sell the item.

[Guest Babylonian Dream]

Why is the OT & NT in one book?

 

 

Cause consumers like two for one deals.

 

Seriously, think about it.

 

Order now and receive the Double Decker Holy Pack Deluxe which includes:

• Old Testament Classic
  
• New & Improved Testament

 

Hurry, this offer is for a limited time only!

 

It's all buzz words to sell the item.

You know, that might actually be true. As there must've been some reason the Council of Nicaea put so much thought into how to organize that book, then King James did.

[andyjj]

This always puzzled me too - things become clearer if you look at the "Apocrypha" or DeuteroCanonical books present in the Catholic Bible. A lot happended to Judaism in the period between the end of the OT and the start of the NT (about 400 years) Subsequent to the Babylionian Captivity and the Liberation of the Jews by Cyrus - may ideas from the Zoroastrian religion came to be mixed with Judaism - including beleifs in Heaven, Hell, angels and demons. The beleifs of the Jews in Jesus' day had moved on quite a bit from the OT. In particular there we at least 2 factions the Sadducees (no resurrection) and the Pharisees whose theology appears to have been more Zoroastrian than Jewish.

 

Making a leap directly from OT to NT can be very puzzling without knowing about anything that happened in between.

[MagickMonkey]

But then Revelation almost didn't make it into the NT and was only added in at the last minute. It almost lost to the Apocalypse of Peter which was almost as popular as Revelation during ancient times. Interestingly, there's a passage in the Apocalypse of Peter where it says that if Christians in heaven pray to save all the sinners in hell, God will answer the prayer and all the sinners in hell will go to heaven, so the Apocalypse of Peter seems to teach you can be saved in the afterlife.

That makes it all the worse, they choose to leave out the one book that says that God can have mercy for you, and let you have free will in heaven.

 

They had to. Consider these two stories.

 

 

1. Little Johnny's mom tells him that if he is good, Santa will bring him gifts for christmas. If he's bad, Santa's not gonna give him shit. Little Johnny is told to clean his room. Little Johnny says, "Fuck you, mommy, I don't want to clean my room." Little Johnny's mom says, "Listen here, you little bastard, if you do not clean your room, Santa's not going to give you shit for christmas!!!"

 

2. Little Johnny's mom tells him that if he is good, Santa will bring him gifts for christmas. If he's bad, Santa's not gonna give him shit, unless his brothers and sisters ask really hard for Santa to forgive Little Johnny, in which case, Johnny gets presents anyway. Little Johnny is really nice to his brothers and sisters throughout the year. Johnny is told to clean his room. Little Johnny says, "Fuck you, mommy, I don't want to clean my room." Little Johnny's mom says, "Listen here, you little bastard, if you do not clean your room, Santa's not going to give you shit for christmas unless you can convince your brothers and sisters to beg him hard enough!!!"

 

Mom has some leverage in either scenario, but in which story is Little Johnny most likely to clean his room?

[hereticzero]

The OT and NT are together for marketing purposes. The idea of the two as one book is a modern concept championed by today's Christianity. For many years, the NT was kept separate of the OT. Some time ago the NT was outselling the OT and to keep an interest in the OT it has been added as one half of The Holy Bible. Many Christians accept it but many do not. Modern xtians prefer the NT for most of their quotes of doom and gloom.

[mwc]

I'd have to research this for any sort of decent answer but I'll throw out a guess or two...

 

There was no NT for anyone so the earliest xians had the LXX. Looking at G.Matthew (and the other books and even Paul's letters) it's pretty easy to see that they used it to come up with much of their ideas, "prophecies," and so on. It would have been a "must have" for them. Looking at the early church fathers writings they used it to make their case in their arguments for their religion and their god(s). They even maintained it was better than the Hebrew variant.

 

So as time went on and xian texts developed these would go hand-in-hand with the LXX that I just mentioned and for the reason(s) mentioned. You whip out your G.Matthew. Show the story. The "prophecies fullfilled." See? It all happened. And then whip out your LXX to show the ancient "prophecies" in the Jewish texts. Prophecy made. Prophecy fulfilled. Airtight case.

 

In addition to the "prophecies" you have the "old testament" (or the agreement) being made in the LXX and the new one in these xian texts. You need to show that there was an Abrahamic agreement and fulfillment that preceded the Mosaic one. This is essentially like challenging a will. They're saying this earlier will was made and now it's being enforced. The Mosaic one came later and is invalid. If the Jews could have proved a Noachic will or something earlier that rules out everyone but them or somehow bypasses "jesus" then they'd have gotten them on a technicality but that's not there (the Muslims took an alternate path which is why they use their own versions of these stories).

 

So they needed the LXX since they didn't have any texts of their own but their whole religion was based on an interpretation of the LXX so it was a necessary dependency. They also relied on some Greek Sybils but to a very little extent so they could drop them without anyone caring (they're only in the various writers arguments as far as I'm aware). Look at the mentions of 1 Enoch and how it was dropped from the bible. It's an odd situation that they pretend doesn't exist. The Jews were supposed to canonize it, it was very popular and seemed like to would make the cut, but decided not to (and the xians didn't have the clout to make their own at the time). Also, by removing the OT it would mean xians would have to go to another religions sacred texts in order to look up any outside references and that would be very awkward. Keeping the books together makes the OT a part of xianity and keeps people comfortable with it (xians have no problem telling the Jews that they misread their own holy texts...something that couldn't happen as easily if they had never been joined...they'd still do it just not as easily ).

