Hi,
I was wondering if anyone could explain the differences between the Old Testament and the New Testament.
Also I don't mean Vs as in against each other, I just like to know how they are different to each other and why?
Thank you.
RE: The Old Testament Vs The New Testament
oblivionlord,
David is right - people interpret all writings and texts as they want to. The Bible is no exception, but to confuse the OT with the NT is not 'interpreting in one's own image.' The OT was mostlywritten by Hebrew scholars, who believed in a certain type of wrathful God, and it details wars and conflicts, which were taking place in that area at the time. Not only that, but much 'foreign' work has found its way into the OT, so that much of what comes down to us is a conglomerate of different treachings and passages. For example, Egyptian writings are included, so are those from ancient Sumer and all describe the attitude of the writers to God and the foretelling ofa Messiah. However, the OT is predominantly Jewish and not Christian.
Patsy.
RE: The Old Testament Vs The New Testament
ORIGINAL: oblivionlord
If you try to interpret the Bible in your own image, then let me remind you of these 2 passages:
Revelations
22:18I testify to everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book, if anyone adds to them, may God add to him the plagues which are written in this book.
22:19If anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, may God take away his part from the tree of life, and out of the holy city, which are written in this book.
Quite right!
The 1st Testament is the exclusive word of God and has not been tampered with or had other ideologies, characters or stories introduced to it by man…
Because clearly, if it had, then you would certainly find it easy to spot, as it would share similarities to other prior beliefs and civilisations… Like Sumerian for example… which patently is not the case! ... No![&:]
Now, I shouldget on, as I've got to organise a stoning for the young lad next door, because he was rude to his mum, and I must remember not to mix wool with cotton with whatI wear... or was it draylon andspandex should never be allowed to chaff on cheesecloth in the 1st week of August if you sport a beard and your !st born is a girl...?
... Oh dear,I just can't rememer[sm=scratchchin.gif]
RE: The Old Testament Vs The New Testament
[sm=rollaugh.gif][sm=rollaugh.gif][sm=rollaugh.gif][sm=rollaugh.gif][sm=rollaugh.gif]
RE: The Old Testament Vs The New Testament
And as a self-employed guy, Conspiritualist, no matter the urgency you'd better not work on the Sabbath! Though actually Jesus kinda overturned that one himself.
I was in a New Age community years ago, where I lived, and a guy refused to do some simple chores on the Sabbath. An enlightened guy pointed out to him that we are now in the Aquarian Age with many Teachings which might be seen as superceding or "upping by several notches" the Piscean Christianity ... and there was this guy still stuck in the Arian dispensation of the Jewish Law! He hadn't even reconciled hiself to Jesus' teachings on the Sabbath or to the Piscean Age. He was over 2,000 years behind the times!
V
RE: The Old Testament Vs The New Testament
What you all fail to reconize is that I am not altering the Bible in anyway from which it was written. I am not thinking anything other than the sun being formed on the 3rd day. I am not thinking anything other than Abraham, sacrificing his child to God out of loyalty, fear even though God said to stop. I am not looking at Adam because of a misunderstanding of evil, but as an actual sin. You want to challenge the word of God by revealing evidence that Daniel was just telling a fascinating story to the world when God told him of Revelations? How Christian like would it be to do otherwise?
Maybe you all would like to enlighten me with actual evidence that the events in the Bible did not take place as was told? Please reveal to me the truth as to the Sun not being created on the 3rd day or God himself not considering Adams action as a sin? I have asked many times on this forum and yet noone cares or is even capable of answering with actual evidence. Therefore what gives anyone the right to see the Bible other than how it was exactly written? If you want to just overlook the passage within Revelations about how you should not add or remove words from within the prophecy then how is that Christian like? What proof do you or anyone have to say that in 80-100 years from now the Bible won't be interpreted from how you see it today? Therefore it becomes nothing more than a fish story. Again are we reading it by Gods wording or our own?
At least I am not looking at it in someone elses perspective in mordern society, but only by those who ACTUALLY wrote the wordings of God within the Book.
RE: The Old Testament Vs The New Testament
ORIGINAL: oblivionlord
At least I am not looking at it in someone elses perspective in mordern society, but only by those who ACTUALLY wrote the wordings of God within the Book.
