See other Religion Articles
Title: What do we know about the Old Testament?
Source:
Giwers World
URL Source: http://www.giwersworld.org/bible/ot.phtml
Published: May 15, 2005
Author: Matt Giwer
Post Date: 2005-05-15 08:44:21 by Zoroaster
Keywords: Testament?, about, What
Views: 823
Comments: 76
What do we know about the Old Testament? by Matt Giwer, © 2005 [March] Proceeding strictly from the physical evidence the material we consider to be the Old Testament first appears in history as the Greek Septuagint. Neither belief nor argumentation is acceptable. Only physical evidence is of interest. There is not one prior mention of such material, stories or events. There are a few questionable translations of single words or passages. There are a few name similarities. In no case do any of these have any connection with any event or situation in the bible. Today not one inscription has been found which predates it. While Egypt is the most professionally dug place in the world, the playground of more archaeologists than any place else in the world, Palestine is a close second for the professionals. Palestine including Israel teams with amateurs often thwarting the antiquities laws. In addition modern Israel has had more construction per square mile in the last fifty years than Egypt will likely see in the next century. Everything from homes to highways, parking garages to high-rises, it is likely the most dug place in the world. The construction companies are ruled by the strict antiquities laws. Israel itself has both a religious and a political drive to establish biblical Israel. For the last half century Israel has financed digs aimed directly at finding physical evidence of the Old Testament. Nothing has been found. Nor is there any sign of a Hebrew language which predates it. There is a circular argument used by bible believers. When Phoenician inscriptions are found outside the areas the Old Testament says the Hebrews lived it is identified as Phoenician. When they are found inside those areas it is identified as proto-Hebrew. Without the Old Testament "guidance" the inscriptions are indistinguishable. What is called proto-Hebrew is Phoenician. By the simple rule for ancient writings, the first mention of a document is the date of the document. This means the Greek Septuagint is the original document. There is no mention of the Septuagint being a translation until Josephus nearly three centuries later. The Greek Septuagint appears in history full blown without antecedent or prior mention nor today with the least physical evidence that it is other than the original. Given the religious interest of the Christian world in evidence for the Old Testament and of the Jewish world for both religious and political evidence one would assume if the above were in error museums around the world would display the evidence I say does not exist. These are the days of the internet and many good search engines starting with Google.com. Please use it to find these artifacts. You will be disappointed. Israeli museums should be full of them. All you will find are artifacts of other cultures mostly from the Greek and Roman period along with Phoenician, Assyrian and even Egyptian. You will find nothing specifically related to any biblical event or story. When you get out of the professional links you will find circular reasoning from the Old Testament. A typical mention will be "dated to the time of Solomon." That is simply using bible begats to determine a time frame. We can find artifacts in the New World dated to the time of Solomon. Saying dated to the time of Solomon does not connect it to Solomon or Israel even if found in Palestine. To be an artifact of biblical Israel it has to have some intrinsic feature which makes that connection. This is why the forged temple inscription was of such interest when it came to light in 2004. It had words roughly like those found in the Old Testament. Had it not been a forgery it would have been physical evidence and would have been the first physical evidence that the Old Testament predates the Septuagint and the latter being a translation. The same people who created this forgery are also credited with forging the "pomegranate" and the James ossuary. In a more general sense simply showing bibleland was populated in the past is meaningless. Ever since primates started leaving Africa millions of years ago the land has been populated. Gibbons and orangutans lived there. Home Erectus, Neanderthal and Sapiens have lived there. There is no way out of Africa without passing through Palestine. Another way of trying to salvage the Old Testament is to say "so much is known that Solomon could have been no more than a local warlord." That is not saying he was a local warlord or that he existed. It is phrased to true believers can hold on to their beliefs. The need to believe is strong. Consider those who would believe Solomon was just a local warlord. Simply believing that says the entire Old Testament is false as there is no biblical Israel, no great kingdom, nothing. It is no different from finding an inscription outside of bibleland which only has a name similar to a name in the Old Testament and saying it confirms all of it. A find means absolutely