 

mwc

[Neon Genesis]

Another argument I've heard is that linking Christianity to an ancient religion gave it more mass appeal and made orthodox Christianity more popular. In the ancient world, older religions had more respect to newer religions. Sort of like how some atheists in modern times have more respect for Judaism and Christianity but newer religions like the Raelians and Sciencetology are considered to be too insane even for most people. The Ebionites had the link to an ancient religion like Judaism but their requirement that Christians still had to be circumcised was a major turn-off for most adults. On the other hand, while the Gnostics didn't require Christians to follow the uncomfortable Hebrew laws like circumcision, because they cut themselves off entirely from Judaism, they lacked the link to an ancient religion to give themselves more mass appeal. The proto-orthodox church found the perfect balance. By including the Hebrew texts and claiming to be a fulfillment of the Jewish prophecies, they were able to give Christianity the needed mass appeal. But by claiming Jesus' death superseded the old law, it made it easier for men to join the religion since they no longer had to cut off parts of their penis to join. By linking Christianity to the Hebrew texts, the early church was also able to use this link to try and claim they were the "real" church and not that heretic Marcion who rejected the Hebrew religion entirely which the early church considered to be a grave threat to their religion.

[Overcame Faith]

The primary connection between the NT and the OT are the sacrifices. In volume I (the OT), sacrifices of various types are needed to atone for man's sin (and other purposes, too). But the atonement is temporary. In volume II (the NT), the final sacrifice is made once and for all, that of Jesus' crucifixion. Thus, the OT is the beginning of the story and the NT is the end of the story. True, there are many dissimilarities, but the sacrifices unify the primary themes.

[Neon Genesis]

Doesn't the Hebrew bible forbid human sacrifices?

[Overcame Faith]

Doesn't the Hebrew bible forbid human sacrifices?

 

Of course:

 

29 The LORD your God will cut off before you the nations you are about to invade and dispossess. But when you have driven them out and settled in their land, 30 and after they have been destroyed before you, be careful not to be ensnared by inquiring about their gods, saying, "How do these nations serve their gods? We will do the same." 31 You must not worship the LORD your God in their way, because in worshiping their gods, they do all kinds of detestable things the LORD hates. They even burn their sons and daughters in the fire as sacrifices to their gods.

 

Deuteronomy 12:29-31.

 

But the NT provides a convenient get around for this little problem:

 

27Unlike the other high priests, he [Jesus] does not need to offer sacrifices day after day, first for his own sins, and then for the sins of the people. He sacrificed for their sins once for all when he offered himself. 28For the law appoints as high priests men who are weak; but the oath, which came after the law, appointed the Son, who has been made perfect forever.

 

Hebrews 7:27-28.

 

So, the OT provision forbidding the people from conducting human sacrifices was gotten around by having Jesus sacrifice himself.

 

Personally, I don't buy into any of this, but it is how the NT attempts bring the theme of sacrifices for atonement into fruition through Jesus' sacrifice and why the two books belong together.

[Guest I Love Dog]

Another argument I've heard is that linking Christianity to an ancient religion gave it more mass appeal and made orthodox Christianity more popular. In the ancient world, older religions had more respect to newer religions. Sort of like how some atheists in modern times have more respect for Judaism and Christianity but newer religions like the Raelians and Sciencetology are considered to be too insane even for most people. The Ebionites had the link to an ancient religion like Judaism but their requirement that Christians still had to be circumcised was a major turn-off for most adults. On the other hand, while the Gnostics didn't require Christians to follow the uncomfortable Hebrew laws like circumcision, because they cut themselves off entirely from Judaism, they lacked the link to an ancient religion to give themselves more mass appeal. The proto-orthodox church found the perfect balance. By including the Hebrew texts and claiming to be a fulfillment of the Jewish prophecies, they were able to give Christianity the needed mass appeal. But by claiming Jesus' death superseded the old law, it made it easier for men to join the religion since they no longer had to cut off parts of their penis to join. By linking Christianity to the Hebrew texts, the early church was also able to use this link to try and claim they were the "real" church and not that heretic Marcion who rejected the Hebrew religion entirely which the early church considered to be a grave threat to their religion.

 

There is absolutely no way that the Greeks or Romans would accept circumcision, either. They revered the human body as "perfection" and circumcision to them(as is now widely accepted) was barbaric and mutilation of the worst kind, particularly to the penis. Circumcision was also something briefly practiced in ancient Egypt and probably where the Hebrews got the practice from. It had been or was still practiced in other primitive cultures.

 

Interestingly, circumcised Jewish males tried to appear uncircumcised when Greek culture swept through Jewish lands.

 

http://www.d.umn.edu/~mcco0322/history.htm

[Neon Genesis]

 

So, the OT provision forbidding the people from conducting human sacrifices was gotten around by having Jesus sacrifice himself.

 

Personally, I don't buy into any of this, but it is how the NT attempts bring the theme of sacrifices for atonement into fruition through Jesus' sacrifice and why the two books belong together.

So Jesus being a human sacrifice doesn't count as a violation of Hebrew law because the book of Hebrews says so?

[MagickMonkey]

So, the OT provision forbidding the people from conducting human sacrifices was gotten around by having Jesus sacrifice himself.

 

Personally, I don't buy into any of this, but it is how the NT attempts bring the theme of sacrifices for atonement into fruition through Jesus' sacrifice and why the two books belong together.

So Jesus being a human sacrifice doesn't count as a violation of Hebrew law because the book of Hebrews says so?

 

Of course. When you're writing your own fiction, anything goes.

[OpheliaGinger]

 

So, the OT provision forbidding the people from conducting human sacrifices was gotten around by having Jesus sacrifice himself.

 

Personally, I don't buy into any of this, but it is how the NT attempts bring the theme of sacrifices for atonement into fruition through Jesus' sacrifice and why the two books belong together.

So Jesus being a human sacrifice doesn't count as a violation of Hebrew law because the book of Hebrews says so?

 

Why would you expect Gawd to follow his own rules?