The Bible isn't a book. It's a collection of books, and what went into the collection was decided for political reasons by men circa 400 AD - and many great books were alsoleft out of the collection (for political reasons).
oblivionlord, when it comes to proving anything, it's first up to the asserter to prove his belief. Only then could anyone engage in trying to "prove" any assertion is "wrong".
So first you must prove that the sun was created on the "third day". -- and the fact that it is written in some old manuscript doesn't count as "proof" such as one would need, say, in a court of law, at all. It does count as belief. It's mere belief - and peoples the world around have many, many different beliefs, contradicting yours. IMHO they are just as entitled to have their beliefs.
As for "how the sun was created", the nearest thing to proof we have is the scientific evidence - and there's certainly no room there of a six-day creation, or of God pulling out his sun-lounger on the seventh day. :DThis is myth and allegory.
V
RE: The Old Testament Vs The New Testament
oblivionlord,
I don't think anyone was getting into the nitty-gritty of thebooks of the Bible per se; only that we wished to make the distinction between the Old and New Testaments, which was the thread subject.
Patsy.
RE: The Old Testament Vs The New Testament
ORIGINAL: oblivionlord
What you all fail to reconize is that I am not altering the Bible in anyway from which it was written. I am not thinking anything other than the sun being formed on the 3rd day. I am not thinking anything other than Abraham, sacrificing his child to God out of loyalty, fear even though God said to stop. I am not looking at Adam because of a misunderstanding of evil, but as an actual sin. You want to challenge the word of God by revealing evidence that Daniel was just telling a fascinating story to the world when God told him of Revelations? ...<snip>...At least I am not looking at it in someone elses perspective in mordern society, but only by those who ACTUALLY wrote the wordings of God within the Book.
Bravo
But can you tell me ‘O' Boss of Nothingness’ why it is then that the Old Testament looks like it has ripped off big chunks of the Epic of Gilgamesh… or has that tiny little fact just slipped ya by?
I also assumethat you’d organise to have your neighbour stoned to death would you?
Did you or will you circumcise your son on the 8 day?
Hey!...I suppose you stoically stand guard to stop people entering church if they are blind, lame, disfigured, deformed, has a crippled foot or hand, is hunchbacked or dwarfed, or those that have any eye defects, festering or running sores … and I assume you also check for damaged testicles too right?…;)
RE: The Old Testament Vs The New Testament
Dear Oblivionlord,
I wasn't going to come back here as I don't respond to rudeness, but felt we needed a bit more clarification.
1) The Revelation of St John was originally a manuscript that stood alone, so those words you have copied are simply referring to that one book.
Edited to add:
Revelation 22 (Young's Literal Translation)
The Bible text designated YLT is from the 1898 Young's Literal Translation by Robert Young who also compiled Young's Analytical Concordance. This is an extremely literal translation that attempts to preserve the tense and word usage as found in the original Greek and Hebrew writings.
18`For I testify to every one hearing the words of the prophecy of this scroll, if any one may add unto these, God shall add to him the plagues that have been written in this scroll,
19and if any one may take away from the words of the scroll of this prophecy, God shall take away his part from the scroll of the life, and out of the holy city, and the things that have been written in this scroll;'
2) The Christians during the first three centuries after Jesus' ascension had no Bible. Did that make them not real Christians as you seem to suggest? They included the 11 disciples and Paul as well as the Marys, the other close women followers and hundreds of others who had seen and heard Jesus and had perhaps been healed (or raised from the dead) by him. They did not have the Bible, but they had faith and love and they were healing and raising the dead. They were not all Jewish - many were Greek, some Roman, so they didn't have the OT. They were following Jesus' example - they were living in "The Way" as he had taught, they were living holy lives of love and forgiveness, of prayer and worship, or charity, equality, sharing and goodness. They were healing the sick and raising the dead. But according to Oblivionlord, they were not Christians.
3) You talk of “The Bible”. What is “The Bible” though? The book is in different forms according to which branch of Christianity you belong to – Catholic, Protestant or Eastern and I’m sure there must be more!