nothing more than what it says internally. It is physical evidence only of itself. So who wrote it? It appears about the time the Maccabees appear in history. By the physical evidence all we have of them are a couple coins with the image of the grandson of Judah Maccabee so we can't run too far with it. But it is the only confirmed event we have which coincides with the appearance of the Septuagint. Did the revolt in the books of Maccabees occur? There is no evidence of it. We have only the story in the books. Remember we only have those coins as evidence of their existence. Why did they create it? I have no idea. It does make their claim to the land by conquest. Ownership of land by conquest was the only basis for the claim until after WWII when it was formally abjured. We have no idea if this is other than an modern aberration. Another possibility was it was a guileless creation. The land was ruled by the eastern Greek empire at the time; braggadocio in the books of Maccabees to the contrary as those books are not part of the Septuagint. In this case it would be simply recording the myths of the local people as the Greeks had recorded their myths making it a simple matter of emulation. How could they have created such a huge work so quickly? Perhaps even creating a religion so quickly? We have seen Joseph Smith create the Book of Mormon and a successful religion which shows no signs of disappearing. We have L. Ron Hubbard creating Scientology and needs only make a few changes to avoid future criminal charges to go mainstream. Given a plethora of legends to work with cobbling something together would not be a significant challenge. Given the history of the region, essentially always ruled by so many other cultures all of those legends would have been available. Name changes and making the people related no matter how incongruous would not have been a difficult matter. For example, the life of Solomon is almost identical to the life of Ramses III. It is obviously the model. And yes, much of the Old Testament is incongruous. We do not find anything intrinsically incongruous with fairy tales because we suspend disbelief, we feel free to fill in the blanks and explain away incongruities. As we are not only raised to believe it in but immersed in a culture which usually behaves as though it believes in it we just do not notice the incongruities. And very few of them are thrown in our faces. In a fairytale which do not have to make sense the stories are changed in the retelling to make them more credible. Popularity chooses among the retellings. So also a bible story rarely appears on its own, start to finish. The scene is set, the story is liberally retold without regard to the original content, and we are told what it means. There are very few stories which hit us in the face as unexplainable such as Abraham sacrificing Isaac and those are subject to unending explanations. For example the story of Adam and Eve clearly says why they were banished from Eden, to prevent them from eating of the Tree of Life and living forever to become gods themselves. But as that clear statement does not comport with the Old Testament as a religion the clearly stated reason for being banished is left out of the retelling. But if you leave it in you see why the god of the Old Testament rules with the stick instead of the carrot. And you can see why that god has no problem tormenting people like Abraham and Job. The bible does not make sense as written. It is filled with magic and miracles therefore it is nonsense. But people are told they must understand it. People believe they are required to find ways to understand it. And there is no dearth of people explaining it in different but acceptable ways. The point of all of this is the collection of stories in the Old Testament is not some massive, coherent work which implies some super editor in the sky. It is a set of short stories with cardboard characters loosely stitched together. As such the origin of the David and Goliath story can as easily have been based on the Tortoise and the Hare fable as anything else. It is called great literature but it is never studied as literature as it is barely literature. What little literary merit there is exists only in the King James Version translation which introduces it. It does not come close to the quality of ancient literature. An Afterthought What has always struck me as interesting is the interest in the "Hebrew" bible by true believers. Let us assume for the moment it is the original and the Septuagint a copy. Fine. Is not the Septuagint a translation into a very well known, relatively unambiguous language, Greek, 2200 years closer to the original than us? Would not they be immeasurably better qualified to know the real meaning of the original than we? So why is not the Septuagint taken as the original meaning?
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Comments (1-23) not displayed.
.
.
.
#24. To: Sam Houston (#16)
I agree completely. The thing that struck me that I found relevant more than who "were" the lost Tribes, was who "WASN'T" the Lost Tribes. There's no way the Ashke-nazi Jews are even remotely close to qualifying, so why not knock off all of the Chosen People BS !