This is an interesting little history of how it all came together:
Basically, these are the rough dates:
500 BC: Completion of All Original Hebrew Manuscripts which make up The 39 Books of the Old Testament.
200 BC: Completion of the Septuagint Greek Manuscripts which contain The 39 Old Testament Books AND 14 Apocrypha Books.
1st Century AD: Completion of All Original Greek Manuscripts which make up The 27 Books of the New Testament.
315 AD: Athenasius, the Bishop of Alexandria, identifies the 27 books of the New Testament which are today recognized as the canon of scripture.
382 AD: Jerome's Latin Vulgate Manuscripts Produced which contain All 80 Books (39 Old Test. + 14 Apocrypha + 27 New Test).
So what we know as the Bible wasn't actually put together until over 350 years after Jesus' time on earth. Much of the writing of the various manuscripts had been originally oral history and had been written decades after the actual events, often by scribes and second-hand or further away from the events.
In 382 AD, the early church father Jerome translated the New Testament from its original Greek into Latin. This translation became known as the “Latin Vulgate”, (“Vulgate” meaning “vulgar” or “common”). He put a note next to the Apocrypha Books, stating that he did not know whether or not they were inspired scripture, or just Jewish historical writings which accompanied the Old Testament.
The Apocrypha was kept as part of virtually every Bible scribed or printed from these early days until just 120 years ago, in the mid-1880’s, when it was removed from Protestant Bibles. Up until the 1880’s, however, every Christian… Protestant or otherwise… embraced the Apocrypha as part of the Bible, though debate continued as to whether or not the Apocrypha was inspired. There is no truth to the popular myth that there
RE: The Old Testament Vs The New Testament
Goodness, Judy,
With all the threads there have been on the Bible and on 'real' Christianity [remember the hilarious one on REAL modern jive 'translations'? ;)] I didn't think there were many more points to make. But it's a very valid point that the earliest (closest in time to Jesus, and some even knew him, so one supposes the most 'clued in' Christians) didn't even have The Bible- and that of course an increasing percentage of them were not Jews.
I also hadn't known that the Apocrapha were held in such high esteem until so recently.
It's all very easy to think that "only I, here and now, know the truth" - but the Christians of, say, one century after Jesus, or those who knew him, probably knew the truth better than anyone today? - and is it not a loss (hardly a gain) that Christians in pretty recent times have been deprived of the Apocrapha?
Ultimately everybody "interprets" the Bible in their own way. Personally I don't have as much respect for those who might say, "No I don't, for my whole church interprets scripture in exactly the same way and we all agree" as I do for those who read and understand in their own inner way.
V
RE: The Old Testament Vs The New Testament
I appreciate all of the replies. I truly appreciate the thought and consideration you all have put into helping me to understand and qualify/disqualify my queries (e.g. Interpretation,Differences, etc.); however, I must continue to persue this understanding, or lack thereof, for myself. SO, I hope that you will continue with your entries as they all make me think (whether or not I agree or disagree). I also feel that a heavily-weighted reason why the younger generations are turned off to learning about the Christian religion is that when they question (to clear their own confusion and muddled beliefs in their mind) learned individuals such as yourselves, they are looked down upon and accused of being "rude". We rely heavily on our reliable teachers to turn that confusion (what would be considered by some as simply being rude) into understanding.
You all seem to suggest that the Bible is a book to be interpreted -- it is a compilation of stories and lessons which have been (dare I say) manipulated over the years to best communicate the teachings which have been passed-on throughout the centuries. It seems quite important to look at the Bible as a lesson tool (as all of our teachers have provided for us in the past), as opposed to a factual listing of events as I have been mentioning in my previous posts.
Although when I look at the Bible as the interpretations which I am being impressed upon to believe, I come to the conclusion that the lessons learned in the Bible, the events, the illustrations, the teachings, (albeit extremely important lessons to understand) are nothing more than stories. Yes, you have made the point that the Bible is a grouping of stories. venetian and Principled have made that point very clear to me through all of the references for which I found an extremely interesting read. Nonetheless, the idea is to interpret the Bible and its' teachings to best lead my life. What I am left with is the belief that the Bible is a story (a goodly story) and nothing more -- a fictional tale which holds many great and positive morals, ethics and ideals.
A far stretch of this rationalisation then culminates into my next question: Why are we led to believe that God even exists? If the Bible is a compilation of stories (of 'myths and allegories') which were created for us to gain a valuable lesson...stories which were meant to be interpreted and not taken literally...then why is it that we are obstinate in our belief that there is a God? Why isn't God interpreted just as well? Obviously, I do not mean that there are different gods throughout religions, so please do not "interpret" that phrase into something that it is not.
"We can be certain that there is a God." Why is this so important to us? If we absorb our life with the teachings of the Bible (e.g. positive morals, ethics, ideals, etc.) to be quality individuals and to live our lives away from the state of sin, then isn't that what the Bible is teaching us?
I am not attempting to prove or disprove anyone's assertion as being correct or incorrect. Forgive me if I have led you to that conclusion. Please understand that I am left in a rather complex state of confusoin myself and am trying to work through my own thoughts.
...to continue from before...
If we are to take the good teachings of the Bible into consideration and weave them into our own lives, then why just focus on the Christian religion? Why aren't we taking into account the valid and honourable teachings of other religions just as much? Not one specific religion is the answer to all that is good. We can not look at only the Christian religion to proliferate the goings-on in our world; otherwise, we miss the positive teachings of the others.
To say that this religion is the best religion and overlook the teachings of the others seems to be a terrible amount of negative discrimination. Having a variety of teachings to draw from allows u
RE: The Old Testament Vs The New Testament
Dear oblivionlord,
We appreciate your coming back! :DWe aren't picking on you, I am sorry if you got that impression. 🙂
oblivionlord, if Christianity resonates with you, and you live your life by the teachings of The Bible, then that's good enough for anyone. So many people nowadays are directionless and searching for something. If you have found that 'something' in The Bible, then I wish you lots of good fortune. It may be a collection of stories from different eras and cultures but you can't go far wrong if you use it as a life guide.
I totally agree with your last paragraph.
Best wishes,
Patsy.
😀
RE: The Old Testament Vs The New Testament
Oblivionlord asks:
why just focus on the Christian religion? Why aren't we taking into account the valid and honourable teachings of other religions just as much?
And I would point out that this is precisely what many of us do. Oblivionlord (no offense, but that's a bit of a mouthful!:D) if you have a look through the other religious forums you will find that there are many of us here on hp and in real life as well who don't consider ourselves to be Christians. Personally I am drawn to worship God through a form of Hinduism. I respect Christianity and have no problem with acknowledging Jesus as a Son of God and I think there is much wisdom to be found in the Bible but I don't follow its tenets blindly.
There was another thread on here some time ago regarding whether or not we all believe in the existence of God. Basically, I would say, for myself only, that belief in God is fundamental to the human condition - throughout history, all over the world, man has needed to believe in and often worship some higher power. I don't think the Bible has anything to do with one's belief (or non-belief) in the existence of God.
Love
Sunanda xxx
RE: The Old Testament Vs The New Testament
Hi Venetian,
Yes, I remember that thread, with Hugo doing his nut over the ghastly modern translations! [sm=banghead.gif]
What struck me when I woke this morning is that the whole of Christian behaviour is contained in The 10 Commandments and the Sermon on the Mount.
To quote the Jewish Golden Rule:
What is hateful to you, do not do to your neighbour.
This is the whole Torah; all the rest is commentary.
Go and learn it.
Hillel, Talmud, Shabbath 31a
ALL THE REST IS COMMENTARY
Jesus expanded on this when he put the 10 Commandments into 2:
The first of all the commandments is, Hear, O Israel; The Lord our God is one Lord: And thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind, and with all thy strength: this is the first commandment.
And the second is like, namely this, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. There is none other commandment greater than these. Mark 12:29-31
Of course, there is so much more to being a seeker for truth than simply good behaviour and I'll write my (and others') thoughts in my next two posts.
Love and peace,
Judy
PS Good points from Patsy and Sunanda. You will find OL that I was one of the few Christians on HP, but so many of the others have a wonderful grasp of the teachings of he Bible and what is worthwhile and true.
RE: The Old Testament Vs The New Testament
Dear Oblivionlord (or is it someone else as you sound so different?)
So, you have simply been testing us have you? Trying to wind us up with talk of the need for slaughter etc?