That's an Apochryphal New Testament book. You mentioned the Dead Sea scrolls earlier. There was a similar amazing find of ancient Gnostic Apochryphal New Testament writings. I heard about it on a sample CD from the Teaching Company in a course of theirs entitled, Lost Christianities: Christian Scriptures and the Battles over Authentication (Quote) In these lectures you will also hear about a remarkable archaeological event: the discovery in 1945 of a treasure trove of missing Gnostic Scriptures at Nag Hammadi, an Egyptian village near the city of Luxor. Consisting of 13 leather-bound volumes unearthed in an ancient grave by Bedouin camel drivers (the full story, which you will hear, resembles the plot of a best-selling adventure novel), the Nag Hammadi Library, as it came to be known, was a watershed event in the search for lost Christianities. It proved to be an invaluable collection of original writings by Gnostic Christians. Scholars had known many of these only through references in written attacks against the Gnostics by such church fathers as Tertullian of Carthage (200 A.D.) and Hippolytus of Rome (c. 200 A.D.). As you will discover, the library verified much that had been known about Gnosticism but also revealed significant misconceptions. (End Quote) The sample CD was very interesting. In the April 2005 Harpers magazine, the full CD course was offered for $49.95 plus $10 S&H, through May 21.
I discovered that nag hammarabi stuff a couple of years ago. It's really interesting. Here's a good link that I use: Nag Hammarabi and the Book of Thomas the Contender There's also a partial book that some think is from Mary Magdaline. A big portion in the middle is missing, but it starts out with someone addressing the 12 apostles and telling them not to be jealous of her/his relation with Jesus. I can't remember what this one is, but it's a scroll. I've seen a photo of the original and there literally is a big hole in the middle. Too bad.
Wow. That's an extensive website. I'd never heard of Nag Hammadi until this year, and it blew me away when I did. To find such ancient, important (in Christian doctrinal history), and hitherto lost texts in such good condition, it's truly remarkable.
Someone told me that the Course in Miracles that the New Agers do is derived from the Gospel of Thomas the Contender. This is where they get all the quotes from Jesus that arn't in the Bible. I found the Gospel of Thomas the Contender by way of the movie Stigmata. I was reading about the film and the article said they had gotten the quote that keeps coming up in the movie fromt he Gospel of Thomas. I then looked up the Gospel on the net. The quote is very Zen like: The Kingdom of Heaven is within you and all around you, Alchemist over on LP knows a lot about Nag Hammarabi and Thomas the Contender.
Well now I know where the Beatles got the lyrics for "Within You Without You" on "Sgt. Peppers": "And the time will come when you see My own view of miracles is that which David Hume expressed in Of Miracles, which is based on a consideration of countervailing probabilities, such as 1. Human testimony is not enough to prove a miracle, since by definition a miracle is contradicted by a mountain of other, established human observation, and 2. The religious miracles of one religion are contradicted by the existence of religious miracles of the other religions. Hume of course goes into much more detail than this. For example, he gives the interesting example of an East Indian prince who does not believe that water can turn into rock (i.e., freeze), because he has never encountered or heard of that. But Hume explains this by saying, the Indian prince cannot invoke his experience to form such a judgment, because he has not experienced the condition precedent for ice -- which is, temperatures below freezing. Since the Indian prince has not encountered such temperatures, he cannot say what will happen to water at those temperatures.
>I thought there was quite a bit of historical evidence for the Testiment. Even things like volcanic erruptions in Greece corrolating with the flight from Egypt - something that would provide the piller of fire/piller of cloud to guide the Israelites. That is the old "the bible really happened but you can skip the miracles" gambit. Lets look at it in practical terms. Discounting hills, Jerusalem to the Nile delta is about a week's walk. Back when Israel controlled the Sinai backpackers spent their vacations hiking to the Suez and back. It is not like it was a far away place. Around 2000 BC silk appeared in Egypt. The trade route with the north and east always passed through Palestine. As to the volcano thing. The earth is curved. How high would it have to be to be seen in Egypt? And just how does following something north of Egypt get them anything but drowned as they march into the Med? There is no evidence for any event in Exodus but the begats give it a date when Egypt ruled Palestine, in fact ruled all the way to the Euphrates, the New Kingdom period. You can confirm it on the web although the religion oriented sites will usually not mention the extent of the lands ruled -- very inconvenient for the myth. If you want to give a Zionist fits, remind them Herodotus first mentioned the region of Palestine by that name around 450 BC.