You know, I wish you’d give us a name – your user name is so dark and negative, I hate using it, but on HP we are on the whole polite and friendly – that’s what makes this such a great site. It would be really helpful if you would address the member you’re writing to and also let us know your name, rather than trying to stay as some contradictory enigma.
I nearly didn’t reply to your first post as it was so abrupt and negative and felt that you were simply a trouble-maker. However, I decided to give you the benefit of the doubt and so wrote my post on the 24th July which surely sums up much of what you are asking here. I know it's now gone to 2 pages, but there is much on this one thread and I for one hope you will go back and really read thoroughly what we have all written.
Above, I wrote: “Of course, there is so much more to being a seeker for truth than simply good behaviour.”
I just love the insights I find in , such as these two, which I feel answer many of the questions you've been asking:
As I write this, I only most humbly can echo Paul's words to the Christian community in Philippi (Phi 3:12-16, NRSV), words that I know are deeply felt by each one of us in this forum:
Not that I have already obtained this or have already reached the goal; but I press on to make it my own, because Christ Jesus has made me his own. Beloved, I do not consider that I have made it my own; but this one thing I do: forgetting what lies behind and straining forward to what lies ahead, I press on toward the goal for the prize of the heavenly call of God in Christ Jesus. Let those of us then who are mature be of the same mind; and if you think differently about anything, this too God will reveal to you. Only let us hold fast to what we have attained.
I venture to say that "what we have attained" that is of true value is not ecclesiastical authority - whether for our churches, or for ourselves within those churches. What we truly have attained, by the grace of God, is our faith, by which we experience and understand salvation and the fruits of salvation, the works of the Holy Spirit, including our loving, compassionate ministry to our fellow-beings.
Let me suggest some other bases of "the Christian faith," which go beyond the debate about the Christian canon:
According to the Fourth Gospel (the Gospel of John), Jesus said:"...The one who believes in me will also do the works that I do and, in fact, will do greater works than these, because I am going to the Father." (Joh 14:12, NRSV. See also Joh 14:15; Joh 15:10-12; Mar 11:25; Mat 7:21 and all of Mat 5-7; Mat 10:8; 1Co 2:1-5; etc.)
According to the Apostle Paul:
1 If I speak in the tongues of mortals and of angels, but do not have love, I am a noisy gong or a clanging cymbal. 2 And if I have prophetic powers, and understand all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have all faith, so as to remove mountains, but do not have love, I am nothing... 13 And now faith, hope, and love abide, these three; and the greatest of these is love. (1Co 13:1,2,13, NRSV)
2 You yourselves are our letter, written on our hearts, to be known and read by all; 3 and you show that you are a letter of Christ, prepared by us, written not with ink but with the Spirit of the living God, not on tablets of stone but on tablets of human hearts. 4 Such is the confidence that we have through Christ toward God. 5 Not that we are competent of ourselves to claim anything as coming from us; our competence is from God, 6 who has made us competent to be ministers of a new covenant [KJV reads "new testament"], not of letter but of spirit; for the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life. (2Co 3:2-6, NRSV)
The Christian "fait
RE: The Old Testament Vs The New Testament
Dear OL,
Whew – three posts in one morning – no wonder I never get anything done at home!
You ask about why Christianity? For me, it’s because it’s what I was brought up in and know, but far more than that – I believe that Jesus with his virgin birth (and yes, I do totally believe that) was utterly unique. I believe that he was the highest human manifestation of the divine idea of man. He was the coincidence between the human and the divine. He came to show us that our real, spiritual identity is also the Christ – he showed us what that meant. He showed us the Way – a new way of thinking and living that would give us power and authority over all mortal beliefs of duality, suffering and limitation.
I truly believe though that there is only one Truth (God) and that eventually, all men shall come to know Truth. The root of the word “God” is GOOD.
Mary Baker Eddy wrote:
God
is universal;
confined to no spot,
defined by no dogma,
appropriated by no sect.
What do we get when we break the word "religion" into its Latin roots?
• The Latin "re," when used as a prefix, means "again" or "to go back."
• "Lig" means to "tie," "connect," or "bind."
• And the suffix "ion" means "the act of," "state of," or "result of the act of."