>This is laughable. Anyone who's read the OT knows that the Jewish people are not portrayed in a favorable light at all. Rather, their shortcomings and failures before God are repeatedly highlighted, condemned, and divinely judged. If one actually reads the whacked story of Abraham in Genesis one finds he pimped his whore wife. It is an odd ancestry to begin with. >The OT does not read as contrived fiction for the purpose of glorifying a state, a royal line, a government, or a nation. It does establish a claim to the land by right of conquest which was the only lawful right. It also provided something otherwise entirely missing from the time of the Macabes, an existence. There are a handful of vague, short and largely misrepresented items found by archaeologists that might relate to the OT. There is no credible indication of any person or event in the OT much less the existence of any magic kingdom. Without this book the Macabees are nothing but local upstarts with no standing whatsoever. It bought them legitimacy. And it was the Macabees as there is no indication or mention of any OT prior to the Seputagint in Greek. The first suggestion it was a translation of an earlier work is centuries later by Herodotus. By all the available physical evidence the Hebrew is the translation of the Greek original.
>I should add, if you were to contrive a glorious heroic fictional history for your nation, would you depict your first King (Saul) as a faithless hand- wringer and paranoid who seeks to kill all rivals, and your second kind and founder of the Royal Line (David) as an adulterer, murderer, and wife-stealer? As the Macabes who apparently wrote it declared themselves the priests and as it is a story of the priests, themselves, lording it over kings and as being of higher character than kings, they established for themselves the right to rule the land as priests.
Thanks for the historical primer Matt, and welcome to 4.
interesting posts, Matt. welcome to 4.
That is my understanding.
I recall reading as a youth all of the atrocity and perversion taken as the norm, as the will of God, in the OT and recoiling.
The true, prefect God, unlike the Yahwistic war god of the ancient Israelites, does not play favorites.
I had the same reaction about a year or so ago when I began reading the OT. It was actually repulsive to me and, to be honest, unbelievable. I kept saying to myself, why would God do that and this makes no sense.
Gal 3:28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.
Amen. I'll leave the OT translation/verification to the wiser, and centuries-qualified theologians of the Church.
They are not two Gods but one. Jesus said before Abraham was, I AM, applying to humself the "I AM THAT I AM" Yahweh declared himself to be to Moses on Sinai. Jesus also said the he and the Father are one. If they seem to you like different beings, you've misapprehended either Yahweh, Jesus, or both.
The 'God' of the OT is the God in the
New.. God never changes.. He was as He is.. In OT often spoke of God's wrath and
in the NT His wrath is there also.. but.. His wrath was taken out upon Himself..
the crucifixion of God in human form, Christ Jesus.. God cannot look upon sin..
and the only sinless one was and is Jesus.. and the wrath of God toward sin was
satisfied with His death .. and if anyone wants to 'escape' His wrath.. that is
being condemned as we stand before God, it's through the acceptance of Jesus'
sacrifice as our redeemer..
Incidentally, this bible is 'The Daily Walk Bible' New Living Translation. I don't know whether this is supposed to be a good one or not.
you explained it well.
The New Living 'translation' is what is called a 'free/dynamic' translation.. translations are catagorized in 3 ways: free/dynamic, mediated/balanced and word-for-word or formal... Free/dynamic translations are more for introduction..not for any serious study or understanding..
I hope that summarized it .. its not the easiest thing to comprehend.. for it seems as if there are two Gods.. a very harsh and a very loving.. but if you read the OT you will see God's 'loving kindness' expressed and mentioned many many times.. His plan for salvation began at the foundation of time.. all the OT prophets knew and looked forward with faith to the time of their redemption.. just as we look back to Jesus' sacrifice for ours. It is faith that saves both in the OT and in the New.
Wouldn't the one true God be inscrutable to some degree to fallen men? If he were completely apprehendable by finite beings who's minds have been clouded by sin, wouldn't that make what has been revealed about him even more suspect? There are no contradictions in scripture and, if there seems to be, it's indicative more of our own imperfect understanding than any lack of perfection in the whole revelation of God or in God himself. Seeming contradictions are red flags that we're missing pieces of the puzzle and require further searching and study to get at the whole truth. Just like oysters must first be irritated by a grain of sand before they can produce pearls, seeming contradictions in scripture are the irritating grit which eventually yields pearls of deeper understanding, provided that one does not expell the irritating grit entirely and, instead, embraces it. ;^) Could you site one specific act of God recorded in the OT that you find repulsive/unbelievable/senseless, that way, I can better understand what's causing you to doubt what is revealed in the OT.
I'm sure that's true, Mark. Admittedly, I have
done very little reading of (and this was over 25 yrs ago) and study of the
bible, particularly the OT. I'm a very far backslidden christian. I do believe
that redemption is only possible through belief in Jesus Christ as savior.
Beyond that, I have a lot of doubts and questions in the bible as God's word
entirely because of the many translations by mere men. I'd have to get my
OT out and refresh my memory as to what stories specifically repulsed me and/or
made me question its factuality. Much of it seemed like fairy tales or visions
from some demented mind.
A big AMEN.
Well let's be real kind to them and say they "borrowed" liberally from Zoroastrianism.
You get the credit for discovering the Zoroastrian roots of Popeye the Sailor Man.
interesting posts, Matt. welcome to 4. Interesting as manifestations of psychological disturbance, perhaps, but history? I don't think so. I am constantly amazed at the lengths some will go to in their desire to divest the Jewish people of their divinely-ordained identity and destiny. And, somehow, they can deny that the Old Testament is divine revelation even as they claim to embrace Christ, when Christ affirmed OT scripture as the word of God at every turn of his ministry and called upon it repeatedly as proof of his Messiahship. It is impossible to deny the OT (or the truth of what is revealed therein) and regard it as merely some late contrivance by Maccabeans, without also denying Christ. Are you a Christian, Matt?
So, you reject the notion that the OT is the word of God. Do you reject the NT too? If so, how do you reconcile your views about the OT with Jesus' reliance upon it in his earthly ministry? It's clear that Jesus believed the OT to be the word of God, for he cited it repeatedly as such. The OT was the very basis for Jesus' claims to Messiahship! In my mind, this means that one cannot reject the divinity of the OT without also rejecting Christ. How do you square this circle? Or do you not bother and follow pagan dieties instead like Zorastor instead?
Jesus referred to the Septuagint, which has its differences from the Old Testament as used popularly in America and elsewhere.
Those who talk of the Old Testament as a "Holy Book" are merely admiring it as a monument over the grave of Christianity.
A distinction without a difference, even if it were true. The Septuagint is merely the OT translated into Greek. The same "bloodthirsty, racist killer of children as deity" as you blasphemously refer to him is in the Septuagint. But it's not clear in any case that Jesus knew Greek or referenced the Septuagint. Being a native-bord Jew, he read and spoke Hebrew and Aramaic and is more likely to have read the scriptures in their original language, rather than a Greek translation, don't you think?
How can that be when Christ himself spoke of it as a "Holy Book"? That's a strange Christ-less Christianity you practice, Z.
When I quote Galatians above I did so for a reason.
On the contrary, the Jewish God in the OT is also the God of Gentiles and desires their redemption also. God sent Jonah on a mission to the Gentile city of Ninevah, that they might repent and avoid divine judgement. It is prophecied thoughtout the OT that Gentiles would also come to know the one true God. Israel's divinely appointed mission was be a light unto the Gentiles. This is why Jesus' Jewish followers were so zealous to reach Gentiles with the gospel. They understood that the Messiah would bring salvation to the whole world, not just Jews. And they understood that from the OT.