Put these together and the word "religion" in its purest, most idealized form, means to be in a state of "connecting again" - the act of or state of "Reconnection."
Could it be that the original intention of the word "religion" was for us to go back to our original connection with the Universe?
Love and peace,
Judy
RE: The Old Testament Vs The New Testament
Oh no, now it’s the fourth in one morning!
To me, I find God through what we call “demonstration” in Christian Science (what is called “works” in the Bible). I begin to know God through all the glimpses I’ve had that have brought healing, protection, guidance, peace, comfort, supply and deep joy. As I’ve said, the Bible is on three levels, the historical, the moral and the spiritual. Yes, of course we learn from the various stories, we build upon them. But as I said in my post of July 24th, it’s spiritual understanding OL that brings us closer to God, that brings the “peace that passeth understanding”, not dogma or taking the literal sense of the sacred writings. I think in an earlier post I gave you one of the testimonies of healing at the back of Science and Health with Key to the Scriptures – to me this sums up the difference between spiritual understanding and blind belief:
I had been a Bible student for twenty-eight years, but when I commenced reading Science and Health with the Bible I was healed in less than a week.
Mrs. M. B. G., Vermilion, Ohio.
On the opening page of Science and Health, (a book she dedicates to “to honest seekers for Truth”, Eddy gives us this challenge:
The time for thinkers has come. Truth, independent of doctrines and time-honored systems, knocks at the portal of humanity. Contentment with the past and the cold conventionality of materialism are crumbling away. Ignorance of God is no longer the stepping-stone to faith. (Science and Health p vii)
She explains the need for spiritual progress far better than I can – here are just a smattering of some of the ideas she tried to share with the world, to lift and inspire thought. I know this is long, but I have spent hours looking them all up and I hope you’ll read them and consider. They cover many of the points you’ve raised. (All spiritual qualities like Spirit, Love, Truth etc in capitals mean God):
Every day makes its demands upon us for higher proofs rather than professions of Christian power. These proofs consist solely in the destruction of sin, sickness, and death by the power of Spirit, as Jesus destroyed them. This is an element of progress, and progress is the law of God, whose law demands of us only what we can certainly fulfil.
In the midst of imperfection, perfection is seen and acknowledged only by degrees. The ages must slowly work up to perfection. How long it must be before we arrive at the demonstration of scientific being, no man knoweth,--not even "the Son but the Father;" but the false claim of error continues its delusions until the goal of goodness is assiduously earned and won.
Already the shadow of His right hand rests upon the hour. Ye who can discern the face of the sky,--the sign material,--how much more should ye discern the sign mental, and compass the destruction of sin and sickness by overcoming the thoughts which produce them, and by understanding the spiritual idea which corrects and destroys them. To reveal this truth was our Master's mission to all mankind, including the hearts which rejected him. (Science and Health p 232)
The Pharisees claimed to know and to teach the divine will, but they only hindered the success of Jesus' mission. Even many of his students stood in his way. If the Master had not taken a student and taught the unseen verities of God, he would not have been crucified. The determination to hold Spirit in the grasp of matter is the persecutor of Truth and Love.
While respecting all that is good in the Church or out of it, one's consecration to Christ is more on the ground of demonstration than of profession. In conscience, we cannot hold to beliefs outgrown; and by understanding more of the divine Principle of the deathless Christ, we are enabled to heal the sick and to triumph over sin. (Science and Health p 28)
It is our ignorance of God, the divine Principle, which produces apparent discord, and the right understanding of Him restores harmony. (Science and Health p 390)
RE: The Old Testament Vs The New Testament
As often happens, the thread started with a simple question from someone else. It's not all necessarily a dialogue with OL, but OK, it can be that right now. 😉
I think there's been quite a misunderstanding. I also found the username a bit sinister and gathered it was a Heavy Metal freak or something. So at first I replied to OL as though to an atheist. In recent days I thought OL was a fundamentalist Christian! [&:]So TBH what the point was or what the questions were didn't reach me very clearly.
Whenever I've replied that not all the Bible is literal, I was trying to "tone down" the utterly literal meaning some Christians put upon it ... I don't mean that it's all just fictitious stories! There's plenty of archeological evidence for some Biblical events, and historical evidence. The life of Jesus as told in the gospels may be slightly off-kilter due to interpretations of the writers or later revisions, but basically I accept it as something that happened.
OL, if you read over past HP threads going back a year on the various religions, I think you'll get a sense of who we all are individually, and your questions are already replied to. I get the feeling that you've just plunged into Christianity and don't see our replies in the wider context of the forum and its past.
There are very few mainstream Christians here! Hands up, anyone? Most of us aren't that ... in a questionairre my beliefs came out as rating me on "What Religion Are You?" as 96% Hindu! So -
ORIGINAL: oblivionlord
To say that this religion is the best religion and overlook the teachings of the others seems to be a terrible amount of negative discrimination. Having a variety of teachings to draw from allows us to grow.
Absolutely. Most of us agree.
Venetian
RE: The Old Testament Vs The New Testament
Perhaps I'm one who needs more convincing evidence other than just stories in a book. For example we'll look at the 10 commandments. I'm not questioning the teachings for I think that they are a valuable lesson; however why do we attempt to justify that these were manifested by God? Why don't we give more credit to ourselves? The human mind is such a powerfull and expansive book of knowledge in itself that it is more plausable to me to believe that man wrote the 10 commandments. It bothers me that man finds it so difficult to acknowledge that we ourselves could have created (and probably did create) such a promising book of guidelines.
Why is it that we believe that such subjects are factual for example Jesus? Why couldn't he have been just a human with good teachings? Why do we believe that he was some mystical being above us? It's within the human condition that we want leadership which is why we have managers, CEO's, supervisors, leaders of our country. In the meantime why don't we give credit to ourselves? Why deem it in the form as it is neccessary to glorify a human and turn him into a God when we ourselves have the same knowledge in ourselves before he voiced it? Was he really performing miracles or was it that primitave man believed in anything?
People in Japan believed that their emperor was a living God. Therefore what really makes him any diffrent than Jesus? Just because they don't follow the Christian religion, does that mean they are believing in a false God? 1% of Japans population consits of Chrsitians. Some in Japan believed that Jesus died in Japan. Here is a link...
[link= http://www.thiaoouba.com/tomb.htm ]http://www.thiaoouba.com/tomb.htm[/link]
What makes Jesus anymore a God than the ones who believe that the Sun is a God? Can you prove that even though the Sun is formed out of gasses that it doesn't have some means of life in itself? Are you able to prove metaphysics or solve the unified field theory? Maybe not right now, but later on perhaps. Does that make these people in the past such great monarchs when we ourselves were always capable of performing such feats, but only at a time when we became more aware of our environment?
Lets look at the Newton's first law: "[color="purple"] I. Every object in a state of uniform motion tends to remain in that state of motion unless an external force is applied to it.". [color="#000000"]How is this profound? There is nothing mysitical, there's no great revelation, there's no growth from this statement that we didn't already know thousands of years ago.However it is important to us because it was put into a book. His laws of motion, just like any other great teachings, were created in the human mind and put down on paper. So again why do we need to believe that the 10 commandments are God's word instead of giving credit were credit is due to ourselves who knew these teachings long before they were written down?
Or perhaps are all of our thoughts just mere messages from God? If this is the case than exactly how are we free will thinkers to learn things for ourselves?
I have a system of belief but, I do not come to any finnalized conclusions of my beliefs. To only believe in 1 outcome and dismiss all other forms of possibilities is nothng more than blind faith. Don't you believe? I like to annalize things more rationaly than to just see things as mere coincidence. I can reconize that the emotion of Love and Hate can not be seen by the naked eye but, only a mere feeling. Since feelings are subjective than are you able to truly know if your loved one really loves you or does your best friend truly love their parents? We naturally cannot know this without the use of technology therefore if someone came down displaying their powers of creation and destruction and then said that they are God, are you going to believe them?
With the knowledge of modern science, we can simply touch the brain and make certain portions of the body twitch. I'm sure in the future we will be able
RE: The Old Testament Vs The New Testament
Hello oblivionlord,
I am confused - do you live your life according to biblical teachings, or not?
Patsy.
RE: The Old Testament Vs The New Testament
Parasite - An organism that grows, feeds, and is sheltered on or in a different organism while contributing nothing to the survival of its host.