Are you saying that there is a greater difference between Christianity and Judaism than that the Jews simply missed that Messiah has already come? Let me ask a different way. A Messianic Jew or a Jewish Believer is a Jew who embraces Christianity. And of those I have read about, many do still enjoy the traditions of Judaism, considering becoming a Christian as a sort of completion. Would you say that's a mischaracterization? That they are confused or misled about Judaism or even Christianity.
True believers never examine the credibility of their sources, who wrote at a time when lying to promote faith was widely acceptable.
If you haven't read Jung's "Answer to Job," it may interest you. In it, Jung sees God as the great force behind the universe, an unconscious force, to be sure, but an awesome force to be feared. God's nature, in Jung's view, knew little of man--Christ, then, became the conscious side of God, to complete His understanding of humanity. I have the article in my "Portable Jung." You should be able to locate it on hard disk with a Goggle search.
All of this trying to make something out of names >Of these names, one is ahmi, meaning I am, and another, ahmi yat ahmi, I am that I am. so far as I can tell is mental masturbation. The best sources for the idea are people quoting older guesses without proper foundation. For example, what does the name Israel mean? The bible says Israel means "wrestles with God" but that is a problem. In what language is the name? If the people who spoke the language used the name the statement would be "Israel, which means Israel" or "wrestles with god means wrestles with god." It is like saying the name New York means New York. If Israel means wrestles with god then the name is certainly from a language the people who wrote it down did know. And then we ask, how did they know? The "meaning" matches not language yet discovered but the actual name does match Egyptian, IS throne/seat/land, Ra chief god of Egypt, El chief god of Palestine. The New Kingdom of Egypt ruled Palestine from before the begats have Abraham born to after Joshua invades lands ruled by Egypt without noticing the Egyptians ruled it.
Comments (65 - 76) not displayed.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest"God will know His own."
#25. To: crack monkey (#23)
Book of Mary
#26. To: MUDDOG (#25)
#27. To: crack monkey (#26)
#28. To: MUDDOG (#27)
I'd never heard of Nag Hammadi until this year, and it blew me away when I did.
And not in a building made of earth and stone.
Split a piece of wood and you will find me,
Move a stone and I shall be there.
#29. To: crack monkey (#28)
The Kingdom of Heaven is within you and all around you
We're all one, and life flows on
Within you and without you."
#30. To: crack monkey (#1)
#31. To: Arator (#11)
#32. To: Arator (#12)
#33. To: Matt Giwer (#32)
#34. To: Matt Giwer (#30)
#35. To: Zoroaster, zipporah, robin (#0)
This means the Greek Septuagint is the original document.
#36. To: Sam Houston (#9)
I would hope that the Old Testament does not reveal the nature of God.
Then one compares that deity with the God described by Jesus and since Christians accept and believe and affirm that Jesus is God incarnate, we have a demonstration, in the Gospels, of what God is really like.
The god of the OT does not favorably compare with God as revealed in the New Covenant.
#37. To: 1776, Sam Houston, christine (#36)
#38. To: 1776, Zoroaster (#36)
I recall reading as a youth all of the atrocity and perversion taken as the norm, as the will of God, in the OT and recoiling.
#39. To: Zoroaster, robin, zipporah (#37)
The true, prefect God, unlike the Yahwistic war god of the ancient Israelites, does not play favorites.
#40. To: 1776 (#39)
Gal 3:28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.
#41. To: 1776, Zoroaster (#36)
The god of the OT does not favorably compare with God as revealed in the New Covenant.
#42. To: 1776 (#36)
The god of the OT does not favorably compare with God as revealed
in the New Covenant.
#43. To: All (#38)
#44. To: Zipporah (#42)
#45. To: christine (#43)
#46. To: christine (#44)
#47. To: christine (#38)
I had the same reaction about a year or so ago when I began reading the OT. It was actually repulsive to me and, to be honest, unbelievable. I kept saying to myself, why would God do that and this makes no sense.
#48. To: Arator (#47)
Seeming contradictions are red flags that we're missing pieces
of the puzzle and require further searching and study to get at the whole
truth.
#49. To: Zipporah (#42)
The 'God' of the OT is the God in the New.. God never changes.. He was as He is.. In OT often spoke of God's wrath and in the NT His wrath is there also.. but.. His wrath was taken out upon Himself.. the crucifixion of God in human form, Christ Jesus.. God cannot look upon sin.. and the only sinless one was and is Jesus.. and the wrath of God toward sin was satisfied with His death .. and if anyone wants to 'escape' His wrath.. that is being condemned as we stand before God, it's through the acceptance of Jesus' sacrifice as our redeemer..
#50. To: Arator, zoroaster, christine, robin, Matt Giwer (#41)
They are not two Gods but one. Jesus said before Abraham was, I AM, applying to humself the "I AM THAT I AM" Yahweh declared himself to be to Moses on Sinai.
Long before there was a Shmuley Boteach and his ilk there was the Zendavesta and in one of the Yashts long, long, long before the Anti-Christs wrote their books Ahuramazda informs Zoroaster that the utterance of one of his sacred names, of which he enumerates twenty, is the best protection from evil.
Of these names, one is ahmi, meaning I am, and another, ahmi yat ahmi, I am that I am.
#51. To: 1776 (#50)
#52. To: Elliott Jackalope, Dakmar (#51)
And people wonder why 4 is so popular.
#53. To: christine, jethro tull, Matt Giwer (#34)
Thanks for the historical primer Matt, and welcome to 4.
#54. To: 1776 (#50)
#55. To: Arator, christine (#54)
Or do you not bother and follow pagan dieties instead like Zorastor instead?
Zoroaster was not a deity he was a prophet who communed with the God of Light, Ahuramazda. I am not a zoroastrian but one can see it is the basis for much of the judaic myth.
I accept Jesus the Christ, I accept the New Covenant. I find particular inspiration from the the Gospel of John.
I find it paradoxical that one can embrace a bloodthirsty, racist killer of children as deity worthy of worship.
The Incarnation taught a different deity than that of the judaic, talmudic, version. I believe in that Father.
I would suggest that most evangelicals are firmly in the camp of the Golden Calf and that thus you have no worries over any mass movement of Christians who adhere to the Christ.
Phl 2:12 Wherefore, my beloved, as ye have always obeyed, not as in my presence only, but now much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling.
#56. To: 1776 (#50)
#57. To: 1776 (#55)
Jesus referred to the Septuagint, which has its differences from the Old Testament as used popularly in America and elsewhere.
#58. To: Zoroaster (#56)
Those who talk of the Old Testament as a "Holy Book" are merely admiring it as a monument over the grave of Christianity.
#59. To: Arator, christine, robin (#58)
Judaism has an ethnocentric deity, Jewish god is not universal.
The God of the Christians is
#60. To: 1776 (#59)
When I quote Galatians above I did so for a reason. Judaism has an ethnocentric deity, Jewish god is not universal. The God of the Christians is
#61. To: 1776 (#59)
#62. To: 1776 (#39)
#63. To: Zipporah, christine (#42)
The god of the OT does not favorably compare with God as revealed in the New Covenant. The 'God' of the OT is the God in the New.. God never changes.. He was as He is.. In OT often spoke of God's wrath and in the NT His wrath is there also.. but.. His wrath was taken out upon Himself.. the crucifixion of God in human form, Christ Jesus.. God cannot look upon sin.. and the only sinless one was and is Jesus.. and the wrath of God toward sin was satisfied with His death .. and if anyone wants to 'escape' His wrath.. that is being condemned as we stand before God, it's through the acceptance of Jesus' sacrifice as our redeemer..
#64. To: 1776, Arator, zoroaster, christine, robin (#50)
.
.
.