Exactly what is man doing to perserve the life of the planet itself without over populating all of its empty areas and depleting it of all its natural resources to a point where it can no longer sustain life? What possible teachings are there for man to follow to actually give peace to Earth itself?
Maybe from the teachings that you read you wouldn't consider the planet to be anything amongst the living, but only look at it as a housing for Gods creatures. How considerate that is when even if you stop intentional killings and limit every family to 1 child... that still does not stop the over population issue and famine.
Therefore to answer your question I would have to say yes and no. Yes that I follow in some of the teachings of what the bible considers to be good and no that not all the teachings are suitable for the survival of all. Not just mankind.
Why hasn't communism ever worked amonst man? Alot of people may consider it to be a very bad form of government but, if you look at the big picture.. there truly is equality. However this just cannot work for man because man is a dominating race. It is within our nature to overpower the weak which is why there are leaders... be it good or bad.
RE: The Old Testament Vs The New Testament
Sounds to me like it's time to switch off the Leonard Cohen CDs and go meet a happy friend, or have a great swim in the sea or a lake, etc. 😉
RE: The Old Testament Vs The New Testament
I hope that you aren't addressing me by refering to my replies as some form of negative emotion? I find it very disconcerting for one to judge someone else in that sence expecially as you and Principled have commented about my nick as being [color="#cc0099"]"dark and negative" or as you said [color="#ff00cc"]"sinister". I should [color="#cc0099"]"[color="#000000"][color="#cc00cc"]address the member you're writing to and also let us know your name, rather than trying to stay as some contradictory enigma[color="#cc0099"]". Do you find it just as so when someone is named Jesus in reality? If you find it soo compelling to respond to such a thing then how is it again that what you consider to be the salvation of man as the best thing when you can't appeal to the many diffrences of man itself but, only in your own vision since you obviously aren't looking at the whole picture? This only proves my point that looking at things by one source is not the best thing for good teachings.
Everyone has diffrent tastes for music, art, food, pleasure. To dictate what you consider to be "Good" is nothing more than Tyranny.
RE: The Old Testament Vs The New Testament
Our epilogs have ended eh?
RE: The Old Testament Vs The New Testament
Dear oblivionlord,
I've just read some of your postings, the long one too. I just think you went off the point somewhat from the original thread title [sm=offtopic.gif]
You have expounded such a lot of your own beliefs that I think, you should have started threads of your own!!! Most memebrs won't have the chance to read what you said, only the members who were interested in the original thread.
So get posting man [sm=angry-smiley-035.gif]... some very interesting stuff by the way 😉
Have a great day
Publisher
RE: The Old Testament Vs The New Testament
As much as you think it is going off topic, I'm sure you would agree that all topics lead into other things just for the sake of making points. In order to properly analyze any comparison sometimes we need to go outside (go offtopic) to better understand or to have others better understand that persons point of view. If you listen to yourself and other people throughout your day, you're sure to find good examples of the same thing.
I made my point on the OT vs the NT... what do you have to add?
RE: The Old Testament Vs The New Testament
there are several differences between the old and the new, i'll try and name a few of the main ones and i hope it helps you! ok, first off the old talks about how god made everything! it tells you about how GOD operates, how he likes things done, etc. It talks about a lot of the important kings and plain people he used to get his points across. the ten commandments are in there also. so mainly it's about GOD himself! the new is about JESUS,salvation,and how to live as a christian. Both are very important and need to be read and researched! some churches now-a-days are strictly new testiment churches, and thats bad because, a person needs info from both the old and the new!! i hope this helps you out!
Hi,
I was wondering if anyone could explain the differences between the Old Testament and the New Testament.
Also I don't mean Vs as in against each other, I just like to know how they are different to each other and why?Thank you.
Treatment is treatment and it cannot be old or new.
Nowadays marketing works well and there are very much so called new techniques with sellable names but in reality these are old techniques.
Business is business. Nothing else.
Well Mtbw, I honestly have no idea what your reply above has to do with a discussion about the differences between the Old Testament and New Testament of the BIBLE, but I was glad it brought this old thread up as I've enjoyed reading it again. We certainly had some great discussions in the past!